Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2019

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2019 [1].

Battle of Calais

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An everyday story of 14th-century folk. Knightly honour and dishonour; bribery and treason; cunning schemes and an incognito king; captivity and ransoms; truces and treachery; revenge and torture. They didn't have Wikipedia in the 14th century, so they had to make their own entertainment.

This passed GA ten months ago, and ACR last month. Since then, Serial Number 54129 generously supplied me with a new source, and I have worked on and expanded the article. All views and opinions as to how it fails to meet the featured article criteria are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

[edit]
  • Had Charny written the books on chivalry before the battle? It seems that he wrote his Book of Chivalry after the battle. OUP tells us that Questions concerning the joust, tournaments and war were written to be answered by members of the Order of the Star (France), which, according to our article was founded in 1351, meaning he couldn't have written the book before the battle occurred in 1350. His third book that can be substantiated (here), is Livre Charny with similar suspected origins regarding the Order of the Star,(here). If it turns out he hadn't, it would be inaccurate to say he "was the author of several books on chivalry" because he hadn't written them yet.
Let me dig out my sources and get back to you on that Eddie. A good, insightful question BTW, I like those.
Hi Eddie891. That link to the OUP volume doesn't work for me. Google snippets gives "All three were probably written [for the Company of the Star]". That actually leaves a lot of scope re date. Richard Kaeuper, in his introduction to Elspeth Kennedy's 1996 translation of Book of Chivalry, goes into some detail on p. 22 here. The Whetham volume you refer to states "the Livre Charny is likely to have been written after his voyage to the Levant"; a natural reading of this would be that it was written before the Calais escapade. Harari states that Charny was in "London, were he stayed a prisoner until the summer of 1351, working on his Livre de chevalerie".
So he could have written all three for the Order, although it is far from certain that he did; but if he did, they could have been published as early as 1344. Harari nicely hedges on this with "Charny himself left to posterity three works on chivalry, meant to instruct young knights how they ought to behave and fight." All of that said, I have tweaked the wording to be non-committal on just when he wrote and/or published his works. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a hat on the top with regards to the various sieges
Why? The siege of 1346-47 is a piece of three years before background; I don't see the relevance. I can offhand think of three potential hats I would consider more relevant, and I wouldn't actually want to include any of them either.
I did that in edit mode, and as about to publish I saw your link. I note that this encounter is given as a "siege". Say what? It was, quite literally, all over before breakfast. A "siege"!? What say I remove it from that list?
  • standardize use between Geoffrey and Geoffroi de Charny
You had me struggling there, until I thought to check the infobox. Done.
  • Perhaps link John II in the [note 2]
Good point. Done. Also added his regnal term.
  • I'm curious whether the title fits the article, given that you have written so much about the aftermath (Charny's revenge). While it does serve two wrap the article up quite nicely, does it really fall under the scope of the "battle of calais", which in the infobox is listed as having been a one day event.
I tend to avoid discussions about titles. They are frequently fractious, and, frankly I am not that bothered. I also understand them not to be covered by the FA criteria :-) . That said I did change it from "Siege of ... " when I started work on it. It has been renamed again since, without benefit of consultation or a move request. If you can think of a more suitable title, feel free to simply rename. Or throw it at the talk page and see what people think.
Done.
  • "Philip VI, with French finances and morale at a low ebb after Crécy, failed to relieve the town, and the starving defenders surrendered on 3 August 1347" perhaps rephrase as "With French... after Crécy, Philip VI failed to relieve the town..." This is because, for me, the subject (Philip) gets lost as the one who failed to relieve the town with such a big section in between the two.
Good spot. Done.
Very tactful. Added.
  • "Negotiations began on 4 September and by the 28th a truce had been agreed.[7] The treaty strongly favoured the English, and confirmed them in possession of all of their territorial conquests.[7] The Truce of Calais was agreed to run for nine months to 7 July 1348, but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355.[" I'd like to see this rephrased as "Negotiations began on 4 September and by the 28th the Truce of Calais was agreed to. The treaty strongly favoured the English, and confirmed them in possession of all of their territorial conquests. The truce was agreed to run for nine months to 7 July 1348, but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355." Unless of course, I have my facts wrong.
I got a bit carried away and made more tweaks than you suggest. See what you think.
Good
  • Perhaps link Billet for those of us less linguistically inclined.
Done. Good catch. I get too close and start assuming understanding.
  • "like a true knight" sounds a bit pov to me, almost like a quote rather than just content.
Ha. In other FACs I have been told, firmly, to put short quotes in Wikipedia's voice rather than faff around with 2 or 3 words. Made more encyclopedic.
  • Is the "King's Council" the same as the 'Great Council' linked above? If so, I'd pick one of the terms and stick with it.
No. The "Great Council" is the Conseil du Roi of the French monarch and is linked to it; the "King's Council" is, very broadly, the English equivalent, the Curia regis, to which it is linked. The common translations of the two terms are, for whatever reasons, different - see the Wikilinks.
  • "Amerigo had previously served the French, and Charny had him approached to betray Calais in exchange for a bribe" I'd like a timeframe (date) if possible.
The several modern RSs all rely on the Chronique de Quatre Premiers Valois which, sadly, does not mention the dates of the French service. I could have a shrewd guess, but it would be OR. I have tracked down a RS mention of when he took up his position in Calais and added the date to the article.
  • "contemporary chroniclers" -- does this refer to only French, or English chroniclers too? If it's only French, mention that.
Both. Now so specified.
  • Standardize between "north east" and "north-east". I only see one usage of north-east ("including most of the nobility of north-east France").
Believe it or not, my understanding is that the current usage is correct, or at least acceptable. I use two words, no hyphen, for normal use; but when using more than one word adjectively they should be hyphenated, as summarised here.
  • "They would be opposed by the 1,200-strong garrison of Calais" maybe "They were opposed by the 1,200-strong garrison of Calais" because they were opposed for the whole time period, but I never really understood the rule between would and were
I am not sure that I can explain the rule of grammar, but "were" would (see) be incorrect. At the time they were gathered, and before they did any confronting, such confronting would be in the future, hence "would". At the point of gathering they weren't opposed by anyone.
  • "would be close to their maximum" perhaps link "Winter solstice"
Ooh. I like that. Done.
Really? Done.
  • "his son for the first instalment of his bribe " He TRADED his son for a bribe? I understand this is true, but just as a point of personal interest, why would someone do that?
[OR alert] Because Charny insisted on it as a guarantee of good behaviour; which was a common practice. And because if he didn't ensure that Charny was fooled, Amerigo was going to personally meet an unpleasant fate at Edward's hands - one reason why I give the full details earlier. Plus Edward had his brother as hostage. Amerigo was out of choices. (I am waiting for the first offer to turn this story into a blockbuster Hollywood movie.)
I thought that I had. Apologies.
  • "adventurers" perhaps a different word would be apt, given that I presume it is in the sense of Soldier of Fortune rather then someone looking for an adventure.
Yes, I am probably reading too many sources that talk in 14th century terms. Struggling for a better word or expression. "Chancers" springs to mind. I have gone with the technically correct expression which I was trying to avoid - routiers. More than happy to replace if someone can think of a better word or expression.
@Eddie891: Many thanks for taking a look at this, and for your insightful comments. Your points above all addressed. Your next serving eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Eddie891. Your points above all addressed. Some with comments as to why I am not going with your suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129

[edit]
Suggest just going with "mercenary", perhaps; after all, our article calls 'em that three words in. Incidentally, talking of Charny's adventures, you link to our HDQ article, but that's with reference to the Fench doing it. Ironically, the article makes no mention of it existing in France at all. I know it was occasionally used (when they suffered ennui with les joues des wheel breaking  :) but atm it's rather an eggy link. ——SerialNumber54129 18:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't mercenaries. They were freelance English soldiers, known at the time as routiers. (I decline to take responsibility for the faulty Wikipedia article. The Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years' War manages an extended discussion without mentioning "mercenaries". Its article on routiers is temporarily hosted here.) I'm switching to "free-lancing English soldiers". (Check the origin of "freelance" and what "lance" meant in the 14th century.)
HDQ. Fair point, especially as the French economy version was only DQ, so the link is doubly misleading. Delinked. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for leaving this hanging; I never had much more to say, but the minor prose points that I had in mind have been attended to (mainly via Maury below, as it goes), and I also took the liberty of assessing a few refs per the sourcing issue raised by Vanamonde93. Disclaimer: I only checked a few of those from the Wheatham source (mentioned above as having sent to GtM in the first place (which I hope isn't some kind of CoI!)) but they were fine. Time to sup. ——SerialNumber54129 16:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • from Calais: 1,500 men-at-arms, including most Link men-at-arms here and unlink the second mentioned.

That's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Ha, touché. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • I would suggest a ref for note 2
You may. Seemed to me not to be required under the WP:WHYCITE criteria, but done.
  • (Not a source comment) I'm not a big fan of the phrase "newly acquired English mistress". I get that it's possibly the language used in the source, and is language that would be used facetiously in common conversation, but it verges on objectification. Can you rephrase?
The source says "living a joyful life with". This was the 14th century: objectification! I would want to be cautious of giving a reader the impression that men of the period imputed volition to women. But a sensible point; I have deleted "newly acquired". That do?
Yes, this is fine.
  • The level of detail in source locations varies somewhat; you use sub-national regions in some places and not others.
Yes. Where it seems reasonable to assume that even a learned reader would recognise the bare town/city under location – as they might with London, New York, Oxford, Philadelphia – then I leave it unadorned. Adding UK, N.Y., Oxon etc seems pointless. I add the next geographical level up so as to give a hint as to which Woodbridge or Ware is meant when it could reasonably need disambiguating. It is a not uncommon practice. (In a recent FAC I was picked up by a frequent source reviewer for inadvertently missing a "Suffolk", and again for equally inadvertently inserting "UK" instead of "Suffolk", as the next level.)
Alright, I won't argue; it seems a bit odd to me, is all. I've made some minor changes, I trust that you're okay with them.
  • Unless you're using an edited volume/encyclopedia, you don't need page-ranges in the sources section; I'm looking at the Harari source; check for others
I realise that I don't need them; are you saying that I shouldn't have them? If so, then obviously I will remove them, but I am always loath to remove information which may be useful, even if not required by policy.
Well, it's a matter of consistency, right? It's rare that we use an entire book; it's always ranges; so providing the range for only one looks odd. It's a minor point, though.
  • Google scholar has A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry as being edited by "De Charny, Geoffroi", where you have "Charny, Geoffroi de". Which is correct?
Harari's index has "Charny, Geoffroi de" (p. 206). His bibliography has "Geoffroy de Charny", but under "Ch" in alphabetical order (p. 198. Sumption's bibliography has "Charny, Geoffroy de" (p. 643). Talking to a university lecturer in French Language (personal acquaintance) I was told that either "De Charny, Geoffroi" or "Charny, Geoffroi de" is acceptable, so long as one is consistent; and always to list it under "C". (She didn't like Harari's second usage, and his inconsistency even less.) So my preference is to leave it as is.
  • "(published 15 September 2005)" in Prestwich 2005 seems extraneous; also, if it's an edited volume, the title of the specific chapter and it's page range would be useful.
Quite right, Apologies, I have no idea how that crept in.
It's not.
I inherited the reference and clearly didn't review it. (I dislike it when other editors lazily leave that to me as a reviewer - sorry.) I have removed the over detailed date (I had already added 2005, but not checked to see that it wasn't over-riding the prior, over detailed one), removed the incorrect suggestion that it was edited by Roberts, who died two years before it was published, and matched the use of hyphens in the ISBN to the other books cited.
  • A jstor link, an OCLC, and a DOI in a single ref is overkill, surely? I'd omit the OCLC
Removed.
  • I'm very confused by Rogers 2004; is it a journal, or an edited volume? If the former, why mention the editors? If it's the latter, then the chapter title should be in quotes (right)?
It's an edited volume, called a journal. Corrected. I cut and pasted the source from my standard references page, where it is correct, so it must be an over-enthusiastic bot. I shall watch for it.
  • Not a requirement, but I'd suggest standardizing the format you use in the edit-window.
Er, what's an "edit-window"?
The screen that we edit in, as opposed to the one we read (unless you're using visual editor). It's a triviality, I've taken care of it.
  • ISBN hyphenation isn't very consistent
It is now. At ACR source review eight weeks ago I got "One ISBN has more than one hyphen in it.", which I corrected. So I am baffled as to where the additional hyphens have come from.
  • So, I spotchecked footnote six. Perhaps I'm missing some subtleties here, but isn't he essentially saying that Calais was smaller than a few other captured towns during the first 30 years? Specifically, Rennes? Perhaps the other source addresses this?
I don't have access to Rogers at the moment. Sumption flat out says "In particular no large town (except Calais) was successfully besieged" (p. 392 as I cite - let me know if you would like me to email you a copy of the page), so I don't need Rogers. Purely from memory, I think that an earlier version of the article digressed a bit on the general difficulty of capturing towns by siege, which Sumption goes on about with Rennes as a specific example; I guess that I added Rogers to support this, then didn't remove it when the sentence was slimmed down.
  • I'm similarly struggling to find "The truce did not stop the ongoing naval clashes between the two countries, nor the small-scale fighting in Gascony and Brittany." I even searched the document for single words, and came up with nothing...
No, no; it won't be in there. I hate it when I screw up my referencing, much less when it gets as far FAC!! It looks as if I blindly copied it over from the last two sentences of Truce of Calais, which I greatly expanded. There Rogers p. 102 does support the last sentence, which it appends, but not the penultimate one, which is, it seems, uncited. I wrote it, and won't have made it up, so give me a chance to wade through 20 or 30 texts to come up with support. (I am now kicking myself for my sloppiness.) I will get back to you.
Update. Happily this was in the first place I looked - , under "Calais, Truce of (1347)" (p. 74). Relevant paragraph:

However, neither truce nor plague ended the fighting in the southwest, where local garrison commanders attacked each other and recently discharged English troops, now turned to brigandage, seized French strongholds (see ROUTIERS). Angered by these losses, the French repudiated the truce in August 1349, and the war in Gascony resumed its course. On 13 June 1350, the two governments renewed the truce until August 1351. But when Philip died on 22 August 1350, the new French king, JOHN II, repudiated his father’s agreement, and war resumed in the southwest, with the Battle of SAINTES occurring in April 1351. At sea, the truce was never effective, and the English engaged a Castilian fleet at the Battle of WINCHELSEA in late August 1350. In Brittany, the fighting also continued, neither Crown being able to effectively control its clients in the BRETON CIVIL WAR.

Yes, this looks fine now.
  • I've seen your work before, and it's excellent, so I'm going to put this down to either ignorance on my part, or some sort of snafu while copying over sources from other articles; but in any case, I think these need to be resolved, and a couple more spotchecks after that when I have more time.
Well, obviously. I will be checking every single source myself regardless. This is hideously embarrassing. You are coming across as quite sympathetic, which is more than I am being to myself.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Ha! As I typed your name I realised that you write the excellent LeGuin articles. (I assessed a GAN of yours 15 months ago.) No wonder you are not impressed by the above. Your points above addressed. Not, on the whole, very satisfactorily. Many thanks for picking this up, and even more thanks for preventing evidence of my ineptitude being passed off as "exemplify[ing] Wikipedia's very best work". I shall ping you when I have checked all 58 cites. (Unless there is more slop, in which case I may have to take the honorable course.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: OK. I have checked the citations to sources which I have ready access to, and discovered another case where I seem to have gone doolally. Now, I hope, in the shape it should have been before I nominated it. Do let me know if you would like anything emailing to assist in your spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I've seen this, and I'll try to get around to it later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No rush. Take your time. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 has just generously sent me yet another source - Wheatham. Largely it covers the same ground, but adds a couple of snippets of information which I think usefully add to the article; so I have included them. Just a heads up that there is now an additional source and a couple of additional cites. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked footnote 24; no problems; source says 3d per day, which AFAIK (the British currency system is impossible) is a pound in 80 days, so approximately 3 months.
The British currency system has since been rationalised. I am guessing then that you don't live in a part of the world where weight is measured in multiples of 16 and 14? ;-)
I live...all over. Unfortunately, I do often have to deal with multiples of 14 when doing my shopping. Vanamonde (Talk)
  • Checked footnote 1, the part I can access bears out the essence of the sentence
  • Checked footnote 40; the content checks out; I assume "lord de la waae" in the source is the same as "Lord de la Warr" in the text because of some strange spelling convention?
It's actually a typo in the source! This was discussed at ACR.
Okay, not a concern.
  • Re: footnote 63; there is an episode in Froissart that corresponds to the text, but unless I'm misreading something, occurs on page 200, not 194-195.
Groan. Yes. (Everything else abour Aymery is on 194-5, but not that snippet.)
  • Checked 17b. Author makes a similar point to the text, but talks only of greed, not of willingness to be a traitor; is it in the other source?
"17b"? I don't think that you mean cite 17; from context it will be either 18 or 20[?] Cite 20 has "Reasoning that he was a foreign mercenary who served only for money and whose loyalty was not buttressed either by long-term ties of vassalage or by the burgeoning ties of nationalism, Charny assumed that he could be bought with a large enough sum of money." Does this address your concern?
More or less; but how about simply saying "as a mercenary" rather than "as a commoner"? In reading the two passages, that descriptor seems more relevant to me...Also, the footnote numbering appears to have shifted, but FWIW I'm referring to the numbers as they were here.
OK. I see where you are coming from. In which case I am adding Kaeuper (2013) p. 8; here and changing "a commoner" to a man of low status. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that looks alright.
  • Unless I'm missing something, 32a should point to page 10 rather than 11; or is it different in the online edition?
I started to explain why it should be page 11, then realised that I was misreading. You are correct. Thank you. Changed to page 10.
  • 32c looks fine
  • 32d and 32e cover parts of the content in question; is the rest in the other sources?
Yes. If you send me an email, I'll photograph the two pages of Sumption and send them to you to check.
Sure.
  • Re: footnote 35; it's essentially fine, but my reading of that page is that the legalistic defence had little to do with whether the charges were accurate; I don't see him saying "because there was a detailed defence, the charges had merit". Am I wrong? It's a subtle point, not one that I'd fail something over.
Now 36b? I am relying on "Had Charny violated ... reputation as a knight", which seems to me to support "The detailed defences of Charny's actions later published suggest that the charges had merit by the standards of the time"
Hmmm...substantively okay I think.
  • I think you should add a page number for ref 16.
Well yes. *scratches head* Done.
  • Thanks for your kind words about my work. I do recall the review; Old Music and the Slave Women, wasn't it? In that topic, and elsewhere, I've been in a similar position as you are here, wherein I'm copying material, particularly background material, between articles, modifying it, and then having to double check to see if the refs still work. So I know the mistakes are easy to make. I am a stickler for verifiability, though, so I'll come back to check the other online refs tomorrow. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the effort you are putting into this. PS the source of the over detailed date in Prestwich over-riding mine, and of at least one of the inconsistent ISBNs, was this edit by Aforst1, which I overlooked. @Aforst1:, as I have mentioned before, if you see a way to improve an article which is at FAC it is best to discuss it first on the review page, ie this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming, striking previous resolved comments (and non-concerns, for visual clarity). Working from this revision now. So, looking at 28 and 34; both seem to be saying "most" of the French fled, while you have it as "half"; a minor discrepancy, but one worth fixing.
Drat. Sumption states "less than half" remained on the first line of page 62, but I end the cite at page 61. Harari says "half" and I ended up not citing him. Article tweaked to reflect the consensus of the sources.
  • It's quite likely there's an explanation for this, but both the de Charny volumes seem to suggest that the throwing-stone-at-bridge episode was invented?
Burne states it as a fact. I suppose it depends on which parts of the various chroniclers accounts the modern sources shoes to believe. I do flag up in a footnote that there are contradictory accounts. Rather than give due weight to the various RSs, which is going to unnecessarily interrupt things for a reader, I have fudged it. I now follow Sumption, who is not contradicted by either of the other sources I cite, nor by either of the other two detailed modern accounts that I am aware of.
  • Looking again at the paragraph beginning "With a cry of", there's a few details I'm not seeing...K&K's "a sharp fight ensued" is perhaps good enough for "held off the initial English attack", but not quite for "even pushed it back". That the Black Prince was specifically leading his household knights is also probably elsewhere in the source.
I suspect that much of this is due to me lazily grouping the cites towards the end of the paragraph. (I was picked up for this in my previous FAC. It was a bit of an experiment and it clearly isn't working.) So I have now cited almost sentence by sentence, and included all five sources. I have also removed anything which is directly contradicted, or openly doubted, by any of the other sources. This is, to an extent, levelling down, but it leaves, I think, a coherent and reasonably complete account.
  • In the latter half; neither the bits about darkness, nor about the Calais garrison itself, can I find in the source. Am I missing something?
Burne, p 184, "in the dead of night"; but removed as above as being contradicted by other sources. Harari, p. 120, ebook; I have sent a photo of the relevant bit on the screen, which I think is readable.
@Vanamonde93: Done, I think. It's getting late, so I will check properly in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming; striking previous as resolved or no longer relevant. Paragraph two of "Battle" now looks fine to me. In paragraph three; I'm not seeing "along with a greater but unrecorded number of lesser-ranked Frenchmen" in Sumption 62
  • I happen to have access to the two King sources. I'm not seeing the specific reference to Calais, as in, material supporting "Casualties among the socially inferior French infantry were not recorded"; only to the general phenomenon...
  • The rest of the paragraph checks out; AGF on 40 and 46, which I'm not able to see (your picture of Harari's page is readable but only covers half the page)
  • The content sourced to 48, I personally am seeing on age 107, not 106; also, not seeing a mention of liege lords taking a share...

I'm going to be honest with you, Gog the Mild; I'm very close to opposing at this point. I'm not, yet, because I think it's still something you can fix. I've come across a variety of verifiability issues over the years; people misusing sources to push a POV; people without the competence to see that the content they are writing is different from what the source says; and people so keen to get a shiny star that they're cutting corners. I think the issue here is different, and it's simply that you've gotten too close to the material; you're missing things because they're obvious to you, but not to me. I say this because it's not the crucial details that are unsupported, but the minor ones. What I would recommend at this point is stepping away from the article for a day or two, and then coming at it with fresh eyes. If you want me to return to perform further checks, I'm happy to do so. Also, as an aside, unrelated to verifiability as such; I see that in a few places you've reduced the level of detail to what is common to multiple sources. While this is not a bad approach, I wonder if you could use more in-text attribution to provide some more interesting detail that perhaps not all historians agree on. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, Vanamonde, where are we at with this now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: When I last reviewed things, I wasn't satisfied that the article met 1c (verifiability). I am aware that I am somewhat more demanding in this respect than other editors, because I genuinely do believe all the information in an article must be verifiable. I can't tell from the history whether Gog has done the revamping I suggested. If so, I'm happy to take another look if you would like me to. If not, I think you need to decide if the above objections are weighty enough to keep this from FA status. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for me to get back to it Ian. I’ll get onto it tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt responses guys -- happy to give this more time. Cheers, 23:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Vanamonde. I think that you are on the money with your comments above, or close enough. This is one which I never expected to take to FA when I first worked on it, and my subsequent changes have, as you suggest, been hampered by me not having been able to step back enough. Your requirements have been tough, but entirely fair and constructive. I have given it a good long break, and am now starting to re-cite it from scratch. With hindsight, going for the lowest common denominator among sources was not always the best approach - I know this, and am quite happy to flag up a variety of views in my better articles. That said, I want to keep the changes to the text to a minimum, out of fairness to the reviewers who have already signed off on the text. I'll see what I can do, and if it doesn't make the grade, well, so it goes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Vanamonde. Thank you for your considerable patience on this. I have done what I can, and it is, I think, about as nailed down as I can make it. The diff of my cumulative changes are here. I would be grateful if you could have yet another look over the article. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I have been occupied in RL. I am going to continue being horribly busy for a while, but I will do my best to get to this by the weekend at the latest. If I haven't done anything by next week, feel free to remind me. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: No worries. Goodness knows I took long enough to get back to you. So long as Ian is happy, take your time. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
[edit]

Okay, resuming, much belated. What I'm going to do is to start completely afresh, and to check citations that I have access to (whether via the pages you've sent me or some other means). If I find any problems there, we can see where that leaves us.

  • Spotchecked 1. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 2-3-4. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 8. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 9; no access to 10 at the moment; 9 supports most of what is sourced to those two.
  • Spotchecked 14; Issues are minor, but; I cannot see the 4th September date in the source, which only says "early September". Also Wagner and Sumption give contradictory ending dates for the truce; this isn't an error on your part, obviously, but I do wonder if a footnote mentioning this is warranted.
I can't track down where I picked up 4 September from. I have not looked too hard as it is not important. Text changed to reflect the cite (Sumption).
End date: Wagner cites secondary sources (including Sumption (1999)), Sumption cites the original agreement. There are other reasons for trusting Sumption, although a bit subjective, which I could go into if you wish. So I believe that 7 July is correct, and that the cite to Sumption, who uses this date, can stand without further explanation. Is that OK by you? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 14, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Back for the rest later. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked 15. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 16. No issues; supports entirety of what is sourced to 16-17.

Resuming. Belated again, apologies all around. I had a major deadline in RL yesterday.

No worries. Things happen.
  • Spotchecked 19; looks fine; relevant page numbers include 21 in the google books edition I am consulting, which is different from the edition in the article.
Definitely page 20 in my 1999 paperback edition. Right at the top. Rechecking this, I would agree that 19b is more p 21 than 20, so have changed it to pp 20-21. (But not 19a.)
  • Spotchecked 21, no issues.
  • Skipping 22-25, because it's just the name
  • Spotchecked 26, no issues.
  • Sumption has a piece about the galley master on page 60; I cannot access 23; and there's another ref anyway, so no objections from me, but might be worth double-checking page numbers.
If this is relating to cite 24, then it is correct in that Sumption refers to galley master Aimeric on both page 23 and page 60.
  • Spotchecked 29; not seeing anything about King John on page 70...It's a footnote, maybe you missed it in your second pass?
Gah! I have referred to Sumption 1990, not 1999! There is stuff on page 70 of Sumption 1999 which is what I meant to refer to. Relooking, it would be better to cite pp. 70-71. However, it would be much easier to simply refer to the first page of John's entry in Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War, so I have.
  • Spotchecked 30; no issues necessarily; but a broader page range would solidify the claim that Charny was a senior and well-respected knight.
Done. I have added a different source as well. Sumption (1990) p. 485 "that famous paladin and authority on matters of chivalry". He also refers to Charny assisting John in SW France on the same page. OK, I have now cited "Geoffrey de Charny was a senior and well-respected Burgundian knight in French service." to, just, Sumption 1999, p.12. As usual, let me know if you would like a copy. The existing cite and Sumption 1990 support the next sentence. (And the first, as it happens.) (Or am I overcomplicating things?)
  • (Not a source comment) That paragraph describes Charny as a "senior" knight twice. Minor point, thought I'd note it in passing. No response required.
True. Different contexts. I would want to stand by it.
  • I don't have access to 31 or 32 at the moment, but looking at the page ranges I wonder if they are both supposed to refer to the same book
Yes, they are. See my comment against cite 29 for similar sloppiness. (But the other way.) Corrected.
  • Spotchecked 16-34; no issues.
  • Spotchecked 38. Two points; "including most of the nobility of north-east France" isn't in the source, unless I'm missing something; and I'd recommend including page 22, because a sentence spills over onto it. What the source does have is something about the commanders of that area; which you might know to be equivalent to the nobility, but isn't quite, is it?
Page 22 added.
Well, yes, in 14th-century France noble and military commander were entirely interchangeable; you couldn't be one and not the other. There are countless scholarly papers establishing this. I would consider it straight-forward paraphrasing. But I wouldn't want to get hung up on it. Would "senior military figures" work instead of "nobility"?
I would much prefer "senior military figures", yes. The source is quite adequate for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Spotchecked the ref for footnote 5. I suspect you have a page number problem here, because you've used that page earlier; in any case I cannot see the date review on page 11.
Umm. Are you definitely looking at the 1996 edition? The introduction, by the same person, Kaeuper, is significantly different from the 2013 version.
Yeah, I was looking at the 2013 version. No worries, then. I cannot check every last citation, so I will keep going with the ones I have access to, and once I'm done let's see where we're at. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is very confusing. One expects a later edition of a book, with an introduction by the same person, to be (more or less) the same. It is identical in most places, but tripped me several times as the later version has several sections removed. There are reasons, but still ... Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for taking the time and trouble to work through this. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked 48. Supports the substance of what is sourced to 48-49.
  • Spotchecked 47d. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 56-57. It's possible there's some issues with numbering; I have access to the articles, but I can't tell if pagination is the same as your edition; that said, on the pages you mention, I see no mention of the battle of Calais. Those sources are fine for a general statement about killing of soldiers from lower social strata.
Possibly. My versions were sent to me direct by Andy King, but he said that the page numbering should match the original publication. They specifically refer to this war, but, as you note, do not mention the Battle of Calais. Which is why I have been rather vague in how I have phrased things in the article which are cited to this.
Okay; so nobody's commenting on this battle, but the general phenomenon is well-known enough that for completeness you would need to include it? I would suggest the following: "Casualties among the socially inferior French infantry were not recorded. In the battles of the time, captured soldiers ["from lower social strata", or equivalent] were usually killed on the spot: partly from etc.". Does that work? It avoids speculating about the specific battle. If you wanted to be truly complete, you could add a footnote listing the authors of your major sources, and saying that they do not list those casualties; but that's optional as far as I am concerned. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How about: "As was common, none of the contemporary sources record the number of casualties among the socially inferior French infantry. In the battles of the time, non-knightly captives were usually killed on the spot: partly from ... "?
Yes, that works fine. I would include a citation to your contemporary source (Froisart, right?) Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
New sections on sources opened below. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked 59. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 54d. Minor point, but I can't see "weighed down by their armor" in the source.
No. I think that I drew that from Harari "but the marshy terrain hampered them. As the heavily armed knights and men-at-arms fought along the narrow causeways" and then didn't cite him. Relooking the link is weak, so I have taken that bit out.
  • Spotchecked 54e. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 60. The ransoming process is covered, but I'm not seeing the bit about a share going to the liege lord. This is the same source where I maybe have page number issues, so I'm going to ask you to point me to the piece.
I seem to have lost my e-copy of "A Great Misfortune ... " Let me hunt through the rest of my drives. If I have to, I'll ask Andy for another copy. No, I can't find it. I'll remove the liege lord bit until I can get hold of a copy and discuss it with you.
  • Spotchecked 62. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 65. No issues, though a nitpicker might point to a subtle difference between "taunted" and "reproved".
Happy to change it. I think that an earlier version had "lectured". (Though the words put in Edward's mouth strike me as a taunt.)
  • Spotchecked 54f. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 69. It makes it clear that Charny's legacy is debated, but not seeing "in the 19th century", unless you're inferring that from one of the footnotes?
Umm. " ... one of the prominent nineteenth-century editors of T provides a legalistic defence. [Brief outline of it.] This argument may have some force, but of course the issue transcends legal niceties to touch Charny's general reputation as a knight." (Seems to me that they are still arguing it in the 21st century.)
<smacks forehead> Missed the obvious. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked 54g. This is really nitpicky, but "and should pass on Edward III's comments to Charny" isn't in the source that I can see; it's just talking about the actual course of events.
OK. I can see that it depends on one's interpretation of "the disaster that had befallen his men". In context I took it to include the events of dining with the king - gossip of the highest order; but also the reproving of the keeper of the Oriflamme; a significant factor in the propaganda war. But I take your point, the source doesn't specifically state this. Similarly Harari has " report the events to his king" and you could quite reasonably argue that "events" don't specifically include those of the evening; even with the context in the next paragraph of "Edward knew that theatre was the better half of politics, and he was an unsurpassed master in the performative arts of kingship" That wasn't how I read it, but my reading doesn't seem as obvious now as it did when I wrote the cites.
I can see your point, and it's not an unreasonable reading; but I would prefer that bit be trimmed.
Trimmed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked 54h-i-j-k. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 71. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 73. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 76; no major issues; I might drop the "and propaganda".
  • Spotchecked 83a-b-c-d-e. No issues.
  • (Not a source comment): "but in spite of fighting described as savage" you are missing something here, possible a comma after "fighting".
I don't think so. Putting a comma after "fighting" unnecessarily breaks the flow of the clause IMO. But you are the reviewer.
On re-reading, it's clearly a preference issue. Not a sticking point.
Thanks.
  • Spotchecked 84. No issues.
  • Spotchecked 88. Partially supports content sourced to 82-87-88, so no issues.

Okay, I've worked my way through the whole article, and checked everything I have easy access to, with the exception of Harari, which Serial Number 54129 kindly provided me with during this process. I will wait for you to respond to these points above, but based on this, I'm not sure that I need to do more than a handful of checks from Harari; most of the issues have been fixed, and those that remain are minor at best with perhaps one exception. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for going so thoroughly through that lot. (SN also let me have Harari. While the article was in the middle of ACR. I think my scramble to include him is one of the reasons the citing became a mess. But now I am making hand-waving excuses) I am content with your various copy edits - thanks. I have started into addressing your comments. I have hit a couple of snags and it is late here; I am out tomorrow, but will try to finish my response tomorrow evening. If not, Monday. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
[edit]

"I would include a citation to your contemporary source (Froisart, right?)"

Ah, if only it were simple. The first modern source I turned to, Harari, says that they have used the following contemporary or near-contemporary sources:

Avesbury, De gestis mirabilibus, pp. 406–10; Le Bel, Chronique, 2 : 173–82; Baker, Chronicon, pp. 103–7; Chronique Normande, pp. 91–2, 104; Chronographia Regum Francorum, 2 : 247–54; Muisit, Chronique et Annales, pp. 259–63; Froissart, Œuvres, ed. Lettenhove, 5 : 148–9, 220–51, 271–4; Rymer, Foedera, vol. 3, part 1, pp. 1–51; Journaux du trésor de Philippe VI, pp. 799, 838–9; Lescot, Chronique, pp. 85, 91; Chronique des quatre premiers Valois, pp. 29–30; Prince noir, lines 410–55, ed. Michel, pp. 27–9; Chronicon Angliae, pp. 27–8; Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, 1 : 273–4; Lettres de rois, 2 : 78–101.

Not a one makes any mention of non-knightly casualties.

Each of these brings its own issues. To take the one you mention, and simplifying horribly, Froissart published three different sets of chronicles over a fifty year period which were (very) frequently mutually contradictory. When I wrote Battle of Sluys I came across this my a modern expert: "There are three main redactions of Froissart's Chroniques, and all three differ ... in their conclusions" (p 233 of this). Let us not even consider that for much of this period he was employed by Edward III's wife; a slight COI.

On battle casualties generally from this period you nay find this - Battle of Crécy#Casualties - from an earlier FA interesting. A much better documented battle - several accounts by participants were written the next day - but I was unable to find any modern scholar willing to even estimate the non-knightly French losses. A single brave soul from 65 years ago suggests 10,000, then qualifies it as "a pure guess".

@Vanamonde93: The revised sentence has been inserted and I have probably gone on a bit too much about my reluctance to ascribe the lack of information directly to a contemporary source. Let me know what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Oh dear, I see what you mean. You could just add a footnote saying "contemporary records cited by Harari do not list French casualties", and cite Harari. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Good thinking. I have gone with a variant of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]
  • You might look for ways to shorten the first sentence.
Done. (I usually get the opposite complaint.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else wants it longer, that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, I'm short on sleep, so this might not be my best effort. I seem to be doing okay. But maybe I'm misjudging it, because I'm short on sleep.
Hi Dank. You're repeating yourself. Is that because you're short on sleep?
I ruined the joke by using the wrong punctuation. Proof once again that punctuation is important, and that everyone needs a copyeditor. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re this, it seems to me that if something has to be taken out - I am not persuaded that it has, but still - then it should be the thing which had not yet happened. The thing which had happened and all participants were aware of (well cited in the main article I think, but I can bring more. Bear in mind that Charny had been the standard bearer of France's sacred banner for several tears before 1350.) is surely what influence behaviour and therefore is the one to remain in the lead? (If, indeed, one has to go.)
Also, the lead is now arguably wrong. There is not a solid scholarly consensus on when each of the three books was written; shared in (what was later seen as) incomplete form; or "formally" published. However, what I would consider the most reliable source on this flat out states that one of the three was fully written and formally published several years before the events in this article.
Which, of course, is not to argue that there is not scope to tweak the wording around these issues. Would you like me to have a go at tightening things up around them, in both the lead and the main article, and see what you (and Eddie891) think? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that important compared to other parts of a FAC review. My thinking was (and this is only true in general ... it may not apply here, as you point out): if there's some reason to condense (in this case, the introductory phrase felt too long to me), and if you've got a choice of two things to keep, and one of them was something that actually happened, and the other was what some people thought, it often works better (for various reasons) to keep the thing that actually happened (if it also successfully conveys the general point, for a perceptive reader) and lose the opinion. (As you can see, I'm rather hypocritical about long sentences. Do as I say, not as I do.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to think on't this one, rather than shoot from the hip.
  • "in 1340 Edward III had to": Consider "in 1340 Edward III had had to", or similar. (But I get that "had had" sounds awkward to some.)
Corrected. (Really? I don't see why.) Nice spot.
Indeed. See comment above when Eddie points out the same thing. I may equally well refer to both "an off-site location" and "the location is off site" in one article. It may appear inconsistent ("off site" and "off-site"), but whoever has ever argued that the English language is consistent?
  • "his further fate": His, or his son's? If his son's, I'd probably start the sentence with "The further fate of his hostaged son, who ...".
Tweaked, along the lines you suggest.
Thanks Dank. Your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ... check my last two edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Maury

[edit]

I am finding the prose of this article a bit difficult to read, but perhaps I can help with that. I will do a more thorough read at some point, but for now:

  • "Edward III landed with an army in northern Normandy in July 1346. His army" - two "army"ies close together. Why not just "He" for the second instance, or "He took his forces on a..."?
Good point. Done.
  • "a devastating chevauchée, a large-scale raid, through Normandy, including the capture and sack of Caen, and to the gates of Paris." - I see what you are trying to say, but it is confusing to read. Perhaps split it, "He... Normandy. This included... Paris".
Shortened.
  • "On 26 August the French army of Philip VI was defeated with heavy loss at the Battle of Crécy." - in the previous sentence he was outside the gates of Paris, how did me magically end up in northern France? IIRC from the Crécy article, he was on his way to Calais when this battle took place? If so, it would seem the mention of this battle would be better positioned in the description of why he headed to Calais, perhaps as the sentence before "Edward's army laid siege to the port"
Well, he was on his way to Crotoy to rendezvous with his fleet, which didn't show, and maybe move on to Flanders to join a Flemish army there, but it had given up. He turned to fight at Crecy anyway. There is debate as to whether he had an eye on Calais prior to Crecy, and if so, to what extent. I have inserted a linking phrase and reworded. See what you think.
  • "in 1340 Edward III had had to fight a French fleet" - remove one of the "had"s. Note the comment below, I think this statement should be moved down a bit.
Removing one of the hads would make it grammatically incorrect. IMO and according to Dank, see above. Possibly the pair of you could come to a consensus over this?
  • "defended by land. Edward's army" - para break here.
Done.
  • "it being all but impossible to land a significant force other than at a friendly port" - this is where the 1340 landing should be mentioned. However, it is a problem that this "all but impossible" had just been done by the very army we are discussing! I don't doubt the accuracy of the statement, but I think the more recent landing has temporal precedence in this case, and not mentioning it seems misleading. Perhaps end the sentence at port and then "One of the few examples of an unopposed landing had launched the current chevauchée, previously, in 1340..."
I see what you mean. Tweaked accordingly. Is that better?
  • " In 1347, when the French army" - another confusing sentence. Perhaps "In 1347, the French army had approached Calais in an attempt to relieve it, but found the English so strongly entrenched that to attack them was hopeless. Charny was one of the four senior knights sent by Philip VI to formally challenge Edward III in an attempt to bring his army out and fight in the open field."
Done.
  • "and Charny had him approached to betray Calais" - "had him approached"... perhaps another way to say this?
I have changed "Charny had him approached to betray Calais" to 'Charny arranged for him to be approached with a view to betraying Calais'. Does that address your concern?
  • "vouchsafe " - guarantee?
Done.
  • "Charny had meanwhile gathered" - "By that point, Charny had gathered..."
Done.
  • "Calais: 1,500 men-at-arms" - "Calais. The force consisted of 1,500..."
Done, with a slght tweak.
  • "Charny needed his large force in order to prevent being repulsed from the town once inside it by the strong garrison" - "Charny needed a large force to prevent being repulsed by the strong garrison once he entered the town."
Done.
  • "strong garrison, but he could not ...town." make this two sentences, the first as above and then "The gate controlled by Amerigo was too narrow t be used by such a large force, having been built only to provide easy access to the harbour by ship's crews."
Done.
  • "members could armour and arm themselves and assemble" - the later would seem to imply the former, so just "could assemble"? No strong opinion here.
I would much prefer to keep "armour and arm themselves"; if hard pressed I could lose "and assemble".
  • "themselves and assemble.[32] The leader of the group " - para break
Done.
  • "Charny's force fled.[39][40] He hastily organised the balance into" - "...Charny's force fled. Charny hastily organized his remaining troops for a defensive fight."
Done.
  • "When the Black Prince attacked, the French, who, even allowing for their deserters, still outnumbered the English, broke." - "Charney's force, even allowing for deserters, still outnumbered the English, but broke when the Black Prince's force attacked." And I'm not sure the "even allowing" is needed as that seems obvious from the context?
Done, and the deserters bit removed.
  • "Charny, with a serious head wound, Eustace " - which one had the head wound?
Good spot. Repunctuated to make clear.
  • "rather than fight.[53] The detailed" - para break
Done. (Although that leaves a single sentence paragraph.)
  • "account of the debacle his enterprise had ended in, and" - "account of the debacle, and" - it's not Ribeaumont's debacle, as the current wording suggests.
Fair. "his" replaced with 'the'.
  • "and should hear of Edward III's comments to Charny" - "and to pass on Edward III's comments about Charny's actions."
Done.
  • "Charny; Ribeaumont later" - break not semi, they are largely unrelated - "Charny. Ribeaumont later"
True. Done.
  • " Charny had to wait eighteen months, until his ransom was paid in full, for his release" - "Charney remained in captivity for eighteen months before his ransom was paid in full."
That gives a different nuance. Why would you like that change?
  • "sensible".[58] Amerigo" - para break.
Done.
  • "It had been agreed that he would instead hand over Guînes, which was his personal possession, a not unusual method of settling ransoms. " - confusing double negative and missing adjective. "hand over the [town|city|keep] of Guînes..." and do you mean "a common way of settling..."? And instead of "it had been agreed", perhaps "Instead of a ransom, Raoul agreed to hand..." and then remove the "not unusual" bit entirely?
Reworded, largely along the lines you suggest, to hopefully be less tortuous.
  • "ring around Calais. Conversely, English possession" - this does not appear to be a converse at this point! in any case, removing "conversely" would seem to be no loss.
Done.
  • "strategic position. Aware of this" - para break. And aware of what? Is it not something more along the lines of "Angered by the change in strategic balance that Guines would have provided the English, the newly crowned..."
I'm not happy about stating that John was angry about something that didn't happen. I have gone with 'Angered by the attempt to weaken the blockade of Calais, the newly crowned French king ... ' Suits?
  • In early January 1352 a band of freelancing English soldiers seized Guînes by a midnight escalade" - so Guînes was not handed over before Raoul was killed? If so, who took possession? The king?
The sources don't say. At an OR guess the property of a "traitor" reverted to the crown. Although given the fuss it caused, John may well have promptly passed it on to Raoul's heir. And no, John had Raoul executed while he was still on parole and arranging his "ransom".
  • "He ordered the English occupants to hand it back. The English" - para break. And it is not stated: there's a week between this order and the meeting of parliament, why was it not handed over already?
Done.
The sources don't say. The freebooters who had seized it weren't under anybody's orders or acting on command. (I can just imagine them saying "Pardon"; "Is he sure"; and "You've got the wrong seal on that scroll mate". Assuming that Edward hadn't told his messenger to take the scenic route while he sweet talked parliament. All blatant OR.)
  • "defences of Calais by the construction " - "with" instead of "by"?
Done.
  • "destroying their siege works. Shortly after," definitely a para break here.
Done.

That's it for now! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury. Thanks for going through this and for your thorough analysis of the prose. Your points above all addressed. A couple with queries.
I am aware that I will need too revisit the citing in the light of the moved sentence and the split paragraphs, but as you said that there was more to come, I thought that I would wait until you were happy before setting to on that.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]

Well I'm not sure there is much more to come after all, it reads much more smoothly now, IMHO. The ones left above, that's fine I won't push on any of them. So that leaves only one bit, the lede... try this on for size, I'm just moving things around a bit. It's four paras instead of three, but more closely gather related items together and, IMHO, clarifies a few of the minor points...

The Battle of Calais took place in the early morning of 1 January 1350, during the Hundred Years' War. English troops in the occupied French city of Calais ambushed and defeated an unsuspecting French force which was attempting to take the city by stealth.

Despite a truce between France and England, the French commander Geoffrey de Charny planned to take the city by subterfuge. He bribed Amerigo of Pavia, an officer of the city garrison, to open a gate for them. Amerigo accepted the bribe and then told the English of Charny's plans. The English king, Edward III, personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison in a surprise counter-attack. The French were routed by this smaller force, with significant losses and all of their leaders captured.

Later that day, Edward III dined with the highest-ranking captives, treating them with royal courtesy except for Charny, whom he taunted for having abandoned his chivalric principles by both fighting during a truce and attempting to purchase his way into Calais rather than fight. The accusations struck deep, and were frequently repeated in subsequent English propaganda, as Charny would later write several authoritative books on chivalry.

Two years later, having been ransomed from English captivity, Charny was placed in charge of a French army on the Calais front. He used it to storm a small fortification commanded by Amerigo, who was taken captive to Saint-Omer and publicly tortured to death.

@Maury Markowitz: You do like itty bitty paragraphs don't you ;-) . Before I respond, could you confirm that we are ignoring MOS:LEADLENGTH where this article falls towards the lower end of "two or three paragraphs"? (17,500 or 21,000 characters depending whether spaces are counted or not.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maury. Trying to stay along the lines you outline above, what do you think of the following. I have stayed within MOS:LEADLENGTH, but if you prefer to IAR it that would be easy.

The Battle of Calais took place in the early morning of 1 January 1350, during the Hundred Years' War. English troops in the occupied French city of Calais ambushed and defeated an unsuspecting French force which was attempting to take the city.

Despite a truce being in effect, the French commander Geoffrey de Charny planned to take the city by subterfuge. He bribed Amerigo of Pavia, an officer of the city garrison, to open a gate for them. The English king, Edward III, became aware of the plot and personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison in a surprise counter-attack. The French were routed by this smaller force, with significant losses and all of their leaders captured.

Later that day, Edward III dined with the highest-ranking captives, treating them with royal courtesy except for Charny, whom he taunted for having abandoned his chivalric principles by both fighting during a truce and attempting to purchase his way into Calais rather than fight. The accusations struck deep, and were frequently repeated in subsequent English propaganda, as Charny was to write several authoritative books on chivalry. Two years later, having been ransomed from English captivity, Charny was placed in charge of a French army on the Calais front. He used it to storm a small fortification commanded by Amerigo, who was taken captive to Saint-Omer and publicly tortured to death.

What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It reads fine, but I still think we need to have the "two years later" separated. I mean, the very first words say exactly why! But I think we should gather comments from others on this one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: I have gone with four paragraphs as you suggest; breaking before "Two years later". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is rather small for 4 paragraphs. It might be a good idea to merge the first two paragraphs, the first being too small. We would then be left with one paragraph describing the battle and its overall developments, another describing the immediate aftermath and the propaganda effect of the victory, and a smaller third giving a curiosity related to the events of the battle. Aforst1 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Personally I like that, if only because it sneaks within MOS:LEADLENGTH. What do you think?
Note that Aforst1 has reinstated part of the original lead - here - with the edit summary "Brought back the assertion that Charny was a paragon of chivalry, which is more related to the king's taunts than the later fact of his books on chivalry". Perhaps the pair of you could reach consensus over whether it stays?
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the positive reply. Note that this addition is a matter apart from the no. of paragraphs. I re-added that segment b/c it contextualizes neatly the event of Edward's taunts and Charny's consequently tainted honor. The fact of his books on chivalry, being a later fact, does this less well.Aforst1 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Well if everyone wants the merge, do this:

The Battle of Calais took place in the early morning of 1 January 1350, during the Hundred Years' War. Despite a truce being in effect, the French commander Geoffrey de Charny planned to take the English-occupied cite of Calais by subterfuge. He bribed Amerigo of Pavia, an officer of the city garrison, to open a gate for them. The English king, Edward III, became aware of the plot and personally led his household knights and the Calais garrison in a surprise counter-attack. The French were routed by this smaller force, with significant losses and all of their leaders captured.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury Markowitz, Aforst1 seems to have implemented your suggestion. Any further comments or actions? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, sorry, fell of my radar. Looks good, I'm S. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

[edit]

Coming rather late to the party on this one, and perhaps unnecessarily because, if I'm counting correctly, it's got five Supports and endorsements from the Image and Source reviews, although I may be misunderstanding whether or not the Source Review is concluded. All that said, a few minor stylistic comments from me on what reads as a well-written and comprehensively sourced account.

Amerigo of Pavia
  • "Stymied, the French marched away in humiliation and the next day Calais surrendered" - the use of "stymied" threw me a little. First, I wondered if it is entirely encyclopedic language, and secondly I wasn't quite sure as to its meaning. Is it something like - "When Edward declined/refused to comply/oblige, the French marched away in humiliation and the next day Calais surrendered"?
Stymie - "To thwart or stump; to cause to fail or to leave hopelessly puzzled, confused, or stuck" according to Wiktionary. It seemed exactly the correct word to me. Wictionary gives three examples of its use, all from the past 15 years: Wired, New York Times and from Postwar: A history of Europe since 1945. So, to me, it seems common, current and encyclopedic.
French preparations
  • "Charny needed a large force to prevent being repulsed by the strong garrison once he entered the town" - "prevent" reads a little oddly to me. To "avoid" or "to overcome the strong garrison..."?
Good point. Changed to 'avoid'.
  • "although it provided easy access to the harbour by ship's crews" - "for ship's crews"?
OK.
Charny's revenge
  • "Charny neither garrisoned nor slighted Fretun, widely disseminating his view that his argument was a personal one with Amerigo" - not getting the meaning of "widely disseminating" here. Does it mean that Charny went around publicising the view that his actions were chivalrous, or that his actions in not slighting the fort led people to take that view? Can't make a suggestion as I don't quite get it.
OK. How does "Charny neither garrisoned nor slighted Fretun, in order to reinforce his view that his argument was a personal one with Amerigo, which entitled Charny to attack the tower in order to capture him; and that he had acted with honour in leaving it to be reoccupied by the English, as the truce was still, theoretically, in place."


That's the extent of my minor quibbles. It was looking good at the outset, and the extensive review comments have strengthened it. Will be pleased to Support when you've had the opportunity to review the comments. KJP1 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1: Thanks for dropping by and having a look at this. It is never too late to suggest improvements. Re your four points, all germane: two actioned; one suggested change for your comments; one explanation. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - All looking good to me. Re. "stymied", absolutely take the point. I might prefer my formulation but it's only a stylistic difference. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: Thanks for the support. I assume that means that you like my proposal regarding your fourth point, so I will execute it. No need to respond unless I have that wrong. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to the coordinators

[edit]

I wonder if I could have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine! --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2019 [2].

Goldfinger (novel)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a fairly long hiatus away from FAC for the Bond books, we're back with a biggie. Not necessarily the best of the series, but certainly one where the writer's imagination was allowed to run a bit wild. Goldfinger is the seventh in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories. This article has undergone a re-build recently, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of the previous Bond novel re-writes, and giving a few passages a brush-up to bring them in line with the MoS. Any further constructive comments would be most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'll have another read through tonight, but I see nothing to warrant anything other than my support, here. CassiantoTalk 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Solid stuff, love the movie and saw this was nominated so giving it a read through. Here's my suggestions, feel free to comment if you don't think they should be fixed, I'm no professor of English or anything:

  • "and the round of golf played with Goldfinger was based on a tournament in 1957 at the Berkshire Golf Club in which Fleming partnered Peter Thomson, the winner of The Open Championship." ---> ".... based on a 1957 tournament at the Berkshire Golf Club in which Fleming partnered with The Open Championship winner Peter Thomson" to shorten the sentence a tad and remove a comma
  • The phrase "The Open Championship winner Peter Thomson" is a false title, so I've retained that part, but I've moved the year ealier in the sentence, per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".. well received by the critics and was favourably compared to the works of Sapper and John Buchan." --- Explain briefly who sapper and john buchan are here cause - for me atleast - just saying their names doesn't tell me if they're authors who publish espionage related works or not.
  • In Background and writing you mention that it was to be called The Richest Man in the World; however, if I am reading it correctly you don't mention when it was officially renamed to Goldfinger and why -- if you were able to find that.
  • Kinda seems like the part where you explain Fleming's love for gold in background and writing could go under plot inspirations too, but your call here on this.
  • I think I'd prefer it where it is: he had a long-standing love of gold, which is different to being inspired by an event or piece of news. (it's a slim difference, but I hope you get where I'm coming from). - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest adding something regarding Goldfinger's character to the lead as there was lots of coverage and analysis of him in the Development - Characters section
  • The last is merely personal preference, but I would recommend to archive all the links if possible just to better preserve your work

Otherwise very nice. Disc Wheel (T + C) 23:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Barnes: that ISBN seems to match a different edition
  • What makes Griswold a high-quality reliable source?
  • Hemley link is dead
  • Be consistent in where you include retrieval dates
  • Several of the entries under Websites should be using |publisher= rather than |website=.

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing from coord duties to review -- big fan of the Fleming Bond books and glad to see Gav's back in harness...

  • As long as I haven't damaged anything with my copyedit I don't really have probs with the prose. The parts detailing critics' observations do suffer a bit from the usual synonyms for "said", which I've tried to vary further, but it's always a challenge to make the language fresh.
  • Nothing really springs to mind as having been left out; about the only thing I can think of right now might be argued as belonging more in the film's article than here, but I fully agree with Benson (p. 179) that this is one of the few Bond books whose plot was actually improved in places by the film, e.g. having Bond discover Jill dead, taking Bond prisoner rather than employing him, irradiating rather than stealing the gold, etc -- if you did want to expand a bit on that aspect under Adaptations then it might buttress the earlier claims in the article re. the novel's more fanciful elements.
  • MOS-wise, there are some duplinks you could lose -- let me know if you need the script that highlights them.
  • Taking Nikki's image/source reviews as read.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi SchroCat, great read! Here are some suggestions for possible clarification for parts that tripped me up and a couple of typos.

  • Bond as Saint George figure - 'a' Saint George figure?
  • Goldfinger is obsessed by gold - the last subject was the real person Goldfinger. Maybe reword to 'the character Goldfinger is obsessed by gold', or add Auric
  • Peter Thomson, the winner of The Open Championship - "the winner of" sounds like there was only one championship, 'multiple winner' or 'a winner' or 'an Open Championship winner'?
  • as a comic strip in The Daily Express, before - does that paper have a "The" in its name or should be 'the'
  • businessman whom Bond briefly met and - 'had' briefly met?
  • does Canasta take a cap C? (at Themes section is canasta) Can't see where name comes from but bridge, poker, rummy, etc aren't capped.
  • to spy on DuPont's cards. - space Du Pont
  • paying back DuPont's lost money - as above
  • smuggling gold out of the country - which country? (it's not noted yet that Goldfinger operates in UK.)
  • meet and play round of golf with - 'a' round?
  • factotum - wlink?
  • adapted with armour plating and armour-plated glass - are 'armour-plated glass' Fleming's words? just 'plated'?
  • and fits them to the Mecca Charter Airline, in which he holds a large stake - fits seats into an aircraft of that company or does Airline represent only one plane?
  • and it turns out that Leiter has - '"turns out" eventuates, becomes apparent, is revealed
  • will protect her, but she is killed by Oddjob - Pussy or Tilly?
  • managed to hijack a BOAC jetliner -'the' jetliner, ie the one Bond is on? Did Bond knowingly catch a flight but he was drugged later? Did Goldfinger hijack the plane before it took off or in the air?
  • did not date the event within his novels - events?
  • The architect Ernő Goldfinger threatened to sue Fleming ... Fleming threatened to add an erratum slip to the book changing the name from Goldfinger to Goldprick - when did Ernő find out, before or after the book was printed/distributed? Was Fleming going to simply put Goldprick on the erratum slip - or was he going to change Auric's name to Goldprick throughout the book and then explain on the slip how that name came about?
  • Jonathan Cape, paid Golfinger's legal costs - missing 'd' in Golfinger, plus add Ernő for clarification (this slightly confusing when 3 separate uses of same name ie Goldfinger novel, the character and the architect)
  • ran the double cross system - hyphen double-cross
  • Goldfinger's own residence at 2 Willow Road. - add 'in Hampsted'?
  • "Fleming's golf partner, John Blackwell" and "Fleming's golfing friend John Blackwell" - repetition
  • Englehard had established a company - typo Engel
  • had established a company, the Precious Metals Development Company - any way to avoid 2x company? 'established a firm' or maybe 'established a company, the Precious Metals Development, which...
  • Black considers that Bond - introduce Black here?
  • Synott highlights the sentence - typo double N
  • Burgess, in his 1984 work Ninety-nine Novels - italics
  • examination of 20th century British spy novels - hyphen? ie 20th-century
  • Elizabeth Ladenson, the general editor - Elisabeth with an 's' (and at Sources)
  • Janet Woollacott and Tony Bennett consider that many of the female characters in the Bond series depart from Fleming's accepted cultural norms; both Pussy Galore and Tilly Masterson conform to this rule - are they writing about the novel or film ie masterton/son
  • and" Enemy action" - move quote mark after and
  • biographer, Matthew Parker - wlink
  • Benson and Fleming's biographer, Matthew Parker, - ambiguous? consider moving comma ie 'Benson, and Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker,
  • Benson identifies a theme of Bond acting - this para has 2 x "St." and 2 x "St"
  • to open the vault[59] "Bond sighed wearily. - needs punc after vault?
  • Maurice Richardson thought that - wlink
  • "Guilt-edged Bond",[10] The critic for - full stop after Bond (or decap The)
  • McKellen - uses Sir in lede and caption but not in Adaptations, intentional?
  • quote box "I propose to wring the truth out of you" - full stop?
  • The pair highlight irradiation the gold in Fort Knox - irradiation 'of' or 'irradiating'

That's me for now. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple more "The" Daily Express to address
  • Book cover alt "a skull with coins for eyes" - maybe 'gold' coins? (just to tie into theme)

Two more minor suggestions... I'm very happy to support promotion. JennyOz (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moise

[edit]

Hi Gavin, glad to see you back with another Bond novel article. I've read through once (and made some minor edits) and am on my second read-through. I'll comment below over the next few days as I make it through the second read-through and notice things. First comment:

  • The lead says "Fleming had based the actual character on the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr." but in the main text it sounds less certain: "According to the historian Henry Chancellor the likely model for Auric Goldfinger was the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr.,[10] whom Fleming had met in 1949." Moisejp (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Minor comment) Consider changing Saint George to St George (two instances) for consistency with the quotations.
  • "Goldfinger does not consume cigarettes or alcohol—unlike many people of the time—but he does pay prostitutes; these tastes of Goldfinger's are condemned by Fleming for being outside normal appetites." I wasn't sure whether "these tastes" in the plural is correct as it seems to just be talking about paying for prostitutes, just one thing. I'm not actually sure how I would reword this, though. If you want to leave it as is, I won't object too strongly, but it feels just possibly a little bit off.
  • The tastes are plural - not drinking or smoking was a sign of a a flawed character, as far as Fleming was concerned. I'll have a think about how to tweak this so it reads a bit better and comes across more clearly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Moisejp (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Moisejp, I'm much obliged. The first point done; I'll have a think about how to re-word the second and see if I can come up with anything more clear. How does this look for the second? OK, or still need a a bit of a tweak? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good, Gavin. It took me a bit to understand that Fleming was also condemning the "cleaner" behaviour of not smoking or drinking, but now I got it. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

[edit]

Support Very nice. All very minor things:

  • "Auric Goldfinger is obsessed by gold and—to Bond's eye—a gauche individual with unusual appetites; Fleming had probably based the character on the American gold tycoon Charles W. Engelhard Jr." I'm not sure you need the "had".
  • "He is subsequently invited back to Goldfinger's mansion near Reculver" Does this mean a second visit?
  • Issued by MI6 with an Aston Martin DB Mark III, Bond trails Goldfinger as he takes his vintage Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost (adapted with armour plating and bulletproof glass), driven by Oddjob, via air ferry to Switzerland." It has been some years since I read the novel, but this makes it sound, but for the make of the vehicle, that Bond may have been chasing the air ferry with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
  • stealing the United States Bullion Depository's gold from Fort Knox" I might say "stealing the gold from the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox" or some such.
  • "at the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths—one of the livery companies of the City of London" So they are, but I might mention their responsibility for ascertaining the purity of gold, hallmarking.
  • "Ernő Goldfinger" You mention the dispute and settlement with him twice.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

[edit]
"Do you expect me to talk, SchroCat?!"
Noting as well how Rosenberg and Stewart comment that, Oddjob was, in Bond's more laconic moments, "that Korean ape".
Hope all's well! 15:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

He was a charmer, was Bond (or Fleming, depending on your viewpoint)! Synnott covers the whole racist angle rather nicely, but all the Bond stories—much like those of Sapper, Agatha Christie and a host of other popular authors of the time—reflect the attitudes thaat were fashionable then and abhorrent now. - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prolly the wrong moment to mention Biggles then, I guess ... DBaK (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or Sax Rohmer's creation Fu Manchu ... or H. Rider Haggard's Allan Quatermain series. Ah, the Victorian empire literature and it's casual racism. I suspect some members of the goverment still read some of those works to get ideas for their policies. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DBak

[edit]

Lovely article. I have a very minor comment/quibble whose summary dismissal would not lose me such a lot of sleep. We call Bond's employer "MI6" twice in the lead and once further down, in the Plot section. We call it the "Secret Service" once at the start of the Plot. (For completeness, I should maybe add that we don't call it SIS, either initialized or spelt out, at all, though this is its realest real name. But this doesn't really matter.) This grated with me very slightly as, in the world of the book, the SIS is never called MI6 (I think I am right in claiming this!) nor indeed SIS. It only calls the thing that M directs the "Secret Service". I do totally get it that MI6 is a common name for this lovely organization – indeed SIS themselves cheerfully acknowledge this on their website. So yes I think it's fine to make the link, to agree that Bond works for the Secret Service per Fleming, = SIS, = MI6 per current usage. That's not my problem – it is just that I would rather see it first said that Bond works for the Secret Service, so that it is not too instantly as if we are seeing it through the light of what we now know and say.

Finally, sorry if this whole thing is a stupid point and/or has been discussed to death elsewhere. I found it mentioned in 2012 in an old FAC but it wasn't discussed then and indeed the person making the point was, with the greatest respect, also missing the point. But I too may have missed something, so I will shush now. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a stupid point, but it is a (mildly) problematic one to deal with, and I don't think it's ever been satisfatorily addressed without making the aritcles a complete mess in outlining the point. The term "The Secret Service" tends nowadays to mean this bunch, and it's not a term we use in the UK for SIS, MI6 or, en masse, the security services (to include MI5 - correctly named The Security Service, to add confusion). I've tweaked the link in the lead to show Secret Service (which pipes back to MI6), and this should suffice (hopefully). I'm always conscious to avoid WP:INUNIVERSE-type writing, but this shouldn't be a problem Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is great, thank you. I think your current solution is excellent, and I absolutely take the point about in-universe language. It's just that it's rather boiled into my bones from repeated reading of the half-title page blurb (in the old Pan paperbacks at least) saying The licence to kill for the Secret Service, the double-0 prefix, was a great honour and so on and so forth. So actually I love what you have done with it right now. If, though, it is going to be a problem that people more identify this name with the US Secret Service, one minor and easy tweak might be to just change the Secret Service operative James Bond into the British Secret Service operative James Bond – note that I have kept the British outside the link, which I think helps with clarity as it is never called that in the book – I think! And it is OK, perhaps, to add this as the first para doesn't specify where we are exactly other than that it is a UK publication so maybe this detail is acceptable if it might help generally. But I am not spoiling for a big fight over this, and thank you for the nice response. DBaK (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem: now added. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks! DBaK (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Another tiny one
[edit]

Erkkk, sorry, I am back again. In Development > Plot inspirations we have this: Fleming also disliked Goldfinger, for destroying Victorian buildings and replacing them with the architect's modernist designs, particularly a terrace at Goldfinger's own residence at 2 Willow Road, Hampstead. It made me read it twice, because we've just mentioned Ernő Goldfinger and then we say he'd replaced Victorian buildings with The Architect's modernist designs ... what, which architect is this now?? Oh, duh, I get it now ... but it does clunk slightly for me – what would be worse about just saying "his" modernist designs? I'm not sure I can see the problem that we are trying to avoid here, but please feel free to enlighten me. I promise I really am shutting up now ... DBaK (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked slightly to avoid confusion. I think I was trying to avoid ambiguity for "his" designs to be thought of as Fleming's, but that seems not to be the case. Many thanks for these two comments: I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, nails it precisely. Thank you DBaK (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ermmmm
[edit]

I have another stupidly minor worry to mention, but it's just been promoted (well done!!) So should I continue here, or go back to the everyday vanilla Talk page, or just shush, or edit it myself (danger Will Robinson! danger!) or what? Please advise. DBaK (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2019 [3].

Atlanersa

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Atlanersa, a Kushite king of the kingdom of Napata in Nubia (modern day Sudan), ruling in the mid 7th century BC. The impetus for working on this article was provided by the visit to Sudan of a photograph, M. Gehricke, who then proposed to upload his pictures to wikicommons. I hope this will be the first FA article pertaining to the antiquity of a poorly covered area of Africa on wikipedia.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this nomination, anyone! I will answer promptly!Iry-Hor (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Mr rnddude

[edit]

I'll do a prose review for the time being, will see if the requisite source review gets picked up by someone else. FAC appears to have slowed a bit, since there's a couple noms that have been up for near three months. Don't know if it's a time of the year thing, a greater influx or noms, or burnout from reviewers. Could even be a combination of the three.

General comments
Cite 76 is missing page numbers.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
Atlanersa's most prominent construction however, [...] - As is always pointed out to me whenever I use the word, a stronger stop is needed before however. Either "[...] , however, [...]" or "[...] ; however, [...]". I believe the latter construction is preferred. This is repeated as well later in the article (twice if I counted correctly).
Done actually I removed all the instances of "however" as none were really required and all sentences read lighter without it.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[...] which he finished and had time to partially decorate before possibly dying unexpectedly - A bit unclear here. Do you mean that he possibly died, or that his death was possibly unexpected?
Done I clarified by changing to "[...]which he finished and had time to decorate, but only partially. This suggests that he died unexpectedly.".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Parents
An hypothesis [...] -> A hypothesis. An comes before vowel sounds: e.g An anecdote or An SMG (pronounced ess-em-jee). A before consonant sounds: hypothesis (pronounced hai-poth-a-sis).
Done it is a mistkae I keep on going, in writing as well as speaking.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative, cultural, explanation is also possible [...] - The second comma is unneeded: An alternative, cultural explanation [...].
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[...] a young heir to the throne would be overlooked in favor of someone older until they reached maturity, and until then their right to the throne would be preserved - If I'm understanding correctly, this would basically be a regency wouldn't it?
Done Actually no because contrary to a regency, the person reigning is considered a full king and would continue to reign until he died. Only then and only if the heir is old enough, would his rights be reinstated. I clarified.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consorts and children
Khaliset was destined to be the mother of Atlanersa's heir as indicated by her titles but this was probably fulfilled by another of Atlanersa's consorts, queen Malotaral "mistress of Kush" and potential mother of Senkamanisken - A couple issues here. There's missing punctuation: Khaliset was destined to be the mother of Atlanersa's heir, as indicated by her titles, but this was probably fulfilled [...]. She wasn't really destined to be x if she never became x. The word "intended" would be a more apt descriptor.
Good points done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least one more queen might have been married to Atlanersa, his sister Peltasen while queens K[...] and Taba[...] may be yet further consorts of Atlanersa - The writing is somewhat awkward and repetitive, so in need of rephrasing, and particularly given that the following sentence lists yet another possible consort.
Done, see if you prefer this: "Further potential consorts of Atlanersa have been identified: his sister Peltasen and queens K[...] and Taba[...]. Finally, there is a distinct possibility that Amenirdis II, the Divine Adoratrice of Amun in Thebes was married to Atlanersa. In addition, she may have been his sister.".Iry-Hor (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible, although uncertain [...] and [...] might have been his son, although this remains uncertain [...] - Possible means not certain, so this is redundancy. For the latter sentence, I can suggest tightening: Atlanersa's successor Senkamanisken, may have been his son, but could instead have been his brother.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are conflicts between the infobox and the article on this subject. You list Nasalsa as "uncertain" in the infobox, but state that she is known to have been his daughter in the article body. Conversely, you list Senkamanisken as a son of Atlanersa in the infobox, but state that his parentage is uncertain in the body. You also have "Peltasen, Taba[..], K[...]" listed as, effectively, certain consorts in the IB, but "might have been" in the body.
Done woops yes I seem to have mixed up the placed of the "Uncertain" mentions in the infobox. Corrected, as per text.
Temple B700
Originally, Reisner believed the stand to be an altar - You introduce Reisner later on in the article, but it's first mentioned in the footnote. Perhaps just double up on the introductions, because, if I'm reading along with footnotes, then the first time I see Reisner, I won't (or I will, but the reader won't,) know who you're talking about.
Done a nice intro is now given to Reisner in the footnote.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After Senkamanisken's rule however, the temple might have served as a mortuary temple for Atlanersa and, even later, for all deceased kings - Presumably you mean king's of the Napatan Kingdom?
Done yes I mean subsequent Nubian kings. Actually it is not clear in the source whether the author meant all Nubian kings including those of the Meroitic period or not. I wrote "of the Kushite kingdom" which is vague enough to correspond to the source.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tomb
Reisner's argument have been [...] - Either "argument has been" or "arguments have been".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It produced a [...] - You mention both antechamber and burial chamber in the preceding sentence, so grammatically it is unclear that you mean the burial chamber when you use "[i]t" here. Perhaps replace "[i]t" with "[t]he latter".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse of the 25th Dynasty
[...] definitely expelling him from Upper Egypt c. 656 BC - Did you perhaps mean definitively here?
Done yes. Thanks!Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the prose comments I have for the time being. I've not been sleeping well at all in the past few days, so I've likely missed things, and will need to do a second pass later on when I'm feeling better. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude Well I wish you to get better promptly! Thank you for your first round of review.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've revisited the article and checked in here. Moving to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • For the following parts ("reigning for about a decade in the mid 7th century BC", "Atlanersa is the only Kushite king of the mid 7th century BC", "Atlanersa reigned for a decade in the mid 7th century BC"), I believe there should be dashes for "mid-7th-century".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence "The pyramid produced many small artefacts which are now on display in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.", I believe the museum's name is just "the Museum of Fine Arts" and Boston is included in the Wikipedia title to disambiguate it from other similarly titled museums. I would rephrase the final part to "which are now on display in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the placement of the following sentence "He may also have started a funerary chapel in the same locality, now called Nuri 500." It follows right after the sentence on the Boston museum so it is somewhat jarring to jump back to talking about an Egyptian locale, particularly with the phrasing "in the same locality". I am assuming that phrasing is meant to refer back to the necropolis of Nuri?
Fixed Yes I meant in Nuri. I have changed the sentence and its location in the lede to "He built a pyramid in the necropolis of Nuri, now conjecturally believed to be Nuri 20 and may also have started a funerary chapel in the same necropolis, now called Nuri 500. Atlanersa was the second Nubian king to built a pyramid in Nuri after Taharqa.". I hope this fixes the issue.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this part "which he finished and had time to decorate, but only partially" be reduced down to "which he finished and had time to only partially decorate" to be somewhat more concise?
Done thanks this is much better.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be useful to wikilink pylon in this part "Atlanersa's mother was a queen who appeared on a pylon scene".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "[...]salka" put in italics in the body of the article, but it is not done the same way in the lead or the infobox?
Done it is mistake, it should not be in italic. Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work so far. I have only gotten through the lead and the first section as I want to try my best to thoroughly review the article. I am not familiar with African history at all so apologies in advance if I have overlooked anything. I will try to get through the rest of the article this week. I hope my comments are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Thanks for your comments, I am looking forward to your next observations!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this part "Foundation tablets bearing Atlanersa's name show that he started a temple dedicated to Osiris Dedwen", specifically "Osiris Dedwen". After clicking on both the wikilinks, they appear to be separate gods, but again, I have absolutely no familiarity with this kind of history. Is this phrase referencing one god/figure?
Done This is an example of syncretism. The ancient Egyptian relgion (and more generally religions of the Ancient world) were very fluid and allowed for the merging of gods: here Dedwen, a god originating from Upper Nubia was assimilated with Osiris by being perceived to be a local form of Osiris. This phenomenon happened throughout Egypt and can perhaps be related with the Middle Ages tendency to do the same with "Maria, Our Lady of...". I have added a link to syncretism just before the mention of Osiris-Dedwen in the text and in the lede.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, and apologies again for my ignorance on the matter. Aoba47 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "fine" mean in this context: "A fine stand" and "a fine alabaster votive tablet"?
Fixed It means "of very high quality". I have removed these as, while they are supported by the sources, they are subjective judgments.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it is technical term, then it should be alright for inclusion. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part "weighing over 8 t (8.8 short tons) it is made of a single block of granite." reads like a separate sentence, and I believe there should be a comma after "(8.8 short tons)". Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done I made two sentences and changed to ". The stand is made of a single block of granite weighing over 8 t (8.8 short tons).". I hope this addresses this round of comments Aoba47.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. Although I am by no means a subject expert, I believe the article's prose meets the FA criteria. I have not looked at the sources or images so I am just basing my comments on the prose. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by A. Parrot (Support)

[edit]

I'll do a detailed review, including spot-checks, over the weekend. For now I can say that the sources used are all of high quality. Some are old, but at first glance it looks like the older sources are appropriately balanced with the current ones. A. Parrot (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done several spot-checks, including all those to Pope, Dodson & Hilton, Reisner, and Török 1997, and everything seems in order except for two points.

  • The more minor one is that Citation 45 is based on a sentence that's divided between two pages, so it would make sense to change it to pp. 237–238.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more major one is "Reisner's arguments have been broadly accepted", which is cited to a source from 1949, closer to Reisner's time than to ours. Do any of the more recent sources state that Reisner's view is the consensus, or do they simply take it for granted that he was right? If they take it for granted and Dunham and Macadam are the only ones who state it explicitly, you could keep the citation to Dunham and Macadam and supplement it with another that simply assumes the pyramid is Atlanersa's.
Done I have added a footnote with a more recent source. What happens is that Dunham and Macadam state that they agree with Reisner's argument, and from there on virtually all sources talking about Nuri 20 attribute it to Atlanersa without any discussion. So I have added the latest non-Dunham reference on the matter: Fontes by Török et al.

Beyond that, I have several points about the text:

  • The lead mentions the loss of control of Egypt in Atlanersa's time, but Török's point about the cultural transformation of Kush also seems worth mentioning in the lead.
Done I added " The same period also saw the progressive cultural integration of Egyptian concepts by the Kushite civilization" to the lede.
  • "…one of which was effectively put in place" feels rather unclear; perhaps "one of which was completed and set in place"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a queen […]salka" will probably puzzle some readers. Perhaps "a queen whose name is only partially preserved"?
Done in the first instance of this in the lede. I kept the [...]salka in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Atlanersa was the son of king Taharqa or less probably of his immediate predecessor Tantamani." There's a slight ambiguity in the sentence about whether "his" refers to Taharqa or Tantamani.
Fixed I replaced "his" with "Atlanersa's".Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2 seems significant enough to move into the main text, which isn't terribly long.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…this was probably fulfilled by another of Atlanersa's consorts, Queen Malotaral 'mistress of Kush' and potential mother of Senkamanisken" feels a bit awkward. Perhaps something like "…but it may have been another of Atlanersa's consorts, Malotaral 'mistress of Kush', who was mother to Atlanersa's heir Sekamanisken"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colossal statue at B700 and its current location are mentioned in the lead, but it's not mentioned in the section on the temple, and its current location isn't mentioned anywhere in the body text.
Fixed, well spotted. I added this to the text: "A colossal statue of Atlanersa was placed on the western side of the temple entrance, where it was discovered by Reisner, albeit toppled with its head cut-off. It is now in the National Museum of Sudan".Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The advancement of the temple…" I'm sure that "advancement" isn't the right word here, but I'm not sure what to change it to, or whether to do a more extensive rewording of the first half of the sentence.
Done I changed to "The progression of the temple construction suggests that...".Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The obelisk is at Old Dongola, not Dongola; I changed the body text to reflect that. I think Egyptological sources sometimes use "Dongola" to refer to the old site as well as the new one, which is why I haven't changed the section heading, but given that the two sites are 80 kilometers apart, I think it would be best to change the heading as well.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. Parrot I hope this addresses your comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • Could we have another image on the left, per MOS:IMAGES: "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left."?
Fixed I put all images on the right: I tried two images on the left and it looked weird to me. I can change back to two images on the left if you want.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. Well, I like the way you have arranged the images, even if it doesn't meet the MoS. So let's IAR and see if antone else says anything.
  • Alt text for the infobox image?
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Barque stand Atlanersa.png" I am unsure how the Source can be "own work", when it is stated that the photograph was taken in 1916 by George Andrew Reisner. (Reisner has been dead for over 70 years, so it is potentially taggable as out of copyright.)
Done: Well, I am indeed not Reisner, this is a stupid mistake on my behalf: clearly I did not pay attention when uploading. I changed the self license tag to PD-old and PD-US tags and listed Reisner as the author and source. Gog the Mild I hope this will be sufficient.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption, B700: could we add ", Boston"?
Done I wrote "in Boston"Iry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption, Scarab of Atlanersa: could we add ", Paris"?
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Sudan does not have freedom of panorama there needs to be a tag indicating the topic's copyright status for "File:Barque stand Atlanersa.png", "File:Pyramid Atlanersa Nuri 20.jpg" and "File:TombosQuarryIncompleteStatue.jpg". (I suspect that this is pro forma.)
Well I am lost there, what tag do we need ? I looked at other Sudan pictures on wikicommons and did not find a specific tag to add, for example this picture, used on wikipedia, of a place in Sudan does not have anything specific other than the self tag.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You must be right. There are outdoor panoramas from Sudan classed as valued images, without an additional tag - eg File:Western Deffufa - Kerma.jpg. I am not sure why, but it seems to set a precedence.
Passing. A grand looking article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]
  • Some warnings etc in references:
    • Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1986). The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.) (2nd ed.). Missing Publisher Location; Missing Publisher;
Done Iry-Hor (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reisner, George Andrew (1918). "Preliminary Report on the Harvard-Boston excavation at Nûri: the kings of Ethipia after Tirhaqa". In Bates, Oric (ed.). Varia Africana II. 2. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Missing Publisher Location; Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
Done added all missing info except p. numbers: it is an entire book, 64 pages long.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Morkot, Robert (1999). "Kingship and Kinship in the Empire of Kush". In Wenig, Steffen (ed.). Studien zum.. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
Done added all missing info.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zibelius-Chen, Karola (2012). "II. 12. The Chronology of Nubian Kingdoms from Dyn. 25 to the end of the Kingdom of Meroe". In Hornung, Erik; Krauss, Rolf; Warburton, David (eds.). Ancient Egyptian... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done added all missing info.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this answers your concerns Lingzhi2.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Reading now...

  • Atlanersa's name was present on a scene inscribed on the front pylon of the temple, now completely destroyed - err, how do we know it was there if it is now destroyed?
Done I added a footnote with an explanation: the pylon was still standing in the mid 19th century at which point several drawings were made. The pylon was destroyed between 1830 and 1916 as the temple was used as a quarry by local people.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Damn private rock-needers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The advancement of the temple suggests that Atlanersa died unexpectedly - I don't follow this..
Clarified The temple building was finished and its decoration almost completely so but not totally. The source deduces that the end of the decoration works were interrupted by the death of the king. I wrote: "The advancement of the temple suggests that Atlanersa died unexpectedly, shortly after completing the construction works and the decoration of the two interior rooms, as attested by the presence of his name there, but before completing the decoration of the exterior. This task was finished under Senkamanisken [...]"Iry-Hor (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aha ok, that makes sense Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to his predecessors and successors, Atlanersa is the only ....uncovered there - any speculation as to why this is the case? Even if no idea that is worth adding (if someone has said it)
Unfortunately only one source points this fact out and they don't elaborate on it. I should add that virtually all existing information pertaining to Atlanersa is given in this article.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that might be the case but just wanted to confirm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks pretty good on first read-through Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber I am looking forward to your next comments (should you have any!).Iry-Hor (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment from Hamiltonstone (Settled)

[edit]

Under Collapse of the 25th Dynasty, it says "Taharqa and Tantamani had lost control of Lower Egypt, which passed under the power of Assyrian vassals..." I have two quibbles. One is the phrase "passed under the power" - I would have thought "came under the power" or "power passed to" would be more correct. But my main concern is how a lay reader is to understand the word "vassal" here. Can you please look at the WP article vassal (which says it is about a term "in the context of the feudal system in medieval Europe"), and have a think about how best to explain to a person outside the field what is being said in this sentence? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hamiltonstone Done. I wrote in a footnote: "Scholars working on this time period use the word "vassal" to designate kinglets designated by more powerful kings to reign in their stead over a region or locality. Vassals of the Assyrian emperor, such as Necho I were expected to pay tribute to the king and rally troops with the Assyrians as necessary." plus a reference using the word vassal.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
have copyedited the note, and thank you. Note to coordinator - I'm not reading full article in detail, so not seeking to support / oppose etc. just wanted that clarified! hamiltonstone (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2019 [4].

Battle of Azaz (1030)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 11:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a battle between the Byzantines and the Arabs of the Mirdasid emirate of Aleppo. Coming shortly after a period when Byzantine military might was at its highest under Basil II, the Byzantine army, under a vainglorious emperor, suffered a humiliating, although in the end not decisive, defeat. The article was co-developed by myself and Al Ameer son over the past few years, has passed GA and ACR, and is as complete as we can get it. Constantine ✍ 11:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

This is a splendid article and I expect to be supporting its elevation to FA, but first I have a few minor suggestions about the prose.

  • Lead
    • First sentence: you say here that the Byzantine army was led by the emperor "in person" but just that the opposing forces were "under" Emir Shibl al-Dawla Nasr. I see from the main text that the latter too led his troops in person, but that isn't altogether clear in the lead as it is currently phrased.
      • Good point. Hopefully fixed now.
    • I wondered at first what the strange r characters were before the dates: the pop-up "reign" is clever, but a little distracting, and I think unnecessary. If it is the usual form for such things, fine, but is it needed four times during the article?
      • Hmmm, you are the first one to complain about the reign template. I don't know if it is the "usual form", but generally I find providing the reader with regnal dates useful, as it gives a clue as to the interactions between the rulers and the position of the events described in their reign.
Interrupting comment: I think Tim Riley was referring to the tooltip underneath each instance of r. You can add "lk=none" to disable the tooltip after the first instance, which is a generally accepted practice (similar to how wikilinks are only included on first instance). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is sensible, thanks. Done
    • Second para: "the emperor" appears twice where a plain pronoun might move the text along more briskly with no loss of precision.
      • Done.
  • Background
    • I think I can guess what "confessional clashes" means, but it isn't a familiar phrase and could do with a note of explanation or else rephrasing in plain words.
      • Rephrased.
    • "According to medieval Arabic chroniclers Yahya of Antioch ... and Ibn al-Adim" – the tabloidese false title here could be avoided by the insertion of "the" before "medieval".
      • Fixed.
    • "that all of the above versions" – perhaps lose the unnecessary "of"?
      • Fixed.
    • "whom Romanos likely sought" – unexpected Americanism in a BrE article. The Guardian's style guide sums it up neatly: "In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as 'they will likely win the game' sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well."
      • Fixed. I blame the dominance of US-style English online and in media.
    • "might wrest the city from them due to their youthfulness" – another point of BrE usage. In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
      • Fixed.
    • "Zakkar claims the latter figure" – I'd be cautious with "claim": it can be read as implying that you think the assertion is false or in bad faith. Something more neutral such as "in Zakkar's view" might be safer. Similarly with Psellos, later.
      • Good point. Fixed.
  • Battle
    • "to reconnoiter the area." – the OED admits "reconnoiter", but favours "reconnoitre", as do I, but to each his own.
      • Let's go with the OED.
    • Second para – I think it would be better to decide whether "army" is singular or plural and stick to one or the other. At present we have "the army departed its camp" but "demoralized the Byzantine army and induced panic in their ranks".
      • Fixed.
    • "who was nearly captured himself" – not sure the "himself" is wanted here.
      • Fixed.
  • Aftermath
    • "an annual tribute of 500,000 dirhams" – I realise it is terribly difficult to give even faintly approximate modern equivalents of ancient currencies, but is it possible to put 500,000 dirhams into context as, e.g. x per cent of the imperial income or some such? Quite understand if not, but it would be helpful if possible.
      • Usually I'm the one insisting on this with sums of money, so I understand. Unfortunately here it is rather complicated, as the Musim and Byzantine coins were similar but not identical in weight, and as the Muslim rate of exchange between silver and gold coins (from a canonical 1:10, it more usually ranged from 1:14 up to 1:20) was different to the Byzantine one (1:12). My co-author Al Ameer son has added an approximate value in dinars, but the rate (1:60) is clearly wrong, especially if it is meant to echo the Treaty of Safar, which used the plausible 1:16 rate of exchange. Even if we provide a rough analogy in gold dinars by that value (31,250) and ignore for a moment that the dinar was usually a little lighter than the Byzantine nomisma, unfortunately there is no basis for even a half-reliable estimate on the Byzantine budget in the 11th century. I've seen figures from 3 million to 6 million gold coins, but even there the authors acknowledge that this is extrapolation and speculation from the far better attested Abbasid state budget. Perhaps the most useful figure I've found is that 1-2 dirhams per day were the salary of a skilled worker or soldier in the 9th century during the Abbasid heyday, although how far this is applicable to a border emirate in 1030 is open to question, given the fluctuations in silver coinage availability affecting the post-imperial Muslim states. I don't know how to proceed here, I would like to avoid a lengthy explanation. What do you think would work best?
        • I hardly dare express a view, so little do I know of the period. If you think any of the above would be helpful to readers – perhaps as an explanatory footnote – that would be excellent, but having raised the point I really feel I should leave it to your best judgment. Tim riley talk 19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a long list of moans, but in fact I greatly enjoyed reading the article. I knew nothing of this period of history and learnt a lot. – Tim riley talk 13:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks for the kind words, and don't worry, I appreciate a thorough review. I've tried to fix/answer the points you raised above. Please have a look. Any further comments and suggestions, even regardless of FA requirements, would be welcome. Constantine ✍ 18:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. As noted, I am very far from expert about the subject, but so far as I can see the article is comprehensive, balanced (I note HaEr48's points below, but I do not feel myself competent to express a view) and well and widely referenced. The article is well illustrated and an excellent read, and I am happy to support. Tim riley talk 19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

Placeholder, will wait until you've addressed Tim's points before I stick my oar in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Great job with this, although I know nothing of this period, it reads well and I could only find a few minor things:[reply]

  • battle of al-Uqhuwanah→Battle of al-Uqhuwanah and redlink?
  • Done, in hopeful expectation...
  • suggest "Banu Kilab tribe"
  • Good point, done
  • suggest linking tribute and vassal
  • Done

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, done. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 15:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Supporting, nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48 (support)

[edit]

This is an excellent, well-written and well-researched article. The background section gives adequate information to situate a new reader on the topic, and major events are covered in prelude and battle. It is written in an accessible manner and I enjoy reading it. I have some small comments:

  • Infobox "Result" say "Arab victory", is there any reason that we don't say more the specific "Mirdasid victory" or "Aleppine victory"? In the infobox, none of the "belligerents" say "Arab". It may not be obvious to the uninitiated, and in any case it's good to be specific.
    • Done.
  • "presence in Romanos's entourage of Mansur ibn Lu'lu', the former ruler of Aleppo": is Mansur from the same dynasty, or is he the Mirdasid's former enemy, or ?
    • Clarified.
  • Is it possible to discuss more on the Mirdasid's side of the story, e.g. their planning, motivation, or notable events that happened during the preparation or the battle? We get a lot of this regarding the Byzantines, e.g. how the emperor was planning the campaign, his motivations, how the general advised him, some little details such as the army going hungry and disciplines breaking down, siege engines having to be burned, and so on. I know it's probably impossible to achieve complete balance if the sources are not equally complete, but seeing that you are already several Arab historians here, I wonder if we have anything more?
Access to these primary sources is limited but sufficient info from them is found in Zakkar's Emirate of Aleppo and Bianquis' EI2 entry on the Mirdasids. There's info about the Mirdasids' preparations in the third paragraph of the Prelude section and about Arab troop numbers in the fourth paragraph. More information has since been added about the strength and tactics/mode of operations of the Banu Kilab cavalry in Background and Prelude. The aftermath from the Arabs' side has been slightly expanded as well. As for their motivations, the article demonstrates they sought to avoid hostilities and only confronted the imperial army to defend their realm. Other than what's currently in the article, there's not much more available about the Arab side. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Al Ameer wrote, unfortunately the battle is known chiefly from the Byzantine sources. What we could find about the Arab side, has been added; to Al Ameer especially goes the credit here.
  • I don't know if it's just me, but I feel the lead section a bit dominated by the Byzantines' point of view. The second para is almost totally written from the Byzantines' view, and more than half of the third para too. Could we balance it somehow?
    • As stated above, that rather reflects the situation of the sources, which allows us an insight into Romanos' mind (and even multiple variants thereof), whereas the Mirdasids are almost faceless. I've rewritten the lede somewhat, however, in view of your comments and some recent additions by Al Ameer. Please have a look.

-- HaEr48 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: Thanks for taking the time and for the suggestions/comments. I've tried to address them, please have a look. Constantine ✍ 16:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, "almost faceless" is the right word. But I understand your explanation about it. I thought because I'm already seeing some Arab chroniclers attributed in the article, we could have more. I think what you and Al Ameer added made it less faceless, so thank you. I'll read the article one more time and will add here if I have more comments. HaEr48 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately AFAIK the later Arab chroniclers don't go into so much detail as Psellos, who after all was a contemporary, a senior courtier, and an inveterate gossip to boot...
I suggest adding one more sentence to the first para of lead to summarise the battle and result, something like "The Mirdasids defeated the much larger Byzantine army and took great booty, even though they were eventually unable to capitalise on the victory". I think it's fair for the first para to be a very high-level summary and only the next para starts chronologically. HaEr48 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support this, and thank you for your responses. Great work, Cplakidas and Al Ameer son. HaEr48 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time and input, HaEr48. Constantine ✍ 17:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Mr rnddude

[edit]

I still owe a couple FA reviews, and I've been eye-ing this article up for one of those.

  • Lede
  • ... and attempts to break out were defeated - This conflicts with the article proper. You only mention one attack by the Byzantines in the article – The patrikios Constantine Dalassenos then led an attack against the Arabs, but was defeated and fled back to the camp – and this doesn't appear to be a break out, as described in the lede, but more an attempted assault.
  • Good catch, fixed
  • ... the disordered Byzantines, and the ensuing engagement resulted in a rout for the Byzantines - You can cut the duplication of "Byzantines" and tighten the prose by rephrasing to something like ... the disordered Byzantines, who routed in the ensuing engagement.
  • Rewritten and tightened
  • Aftermath
  • In the meantime, ... - you can spare a couple words by using meanwhile here. Just a nitpick.
  • Done
  • The failure by the Romanos ... - stray "the", I suspect this originally read "by the Byzantines".
  • Done
  • ... was followed soon after by ... - is "soon after" necessary here? It seems superfluous.
  • Indeed. Removed
  • General
  • You have a mixture of " s' " and " s's " in the article. Use either, but be consistent.
  • Hmmm, I can only find instances of " s' " in the plural, which is as it should be.

That's all I picked up on, on first read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr rnddude, thanks a lot, the suggestions above have been implemented. Anything else? How is the comprehensibility etc. of the article? Constantine ✍ 15:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read the article. I had no issue with comprehending the subject matter, beyond the occasional Greek term, but these have all been linked. I didn't notice anything else, so I'm switching to support. It's an excellent, if brief, article. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • The source of "The Arabs drive the Byzantines to flight at Azazion.jpg" links to a 492 page document. Could you specify the page please.
  • Likewise "Emperor Romanos III encamps at Azazion.jpg".
  • Optional: consider alt text for the location map, if only to be consistent with the other images.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, done. Constantine ✍ 16:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Emirate of Aleppo had been a Byzantine vassal Link the Emirate of Aleppo.
    • Relinked
  • I see two howevers I think one is good enough because it's really small for two howevers (little too small in my opinion).
    • Both howevers are rather unnecessary, so removed.
  • Although his generals urged him to avoid action Remove the extra space between "urged" and "him".
    • Done, although this is not actually visible to the reader, only in Wikitext
  • leading in person the campaign against Aleppo --> "leading in-person the campaign against Aleppo"
    • I am not sure that is correct... As a non-native speaker, I may be wrong, but I've never seen this usage before, in contrast to "in person".
  • May I ask you why the source of Zakkar uses a Google Books's URL? By WP:GBOOKS we only should add a Google Books's URL to a book who gives us a preview.
    • Don't know, this was added by Al Ameer son in 2016. It often happens that GBooks links stop working or change over time, so that a link that gave a preview no gives only snippets or nothing. Still, I think that a link is useful to have, even for snippets.
    • PS, I just now notice that WP:GBOOKS is about linking to individual pages, which is definitely not the case here. Constantine ✍ 12:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries CPA-5, just checking, take your time. Re WP:GBOOKS, that's not what I see. The section is explicitly headed "Linking to Google Books pages" and says "Page links should only be added when the book is available for preview", because "they will not work with snippet view." This is quite beside the point here, where a link for the entire work is provided. Even if it only allows snippets, the existence of a Google Books link is a good thing for WP:VERIFICATION purposes. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CPA-5: I'm sorry, but I honestly can't see where you get that from. It is explicit and specific on pages in inline references etc., it is not about "how Google Books's URL should looks like". Anyhow, since we are probably not going to agree on this, is this really something that is should hold up this nomination? Constantine ✍ 21:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the "~20,000" in the infobox into "c. 20,000".
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, thanks for taking the time. I've answered your points. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: a friendly reminder. Constantine ✍ 12:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: Checked, no issues found
  • Quality/reliability: no issues. All sources appear to meet the standard required by the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2019 [5].

Meinhard Michael Moser

[edit]
Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meinhard Moser was an Austrian mycologist best known for his work cataloguing European mushrooms, especially the difficult web caps. However, he also did important work elsewhere in the world (including South America) and on the ecological role mushrooms play in forests. He seems to have been an interesting character who led an eventful life, and he was held in very high esteem in mycological communities. I hope that I've done him justice in this article. I should say that I was inspired to nominate this here by Usernameunique's fascinating articles on 20th-century academics, and I owe thanks to Sasata, who will be remembered by FAC regulars as the "mushroom man" who wrote scores of fungal FAs during his time on Wikipedia from 2008-16. Thanks in advance for any comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suppoert Comments from Usernameunique

[edit]

Infobox

Early life, university, and military service

England and the Federal Institute for Forestry Research

  • Two sentences beginning with "There, he" in the first paragraph
  • with the latter being sponsored by the naturalist Roger Phillips — What does it mean for the translation to be sponsored? Also, worth a red link?
  • "much used and appreciated field manual" ... "the most-used and most authoritative handbook on larger European fleshy fungi". — Whose words? Also, I'm not sure you need to hyphenate "most-used", but, given that you do, is there a reason why you didn't hyphenate "most authoritative"?
    • I've attributed the quotes. The hyphenation follows the original quote: "One very important feature is that each plate is keyed to the appropriate page in Meinhard Maser's treatment in Kleinen Kryptogamenflora, the most-used and most authoritative handbook on larger European fleshy fungi, and the taxonomy follows his treatment." Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of Moser's illustrations in the public domain, or do you think it's worth making a fair use case for one (I would probably say that such a case could be made, but we have different perspectives on the matter)?
    • I can't see any being public domain. I think a fair use claim could be made if I had a bit more about the importance of his work as an illustrator, but I think I'd rather use the space for photos of fungi anyway. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Innsbruck

  • In 1970, Moser became the president of the Austrian Mycological Society — Seems a bit out of place here
  • serving to encourage others to engage with Cortinarius in a meaningful way. — This is pretty vague
    • Adjusted.
  • It was a study of Cortinarius, Dermocybe, and Stephanopus, the latter described for the first time, in South America. — This is confusing, particularly the final clause. Stephanopus had been described before, but never in South America? If so, it could be clarified by removing the final comma, or adding a semicolon somewhere, perhaps after Stephanopus.
    • A study of three genera in South America, one of which was described for the first time. I'm pretty sure it's grammatically sound, but if it confused you, it will confuse others, so I've rewritten the sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1983, in recognition of his forthcoming 60th birthday, an article dedicated to Moser was published in Sydowia. The piece, compiled by Franz Schinner, C. Furrer-Ziogas, and Horak, contained a detailed biography of Moser and a full bibliography of the 116 research publications he had authored or co-authored between 1949 and 1983. — Better suited under "Recognition"?

Retirement and death

  • the earliest possible date — What exactly does this mean? Surely he could have retired earlier if he wanted, it just would have been disadvantageous to do so (pension, benefits, etc.)?
  • identifying 70 previously undocumented species, including some new to science. — So there were undocumented species that were not new to science? Does that mean that they were known, but no description had been published?
  • 7th International Congress — The 7th International Congress for underwater archaeology? On a more serious note (though the organization should still be clarified), it might be worth adding the dates—11–17 August 2002—to show how he remained engaged until weeks before his death.

Research

Personal life

Recognition

  • ((E. Horak) E. Horak) — Mistake?
  • If interested, the Romanian article has a nice way of putting the 20-odd species/genera named after Moser into a chart.

Bibliography

  • The Italian article has what looks like a very comprehensive list of articles if you feel like some copy and paste is in order, but, especially with his significant output, I understand the desire to curate.

References

  • How do you feel about sfn footnotes?

Cited texts

  • Any reason why sometimes just the first initial is given, and sometimes the full first name? I added the first name for Benkert, but note that there is still a source cited with Moser's full first name.
  • Any reasons why some of these use citation templates and others do not?
    • Because the citation templates sometimes do things I don't want them to - some of these publications are in relatively unusual formats (e.g., a monograph published as a special issue of a journal(!)). I want them to be consistent/correct from the reader's point of view. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Hausknecht 2003 & Horak et al. 2003 use hyphens instead of en dashes for a reason (such as the actual article titles use hyphens), or is this inadvertent?

Overall

Image review

[edit]

CommentsSupport from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

His contributions to the Kleine Kryptogamenflora Mitteleuropas series of mycological guidebooks - shouldn't the German bit be in italics? (foreign words as italics)
Same issue with same work in body of text
published the first volume of the book series Farbatlas der Basidiomyzeten - same

Otherwise not much to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look - these are titles of series, and thus are proper nouns. From MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parentheses after the English name; e.g.: Nuremberg (German: Nürnberg). See § Words as words, above." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, am not seeing any outstanding prose issues and I think it is comprehensive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and working
  • Formats
  • Ref 25, Schinner et al: source gives a page range of 331–347. Can you be more specific?
  • No- I'm citing it to prove its own existence. The claim it's citing is: "In 1983, in recognition of his forthcoming 60th birthday, an article dedicated to Moser was published in Sydowia. The piece, compiled by Franz Schinner, C. Furrer-Ziogas, and Horak, contained a detailed biography of Moser and a full bibliography of the 116 research publications he had authored or co-authored between 1949 and 1983." Josh Milburn (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has ref 29, Wasser 1995, got a page no, but not ref 30 to the same source?
  • Same issue with ref 35, Horak et al 2002. Other citations to this source carry page numbers.
  • Same issue with refs 36 and 37
  • In the list of cited texts, IMA (2002) appears to be out of alphabetical sequence
  • What is the language for the Benkert sources?
  • The third Horak source has Sydowia in the "journal=" field, but the link doesn't go there. Needs a pipe to Sydowia (journal)
  • Same issue in Schinner
  • Quality/reliability: All sources are high-quality and meet the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Dealt with some, leave the others with me. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done, a long as you're happy with the slightly unusual citation of a whole volume of a journal (though it's a funny source - somewhere between an edited collection and a journal...). Thanks again! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
The problem is that the word "in" seems to be missing from the sentence? Such as "are some of the species in the genus first described by Moser"? FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; fixed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]
  • I'm doing this in the wrong order ... sorry about that, but better late than never. I generally like to get my mini-prose-support in early. I'm trying to get up to speed on a variety of botanical topics. I know it's a little strange to make the edits directly rather than commenting here ... I'm happy to do this in the normal way if you prefer. I like your edits so far, btw. Standard disclaimer: feel free to revert my copyediting at FAC anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ökologie is translated as "ecology" at leo.org. Anyone here a native German-speaker?
    • Ecology is basically the study of relations, so the translations certainly aren't far apart. "Water ecology" is not a term I've heard; I'm guessing it means something like "relations within the water cycle"; "aquatic ecology" is surely wrong. I'll go with water ecology, as that's a pretty direct translation. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Röhrlinge und Blätterpilze [Gilled and Pored Mushrooms]: It actually translates as "Pored and Gilled Mushrooms" ... I did a gsearch trying to find one page with both the German and English titles ... no luck. But if Gilled and Pored Mushrooms is an accepted English title for it, then that's fine.
  • Consider searching throughout for "a number of" and either deleting it or replacing it with something more specific. Some copyeditors don't like the term, and I think a case can be made that it's always ambiguous, at least on Wikipedia.
  • "According to some of his colleagues, "Moser was rather shy ..." ": This strikes me as ambiguous; it wasn't several people talking in unison. It might work best to paraphrase at least the first part of it, rather than quoting. That would make it more believable that it represents a general view.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 20 October 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [7].

Cyril Bassett

[edit]
Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first of several biographies I hope to bring to FAC as a part of a project to get at least most of the New Zealand Victoria Cross recipients of the First World War to FA class. Cyril Basset was the first soldier of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force to be awarded the VC during the war, for his actions during the Gallipoli Campaign. This article has been through GAN and last year was the subject of a Milhist A-Class review. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • He served on the Home Front and by the time Link Home Front.
  • Corps of New Zealand Engineers, assigned to the New Zealand Divisional Signal Company No link for the New Zealand Divisional Signal Company?
  • Initially based in Egypt, after a period of training Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt.
  • My preference is to avoid linking countries - I developed this approach in the past in response to reviewer's feedback in GA/A-Class reviews. If another reviewer brings this up as an issue though, I will link it. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August 1915, a series of offensives against Turkish positions Pipe Turkish with the Ottoman Empire.
  • was captured by the brigade's Wellington Infantry Battalion No link for the unit?
  • had achieved the rank of lieutenant colonel No hyphen in the rank?
  • He was survived by his two daughters and his wife What's the name of his wife?
  • In the infobox the years should be four-digits.
  • a series of offensives against Turkish positions along the Gallipoli front were You mean "was"?
  • Corporal Bassett, in full daylight and under a continuous and heavy fire Remove the "a".
  • and the second in March 1918, when he was wounded Remove the extra space.
  • By 1939 he was manager of the Auckland Town Hall branch --> "By 1939 he was the manager of the Auckland Town Hall branch".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5 Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I have actioned amendments in response to some of your comments although there are a few I responded to above. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks: I carried out a few, and they are generally OK. With ref 9, it supports "...and the second in March 1918, when he was wounded in an artillery barrage on the headquarters of the New Zealand Rifle Brigade, where he was the signals officer. The same barrage killed the brigade's commander, Brigadier-General Harry Fulton." This is cited to Austin 1924, p. 299. It's very hard to find p. 299 in the linked source – it would help if you gave a chapter ref. However, I found the page and it checks out OK.
  • Formats: no issues
  • Quality/reliability: no issues – sources meet FA quality criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, thanks for checking this. RE Austin, perhaps I should make the url to the specific chapter in the source? Zawed (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in fine shape. I have some comments:

  • Strictly speaking the Victoria Cross Bassett received was the highest award for gallantry that could be awarded "at the time", as there is now the Victoria Cross for New Zealand
  • "He was the first and only soldier" is tautological, if he was the only one, he clearly was the first. Suggest dropping "first and"
  • suggest indenting Battle of the Somme under Western Front in the infobox
  • his full name should be provided in full and cited in the body
  • "his courage under fire was noted" but no award was made at that time?
  • suggest moving his citation to the chronologically appropriate point in the narrative, and just retaining the recommendation when he actually did the actions that resulted in the award
  • Not sure I fully understand the comment about retaining the recommendation, but I have reordered the content a little here. I didn't delete any material as I didn't think there was much overlap of content. Zawed (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant was following the chronology of recommendation and award, rather than immediately saying he was awarded it and giving the citation. At the time of the recommendation, state that Temperley recommended him for the VC, then talk about his evacuation, then when the award is announced, then provide the citation and related narrative about his being the only NZ Gallipoli VC and his investiture. This approach avoids jumping back and forth. Just a suggestion anyway, feel free to disregard it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Buckingham Palace
  • any info about what he was recommended for the MC for?
  • "the couple would havehad two daughters"
  • was the National Military Reserve a formal thing? Is there an article for it to link to?
  • "He was modest of his achievements" as achievements is repetitive
  • "W[w]hen I got my medal"
  • "the only New Zealand signaller"
  • "Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals" or intro the abbreviation when it is mentioned earlier and use that
  • Royal New Zealand Returned and Services' Association and link
  • link ANZAC Day

That's all I have. Nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, thanks for taking a look at this. I have responded with edits and comments above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I've clarified one point above, but it is nothing that would stop my support. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

Support by Ian

[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I reviewed and supported at MilHist ACR and found precious little to complain about, so too here although I did tweak a few things. I'll take Brian's and Nikki's source and image reviews as read. The only query I have, and it doesn't affect my support, is to double-check that there's no information on, or recommendation for, the MC that he was not awarded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ian, I tell a lie; I went back to the library and found a short history of the NZ Divisional Signals by Ellis in which there are couple of snippets about Bassett. This includes a sentence on his actions in March 1918 which as it turns out led to the gallantry award recommendation. I have added this to the article now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]
  • Looking for stuff not mentioned, if any. Not saying must add:
    • "Àuckland War Memorial Museum: A commemorative pine tree - a radiata pine (Pinus radiata)- was planted by Lt Col. Cyril Bassett VC on Anzac Day, 1950, in front of the Museum, where it still srands (Blackley 1997). It is a peculiar, moribund tree (Figure 9). The tree is said to have been grown from a seedling taken from Lone Pine Ridge at Gallipoli. As the tree is obviously not going to survive very much longer, a new tree - an Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis from Motuihe Island - was planted near it on 27 August 2003 (Cameron 2003)." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has good stuff ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • here
    • here ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lingzhi, thanks for the comments. I have added the material about the tree planting to the later life and legacy section. It seemed to work best following the initial mention of the war museum displaying his medals. The other links relate to the VC action itself although I don't think they add materially to the current description of this in the article so have opted to not use them. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [8].

Operation Catechism

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Catechism was the last in the long-running series of air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II. Crippled by damage from earlier attacks, the battleship had been downgraded to a floating battery and stationed in a vulnerable anchorage. She survived the Operation Obviate attack on 29 October 1944 due to luck, but little chance of survival when the pair of elite heavy bomber squadrons which had been tormenting her struck again on 12 November. Two hits from massive bombs and several near misses left Tirpitz a wreck and killed most of her crew.

This article marks the end of the series I've been working on since 2013 covering the British air attacks on Tirpitz during 1944, and is now the only of these articles which is not an FA. It passed a GA nomination in August, as well as a Military History Wikiproject A-class review which concluded a week ago. I've since further expanded the article, drawing on additional sources, and copy edited it. I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your time and for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • suggest locating Fættenfjord on the locator map (if it is in scope)
  • can anything be said in terms of a description of the Johnnie Walker mines?
  • Because Tipritz
  • "20 No. 9 Squadron and 19 No. 617 Squadron" is a bit odd, maybe using twenty and nineteen would be better?
  • same with "No. 617 Squadron contributed 18, and No. 9 Squadron 13"
  • suggest "Tromsø area, eachboth of the squadrons"
  • could you add a sentence fragment explaining where "Bruno" turret was located on the ship?
  • "resulting in the volume of fire directed at the Lancasters to dropping away" or "resulting in a significant reduction in the volume of fire directed at the Lancasters"
  • suggest "The crews of the No. 463 Squadron film aircraft" and "and the crews of several other Lancasters"
  • "and only one was could be found"
  • comma after "rescue efforts ended"
  • this is a comment only, but it is weird that No.9's less accurate bombing wasn't at least in part put down to the smoke from the fires created by the No. 617 bombs
    • Yes, agree. Sweetman notes though that the inquiry found that the squadron's bombardiers had the battleship clearly in their sights when they set their bomb sights so this was no excuse - presumably the smoke occurred during the subsequent run to the bomb release point, where it shouldn't have made any difference to accuracy. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • During Operation Source on 22 September 1943, she was severely damaged Remove the 1943. Believe the readers already know that we're still in the year 1943.
  • Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, the commander of the German Navy Link German Navy or pipe it to the back then navy.
  • The times here are in BST (British Sumer Time) but from 1941 until 1947 Britain had BDST (British Double Summer Time) shouldn't we change them?
    • The British Summer Time article notes that the UK moved to BST from autumn until Spring during the war. The sources also most frequently use BST, presumably as it aligned with the local time (Sweetman cheerfully uses a crazy mix of times though, which was tiresome to unpick!) Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The retired United States Navy Rear Admiral William H. Langenberg judged that Britons used an hyphen between ranks before and in the WWII.
  • which still uses them to cover excavations on roads in the Oslo region I do not think we should link Oslo here.
  • British leadership acted correctly on the basis of the information Remove "on the basis of" and replace it with "based on".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Maury

[edit]
  • I have split a para in the lede.
  • "attack was possible.[49] At around 9:15 am " - para break here? it's somewhat long
  • "next two days. In the days after" - para break
  • "correspondent Ed Murrow.[44] The success" - and here. Actually, it would seem the second part of this should be moved under the item above it, the press tour seems to be something that should be its own para
  • OT - "conspicuous bravery" - hrm. Given the almost complete lack of defense I'm not sure how conspicuous that bravery was!
    • I don't fancy the idea of flying a large slow bomber straight and level towards a heavily armed hostile battleship on three occasions! The medal recognised his 98(!) bomber missions, as well as the three raids against Tirpitz. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several personnel assigned to observer posts, anti-aircraft guns and ships" - the ships... that seems odd. Is that the AA ships? Can we be any more specific here?
  • "by two Tallboys.[96] A team from " - para break.
  • "Operation Catechism.[107] In 1950 the" - and here.
    • Disagree - this would result in a single sentence para, which is not FA-level prose. The para also covers a single topic (the rivalry, which expressed itself through stealing the bulkhead) Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possibly due to the latter squadron's bombardiers inputting an inaccurate wind speed into their bombsights." - it is perhaps worth a brief note here that wind speed it was the only input to the Mk. XIV that needed to be done manually. The rest were measured automatically through the aircraft instruments. In contrast, SABS required no external inputs and measured the aircraft's actual movement over the ground directly, meaning wind speed -and everything else- was accounted for directly. SABS was thus roughly twice as accurate as Mk. XIV, and this is almost certainly the reason their very first bomb hit her. 617 put up some *astonishing* results with SABS, on the order of modern GPS-guided ordinance.
    • The inquiry seems to have not judged that this was an excuse (e.g., that No. 9 Squadron should have been much more accurate than it was), so I'd rather not go into this detail. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! I'll have another read-over in a few days to see if I missed anything. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Sorry for my tardy return, a re-read looks all-good. Support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Maury Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support by Pendright

[edit]

Lede:

  • Operation Catechism was a British air raid of World War II which resulted in the destruction of the German battleship Tirpitz.
  • Is it fair to say that Operation Catechism was the code name devised for a British air raid?
  • The name of operations is usually used to refer to the operation as a whole, and sources refer to these events as being simply "Operation Catechism" rather than "the attack designated Operation Catechism" or similar. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>It’s not about the source; it’s about providing a reader with a bit more context. Explaining that it is a code name hardly supersedes, or corrupts Operation Catechism. Anyway, this is how I see it. Pendright (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute "that" for which. In Aus/Eng, Bri/Eng, and Am/Eng "that" is used when the clause is esstenial to the meaning of the sentence. Which is used when it is not essential.
<>Missed! Pendright (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Norwegian town of Tromsø.
The link refers to Tromsø as a city?
It seems to have been a town at the time Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>A further review of the link indicates it was a city in 1940. Pendright (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right - our article on the place says it was city-sized. Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 940 and 1,204 German sailors were killed.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "sailor" in this way: A person whose job it is to work as a member of the crew of a commercial or naval ship or boat, especially one who is below the rank of officer.
Fixed 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The attack on 12 November marked the end of a long-running series of air and naval operations against Tirpitz which sought to eliminate the threat she posed to Allied shipping.

Background:

As it was believed that further aircraft carrier raids would be fruitless due to shortcomings with the Royal Navy's aircraft and their armament, responsibility for sinking Tirpitz was transferred to the RAF's Bomber Command.
  • Consider adding the definite article "the" before shortcomings.
<>I beg to differ. The definite article (the) is used to refer to a specific noun. Shortcomings fit this definition. Pendright (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a semicolon after armmament instead of the connma.
<>I beg to differ. This sentence has two independent clauses. A semicolon – not a comma, joins two independent clauses without a coordinating conjunction. Pendright (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the underlying problem here is that the sentence was over-long and trying to cover too much ground. I've split it into two sentences, and tweaked the language to be clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An anchorage was selected just off the coast of the island of Håkøya where it was believed the water was shallow enough to prevent the battleship from sinking if she was attacked again.
  • Consider a srmicolon after Håkøya.
<>Same as above - Pendright (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This might be an American English vs British English issue? This does look fine to my Australian eyes, while adding a semicolon looks confusing. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<#> Actually, it’s an Australian thing too! But if you continue to be so opposed to it, revert it so it passes your Australian eye test. Pendright (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing "if she was attacked again" to "if the next attack were to be successful."
  • Tirpitz was struck by a single Tallboy during the attack, which caused extensive damage to her bow and rendered her unfit for combat.
Consider substituting "that" for which and removing the comma.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... transferred to near the northern Norwegian town of Tromsø
city of Tromsø?
As above Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Same as above - Pendright (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • British reconnaissance aircraft located Tirpitz at Tromsø on 18 October.
Add the definite article "the" before British.
As multiple aircraft were involved, the plural is appropriate Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>The definite article (the) is used to refer to a specific noun. British reconnaissance aircraft fits this definition. Pendright (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked to specify what the recon aircraft were, which I think clarifies this. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This violated Sweden's neutrality, but allowed the bombers to approach Tromsø from the south-east, which it was believed the Germans would not expect.
Consider this: This violated Sweden's neutrality, but allowed the bombers to approach Tromsø from the south-east and it was believed to be a move the Germans would not expect.
Tweaked into two sentences Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations - British:

  • Bomber Command remained determined to sink Tirpitz
Add the definite article "the" before Bomber.
Standard usage for the RAF "Bomber Command" of World War II is to not add a 'the'. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A report issued by the Royal Navy's Naval Intelligence Division on 3 November judged that it remained necessary to attack Tirpitz in northern Norway as the battleship could potentially be repaired and made fully operational if she was left unmolested and able to reach a major base.
  • This is a 47 word sentence without a pause - consider adding a comma before as.
  • Consider a major port, instead of base.
  • As it would be difficult to target the battleship during the period of perpetual darkness in the northern winter, ...
Because there was some twilight and daylight for sevral hours, you might consider adding the word almost or virtually before perpetual?
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A gale warning was issued that night, however, and the raid was cancelled ...
Drop however or and?
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 10 November the Lancaster crews were briefed for another attack on Tirpitz.
Place a comma after November - an introductory phrase.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both squadrons moved to northern Scotland on 11 November in response to meteorological reports which indicated that there would be clear weather over Tromsø for up to two days.
Consider this: Both squadrons moved to northern Scotland on 11 November; in response to the meteorological reports that indicated there would be clear weather over Tromsø for up to two days.
I think that also splits the sentence unnecessarily Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>The sentemce is split or joined with a comma because it has two independent thoughts or clauses. Pendright (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this sentence a bit, but a construction with a semi-colon doesn't look right to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations - German:

  • The smoke generators which had previously protected Tirpitz at Kaafjord were still being installed at the time of Operation Catechism and were not yet operational.
  • Substitute "that" for which.
  • Isn't this already implied - ... "and were not yet operational."
  • In their place, seven fishing boats fitted with smoke generators were stationed near the battleship; these were not capable of generating a smokescreen which could completely cover Tirpitz.
  • Consider substituting "positioned" for stationed.
  • Subsitute "that" for which.

Pause here - Pendright (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments - I'll reply tomorrow Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>I’ve left comments to some of your above responses; they are marked with this symbol <>.  ::Pendright (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this - I think that I've addressed these responses. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All comments in this segment have now been addressed. However, please see the above FYI note identified by the symbol<#> Pendright (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attack - Departure

  • A total of 32 Lancasters were dispatched. No. 617 Squadron contributed eighteen, and No. 9 Squadron thirteen.
  • Combine these two sentences - join them with a semicolon.
  • Eighteen should be 18 and thirteen should be 13.
  • 18 x 13 = 31, one short?
<>I stand corrected here - accept my apology! :::::04:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a fair bit going on here. I've tweaked a bit to clarify that the two RAF squadrons dispatched only bombers. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the snow and ice which had formed on them overnight.
Chage which to thant
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As had also been the case during Operation Obviate, ...
Is "also" necessary?
No - it's a word I habitually over-use. Removed. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attack- Approach:

  • The Lancasters were grouped into "gaggles" of four to six aircraft which flew at altitudes ...
Change which to that
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 7:39 am and 8:50 am local time (which was equivalent to BST) several reports of Lancasters in the area were received from observation posts.
  • Is it worth mentioning who received the report(s)?
  • The source doesn't specify who the reports were first sent to - presumably the observation posts' headquarters. As is noted later in the para, it took some time for the reports to be passed to Tirpitz and the fighter unit. I've tweaked the wording here to be a bit clearer though. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to: (the equivalent to BST)
  • I've tweaked this to remove the references to local time, given that it was the same as BST. Sorting out the times was painful when writing the article, and there's no need to inflict this on readers! Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At around 9:15 am local time Tirpitz contacted Bardufoss to ...
Consider a comma afer local time.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear where the other fighters were dispatched to, as one post-attack report states they were sent to the border with Sweden, another that they proceeded to Kaafjord and two pilots claimed to have reached Tromsø after Tirpitz was destroyed.
You might consider breaking this long sentence up into two? And consider changing states to psst tense.
Done on both points - thanks also for catching this. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Tirpitz:

  • Tait's aircraft was the first to drop its Tallboy, which hit Tirpitz.
If this means that Tait's aircraft was the first to drop its Tallboy, and the first to score a direct hit on Tirpitz, perhaps it should be expressed in this or like terms?
I think that this states that concisely? Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 617 Squadron completed its attack at 9:44 am BST with all aircraft bombing.
... with all aircraft bombing - is this redundant?
No - in most of the previous attacks not all aircraft had bombed (as the pilots were under orders to return to base with their expensive bombs if the battleship was obscured by smoke) Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tirpitz was rapidly destroyed. She was struck by two Tallboys which penetrated her armoured deck.
  • Add the word being after rapidly.
  • I don't think that's necessary - this is the subject sentence for the para, with the para describing how the battleship was destroyed. The next para describes how this resulted in her sinking. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change which to that.
  • The other, which was dropped by Tait's aircraft, struck the port side amidships near the tracks for the aircraft catapult and exploded over the port boiler room.
Consider this: The other was dropped by Tait's aircraft, and struck the port side amidships near the tracks for the aircraft catapult and exploded over one of the port boiler rooms.
That's better; done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This explosion caused severe damage which resulted in extensive flooding, fires throughout the ship and a list of 15 to 20 degrees to port
  • Change which to that.
  • Replace the comma after flooding with a semclon.
  • The current link is to the article on the topic, avoiding a redirect. As this is getting into dictionary definition territory, I don't think an article on list for watercraft is likely to eventuate. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and blew away much of the gravel which had been dumped beneath her.
Change which to that.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Tallboy probably hit Tirpitz; John Sweetman states that this bomb ricocheted off the side of the ship while William H. Garzke and Robert O. Dulin have written that it is likely to have penetrated the armoured deck near "Caesar" turret in the stern of the ship and started a fire near a powder or shell magazine.
Consider breaking up this 57 word sentence?
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the first bomb struck his ship Weber ordered the crew to evacuate the armoured citadel and attempt to counter the flooding.
Place a comma after ship.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counterflooding proved impossible, as the controls for the necessary systems had been abandoned and the volume of water which was entering the ship was well beyond their ability to fight had they been operational.
Consider this: Counter flooding proved impossible as the controls for the necessary systems had been abandoned, and the volume of water that was entering the ship was well beyond their ability to fight had they been operational.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pause here - Pendright (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>All comments in this "second segment" have ben addressed. Pendright (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

  • These sailors were doomed unless they were able to move to the former bottom of the ship and be rescued before their air supply ran out.
  • Is the term sailors inclusive enough here?
  • Consider changing from to the former bottom of the ship to "what was once the bottom of the ship"?
  • Place a comma after ship.
  • Others were trapped in air pockets within the wreck.
  • Wreckage instead of wreck.
  • Shortly after Tirpitz capsized, parties of sailors climbed onto the hull and painted marks on locations were they heard signs of life.
Change were to "where".
Oops, fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A total of 87 sailors were rescued from within the hull in the 24 hours after the attack.
Sailors?
Also changed to "men". Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cutting continued for two further days, and was finally abandoned when it was assessed that the oxygen supply inside the wreck would have been exhausted; no survivors were recovered during this period.
Wreckage for wreck.
As above Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estimates of the total number of sailors killed vary, with the most common figures lying between 940 and 1,204.

Sailors?
Added "and officers" Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many Norwegian civilians in Tromsø were pleased that Tirpitz had been destroyed, it meant the end of an order requiring that they billet members of her crew.
Replace the comma with a semicolon.
I think that this would unnecessarily break up the sentence Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Work began on stripping Tirpitz's wreck soon after rescue efforts ended, and continued until the late 1950s.
Change wreck to wreckage.
As above Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to the end of the war German personnel removed the ships' brass propellers so they could be melted down, as well as some other components.
  • Add a comma after war.
  • ships'?
  • The wreck was sold to a Norwegian scrap dealing company in 1948, and was broken up in situ.
  • Change wreck to wreckage.
  • Salvage work concluded in 1957, by which time most of the battleship had been removed.
most remanents of the battleship?
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bodies of German sailors recovered from the wreck by scrappers were initially buried alongside unwanted parts of Tirpitz, but this ceased following complaints by a local church minister.
  • Substitute remains for bodies.
  • Sailors?
  • Wreck to wreckage
  • The hundreds of other bodies which were recovered were buried in cemeteries.
Consider this: The remains of hundreds of others were recovered and buried in Norwegian cemeteries.
That's much better - done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return to base:

  • One of the No. 9 Squadron Lancasters was badly damaged by anti-aircraft gunfire and its pilot decided to attempt a crash-landing in Sweden.
Add a comma afrer gunfire.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • where its pilot was debriefed by Cochrane.
Reintroduce Cochrane to readers.
Added his rank Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the days after the attack the airmen received congratulations from King George VI, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the War Cabinet and many others.
Place a comma afer attack.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Churchill was congratulated by his fellow Allied leaders Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.
Place a comma after leaders.
I don't think that that was necessary, as there were other Allied leaders. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two airmen also gave interviews; Tait described the raid in a BBC broadcast and Williams spoke with American CBS correspondent Ed Murrow.
His proper name was Edward R.Murrow.
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, Tait was awarded a third bar to his Distinguished Service Order (DSO) in recognition of his "conspicuous bravery and extreme devotion to duty in the face of the enemy, constantly exemplified over a long period of operational flying", with the citation also noting his role in leading three attacks on Tirpitz.
Consider breaking this 52 word sentence up?
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the relevant documentation did not survive the war, and accounts from survivors are at times contradictory.
Replace are with were.
Present tense is appropriate here (and it's entirely possible that further accounts will surface from the papers of veterans, oral history from their family members, etc). Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweetman judged that the failure ultimately resulted from the order to intercept the bombers being issued too late and a lack of clear plans to coordinate the defence.
  • Identify Sweetman as ...
  • Add a comma after late.
  • He attributed the former to delays in recognising that the bombers were headed for Tirpitz, as well as inefficient chains of communication which slowed the speed within which this information could be acted on; for instance, it was not possible for German naval personnel to pass information directly to their Luftwaffe equivalents, as messages had to be sent through single-service channels and could only be transmitted between services at relatively senior levels.
This is a 72 word sentence - consider breaking it up.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniel Knowles reached a similar conclusion, labelling Tirpitz's defences "chaotic" due to the poor communications between the battleship and Bardufoss.
Identify Daniel Knowles as ...
one Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British:

  • During the trip they inspected the wreck of the battleship and interviewed key German officers.
Change wreck to wreckage.
As above Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A team from the Royal Navy's Directorate of Naval Construction also inspected the wreck between 4 September and 14 October 1945 and interviewed witnesses to the attack.
  • Change wreck to wreckage.
  • Add a comma after 1945
  • This team judged that a lack of watertight integrity resulting from flaws in Tirpitz's design and the watertight doors which divided compartments being left open as the crew evacuated led to the battleship rapidly capsizing.
  • Place a comma after design.
  • Change which to that.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for this excellent review. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All comments in this last segment and of the review have now been addressed. Thank you for your cooperation and the civil manner in which all comments were addressed. Supporting! Pendright (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very detailed review - the article is much the better for it. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! Pendright (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi Nick, I think we just need an image review now -- on that subject, might be worth noting in the infobox that the pic is a painting (looked a lot like a colour photo on my screen res until I got in closer)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian @Nikkimaria: could you please check that the images here are OK? From memory, the only one which is different to those you checked in the ACR is that in Operation Catechism#Historiography. The painting is by an artist employed by the War Artists' Advisory Committee, a government agency, so should be PD under the rules around UK Government works. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I think that this is now ready to close (sorry to hassle you, but I'm keen to grab the 75th anniversary TFA slot, and asking for it sooner rather than later would be helpful for the coords there). Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Nick, but per my earlier comment were you planning to mention in the infobox caption that the image is a painting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry I miss-read that as being a pointer for the image reviewer to check that the image was OK per the criteria for paintings rather than photos. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Nick, some last-minute minor tweak suggestions...

Sorry to add these so late, JennyOz (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [9].

Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another article on a class of German battleships (though we're nearing the end!), these were interesting vessels that adopted the "hail of fire" principle that a few navies experimented with during the brief period between the introduction of quick-firing guns and the adaptation of said technology to large-caliber guns - as readers with a keen sense of foreshadowing will deduce, these ships rapidly became second-class vessels once foreign battleships with larger guns that could fire just as fast began to enter service (which was compounded when the first dreadnought battleships began to be built, less than a decade after these ships were completed). Like the other outdated battleships of the German fleet, they saw limited activity during World War I, and were quickly deactivated in 1915. The article passed a MILHIST A-class review this past July, and I think it's at or close to FA standards. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, so have only a few things to quibble about here:

  • in the lead, suggest "The Kaiser Friedrich III-class consisted of five pre-dreadnought battleships of the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy); all ships of the class were named for German emperors."
    • Done
  • in the lead, why "SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II" but not SMS for the rest? Or none?
    • Forgot to pipe it ;)
  • "The Kaiser Friedrich III class saw"
    • Done
  • in the lead, suggest "for rapidity of fire over weight of shell"→"for higher volumes of fire over weight of shell"
    • Works for me
  • in the lead, suggest "Thereafter they were" rather than "They thereafter were" to put the adverb ahead of the pronoun
    • Done
  • "which werewas finally approved in March 1894"
    • Fixed
  • "allowed a significant savings"
    • Good catch
  • "like those on the British Majestic-class battleship"
    • Done
  • "have necessitated a halving of the main battery"
    • Good idea
  • suggest adding o/a to the infobox
    • Done
  • should "fore mast" be "foremast"? There is another example of this
    • Yup
  • "excellent sea-keeping vessels"?
    • Reworded
  • there is a bit of repetition regarding the boilers of Kaiser Friedrich III
    • Trimmed the second time that's mentioned
  • "four Marine and six cylindrical boilers" fire-tube? This recurs.
    • Clarified these

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • instead of PS in the body, perhaps use "metric horsepower", as PS isn't a well known initialisation
    • De-abbreviated them
  • were the 8.8 cm guns for torpedo boats defence?
    • Indeed

That's the lot I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • of five pre-dreadnought battleships of the German Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy); all ships of the class were named for German emperors.. Double dot here.
    • Fixed
  • for higher volumes of fire over weight of shell Merge "over weight".
    • "Over" in this context means "instead"
  • by the Japanese cruisers' victory over a heavier-armed Chinese fleet at the Pipe both Japanese and Chinese to the Empire of Japan and the Qing dynasty.
    • Done
  • and four 240 kW 74 V generators in the other three ships Volts is here an adjective? Why isn't it full written like the sentence before?
    • Fixed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: - anything left to address? Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review

[edit]
Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Link reserve, volt, elevation, casemate, rate of fire,
    • Done
  • intended to raze the superstructure A little bit of hyperbole here
    • Reworded
  • heavier-armed "more heavily armed", I think
    • Good catch
  • Transverse and longitudinal steel frames were used to build the hulls for the Kaiser Friedrich III-class ships. Steel hull plates were riveted to the frame. Rather think that this is too much detail. But do you know if they were Longitudinal framed?
    • Trimmed - no, they predated Isherwood's design
  • Move the bit about hydraulically powered turrets to the sentence that names the turrets and the same sort of thing for the 15cm guns
    • Done
  • Add a plus sign for elevation limits
    • Done
  • hyphen in "coastal defense role"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [10].

Nestor Lakoba

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A national hero in Abkhazia, a region that most of the international community considers part of Georgia, Nestor Lakoba was an early Bolshevik who due to his friendship with Stalin effectively ruled the region as his own fief for a decade (they called it "Lakobistan" due to his control). As Stalin started the Great Purge of the 1930s, his opinion of Lakoba diminished, and so a rival for Stalin's favour, Beria, had Lakoba poisoned. This recently passed GA, and I hope to see it move through here as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: no issues
  • Quality/reliability: the sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, and to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor prose comment: I haven't checked the prose, but while carrying out my sources review I noticed the phrase "As Lakoba was incredibly popular in Abkhazia...". I'd advise the replacement of "incredibly" with something a little less hyperbolic, and more encyclopaedic. Just a suggestion. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over the sources. I also made the change suggested, tying it back to his relationship with Stalin, which is more factual and easier to demonstrate. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Fixed
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added
  • File:Georgian_soviet_republic1922.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
Added a source for it.
  • File:Lenin_stalin_gorky-02_(cropped)_(b).jpg: when/where was this first published?
It is cropped on this image. This is cited as being from a 2014 book by Stephen Kotin (Stalin Vol. I), which cites it from one of the Russian archives, and created by Lenin's sister Maria, who died in 1937. I can see if it was published earlier. I doubt the tag saying it was published in the US prior to 1924, but would the other tag (author dead 80+ years) still be appropriate?
Yes, but you'd still need a tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Is there any appropriate ones that would fit it? Kaiser matias (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found any earlier publication? If not, {{PD-US-unpublished}} might work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As noted it was published in Pravda in 1931, a party/state-owned newspaper. I'll have to confirm, but I don't think an author has ever been credited for it. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list but it will need to be archived within the next few days if it doesn't not attract more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been slightly tied up recently myself, but was thinking this may happen. I'll try and see if I can find some reviewers over the weekend, but if not then all good. It is what it is. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note I have sent some requests for comments, so hopefully some folks stop by. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

[edit]

The article is well-written and the subject is treated quite evenhandedly. Kaiser has done a great job. There are some thoughts I would like to share.

Intro section
[edit]

served as the head of Abkhazia after its incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1921.

There was no Soviet Union in 1921. So it would be more accurate to state that Lakoba served as the head of Abkhazia after the Bolshevik victory in 1921 or something along this line.

Changed to conquest, as that is effectively what happened.

Though nominally a part of Georgia with a special status of 'union republic'

For the sake of accuracy, I would suggest replacing Georgia with the Georgian SSR and delinking the next occurrence of the Georgian SSR in that paragraph.

Done.

Immensely popular in Abkhazia

"Immensely" can be seen as a weasel word. IF anything, there were no opinion polls at that time in the USSR. I think it would be enough to just state that he was popular.

Done
Early Bolshevik activities section
[edit]

Georgia never fully maintained control of the region during this time, and it was under the control of the APC until the Bolshevik invasion of 1921.

This claim needs to be substantiated. The APC was mostly loyal to the Georgian republic; critics even claimed it was subservient primarily to the Georgian interests. The source for this claim (Lakoba, 1990) is also problematic. It is hardly a neutral third-party publication.

That's fair, and I've added a second citation and tried to clarify that there was no real resolution.
Establishment as leader subsection
[edit]

Lakoba returned to Abkhazia after it had been occupied by Bolshevik Russia, as part of its conquest of Georgia.

Indicating the date, or at least the year, when this occurred would be helpful.

Done
Development of Abkhazia subsection
[edit]

The Abkhaz historian Stanislav Lakoba (no relation) has argued...

If the parenthetical remark here is to indicate that Stanislav Lakoba was not a relative of Nestor Lakoba, it should be sourced.

Clarified that he is indeed a distant relation, with citation.

The move was unpopular in Abkhazia and saw large-scale public protests, the first of their kind against the Soviet authorities.

The statement is rather bold. I would like to see more reliable sources to support it. There had been not only protests but armed rebellions against the Soviet policies in Georgia well before 1931, for example in August 1924. A revolt in highland Adjara in 1929 against the crackdown on Muslim practices also comes to my mind.

Clarified it was the first in Abkhazia, not the Soviet Union as a whole.
Rivalry with Beria
[edit]

The finished work, On the Question of the History of the Bolshevik Organizations in the Transcaucasus (К вопросу об истории большевистских организаций в Закавказье) greatly falsified Stalin's role in the region.

For the sake of clarity, I would suggest indicating that this falsification was in fact false aggrandizement.

Done
Death section
[edit]

As Lakoba was incredibly popular in Abkhazia and well-liked by Stalin, it was difficult for Beria to have him removed.

"incredibly" sounds unencyclopedic and POVish.

Removed it.

Though Stalin was not directly responsible for the death of Lakoba, it is likely he played a role, as Beria would not have been able to eliminate someone as prominent as Lakoba without his leader's approval.

Since Stalin’s role is likely, it is still supposed to be a theory and should be properly attributed to its author, say, Ami Knight.

Clarified this idea comes from Knight.

Lakoba was accused of 'national deviation', of having helped Trotsky, and of trying to kill both Stalin and Beria.

To the best of my knowledge, the term to describe this particular type of dissent in the early USSR was "nationalist deviationism". Also, Beria did not attend Lakoba's funeral, but he did see off the coffin on its way back by train to Sukhumi. See Stalin: the court of the Red Tsar by Montefiore, p. 202.

Thanks, have modified that. And to note, my copy of Montefiore's book (the one used in the bibliography), has it on page 206.
Misc.
[edit]

The article uses both double and single quotation marks. I’m not exactly sure which one is preferable but I think we could opt for one of these. For example, the enemy of the people takes double quotation marks on one occasion and single quotation marks on the other. Also, titles of Russian and Georgian books and pieces of art are italicized throughout the text. I am not sure about Russian, but Georgian is not normally italicized. --KoberTalk 19:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure when the quotation marks were changed like that, but I've made them all double for consistency. And regarding the italics, a quick read of the MOS suggests that titles should remain italicized, even if foreign words (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_works), though I'll readily admit I'm no expert on the MOS.
@Kober: I want to say thanks for going through it. I'm glad to have someone familiar with the region go through it and spot things like you did. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. And thanks for a good job. Keep it up! --KoberTalk 04:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you be willing to support at this point? Kaiser matias (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the article meets all criteria. --KoberTalk 16:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by K.e.coffman

[edit]

As part of the GA review, I've compared the article's content with the Kotkin source: Kotkin, Stephen (2017), Stalin, Volume 2: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941, New York City: Penguin Press, ISBN 978-1-59420-380-0. The citations checked out, while I did not see plagiarism nor close paraphrasing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would you be willing to support at this point? Kaiser matias (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "This also ensured that during the era of collectivization, Abkhazia was largely spared," This sounds rather elliptical. Maybe "Lakoba successfully opposed the extension of collectivization to Abkhzia."
Done
  • "Rehabilitated after the death of Stalin in 1953" Rehabilited from what? You have not said that his reputation had been attacked.
Done
  • "who was in charge of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic" You say above that Abkhazia was part of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. You say below that Georgia was under Transcaucasian but I do not think you need to mention that at this point and could just say that Beria was in charge of Georgia.
This is confusing I'll agree, as the states shifted a lot, but at this point it would go "Abkhazia-Georgia-Transcaucasia". That said, I added a note after this line explaining Georgia was part of the latter, as that was the case, and as Beria controlled Transcaucasia (and not just Georgia by this point), it wouldn't be correct to say it like that. Open to other suggestions though, of course.
  • "Along with his brothers Vasily and Mikhail, Nestor was one of three sons." As you have mentioned two brothers you do not need to say three sons. Maybe "He had two brothers, Vasily and Mikhail."
Done
  • "Disinterested in religious study, Lakoba was frequently caught reading books banned by the school authorities." This is a non-sequitur.
Cleaned up the wording.
I have cleaned up further, but change it if you are not happy. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gained wider notability across Abkhazia" "notability" does not seem the right word here. Maybe enhanced his reputation or became better known.
Done
  • "On 16 February 1918, Efrem Eshba, an Abkhaz Bolshevik, aided by Russian sailors from warships docked at Sukhumi," This is ungrammatical.
Cleaned this up.
  • " They had met a couple years before when Lakoba had hid with the family." Hid from whom? The article on his wife says from British occupation forces and this is worth explaining in the paragraph above if it is true.
Added that note
  • "Stalin liked that Lakoba was a good marksman" This is ungrammatical.
Sorry I'm not seeing the issue, could you clarify? On my end, Lakoba was good at shooting, and Stalin liked that aspect, so the phrase works.
Thanks have made an adjustment.
  • " held in May 1924. There he was able to acquaint himself with Stalin, who was in the process of consolidating his power, and make a lasting impression on the leader." It would be helpful to explain earlier that he was not previously acquainted with Stalin.
Re-worded to make it more clearer.
  • "He also took advantage of the korenizatsiia policies, implemented throughout the 1920s, that benefited ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union, instead promoting his own confidants, who were often ethnic Abkhaz." I do not understand this. He took advantage of korenizatsiia policies, instead promoting his own confidants?
Clarified
Addressed most here. Will get back to the last two points when I can confirm some details. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Everything above is addressed, though I do have the one question regarding the marksman clause. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the last thing above. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He apparently told Sergo Ordzhonikidze that Beria once said that Ordzhonikidze "would have shot all the Georgians in Georgia if it was not for [Beria]" and discussed the rumour that Beria had worked as a counter-informant in Azerbaijan in 1920." I have several queries on this. 1. "apparently told". This is vague. Who is the source? 2. A descriptive phrase such as "the leading Georgian Bolshevik Sergo Ordzhonikidze" would be helpful. 3. The article on him says that he was Georgian - Beria claimed he would have shot all Georgians? 4. What is a counter-informant?
Have made some adjustments that should clear things up.
Done
  • "Though Stalin was not directly responsible for the death of Lakoba, and Knight suggests it is likely he played a role, as Beria would not have been able to eliminate someone as prominent as Lakoba without his leader's approval. This is ungrammatical (you should remove the word "and" before "Knight"). Also it does not make sense. If Stalin approved the murder he was directly responsible.
Again, clarified.
  • This does not seem any better to me. How about "Knight suggests that Stalin must have authorised Lakoba's murder, as Beria would not have dared to kill someone as prominent as Lakoba without his leader's approval." In addition, I would delete "also" in the following sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "(though he did see the coffin back to Sukhumi)" send the coffin back?
Fixed
  • "he succeeded in fulfilling the aims of a project first begun in 1933 at the start of the Soviet Union's Second five-year plan". What project?
Added the specifics.
  • "but was burnt down during the 1992–1993 war in Abkhazia". "was burnt down" implies that it was deliberate. Is this correct? Who burnt it and why?
That is a source of controversy that goes beyond the scope of the article or the FAC. But in short, it was likely burnt by the Georgian military as a means to attack Abkhaz culture, but like I said that's disputed and not confirmed, so I smoothed the wording a bit.
@Dudley Miles: Again have addressed things here, and appreciate your comments. Anything else just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the latest comments here. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work here, it really is appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2019 (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) 13 October 2019 [11].

SS Politician

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The SS Politician was a cargo boat that ran aground in 1941. She would have been just another statistic of a wartime shipping loss if it was not for one thing: she contained 22,000 cases (264,000 bottles) of scotch. It was the habit of Hebrideans to look at all wrecks on their shores as bounty to be rescued from the being lost, irrespective of the niceties of the maritime salvage laws. The fact that a Scotch-drinking writer by the name Compton Mackenzie lived on a neighbouring island and decided to use it as a basis for a humorous story meant that Politician was immortalised in the book and two films that go under the name Whisky Galore. There is a darker side to it all – and the book's pompous figure of Captain Waggett was, in reality a customs man named McColl, who persecuted and prosecuted anyone who had taken from the wreck. Any and all comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "the salvors was shipped back to its bonded warehouses, although this was also looted during its journey. No-one was injured or killed in the accident. Two salvage crews removed much of the cargo," You introduce the salvors after the first reference to them.
  • "While she was still being fitted out, she was hit by another ship and damaged.[8][9]" If she was still being fitted out, was she as yet a ship to justify "another"?
  • Ah, the old metaphysical question of 'at what point does the ship come into being'! ;-) She was enough of a ship to have been released down the slipway and into the river where the rest of her was being fitted out. I don't know whether that tachnically makes her a ship at that point. The two main sources refer to the vessel as a ship, although neither of them is a technical shipping publication, and may be using the term in a layman's sense. Pinging Kablammo and Lyndaship, both of whom have been hugely helpful on other ship-related points. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once she floats shes a boat (or ship)! Lyndaship (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Lyndaship! - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She traded on the US eastern seaboard until 1930" I would be surprised if this trade was licit, given the Jones Act. Or were her voyages actually international?
  • "bikes" Bicycles?
  • "The salvors extracted £360,000 in Jamaican currency from number five hold and passed it to Gledhill.[m] He sealed the money in boxes and sent it to the salvage agents via the local post office on South Uist. The notes were handed over to the Bank of England.[92] Many had already entered circulation ..." it's the circulation bit that bothers me. Would these have been acceptable in ordinary commerce in Britain? Or would they have needed to be taken for exchange, say at a bank or post office? If the latter, I would not say "circulation", but possibly "commerce".
  • The sources do not clarify if they were an accepted currency (although they were pegged to the same value as the pound). I've tweaked to "Many had already been presented at banks for exchange", which is supported by the sources and less questionable. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A most interesting read, look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your time and thoughts here: as always they are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in fine shape. Some pretty minor matters:

  • the laid down date in the infobox isn't in the body and cited. When you do that, link keel laying.
  • link ceremonial ship launching
  • 7899→7,899
  • is the length given an o/a length, or waterline?
  • link Beam (nautical)
  • lk=in for the knots conversion
  • "at about 7:40 am" what date?
  • breached (past tense) combined with flooding (present tense) and breaking (present tense)
  • "Scotland's west coast engaged in what Hutchinson"?
  • "On 5 June they persuaded", as we are talking about McColl himself, also "to assist themhim"
  • Tweaked to "he and Gledhill", so the "them" is now correct

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "began to become annoyed with correspondence began between"?
  • should it be "An Royal Air Force corporal" as RAF hasn't been introduced?

Great story, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats are consistent
  • Quality/reliability: can you say a little more about the nature of the source Important British and World Paper Money? What is this – book, pamphlet, whatever? Otherwise, sources appear to meet the required FAC criteria.
  • Many thanks Brian. The Paper Money reference is an online catalogue that has been archived, from the numismatic specialist auction house Dix Noonan Webb . I've added the link to it, which I missed before. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Claim my seat here. CPA-5 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 22,000 cases of malt whisky and £3 million Link pound.
  • that traded between Britain and the United States and Canada --> "that traded between Britain, the United States and Canada"
  • On Christmas Eve 1927 she was involved in another Link Christmas Eve.
  • comprising ten-shilling and one and five pound notes Link pound and "five pound" needs a hyphen.
  • had arrived and 500 long tons (510 t) of cargo was removed --> "had arrived and 500 long tons (510 t) of the cargo were removed"
  • when he returned only 4 were left --> "when he returned only four were left"
  • but the residents had learned of his raids on Eriskay American learned.
  • Yes it is. I see most of the Britons use it as an adjective which isn't in this case. Of course MOS:COMMONALITY says we should use the most common one. Which is like you said "learnt". Cheers.
  • Actually COMMONALITY says "using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable". As "learned" is common to both British and US English, this seems to be the best of the two. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the various grammar guides, Gowers, in the second edition of Fowler, went on something chronic about the history of the two but expressed no preference; in the third edition, Burchfield merely noted that "learned" as past tense and past participle is always monosyllabic but is disyllabic when an adjective, but expressed no preference between “learnt” and “learned”. There is no difference of nuance between the equally correct "learnt" and "learned". - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • had been seen on Benbecula—25 miles from Politician No metric units?
  • The date of her launch "15 November 1921" isn't mentioned in the body?
  • Salvors were used to rescue as much of the ship as they You mean "rescuing"?
  • every night between 20 and 50 men were on the wreck Replace "were" with "was".
  • See a lot of "bank notes" maybe merge them all.
  • He was given permission to proceed --> "He was permited to proceed"
  • He found that someone had been onboard overnight Split "onboard".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • Relevant locations for the SS Politician.jpg needs an explicit US PD tag. (Like 1942 Jamaica £5 note.jpg.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

I missed the peer review – asleep again! – so have a few minor comments now that I should have made then (apols).

  • Early February – 12 March 1941
    • "it was dangerous for the man left behind, and it would be a waste of their time too" – singular noun with plural pronoun. (And I feel the too is perhaps a touch informal and could be omitted.)
  • 12 March – early-April 1941
    • "four men, who police charged" – some aged and pedantic persons such as I cling to the accusative whom
  • Early April – August 1941
  • Legacy

Those are my very minor quibbles. I thoroughly enjoyed this article and look forward to supporting its elevation. Tim riley talk 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

[edit]

Sorry for the delay, RL and all that. I read this yesterday and could find no fault with it. A very good article indeed. CassiantoTalk 07:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Support from The Huhsz

[edit]

'The journalists Adrian Turpin and Peter Day write that Bootham White's outrage should be taken "with a pinch of salt. He was hardly neutral, having been charged with building a case for prosecution."[70]'

This looks out of place; we haven't yet been introduced to Bootham White and it doesn't seem to relate to what comes just before it. --The Huhsz (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy fix; but 'The journalists Adrian Turpin and Peter Day write that the outrage of the customs men should be taken "with a pinch of salt. He was hardly neutral, having been charged with building a case for prosecution."' is still not quite right; the customs men cannot be "he". Could we summarise the quote? --The Huhsz (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, end of a long day! Now reworked and should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's much better! Support. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by nerdy comment by Nick-D

[edit]

I'm a bit of a nerd about the World War II convoy system, so my interest here is about tedious convoy-details rather than the entertaining hi-jinks/large scale larceny which is at the core of the article. Everything looks good, except the line that "where she was to rendezvous with a convoy to be escorted across the Atlantic to the US and Caribbean". Convoys typically formed up in holding areas at each end of the Atlantic rather than had ships join them after they sailed, so this might be a bit off. Unless the source says it, I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "where she was to assemble with other ships to be convoyed across the Atlantic to the US and Caribbean". Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gav, did you have a chance to look at this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I missed this entirely. Nick-D, apologies for the delay! Many thanks for the comment; the sources allow your much better version to be included, so I've swapped it over. Many thanks. Cheers for the ping Ian. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Gav, I think we can wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2019 (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) 13 October 2019 [12].

A Rugrats Kwanzaa

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about a 2001 Kwanzaa holiday special from the animated show Rugrats. Toddler Susie Carmichael learns about the holiday during a visit from her great-aunt. Nickelodeon aired the special as part of its focus on cultural diversity; Rugrats was one of the first mainstream television shows to feature Kwanzaa. The episode focuses more on family and what it means to be a great person rather than Kwanzaa's history or how it is practiced. It received positive reviews, although there was some criticism about how it contributed to a larger commercialization of the holiday. Cree Summer and Irma P. Hall were praised for their voice acting.

I cannot believe it has been almost 18 years since this episode first aired. Time really does go by far too quickly. This project was inspired by SuperFlash101, who worked on "A Rugrats Passover", "A Rugrats Chanukah", and Judaism in Rugrats. Although they have not been active since 2012, I hope they know how much their work is still appreciated on here. Apologies for all of the articles that I put through the FAC process. I would greatly appreciate any feedback. I hope everyone has a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No need to apologise for your industry, which is admirable, both in nominations and reviews. But could you spare a little energy, with these reviews, to including a sources check? For those of us (oldies) who are unfamiliar with this subject area, these reviews are problematic; with your expert knowledge you are better able to judge the quality of these sources than we are. For general help in putting a FAC source review together, consult Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC. Have a go at one – every little helps. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the message. I would be more than happy to do a source review. I was always a little hesitant about doing one because I found it somewhat daunting. The linked essay is very helpful, and I will be referring back to it when I start a source review in the near future. I will look through the FAC list later today, and do a source review on a topic that I feel qualified to do. I am greatly appreciative of all the help I receive from editors during these FAC reviews so I do want to give back as much as I can. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Yashthepunisher

[edit]
  • Thank you for the support. For one of my previous FACs, a reviewer suggested that I add an optional request to add a red link a specific NAACP Awards ceremony mentioned in the article as it is notable enough for an article. I put in the red link for that article, and I believe the same logic applies here. I can remove the red link if necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image is appropriately licensed, although you might also be able to justify a non-free screenshot from the episode. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. I am always uncertain about using non-free media, but I will think about it further. A screenshot of Aunt T looking at the scrap book with the children or one of the Carmichael family together could be useful for the "Critical Reception" section since the episode did receive praise for how Kwanzaa was introduced through a focus on family so that is something I will consider. Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]

Comment Place-holder comment to remind me to come back and do a full review later: in the lead I would change "it examines Kwanzaa from the perspective of toddler Susie Carmichael during a visit from her great-aunt T. Susie, her friends....." to simply "it examines Kwanzaa from the perspective of toddler Susie Carmichael during a visit from her great-aunt. Susie, her friends....." I had to read this twice because at first glance it seemed like the great-aunt was called "T. Susie" (a la T. Graham Brown or something)......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the suggestion and looking at this article. I have revised it accordingly. Throughout the episode, the great-aunt character is reference as "Aunt T.". I am uncertain if that is the family's nickname for her or if it is derived from the word "auntie"; since Rugrats is a show about toddlers/babies, it frequently mispronounced words as part of their dialogue. It could also be a combination of both. I have seen some sources use "Great Aunt T.", but a majority of the sources (and Nickelodeon) use "Aunt T." so I followed that. I just wanted to explain it since the "Aunt T." appears frequently throughout the article. Aoba47 (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "and family learn about the holiday fromc." - think something's gone a bit awry here.......
  • "Irma P. Hall, who guest-stars as Aunt T.," - is the present tense correct here? Everything else in the "production" section is in the past tense.
  • ""A Rugrats Kwanzaa" has been included on other Rugrats home media releases" - other than what?
  • "The network included two clips from the episode to NickSplat's YouTube accoun" => "included to" doesn't sound like natural/correct phrasing to me.

Comments by Bilorv

[edit]

Sourcing was perfect on the seven or so spotchecks I did. All the claims were verified, and furthermore it looks like all the relevant info from each source has been used, contributing to comprehensiveness. As always, you've done a very thorough job of finding and including sources, so it meets the well-researched criterion. No neutrality, stability or length issues and the lead and citation style are great. It's not far from FA standard, but I do see some areas for improvement.

  • Images: I'm not an expert on our NFCC so I'll leave it to someone else to say whether, as suggested above, a suitable screenshot of the episode might be acceptable. But I do think it would nice to get at least one more image in the body of the article. Might File:Kwanzaa Candles-Kinara.svg or another free image relating to the episode's depiction of Kwanzaa fit somewhere? (Note that the candles relate to the "seven principles" quote from Holmes.)
  • I can see how a second image would be beneficial; however, I am uncertain about the one suggested. Rugrats introduces Kwanzaa in the context of family. Some aspects of Kwanzaa like the kinara are shown, but they do not get the same attention as Susie or the scrapbook memories. This is discussed by both Los Angeles Times and the Daily Herald. Both explicitly mention how the show is not a "Kwanzaa primer" or "a camouflaged lecture on African American heritage followed by a message about the need for tolerance and respect". I would be concerned hat the kinara image implies the episode deals more with Kwanzaa's specific practices and customs than it really does. The episode is first and foremost about family and legacy. I may be overthinking it, but that is my concern about it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments
  • Critical reception: the prose needs a bit of work. It's not clear what the structure of the reviews is. The first two paragraphs have very similar topic sentences and the order of reviews seems a little bit arbitrary. This seems like a pretty tricky one, where almost all the critical coverage just focuses on one aspect of the episode, but perhaps another round of copyediting would help. I think less reliance on quoting is also needed, and the Holmes quotes in particular should be cut down or paraphrased. Also, the A.V. Club quote strikes me as unnecessary and redundant to previous sentences; perhaps it would be improved as: According to Den of Geek! and Blavity, the series had become known and well-received for celebrating a diverse set of holidays; this was something praised by The A.V. Club's Pilot Viruet.
  • I originally wanted the first paragraph to discuss how Rugrats represented Kwanzaa and then move into how it fit alongside its other holiday programming. I agree it does not work so I have made significant revisions in an attempt to build a more cohesive narrative that does not rely so heavily on quotes. I have a tendency to over-quote, and I need to be better about that in the future. Let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bits and bobs:

  • In the plot, who is "the family"? It's unclear when first mentioned. Later, it seems to include an unknown number of siblings and a mother—I think it's easiest to list them all upfront.
  • Susie's mother, Lucy, performed "This Little Light of Mine" ... – It took me a minute to work out whether this was another memory or something happening in the present. Adding to the start of the sentence "On another occasion" would solve this.
  • she often did the same for her non-black friends – Grammatically, what she would be doing is "introducing Kwanzaa to a large audience [for her non-black friends]", but what is actually meant is "introducing Kwanzaa to her non-black friends".
  • In the infobox, isn't the next episode that aired "Pre-School Daze" rather than "All Growed Up"?
  • Can you mention somewhere in "Broadcast history and release" that the episode was a special that aired between the seventh and eighth seasons? At least, if I'm understanding things correctly and if that's verifiably true. I think it'd fit either in the first sentence or two, or as part of the Viacom/iTunes release information.
  • I could not find any sources that specifically say it is a special between these two seasons. I can only find sources that say it is a television special, but it does not go beyond that point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely optional, but it might be nice to use {{external media}} with the two YouTube clips.

Nitpicks:

  • "and later reaired at different events" – This doesn't really provide any information. Just removing it would be fine.
  • "great-aunt T" should be "great-aunt T." for consistency.
  • "subject of some praise" – just "subject of praise" is good.
  • For runtime, just mention the minutes and not the seconds. Also, in the infobox no hyphen is needed because it is only hyphenated when used as an adjective (as in "the 23-minute episode").

— Bilorv (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bilorv: Thank you for the comments! I have tried my best to address everything but if I missed anything or if anything needs further improvement, then please let me know. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bilorv: Thank you for the review. You have helped to improve the article quite a lot so I greatly appreciate your help. I have addressed your suggestion for the lead, and if there is anything else to improve, please let me know. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the work you've done! Support on criteria #1, #2 and #4 (spotchecks done) and neutral on criterion #3 (screenshot in the infobox / image in the body needs more discussion). — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again, and I will definitely think about adding another image further. The kinara image that you suggested might be correct, but it would be nice to get some further feedback on that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Everything seems to work here with the Youtube videos being backed up a good uploader. However there are some sources that need some tide up:

  • Still, source 20 ( Baisley, Sarah (December 16, 2003). "Nickelodeon To Deliver 'Nickmas' Holiday Specials". Animation World Network. Retrieved January 17, 2019.) seems to be lacking an archive.
  • The two Itones references lack archives.
  • Source 26 lacks italics in publisher/work
  • Source 35 (Lopez, Kristen (December 6, 2018). "How Your Favorite Christmas TV Specials Do More Than Celebrate The Season". Livingly Media. Archived from the original on January 16, 2019.) seems to lack accessdate and italics for the work/publisher.

Ping me when things are better.Tintor2 (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I give it a pass. Hope this article becomes FA.Tintor2 (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

[edit]

No prose/sourcing/proofreading comments from me, well done Aoba (no pun intended). Just replace the publisher= parameter, being used for websites, with website= since {{cite web}} says, "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)." The refs needed formatting, but I fixed that with the greatest ref-editing gadget ever made and it's "normalize" button. Once all is done, this will have my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damian Vo

[edit]

Comments from Homeostasis07

[edit]

I wanted to comment here earlier this week but, you know... life and other Wiki projects get in the way sometimes. ;)

Lead

  • I'm only mentioning this because I'm personally not a fan of red links, but I'd suggest unlinking 34th NAACP Image Awards. 35th NAACP Image Awards was created in February 2006, so I can't see an article being created for the 34th edition anytime soon. Feel free to disregard this point. I won't object either way.

Plot

  • "Susie is not assigned a role for the Karamu preparations, leading her to believe she is not great having never won an award." Seems awkwardly phrased to me. Maybe something like "Susie is not assigned a role in the family's preparations for Karamu, leading her to believe she is inferior to the rest of her family for never winning an award."

Production and Broadcast history and release

  • Nothing to complain about in either of these sections.

Critical response

  • Overlink of Martin Luther King Jr. in this section. Plus, I'm not entirely sure what "Deborah Holmes praised the episode's respect for both the "legacy of blacks", like Martin Luther King Jr., and the Carmichaels." is supposed to mean. I couldn't access the source, but I believe the relevant quote can be viewed verbatim here (don't ask how). "The show honors the legacy of blacks by introducing the seven principles of Kwanzaa, and by [highlighting] the contributions of famous blacks including Martin Luther King Jr. At the same time, it praises the not-so-famous, like the Carmichael family, who nonetheless contribute to society; the message is that everyone can make a difference, a fundamental thought behind Kwanzaa." With that in mind, I'd suggest rephrasing to: "Deborah Holmes praised the episode's respect for the "legacy of blacks", noting that it encompasses Kwanzaa's message of every person, regardless of stature, being able to contribute to society." Or something to that effect.

Once again, this is a brilliantly written and researched article. Once my nitpicking of the Plot and Critical response complaints above have been addressed, I'd be happy to support this. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:03, 5 October 2019 (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) 13 October 2019 [13].

Lyon-class battleship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)[reply]

The Lyon-class battleships were the 1915 tranche of a French naval expansion program begun in 1912. Their design had not been finalized before the beginning of the First World War in August 1914 and their consequent cancellation. Parsecboy and I have recently overhauled this article in preparation and it passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this month. As usual, we'd like for reviewers to check for any stray bits of BritEng, unlinked or unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Design work on the vessels to follow the Normandies began in 1912; the design staff submitted several proposals for the new battleships, with displacements ranged from 27,000 metric tons (26,574 long tons) to 29,000 t (28,542 long tons).[3] " likely "ranged" should be "ranging".
  • Good catch.
  • " In addition, the design staff determined the 38 cm gun would take too long to design, so the proposals that incorporated these weapons were cancelled and one of the two 34 cm proposals was selected." possibly "cancelled" should be "rejected" and I would change the end of the sentence "one of the two 34 cm proposals was selected." to "officials chose between the two 34 cm proposals" so as to lead into the next sentence better.
  • That is a better wording.
  • You are not consistent in whether you capitalise Normandie in "Normandie-class".
  • You sure? Searching for normandie showed all of them capitalized.
Oops, meant "italicise".
  • Is there any later or contextual information, such as similar ships built later, or did the designs influence later ships?
  • War experience had proven that their design was thoroughly obsolete and they had no influence on the subsequent Dunkerque class of the 1930s.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching these and your helpful suggestion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • which was planned for the French Navy in 1913 Link French Navy.
  • Starting in 1910, the French Navy began a dreadnought battleship Unlink French Navy here.
  • and one of the two 34 cm proposals was selected You mean were?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that we caught all the excess naughts, etc.? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: - another older review you might want to take a look at and see if there's anything that still needs to be addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy: Seriously? Your ping is like the 7th ping I got from you and PM about my comments in nominations today alone. I guess I was that busy with the drive. Change it as support. I have to try to come back to my routine of reviewing. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats
  • Check publication date of Gardner. WorldCat does not list a 1984 edition (WorldCat is not infallible in these matters)
  • Crap, it's correct. That's going to be an error perpetuated all over our articles.
  • O'Brien 2001: WorldCat gives publisher location for this ibsn as Southgate
  • The book shows London and Portland, Oregon.
  • Quality/reliability: no issues, sources appear to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that I should really thank you for catching the problem with Gardner considering the amount of work that it's going to cause to find them all, but I will anyway.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "the rest" seems a generous description of two of something.
    • Ed seems to have fixed this
  • Link displacement
    • Done
  • "prompting significant consideration to match the caliber" Optional: → 'prompting serious consideration of matching this caliber'
    • Works for me
  • Is there not a standard footnote which describes caliber? It would be useful here.
    • Added
  • "In light of such constraints" In British English one would write 'In the light of such constraints'.
    • We're using AmEng here
  • "like the Brétagnes." Optional: → 'such as the Brétagnes..
    • Works for me
  • "An unknown number of boilers were trunked" → 'An unknown number of boilers were to be trunked'.
    • Done

That's all I have. Your usual fine job of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17

[edit]
  • Support after some copyedits I made. Well done, I know how hard it can be to find adequate information on never-built ships. Was the choice of four different shipyards due to the need to pump out battleships as fast as possible? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Llammakey

[edit]
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 October 2019 [14].

Roy Inwood

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Inwood is the latest in my project to get all South Australian Victoria Cross recipients to FA. Inwood, a WWI recipient, won his VC during the Battle of Menin Road in September 1917, for eliminating a couple of German machine gun posts. He went on to serve during WWII as a military police warrant officer running detention barracks on the home front. Unlike the many Australian VCs held by the Australian War Memorial, Inwood's is displayed in the Adelaide Town Hall. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • Sources are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Formatting:
    Be consistent with your locations in the publications: Bean, C.E.W. (1942). Has Sydney: Angus & Robertson; Bean, C.E.W. (1941) has Sydney, New South Wales: Angus & Robertson.
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Genealogy SA redirects to https://www.genealogysa.org.au/resources/online-database-search, which shows no information. It may be best to quote the reference work from which the information was taken (I've done that at the Jane Grigson article – currently at FAC, BTW – which has ""Heather M J McIntire", England & Wales, Civil Registration Marriage Index, General Register Office, 23, p. 1489, 1976, retrieved 30 June 2019 – via Ancestry (subscription required)" at FN 14.
    Problem is, I don't know which hard copy Births Register it is drawn from, have added |url-access=subscription to the cite web template. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, just those two. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Sailing via Fremantle and Colombo Add Ceylon after Colombo and pipe it with British Ceylon.
  • the ship arrived at Alexandria, Egypt Pipe Egypt to Khedivate of Egypt.
    I think the Khedivate became defunct in November 1914, so have gone with Sultanate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • where they entered camp at Mena in the shadow Link Mena if possible.
  • The following month he was evacuated sick to Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt.
  • in a support role when the Germans counter-attacked Pipe Germans to the Empire of Germany.
  • Inwood married Evelyn Owens in 1927 No née?
    Not in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reckon we should split the "Post-war life" section because it includes WWII which was also an important war?
  • elimination of a German machine gun post Machine gun needs an hyphen.
  • Inwood located a German machine gun post Same as above.
  • volunteered for a special all night patrol All night needs an hyphen.
  • front of our line, and there – by his coolness Merge there and by.
  • and this was apparently a happy marriage Remove "apparently".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes sorry, ehm, I was distracted with the drive and other nominations. I have a deadline before the 3th Quarterly reviewing awards (want to reach at least 100 reviews before October) I also want to work on the drive as much as I can. Of course, I will have time for you guys. I also almost broke your record (84 reviews) of the last Quarterly reviewing awards. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

[edit]

Honestly not really a lot to say:

  • Considering the length of the World War I section, it may be worth considering subdividing it somewhat. For example, Egypt and Gallipoli, the Western Front prior to the Battle of Menin Road, and then Menin Road and VC citation is what I could quickly see as being relevant dividers.
    Done, broken up by campaign and then by year
  • "While in camp in October, Inwood was charged with absence without leave and reduced in rank to private." Is there any explanation for him being charged like this?
    No, but plenty of diggers went AWOL when in rest areas, so it isn't all that uncommon, neither is the penalty, as NCOs are generally expected to stick to the rules. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also want want to say the lead image is great, exactly what you'd expect from an Australian VC recipient. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree, Kaiser matias. This is one of my favourites, the crossed arms and slouch hat at the rakish angle make him look like a real character. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, a great article and has my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

I reviewed this article when it was nominated for GA and looking it again for FA I see no reason why it should not make the grade. The one comment I have is in relation to "...after another South Australian who won a VC in 1916, Brigadier Arthur Blackburn." Blackburn is mentioned earlier in the article when discussing Inwood's brother who was KIA. I wonder if this could be revised a little to draw a connection between the two mentions; at the moment the second mention seems isolated in context. It may be a bit clumsy so could be refined somewhat, but perhaps something like " after fellow South Australian and 10th Battalion soldier Arthur Blackburn, who was awarded his VC during the Battle of Pozières where Inwood's brother had been killed." Zawed (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Zawed, thanks for taking another look. I've used the formulation you suggested. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one is travelling well, can I have a dispension for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Parsecboy

[edit]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi PM, bit concerned with this: Rugged, independent and well-built, he gave the impression that his VC "had not done him much good". Firstly, "Rugged, independent and well-built" is pretty much a direct quote from a description in his ADB entry. Secondly, "had not done him much good" isn't attributed in the article or in its source (also the ADB). I think we should know who thought this before we include it in the article; at the very least we should clearly attribute in our article to the ADB. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Attributed to the ADB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks PM, good to go now I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2019 (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) 12 October 2019 [15].

Resolution Guyot

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the three well-studied seamounts in the Mid-Pacific Mountains (the other two are Allison Guyot and Horizon Guyot), all of which were formerly volcanic islands before they first became carbonate platforms - similar to present-day atolls - and later sank below the sea surface for reasons not yet known after a brief period of emergence. There has been a fair amount of research with drill cores which allowed scientists to reconstruct how it may have appeared a hundred million years ago (and from Wikipedia's perspective, to allow some illustration of the long-gone landscapes based on present-day environments with similar traits). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Imma ping participants - minus coordinators - in the past four FACses on guyots I've done in case they have time and interest to comment on this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably not qualified to do a review, but I just wanted to let you know that this has not been added to the nominations list. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oy. It seems like someone already fixed that mistake; thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the one like SchroCat, who to is to be plied upon with glory and all hale unto him! ——SerialNumber54129 08:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite bloody right. I should get a 10% pay rise for that! - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Interesting as usual. Will take a few days to leave comments here, but reading slowly through. Ceoil (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were you still planning to comment, Ceoil? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, yes will post tonight. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Name
Local setting
History

Done to the start of the Volcanic phase: more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Suwarrow_Anchorage_Island.jpg: source link is dead

FunkMonk

[edit]
Pyrite is linked twice within the Composition section. You can highlight duplinks with this script:[16] FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remedied this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It means egg in Spanish, but why it would be called that is of course the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume this is supposed to be US English, but you have UK metres/kilometres (instead of meters) throughout. The conversion templates probably need the US spelling parameter.
    I don't know English enough to write in one style only, but it is supposed to be in BrEng - I don't see how WP:TIES could apply when it's so tangential to the US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The link to "organic" should probably be moved up there then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, should "resemble these of the former environments" be "those of"? FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked & working, per the checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Ref 40 requires pp. not p.
  • Ref 82 same issue
  • Retrieval dates: a single format should be used
  • Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources all appear to meet the standard required by the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it's the dash that indicates a page range. In its absence it's obvious that 40 and 82 are not defining ranges, but each of these refers to more than one page so you need pp. – as indeed you acknowledge with ref 49! Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2019 (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) 12 October 2019 [17].

Old Spanish Trail half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... yet another coin, probably the highlight in the saga of L.W. Hoffecker, whose efforts to get control of a commemorative coin in 1930 had sparked a presidential veto. Here he is successful, and even designed the coin, about which there are certainly mixed reviews.Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Wehwalt, just a quickie, but would those seeking one coin of each commemorative design kind of translate as "collectors"? Unless I'm reading it wrong, they would appear to be much the same people surely  :) Nice article! take care! ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Most collectors aren't after one of each because that would be expensive. I think I own only two of the early commemoratives. Maybe three.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
H'mmm. Put it another way then, what makes one of those ultra-rich types who can afford to buy them all, not a collector? ——SerialNumber54129 12:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those seeking one coin of each commemorative design are collectors, but have more expendable income and can afford to collect multiple commemoratives. - ZLEA T\C 13:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I've added the word "collectors" after "those".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should "those" be removed? - ZLEA T\C 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to, but it can be. It doesn't change the meaning.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • Sources are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Formatting: all good, except:
FNs 10 and 11 appear to point to the same reference
FN33, which has 310–11 when all the others are in the format 310–111.

That's all there is to look at. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Got these.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review
Lead
  • "President Hoover in 1930 vetoed the Gadsden Purchase half dollar bill." Reads slightly bumpily. "In 1930 President Hoover vetoed the Gadsden Purchase half dollar bill" or President Hoover vetoed the Gadsden Purchase half dollar bill in 1930" seem smoother to me, but it's your call.
Done.
  • "pages of The Numismatist (a coin collecting journal)": would "pages of a coin collecting journal The Numismatist" be a smoother read?
I think it's better as is.
Background
  • I think the map can be scaled up a bit – it's a bit too small at the moment
Done.
  • Hoover's 1930 veto: any reason for it? (Even as a footnote?)
Explained.
  • "coin issue he would control in 1935": slightly pedantic, but would he lose control from 1936 onwards?
Seems to have been done.
Preparation
Both the above does.
Design
  • "... it.[20] but there are": is that meant to be a full top after "it", or a capital B?
Done.

That's it from me; I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. Sorry about being so slow.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support Comments from Moise

[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you're well. I'm working my way through the article (second read-through) and will add comments below as I notice stuff:

  • Legislation: "The bill passed without recorded objection, after which Cochran got the Hudson, New York Sesquicentennial half dollar passed." This implies (I think) that the Hudson, New York Sesquicentennial half dollar was the second of the two coin bills discussed at the House, and that the Old Spanish Trail coin bill was the first. But it's a bit jarring because in the sentences leading up to this, I don't think there's any indication that the previous discussion had mainly been about the Old Spanish Trail coin? Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Minor comment) "In the Senate, the bill was referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency." If you wanted to, you could clarify that this is talking about the Old Spanish Trail bill, as the Hudson, New York Sesquicentennial bill is the last one mentioned before this (though "bill" is not specifically stated for the Hudson coin in this most recent mention). But if you think it's way obvious, and would rather not, this one's no deal-breaker for me.
  • The lead says that Hoffecker "fixed on the travels of Spanish officer Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca" in choosing the coin to push for; "fixed on" is satisfying enough (even if no specific reason is given why he did so—likely such an explicit reason does not exist in the sources) to suggest that whether rationally or irrationally, he probably had his reasons. But in the main text, there's no "strong phrase" like "fixed on" to glue together the ideas, and I feel the reader is left more unsatisfied about wondering what prompted Hoffecker to choose this particular historical event. I'm saying maybe if you added a strong phrase like "fixed on" to the main text, it would be enough connect the ideas for this part. Moisejp (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this review has been going slowly. I'll try to get back to it in the next few days. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my review:

  • "Hoffecker related that he had sought to hire one of two or three sculptors in the East, but each would take too long and wanted liberty to make changes. Senn was unemployed, and, by Hoffecker's account, he stood over the sculptor, who worked in Hoffecker's garage." I'm afraid I got a little confused in this part. It mentions wanting to, but not, hiring one of the sculptors in the east. Then it says Senn stood over the sculptor—which sculptor? (I don't think it's Lee Lawrie, mentioned earlier?) I also wasn't sure if "stood over" is supposed to have a literal or perhaps figurative meaning, and what the relevance of Senn being unemployed is. Apologies, I'm not trying to be difficult, but sincerely got confused in these couple of sentences. Moisejp (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cochran brought two commemorative coin bills, including the one for the Old Spanish Trail piece, to the House floor on April 3 as emergency measures, explaining to members dubious that the striking of half dollars could be urgent that they were needed for celebrations scheduled for that summer, and that the bills had been delayed due to the committee chairman's illness." This sentence seems unnecessarily long and complicated. Would you consider possibly breaking it up and simplifying it (especially the middle part)?

I think that's all my comments. I enjoyed reading the article. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad. Sorry to be slow. On Hoffecker standing over Senn, I'm basically quoting Hoffecker. Aside from that, I think everything is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes, and glad to support now. Thanks again for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble, thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Another first-rate addition to an important series of articles. After two perusals I can find nothing to complain about. The text is clear and highly readable; as far as one can judge it is comprehensive and balanced; the illustrations are what one would wish; and the article is widely, and evidently well, sourced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 12:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • a coin collecting journal Needs a hyphen
Not sure it does in AmEng.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a compound adjective as coin is modifying collecting, not journal, so, yes, it needs a hyphen. It's not a Am/BritEng thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You must really hate that hyphen to go to that phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of hyphenating "coin collecting" either. Besides, the new phrasing reads better in my opinion. - ZLEA T\C 00:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do readers need a link to coin collecting?
Added.
  • those seeking one coin of each commemorative design "collectors of US commemorative coins"
Not precisely as people can collect commemorative coins without really seeking one of each, which can get pricey. I've rephrased.
Thanks, I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2019 (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) 12 October 2019 [18].

Japanese battleship Yashima

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my series on ill-fated battleships, Yashima was one of the first battleships in Japanese service and had to be ordered from Britain. She participated in the initial battles of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, but struck a mine and sank a few months later, after trying to go to the assistance of another battleship that also sank. The Japanese were able to keep the news of her loss from leaking to the Russians who had no idea that the odds against them had dramatically decreased. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a couple of months ago and I believe is in good shape. As usual I'd like reviewers to look for any remnants of AmEnglish, as well as any unfelicitous prose and unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Article text says the ship was launched 28 December, infobox says 28 February
    • Fixed.
  • Check alphabetization of References

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Splitting his fire proved to be a poor decision as the Japanese Add "to" after "as".
    • That doesn't make sense to me.
  • Makarov being one of the 677 killed Remove "being" with "is".
    • I think you mean "was", fixed.
  • Yashima (八島 Yashima) was Shouldn't we add a Kanji and a Rōmaji in the template?
    • Be nice, but since I don't read Japanese, I rely on others to do that sort of thing for me.
  • the command of Rear Admiral Nashiba Tokioki Shouldn't Rear Admiral has an hyphen?
    • Indeed.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I found little to quibble about at Milhist ACR, and only have two points:

  • suggest "Nashiba put to sea with his flagship Hatsuse, two other battleships, Shikishima and Yashima,"
  • suggest "for the rest of the war the surviving crewmen were assigned to four auxiliary gunboats that were tasked to guard Port Arthur"

That's it, a fine job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PM, nice to hear.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901

[edit]
  • File:Yashima (ship, 1897) - Plan - Cassier's 1898-02.png could be used in the design section, while several other images in the commons cat might enhance the service section
  • As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to build such warships --> As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to construct such warships to avoid repetition of build/built
    • I've used this language extensively and you're the first person, including myself, to catch that over-reliance on build/built?
  • Don't ship article design sections usually link back to the class article with the main article hatnote?
    • Never seen the point of that given that the class article is linked in the lede, the infobox and the navbox footer.
  • Yashima, an --> Yashima, named after an
    • No, "named after an old name for Japan" doesn't work, which is why I had to have the reader make the slight stretch that the ship was named for the country.
  • The phrasing used in the article for Fuso works best IMO.

One last comment: I've reworded the description of the Battle of Port Arthur based on the description of the 9 February 1904 engagement on the Battle of Port Arthur article. See if the changes are in accord with your sources. Kges1901 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main issue is that the armored cruisers of Kamimura's 2nd Division also attacked, although the 1st Division led the attack. Which means the wording needs to be tweaked accordingly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

[edit]

Image review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Colorized Yashima.jpg: Does "colorized" imply that the image was originally in black and white and someone else then coloured it?
  • Yes.
  • File:Yashima NH 58968.jpg: A little bothered by the lack of source information on the origin page. Are we sure the license is correct?
  • It's an assumption, but the photo may have been taken when the ship was in the UK, just after completion. At any rate the NHHC says that there are no known copyright issues.
All images seem to be in good sections. Only two have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sturm, it'd be good to get comments from someone outside MilHist for another perspective -- let's see if we can scare one up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (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) 12 October 2019 [19].

John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter

[edit]
Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the Rettendon murders, John FitZWalter was the original Essex Boy. Yes, the usual extortion, murders, jury nobbling and...er...sieges?! He makes the Krays look like over-enthusiastic tobacconists, although FitzWalter was admittedly lucky that his King, Edward III, lacked the later energetic and imaginative approach of Essex Police, at least for some time. But on a more serious note, yes, it's another in the series (well, the second) of Robin Hood types from the early fourteenth century, and, you know, forget "stealing from the rich to give to the poor", like most gangsters, they're not very nice people.
All suggestions and comments for improving FitzWalter on Wikipedia as he was unimprovable in life, gratefully welcome. ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for looking in, Nikkimaria; I've added a reference to commons, does it need one here you think? ——SerialNumber54129 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source and the map does no match. The source does no list "Chigwell", and "Caidge" is spelled "Cages" in the source. This means that note 2 in the article also does not match the source.P. S. Burton (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chigwell is sourced inline to Furber, and Cages is a lazy transcription I fancy, Watson. Although more or less subsumed into Southminster today, Caidges (not Cages) still exists in (OR alert) various references. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 05:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thanks for the clarification. P. S. Burton (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if i sounded short there, P. S. Burton. The problem is, is that a reliable source (as you noticed!) calls it Cages, but unfortunately I can't find a source that says "Cages used to be Caige", or, indeed (even less likely!) an RS that says Moore has made a lazy transcription  :) otherwise I'd explin it in a footnote. Gotta be honest with you, though, I really hate unsourced footnotes! See what I mean? Thanks very much for looking in here though, it's appreciated. ——SerialNumber54129 13:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :). I found this page from the University of Winchester confirming the spelling of Caige and at least showing that the later barons held the estate. P. S. Burton (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well found, P. S. Burton, I can use that to cite the correct name for he place now. Thanks very much!  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]
  • I'd put another paragraph in the lead on his legacy/impact on assessments of Edward III.
  • What was his cause of death, if known?
  • £sd letters are not italicized, if I am not mistaken.

That's all for now, I'll try to think of some more later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for looking in, John M Wolfson, it's much appreciated. I've added a line regarding the historiography to the lead; I'm not usually too keen on one-line paragraphs, but perhaps this works? Unfortunately, there's no information on the cause of death, except that it was natural. I imagine that once he stopped terrorising the place he fell into obscurity. And I deitalicised the LSD  :)
    If you do think of any other improvements, please do point them out! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 09:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem at all! I'm also not usually a fan of short paragraphs in the lead, but here I think it's warranted as FitzWalter's legacy. And I do not see any issues at this time, so I support the promotion of the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mr rnddude

[edit]
Indictment
However, Furber points out ... - However? The note doesn't contradict the statement that Fitzwalter had to pay out "at least" that amount.
Done.
this he paid this off incrementally - You can keep either this, but not both. I.e. "this he paid off ..." or "he paid this off ..."
First choice.
... comments Hanawalt ... - Introduce at first mention.
Introduced...
... the King summoned FitzWalter ... - Titles are usually only capitalized when appended to an individual's name, but left uncapitalized when used generically. You capitalize king a lot.
Indeed I do. And I guarantee someone's gonna come along (on the assumption there are anymore reviews , that is!) and moan. They do that, ye know. They come out at night to moan.
In November FitzWalter was transferred ... - "In November, ..." I think.
Done.
The forced the role of ... - I think the first "the" was meant to be a "this".
Yup.
... impermanent ... - Google says this is a word. I shall be stealing it as superior to "temporary".
Abjuring "temporary"?! Careful  ;)
... focused ... - Is BrEng "s" or "ss"? I thought focussed was BrEng and focused AmEng.
Deffo.
Siege of Colchester
... in 1350 Bradenham himself besieged Colchester for three months in autumn 1350 - Well yes, I rather suspect that "autumn 1350" was "in 1350", rather than some other obscure year.
Uuugh. Don.
... and Partington suggests ... - Who dat? (You introduce him in the next section, rather than at first mention)
Swapped.
, however, - like me, you use however a bit. Howe'er, it's unnecessary here: Neither inquest, however, appears to have ....
Dead right I do, thanks for the reminder. I've cut out all except one.
... disputed pasture rights in Lexden. and the area was ... - I think that period was meant to be a comma.
Done.
Aportion of Lexden Park ... - "Aportion" or "A portion"?
Criminal career
... summarily beheaded Byndethese by the roadside - Any clue as to why they did this? Retribution for some perceived slight, or just for shits and giggles?
Excellent point. Still no actual reason as to this bloke specifically, but it was quite a common occurrence, and I've added a footnote to put it in context. Without SYNTHing, I think we can assume that he was just one of many who strayed...interesting stuff though.
... the said distress until the £30 were fully paid - Really? This is where you decide that the £ symbol deserves a link?
Today's Deliberate Mistake  :)
All I have time for at the moment. There were other, more minor, infractions, shall we say. You have a distinct style of writing: a bit complex, so following the punctuation correctly is vital – lest FitzWalter, says the historian Mark Ormrod, had been "publicly discredited" be misread as FitzWalter says the historian Mark Ormrod had been "publicly discredited" as I did at first –, but its enjoyable to read. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Royal service and war in France
... he periodically returned to fight in France for over the course of his career - What's the for, for?
For gone  :)
... the young men FitzWalter's class and generation - young men of?
Of course, thanks.
FitzWalter was summoned and 43 other Essex knights were summoned ... - summoned twice. Perhaps "Fitzwalter was summoned, alongside 43 other Essex knights, ..." or "Fitzwalter, and 43 other Essex knights, were summoned ..."
Nicked!
Robert had reserved his rights to certain other city properties, however. This reservation was successfully challenged by the city authorities, however, and both Robert and John made repeated attempts to assert their claim - Mmm... two "however"'s, two sentences apart. There's a third later in the same paragraph. A bit repetitive.
Dealt with the massacre of the howevers above.
Lede
... have also been viewed ... has also been noted ... - Last sentence of the lede. It reads weird to me.
Re-written completely, hopefully reads better now?

I've read the rest of the article. This ends my comments for the time being. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just come around back to this article, having remembered it last night before I went to bed. I'm prepared at this point to support. I did notice one other thing, briefly. In footnote 2 you write that The FitzWalter family held 13 manors in Essex. The image under Early Life lists 14 manors, the one not mentioned in the footnote being Chigwell. Significant? Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I have done some copy editing which you will want to check.

Quite. It is of the usual quality :p
  • "who had arrived in England at the conquest" Maybe tweak this? 'who had arrived in England at the time of the Norman Conquest of England'?
    • Used that. In fact, to save time, I think it's fair to say that out of sheer bone idility I've used your wording whenever you've offered it  :)
  • "The FitzWalters held estates all over Essex" "all over" isn't very encyclopedic. Rephrase? ('scattered across'?)
    • "Across"?
  • "FitzWalter also made a good marriage" Why "also"?
    • Rm also.
  • "the family estates were concentrated around the lordship of Dunmow. They also held estates as distant as Henham" Given that according to the map Henham is the closest estate to Dunmow, "as distant" reads oddly.
    • Err yes. Odd. So I've ommitted Henham and left it as south east, etc, south west, Norfolk, London.
  • "had transferred as fine land" "fine land"?
  • " In response, King Edward claimed the French throne and invaded France, thus beginning the Hundred Years' War" No, he didn't claim the French throne until 1340, three years after the start of the war , for reasons which I won't bore you with, and during his third 'invasion'. I suggest chopping this bit.
    • Juuuust testing  :) cut.
  • "have been under royal protection during the campaign" And "royal protection" would be?
    • Basically so Northampton couldn't sue them for breach of their contracts to him. Hopefully clarified.
  • "influential local men such as they" :-) "such as they" → 'like these' or similar.
  • Yeah!
  • "wrote Harris, who became the most feared man in Essex" Rephrase - obviously (I assume) Harris is not feared down Essex way, but he may be grateful if this were clarified.
    • Dunno. Hard as nails ole "bubble" Harris. But you're dead right of course. Done!
  • "transfer lands worth £40 to FitzWalter, for which FitzWalter was to pay Walter an annual rent of £22" If those figures are correct, what's the problem? Possibly clarify 'worth £40 a year'?
    • Done.
  • "amerce"; link to amercement.
    • OK; although I link later on to a subsection of amercement i note. H'mmm.
  • "anyone who opposed his doing so" Do you mean 'anyone who refused to do so'?
    • Nicked. See #2 ^^^

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was killed in Mile End during another attack on Lexden Park" "Mile End"? The London one? IMO you could simply lose it, → 'was killed during another attack on Lexden Park'.
  • "reinforced the siege with wood from the broken doors and roof beams of houses" This brings no mental image to my mind. Did they 'barricade the access roads with ... '?
      1. 2 ^^^
  • "for failing to appear in answer to accusations of felony" Perhaps 'for failing to appear to answer accusations of felony'?
      1. 2 ^^^  :)

That's all I have. Very impressive. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good stuff. Rereading, the one bit I am not happy with is "Seventeen of FitzWalter's men are known to have been under royal protection during the campaign, which allowed them to serve under FitzWalter and the crown rather than Northampton." This possibly obfuscates the point for the casual reader. Maybe something like 'Seventeen of FitzWalter's men are known to have been vassals of Northampton, but were put under royal protection during the campaign, thus allowing them to serve under FitzWalter and the crown rather than Northampton.' or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last edit summary, I say that it is a well written, thoroughly researched and comprehensive and I am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind, GtM, appreciate you popping back. Just to let you know, although I thought your phrasing above re the "Northampton 17" (sounds like a miscarriage of justice!) was excellent, it occurred to me that my statement about the royal protection was strictly OR since the source doesn't actually say why they were under it, and although you might know it, I might know it, I looked for a decent academic source who said in plain English what it actually meant...and after 20 minutes gave up without one. So, as I said, I don't think it particularly impinges on his career does it? Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 19:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]
  • No Infobox?
  • long-established family in the north-Essex area Link Essex.
  • of the county, Woodham to the southeast American southeast.
  • Chigwell to the southwest American southwest.
  • According to the Elizabethan antiquarian John Stow, the last time the latter Sea of blue here.
  • manpower which the king was determined to exploit The King.
  • FitzWalter built up a reputation as a good soldier American built up.
  • Another, known only as Roger, was the parson of Osemondiston.[40][39][note 8] Re-order the refs in numerical order.
  • which in 1334 had been valued for tax purposes at over £1300 --> "which in 1334 had been valued for tax purposes at over £1,300"
  • bound to pay Edward the "colossal"[3] amount of (at least) £847 2s 4d Maybe link the "d".

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks User:CPA-5! Well, he's a gangster, so focussing on his military career is misleading I think; still, that's infoboxes for you!  :) I'll probably remove it, as it's ungainly squat at any page width, but I appreciate your help and that you looked in here originally. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 04:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point, in the "convictions" parameter, you're supposed to specify what crime he's been convicted of. A conviction, by definition, is a guilty verdict. "Convictions: Guilty" just means "Guilty of: being guilty". Consequently, the "occupation" parameter should list their [lawful] occupation, not which crimes they've committed. In this case, probably landowner or noble would work best. Are there any particularly well known barons with an infobox in their article? That might be a good place to look to see how to format an IB. I would have used IB:Noble myself, instead of IB:Person or IB:Criminal. I only know William de Percy and there's no IB there. Oh, and of course Lord Percy Percy. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: FYI, I've removed the IB. Although well-intentioned, it doesn't seem particularly useful: IB Nobility focusses on his royal service, etc, which is only a small portion of the article's content, while IB Criminal does the opposite. As I said I my edits summary, the subject is a nuanced one that cannot be constrained within the (somewhat limited, I suggest) parameters of the infobox. I imagine something like IB Bad Baron might work, but of course it would be of too limited usage. Even so, this was certainly an interesting and informative experiment. Thanks all. ——SerialNumber54129 07:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and misc comments

[edit]
  • I trust that I need not declare a COI for my half-cousin 21 times removed?
Great COI  :) don't tell anyone from Colchester!
  • Is the ipm for his father available? I know that many are online in the UK National Archives.
Possibly: I'll have a look...were you thinking as a source or an image?
Not sure. I know that many have been scanned, but I'm not sure if they've been converted to text or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't characterise King John's reign as late 13th century as he died in 1216
Check. It was the campaigns of the 1290s (attempting to recapture those lost by John): I've tweaked the text hopefully clarifying this.
a leading rebel against King John in the late 13th century There's still this...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Thought you were talking about the Gascon campaign. Changed late > early. ——SerialNumber54129 15:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • References are consistently formatted though they probably ought to be listed in numerical order in the text.
Done (footnotes anyway).
  • add |lastauthoramp=y to the cite book template for all your multiple author works to match the format used in the Refs
Great stuff, thanks ver much!
  • Page ranges need to be fully expanded, i.e. 130–36 to 130–136
Good catch.
  • Fix the page range in Duggan
Done.
Yep, bloody ODNB! ——SerialNumber54129 12:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review and other tweaks Sturmvogel 66, I think I've attended to them: what think ye. ——SerialNumber54129 12:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2019 (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) 12 October 2019 [20].

1944 Cuba–Florida hurricane

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Between 1944 and 1950, Cuba and Florida would experience an onslaught of 12 hurricane landfalls atop several tropical storms, characterizing one of the region's most active periods on record. The 1944 Cuba–Florida hurricane marked the start of this destructive sequence and dealt a heavy blow on its twelve-day trek from the western Caribbean to Greenland. Unfortunately, records on the storm's impacts in Cuba remain incomplete due to a lack of rural accounts, and the death toll in current literature retains the rough initial estimates of 300. Its large wind field crippled Florida's citrus industry—blankets of orange beneath barren canopies were a common sight across the storm-torn state. My first FAC in six years, I believe this article represents the most comprehensive account of the hurricane available. Sincerest thanks for your reviews and suggested improvements. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]
  • 18 people were killed in the state; half from the loss of a ship in Tampa Bay. - comma, not semicolon (unless you add "were" to the latter clause)
  • However, nearby conditions that day suggested tropical cyclogenesis was underway. - this is unclear what the nearby conditions that suggested anything were
  • You should explain somewhere what a "major hurricane" is
  • At 21:00 UTC on October 18, the eye passed over the Dry Tortugas[3] producing a two-hour period of calm over the islands in the evening hours. - add comma after Dry Tortugas
  • It had grown considerably in areal extent with a radius of maximum wind nearly twice as large as climatologically expected for a storm of the hurricane's intensity and location. - given the excellent writing elsewhere in the article (so far), I believe this sentence could be a bit tighter, or perhaps reformatted slightly
  • You mention the ET track over Nova Scotia, but not Newfoundland or Greenland
  • Pan-American cancelled flights to and from Cuba in advance of the hurricane. - I believe you have a missing word here (Airways)
  • The United States Weather Bureau enumerated 318 deaths due to the hurricane in their summary of the system published in the Monthly Weather Review, noting that reports possibly indicating additional deaths were yet to be received from Cuba and the Cayman Islands. - this is a bit long and unwieldly. I suggest moving the "In their summary..." to the first part of the sentence
  • A powerful storm surge killed 20 people in a small village. - there's no reports which village?
  • Havana Harbor was forced to close because of an excessive debris and sunken craft in its waters. - the "an" seems unnecessary
  • about half the crops in the outlying areas of Cuba were lost - what are the "outlying areas" referred here?

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I've made most of the changes you suggested. Unfortunately, reports do not specify the name or location of the village where 20 were killed. --TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 19:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks so far for your great work. Here are more comments.
  • In 2018, an analysis of historical U.S. landfalls suggested that a similar storm striking the same areas would inflict $73.5 billion in damage when normalized for 2018 demographics and inflation. - I suggest adding a comma after "damage". Perhaps link inflation? Maybe not, your call.
  • One lieutenant piloting a crew of three on an instruction flight out of Naval Air Station Lake City crashed shortly after takeoff 5.5 mi (8.9 km) east of the base, with weather cited as a possible cause. - two things. First, could it just be "An instructional flight out of Naval Air..." - instead of lieutenant/crew. Second, you could mention the crew of three, something like "The crew of three was uninjured", or, if they were injured, mentioned that. This seems like a potentially important bit of info, as all weather-related crashes are.
  • So this is a bit nitpicky. You mention three tornadoes in Florida, and there is also an image of a waterspout near Key West. Was the waterspout one of those tornadoes? If not, could you also add somewhere that the storm spawned waterspouts and three tornadoes? Or some better way of wording that.
  • "They down in the cities of Arcadia and Wauchula as well as southern Polk County." - add missing word ("touched"?)
  • A 250 ft (76 m)-long segment of seawall typically rising 8 ft (2.4 m) above average high tide was destroyed, resulting in the flooding of an adjacent estate - where?
  • In total, 4,000 ft (1,200 m) of seawall and road along South Roosevelt Boulevard was destroyed - link the road to Florida_State_Road_A1A
  • As much as 150 ft (50 m) of beach eroded because of the elevated seas. - in Fernandina Beach?
  • Given the geography of Florida and the progression of the storm, IMO the Jacksonville paragraph should come a bit later, although I see why you put it there (I'm guessing because that's where the highest surge was).
  • Rainfall-related damage primarily to tomatoes, cabbage, beans, and peppers collectively resulted in a 75 percent loss of crops in the Hollywood area. - add commas please
  • Despite fruit trees largely surviving, salt spray carried inland by the winds threatened the ultimate loss of half of the remaining citrus-bearing trees in the St. Petersburg area, exacerbating the wind-torn crop losses. - so what ended up happening hear? The "threatened" part is what threw me, since that means it hadn't happened, and we're not sure if it did happen.
  • Did Environment Canada have anything for the storm?

All in all a good article! I'm glad to see it at FAC. I hope my delay in finishing my review hasn't annoyed you too much, and I hope these comments aren't too arduous. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comments—they're certainly not too arduous. I made the suggested fixes, including removing the part about threatening since I couldn't find any information to substantiate what actually happened. Unfortunately, Environment Canada seems to be no longer supporting their old hurricane impact database, but I did check it when it was still up back in July and surprisingly there was nothing there, nor was there anything from Canadian newspapers I could access. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 12:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm happy to support! Thanks for your hard work on this important article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Support from JC

[edit]

This is an excellent piece of research, and it's a strong candidate for the best-illustrated pre-1950 storm article. Great work! I hope to offer a full review soon, but in the meantime I picked a relatively short section at random (in this case, "Elsewhere in the US") so I could get a feel for the article's substance. My initial impression is that the content is strong, but the prose is loose and at times confused. Some examples of how I'd tighten things up:

  • Total losses in the state of Georgia from the storm were estimated at between $250,000–$500,000. - I'd remove "from the storm" as self-evident.
  • Downed trees were reported in several communities, blocking streets and highways. → "Downed trees blocked streets and highways in several communities."
  • Communication services were scant in some areas as telecommunication and power lines were severed by the storm. - If utility wires were severed, it follows that comms would suffer as a result—or, from another angle, disrupted communications could really only have one cause in the aftermath of a severe windstorm.
  • Strong winds also damaged the shingles and roofs of some buildings to varying degrees; the shipyard in Brunswick, Georgia, was particularly hard hit, with several of its buildings and four cranes damaged. - Shingles and roofs? I'd ditch the semicolon and start a new sentence. Hard-hit is hyphenated.
  • The high wind-swept tides caused coastal inundation throughout the Southeastern U.S. coast... - "coastal ... coast"
  • "a multitude of" → "many"
  • where the seas rose 5.9 ft (1.8 m) above mean sea level. - "seas ... sea"
  • The highest rainfall total measured in the United States as a result of the hurricane was documented at the Brunswick airport, where 11.4 in (290 mm) of rain fell. - I'm not sure how I'd rework this, but it's a slog to get through at the moment.
  • Power and communication lines were downed across the Carolinas. Power outages affected much of Charleston, South Carolina, stemming from winds of 65 mph (105 km/h). → Winds reaching 65 mph brought down power and communication lines across the Carolinas, leaving much of Charleston without electricity." (pipe link without specifying SC is fine, I'd think)
  • Trees and signage... - Why not just "signs"?
  • ctrl+f yields 15 instances of "the city" throughout the article, and while some are acceptable, others—like "the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad just south of the city"—make me backtrack to recall the city in question. If you've only mentioned Florence once, you can refer to it by name again.
  • ...unpicked cotton crops perished. - "perished" is a bit dramatic...
  • Winds of 30–40 mph (48–64 km/h)... - False precision.
  • The storm's effects were comparatively minimal as its extratropical remnants tracked farther north, producing a wide swath of precipitation and high seas that extended alomg the United States' East Coast. - Try "The storm's effects tapered as precipitation and high seas spread north along the U.S. East Coast."
  • In Virginia, widespread rains were reported throughout the state. Some flooding occurred around Staunton, blocking some minor roads. High winds downed as many as 30 percent of the apples remaining on trees. I'd consider removing the first sentence, which adds little value. I'd change the second sentence to "Some street flooding occurred around Staunton". And the apple thing doesn't make much sense: was that 30% of the whole crop? Or after the first round or harvests?
  • The strongest winds were limited to the Norfolk area where winds of 35 mph (56 km/h) were felt; tides 2 ft (0.61 m) above normal were also reported there. → "Greater Norfolk endured 35-mph winds and a 2 ft storm surge."
  • In Newport News, the elevated seas rose over the seawall, inundating low-lying areas. → "The seawall in Newport News was overtopped, inundating low-lying areas".
  • Tree limbs were torn by the winds, though no resultant damage to property was reported. - Talking about damage that didn't happen is for short articles.
  • Minor telecommunication disruptions were reported in Maryland by the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company; a local Weather Bureau meteorologist characterized the storm as "an old fashioned nor'easter". - How are these clauses related?

And as 1:30 am closes in, that's it for now. These are just suggestions which you can feel free to ignore at your discretion. Regardless of how (or whether) you address these specific points, the article could benefit from a once-over by an uninvolved editor with a few hours to kill. – Juliancolton | Talk 05:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I've implemented some of these suggestions and also reread the rest of the article again for flow and clarity. --TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 19:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Chesapeake Bay image
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:1944_hurricane_effects_in_Key_West_MM08838-26x_(15477075451).jpg and File:1944_hurricane_effects_in_Key_West_MM08838-22x_(15480223745).jpg: who is Quinby?

Support from Hurricane Noah

[edit]
  • The storm began quickly over the western Caribbean Sea, strengthening into a tropical storm on October 12 within hours of becoming a tropical cyclone. I don't like using storm twice in the same sentence. I also think it could be less wordy. NoahTalk 17:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting... NoahTalk 23:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • ISBN formats should be consistent with regard to hyphens
  • be consistent in the inclusion or otherwise of publisher locations for book sources
  • Ref 29: Why is this not in short form, since Barnes is listed in the sources?
  • Refs 42 and 43 have "subscription required", but no link
  • Also 49
  • Ref 61: Im not sure that Flickr should be credited as the "publisher" of this image, rather Florida Keys Public Libraries – but I'll leave that to you
  • Ref 105 – see 42/43/49 above
  • Quality/reliability: the sources are broadly what one would expect to see – newspaper articles, meteorological institutions and some scientific journals. As far as I can judge, collectively they meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the source review--removed the non-url {{subscription required}} and transcluded the Cayman Islands rainfall table template so that references between the template and the article could be made consistent. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 12:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

Getting here later in the day than I expected to...

  • The above is all good but I think we're a bit light on for reviews, and I'd especially like one from someone less familiar with storms to gain a different perspective -- SchroCat, you come to mind as someone experienced in FAC but not so much with such articles, would you have time for a once-over?
  • Also I believe this would be your first FA in some time if successful, TheAustinMan, (correct me if I'm wrong) in which case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. One of the above reviewers might like to volunteer for that, or you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC.

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
  • There are a few points where the order of the references should be tweaked so they are in order – [47][13][48] is one example, as is [54][48]. I've made a couple of tweaks, mostly to bring a couple of points in line with the MoS.
Lead
  • "with a damage toll approaching that of Hurricane Sandy". That means nothing to 99 per cent of the planet, and it needs too much explanation to appear in the lead. There's nothing wrong with ending the sentence at "among the costliest U.S. hurricanes".
  • "However" is not needed
Meteorological history
  • "However" not needed (you have "nonetheless" doing the same job later in the sentence)
  • "over-50 year" -> "over-50-year"
Warnings
  • "to threaten the island nation in 18 years" The link on "18 years" is a bit of an easter egg: slightly better would be "to threaten the island nation since that of 1926"
Impact
  • "conditions destroyed all of the crops on the Cayman" -> "conditions destroyed all the crops on the Cayman"
  • "E.S. Parsons" -> "E. S. Parsons"
  • "preventing thru traffic": I'm not always sure on US vernacular, but is "thru" formal enough for use?
  • "$63,000,000": $36 million? (You have $73.5 billion just after and refer to $10–$13 million elsewhere)
  • "18 deaths occurred in the state": Sentences shouldn't start with a number. This should either be spelled out or the sentence tweaked slightly. (I's spell it out, as you have "nine" shortly afterwards
  • "24 persons": anything wrong with "people"?
  • Link for "anemometer"?
  • "21 persons" -> people
Thanks for the review and complementary tweaks! These were all good suggestions, so I've made changes accordingly. As for the $63 million figure, that is the total damage toll across Florida in 1944 US dollars. Per footnote [nb 1], all monetary values are in 1944 USD (as originally reported) unless otherwise noted. The $73.5 billion figure is an estimate of what a similar storm in 2018 would do, while the $10–13 million figure is damage done strictly along the Florida coasts. --TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 17:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - my typo on the $63/36 million. My point was in the formatting (ie, it should have been $63 million, not $63,000,000): I've changed it.

Spot checks

[edit]

Spot checks undertaken to confirm a. that the information claimed in the article is supported by reference; and b. that no plagiarism or close copying has taken place. Checks were done on 3, 12a & b, 18, 31, 40, 41a & b, 51, 75a & b, 79 and 102. All except one are good.

  • FN 102 supports the following: "Gusts of 50 mph (80 km/h) grounded airplane traffic and yachts in New England. An empty coal barge was grounded upon Thompson Island, carried by wind-driven seas. One driver in Somersworth, New Hampshire, was killed after losing control of their car on a slick roadway—three passengers were injured. Downed wires in Newton and Quincy, Massachusetts, cut power to roughly 250 homes." Only "Gusts of 50 mph (80 km/h) grounded airplane traffic and yachts in New England" is supported by the citation - I suspect there is another report which you've forgotten to add which covers the rest. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2019 (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) 12 October 2019 [21].

Digital media use and mental health

[edit]
Nominator(s): [E.3][chat2][me] 06:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the complex, multifaceted, relationship between digital media use and mental health of its consumers and users. This has been in the media significantly since 2016 to a greater and greater extent, and there is a lot of confusion and misinformation amongst the public at large, in my experience - even moral panic. It is intended to be the main article of the category Digital media use and mental health. It intends to address history and terminiology, and then considers all the mental health views, following WP:MEDRS for medical claims. Problematic use has the most WP:DUE weight, followed by mental health benefits and the treatment of mental health problems with digital interventions. It then investigates other disciplinary perspectives, and the response of large technology firms. [E.3][chat2][me] 06:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also linking to the GA review, Peer review and pre-FA nom comments.--[E.3][chat2][me] 06:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your substantial efforts in bringing this article, obviously an important one, to this stage. I am not a subject matter expert, but I know enough to know that this is a subject of much current research. As such it's a page that will require frequent and substantive updating, and is therefore exactly the sort of page that I, personally, would not bring to FAC, and I'm not sure that I'll be able to support, once I've read through it...Vanamonde (Talk) 10:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that that is necessarily a problem for FA. Such a topic will need periodic updates (say, once per year) but it's unlikely that it will require head-to-feet rewrites or daily updates which are generally much more difficult to manage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I hope by listing it as Level-5 vital importance, with the FA nom and subsequent, anticipated FA reviews probably yearly will allow the article to be continually updated at high quality. Many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Yes that may not be own work, I changed to an alternative, from the original image diff to new image diff. As to the lead image, my rationale is because there are many images previously used on related pages where people were illustrated likely without their permission. The series of images from Rawpixel Ltd. is appropriately licensed and shows probable paid actors that seem to be illustrating mobile phone usage +/- overusage. An alternative caption is "Smartphone usage may affect mental health", do you have another suggestion? Or do you suggest an alternative image? --[E.3][chat2][me] 06:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am presuming that we do have their permission being stock footage actors, and it seems intentional and therefore not derogatory to me. Other media organisations have used Rawpixel's stock footage in this way see here & here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 10:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Verification: spotchecks not carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Be consistent in formatting page ranges. Compare e.g. Ref 2 (225–232) with Ref 6 (652–7)
  • Ref 6: the publisher for Beales et al is Liverpool University Press ("Liverpool" is the location)
  • Ref 9: give the publisher (Wiley), not just the New York location
  • Ref 39: I'm probably being a little stuffy, but I'd prefer to see "Publishing" rather than "Pub"
  • Ref 43 (Hinduja & Patchin): here, you give location and publisher, elsewhere just the publisher. Publishers are required, locations are optional, but there needs to be consistency.
  • Ref 44: ISBN formats should be consistent (re hyphenation). 44 also lacks publisher
  • Ref 55: probably best to delete the doi, rather than record the link as "inactive"
  • Ref 59 lacking publisher
  • Ref 88: the publisher would appear to be Jana Partners LLC
  • Quality/reliability: the sources are mainly scholarly, and as far as I can see, appear to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

As this hasn't received any substantial prose review or support for promotion, it may need to be archived within the next week. In the mean time, it may be prudent to reach out to active editors in this topic area and ask for a review against WP:WIAFA. --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I think this would be your first FA if successful, E.3 (correct me if I'm wrong) in which case we'd need someone to undertake a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing -- unless one was carried out and I missed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, yes it is my first FAC. @Homeostasis07: supported on sourcing and prose. Homeostasis07, can you please clarify whether this was a spot-check of sources? Thankyou very much. --[E.3][chat2][me] 10:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Over the course of my prose review, I ended up reading all of references 4, 13, 50, 67, 73, 79, 80 and 93, as well as good portions of refs 9, 17, 20-1/21-1 ("Identifying commonalities..."), 20-5 ("Prevalence and Predictors of Video Game Addiction..."), 33, 34, 51 and 57. I was satisfied that the information derived from them was verifiable against each reference, accurately summarized/paraphrased, and didn't see any issues with regards to plagiarism. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Hi, I'm going to review this article against a few of the FA criteria; I'm asking that you give me up to 7 days to complete my review before making the decision to archive or promote this nomination. As someone who has been around the block 9 times (i.e., [22] [23]), I know it's a little disheartening when a nomination gets archived due to a lack of reviewer input. If there are any FA criteria in particular that haven't been adequately reviewed thus far, please let me know which they are sometime today and tomorrow so that I can focus on those. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.3: Sorry for my delayed follow-up; I'll begin my review shortly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: For the past 2 days, I've had no working laptop due to a broken AC adapter and was limited to using my phone to access Wikipedia; I wasn't actually 100% positive that my power problem was the adapter (as opposed to the power jack or a circuitry issue on my motherboard), so I waited until now to decide whether or not to cancel or continue my review. Fortunately, my problem was in fact my AC adapter, so I'll just need another 2 days to pick up where I left off (I'm assuming there's no urgent need to close nom this before then). Sorry for the delay. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for everyone's review and support so far! @FAC coordinators: please let me know, as this is my first FAC, if there is anything else I should be doing prior to the final consideration. With many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the lack of recognition and consensus on the concepts used, diagnoses and treatments are difficult to standardise or develop, especially considering that "new media has been subject to such moral panic". - not thrilled about this sentence, espeically as the last segment comes over in a non-neutral tone in the context it is used on this page. Would be better being rephrased and de-quoted - maybe something like, "The lack of recognition and consensus on the concepts used renders diagnoses and treatments are difficult to standardise or develop. Heightened levels of anxiety around new media further obfuscate assessment of impact and management" ?
Done --[E.3][chat2][me] 23:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...characterized by virtual Internet sexual activity that causes serious .... - any reason why "internet" is capitalised here?
In American English "Internet" has traditionally been capitalized. However, Merriam-Webster notes: "In U.S. publications, the capitalized form Internet continues to be more common than internet, although the lowercase form is rapidly gaining more widespread use. In British publications, internet is now the more common form." American Heritage Dictionary lists "internet, also Internet". I reviewed Manual of Style/Capital letters; searched within the Manual of Style for "internet"; and searched Help for "manual of style internet", but did not find any specific Wikipedia guidance. I am in favor of "internet". Perhaps we should propose including a line or two about the word in the MOS and recommend using "internet" for articles in American English. I suspect most articles in BE, AU, NZ, and other forms of English already use the lower-case version, although I did not investigate.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Internet capitalisations occurred with the GOCE copy-edit. I prefer "internet", and per Markworthen's analysis this is NZ English, will change --[E.3][chat2][me] 23:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Social media addiction while excluded from the DSM-5 is under consideration as a mental disorder - ...by the DSM-5? This sentence is awkward as is

Overall I think it has improved with each review. I still get the feeling it is a bit "bitsy" but am aware this may be due to the nature of the body of evidence out there and not any fault as such of the article itself. Nothing else is really jumping out at me prose or comprehensiveness-wise but I will take another look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "under consideration as a mental disorder" in DSM-5—that is a very good point. I revised the sentence (diff).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a tough one - I can't see any more prose issues and it seems pretty comprehensive. So is a tentative support from me though for some reason I can't put my finger on I don't feel wildly confident but maybe that is because of the patchiness of the research and hence no fault of the article. My thumbs-up is dependent on other thumbs-up (which it needs to be anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
Thankyou very kindly for all your help with this, a tentative thumbs up from yourself, a psychiatrist and a wiki expert for FA is much far than I thought it would ever get. You're right, the literature is inconclusive, and it makes the article "bitsy", I've been struggling with multiple layouts and the like the whole time, concluding this is the best it can be. My literature searches have been as robust as my skills allow (although not systematic). Thanks so much again. I've posted quite widely on the wikiprojects hoping for some more interested reviewers. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I have done a little copy editing on the way, which you will want to check.

  • "However, concerns have arisen from researchers, clinicians and the public" How about 'However, concerns have been expressed by researchers, clinicians and the public'?
  • "different OECD nations had marked variations in childhood technology use" Could that specify whether the variation refers to types of technology, rates of usage, or both?
  • "recognised in the ICD-11" When an acronym is used, it should be given in full at first mention. (See my tweak to OECD.)
No. The MoS says do so "if helpful for readers", so if you think it isn't, leave it.
  • "the lack of well-established evidence or expert consensus" Should that be 'and of expert consensus'? (In fact that whole sentence is difficult to follow and could bear being relooked at.)
  • "in regard to its suitability as a separate psychiatric entity, or whether it is a manifestation of other psychiatric disorders" Are you setting up a dichotomy here? If so, could it be more clearly expressed as such? If not, ditto.
  • changed to "The utility of the term addiction in relation to overuse of digital media has been questioned, in regard to its suitability as separate, digitally mediated psychiatric entities, as opposed to manifestations of other psychiatric disorders." --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed to "The utility of the term addiction in relation to overuse of digital media has been questioned, in regard to its suitability to describe new, digitally mediated psychiatric categories, as opposed to overuse being a manifestation of other psychiatric disorders." Does that make sense? --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "careless use of the term may cause additional problems" I feel that this needs a 'such as ... ' or similar.
  • "Panova and Carbonell published a review in 2018 that specifically encouraged terminology of "problematic use" in regard to technology behaviours, rather than continuing research based on other behavioural addictions" It may be me, but having read this several times, I am unsure what it is trying to communicate.
  • "with some calling to delineate proposed disorders" Would that read better as 'with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated'?
  • "has caused difficulty with timely publishing of evidence-based guidelines, with experts from the fields of psychology and psychiatry calling for further study" Minor point: "with" twice; could one be replaced? More serious point: "further study" of what? (evidence-based guidelines?)
  • "with risk of depression developing at both the low and high ends" → 'with risk of depression developing increasing at both the low and high ends'?
  • "individuals of ages 14–24" Optional: "of ages" → 'aged'.

~*"the largest five social media platforms" Is this cited? I am not sure that it is accurate. Perhaps 'five large social media platforms'

  • "YouTube was the only platform with a net positive rating "based on the 14 health and wellbeing-related questions", followed by Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat, with Instagram having the lowest rating" This, to me, leaves it a little unclear that four platforms had net negative ratings; "a net positive rating ... followed by ... " could easily be taken to mean that those "follow[ing]" also had "a net positive rating", especially on the light of the following sentence.
  • "Twenge and colleagues" The preceding studies mention a date. Could this one? Similarly with "Ophir and colleagues".
  • "were correlated with depressive symptoms" "were" → 'was'.
  • "questioned the surveys' research methodology, such as" I would suggest "such as" → 'citing' or similar, unless there is a consensus that these concerns were well founded.
  • " "reconsidering the internet as an environment rather than as a tool, [... exploring] the internet's role in cognitive ecology, as well as the inadequacy of treating the internet as a tool and thus of the current internet-addiction model" " After several reads this has managed to communicate negative information. Can I (strongly) suggest replacing it with a (intelligible) paraphrase.
  • changed to "A different perspective in 2018 by Musetti and colleagues reappraised the internet in terms of its necessity and ubiquity in modern society, as a social environment, rather than a tool, thereby calling for the reformulation of the internet addiction model" --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suicidal ideation" should be linked at first mention.
  • "Similar modest increases" Is "modest" in the cite? An increase of 50% does not strike me as "modest".
  • "and one may argue to multitask less on digital media" Is this intended to communicate 'and one may argue that it is more effective to multitask less on digital media' or similar. As it stands it seems to have words missing.
  • "There is some limited evidence into the effectiveness of" "into" → 'of'.
  • "manage risk of harm online" → 'manage the risk of harm online'.
  • "high believers" Is there not a more felicitous term?
  • "They theorised that these same vulnerable groups" Assuming that "vulnerable groups" refers to "lower-income youths" then: 1. is this explicitly cited; 2. vulnerable to what; 3. could it be made clear that the use of "vulnerable groups" refers to "lower-income youths".
  • Vulnerable groups refers to vulnerable to mental illness. the lower income groups are already vulnerable to mental illness and then the risks are amplified by their higher use of digital media. Is it clearer here? --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It called for further study, identifying, "adolescence a tipping point in development for how social media can influence their self-concept and expectations of self and others" Again I am unclear what the report is calling for; again I would suggest a paraphrase rather than a quote.
  • "often findings in relation to behavioural addictions or digital media used in individual studies" Recommend 'relation to specific behavioural addictions'. (I read this three times, typed a complaint and then, belatedly, "got it".)
  • Gaps in quotes are sometimes shown as " ... " and sometimes as " [...] ". Standardise?
  • "small to moderate effects on mental health" "effects" → 'benefits'?
  • "but this would require validating evidence from future randomised controlled trials" This seems to beg an 'in order to ... '
  • Changed to "Smartphone applications have proliferated in many mental health domains, with "demonstrably effective" recommendations from one 2016 review encouraging cognitive behavioural therapy, addressing both anxiety and mood. The review, however called for randomised controlled trials to validate their recommendations." --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It admitted "heavy responsibilities" " Replace "It" with either 'He' or 'Facebook'.
  • "enabling users to set timers on application overuse" Should that be 'use', not "overuse"?

Some points from a first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An exceedingly fine article, which I imagine I will be supporting. Ideally some of the content would be devolved out to sub-articles, but as these don't exist this article has had to work hard to cover everything; it has done a pretty good job of it. A passing thought is that the level of Wikilinking seemed low for such a technical article - I could be wrong on that, so don't worry if you disagree.
I am away for the weekend from a couple of hours time. I will still be on Wikipedia but may not get around to this FAC again until I am back. As all of the issues I have brought up so far have been satisfactorily addressed I suggest that Homeostasis07 carry out their prose review and I save my reread for when that is done and dusted? Is that OK? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Many kind thanks again, and for the kind comment. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second run through
[edit]

Again, some copy editing for you to check.

Lead:

  • "for some years" A bit vague for a FA. Is the actual year not known?
  • "recognises gaming disorder" Is that internet-gaming? If so, could you state it; if not, what is the relevance?
  • "Scientists, however, are unsure about the direct links between digital media use and mental health outcomes." "unsure about the direct links" seems a little 'hand wavey'. Could it be phrased a little more tightly?
  • "to try to reduce the risks of digital media use" Optional: Specify the risks which are being reduced.

History and terminology:

  • "Terminology used to refer to compulsive digital-media-use behaviours are" "Terminology" being singular, I think that "are" should be 'is'. A similar issue with "They" in the next sentence. Possibly use 'terminologies'?
  • "Gaming disorder has been recognised in the ICD-11" See second point under Lead, above.
  • "Different recommendations from the DSM and the ICD" "from" → 'in'.

Problematic use:

  • "This has led multiple experts cited by Hawi and Samaha of Notre Dame University – Louaize to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated based on the digital platform used" This sentence doesn't really work. Shout if you disagree, or agree but would like suggestions as to how to rephrase.
  • This has gone through multiple rephrasings, tis difficult, especially in the DYK approved. I use Hawi and Samaha because they summarise succinctly with all of their refs. I'm basically saying, a point I've considered important since the start of my contributions in this sphere, that multiple experts are calling for delineating "internet addiction" as having subsets due to the gender difference. --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Leave it. If it's good enough for Reidgreg it's good enough for me.
  • "prospective study designs going forward" I don't think that both "prospective" and "going forward" are needed.
  • "compared psychological benefits and problems of five large social media platforms" "of" → 'for'.
  • "new media" is used twice, without being defined. If it is a synonym for digital media, I suggest standardising on the latter.
  • Since digital media isn't quite a synonym except in the second use, I have defined in the first use
  • "and even some positive associations in terms of well-being" "even" seems PoV; is this, or a similar word or phrase, used in the source?
  • "and one may argue to multitask less on digital media to be more productive and efficient" This needs tweaking for sense/grammar.
  • Sorry, but still doesn't quite make sense. How about ending with 'it is possible to argue that it is inefficient to multitask on digital media'?
  • "as commented in a 2017 UNICEF Office of Research literature review" "commented" seems an odd word in context.
  • "A number of different methodologies of assessing pathological internet" "of" → for?
  • "gaming disorder" Internet-gaming disorder?
  • No "internet gaming disorder" is a subset of "gaming disorder" as the latter can be offline, now clearly stating that WHO uses gaming disorder, APA internet gaming disorder (although not officially approved by the latter). --[E.3][chat2][me]
  • "Medications have not been shown to be effective in randomised controlled trials" Optional: → 'In randomised controlled trials medications have not been shown to be effective'.

Mental health benefits:

  • "can develop social connections over social media, that develop a sense of" "develop" twice; possibly change one?

Other disciplines:

  • "a digital analyst, anthropologist and keynote speaker working in the field" Optional: → 'a digital analyst and anthropologist'.
  • "noting lower-income youths may spend up to three hours more per day using digital devices, compared to higher-income youths. They theorised that these same groups" Does "these same groups" refer to lower-income youths, higher-income youths or both?
  • "that are already vulnerable to mental illness" Can a group be vulnerable to mental illness?

Digital technology use in mental health care:

  • "Digital media use in healthcare is unregulated in most countries" This seems a random sentence. I don't see how it links to the rest of the paragraph, the section, or even the article. Is there a missing fragment?
China
[edit]

Response of large technology firms:

  • I understood that some of the World's largest digital platforms are Chinese based. Earlier you say "China ... [has] treated digital dependence as a public health crisis". How, if at all, is this reflected in changes made by the platform providers?
  • I dont think the large China tech firms have been addressing publically, from a customary google search. The response from china has been mainly opening treatment centres, further discussed in the internet addiction linked article. --[E.3][chat2][me]
  • To me this is the only issue giving me pause about supporting is this one, criteria 1b, "it neglects no major facts or details". The article seems a little weak in this respect if it doesn't address, if only negatively, how these issues play out in China, a not insignificant proportion of digital media users.
Definitely understand the concern. I do not think WeChat or Weibo have released statements to assert they are mitigating risks of their platforms to date, however I cannot find a source to state this either, so that's not possible to include under the final section. I will now include this review when I delineate the large social media platforms, and also citing it whenever I state that excessive social media use is associated with mental illness. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I understand China's strategies don't seem to come from the tech firms but government regulation.. This is addressed in the see also articles under problematic use: internet addiction, Video gaming addiction, Online_gaming_in_China (through a double click from this article to get to). We dont have a section currently on government regulation because so far, the rest of the world hasn't been regulating. Facebook has invited regulation, and there has been one proposal from a US congressman in problematic social media use. I can add some Chinese content to that article too. Personally, I think that the sub articles should have that content unless it becomes a "response from the large technology firms", but to satisfy criteria 1b, the new review article is included. What do you think about that compromise or do you have other suggestions? --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the mention of WeChat you have added. Frankly, I would feel uncomfortable supporting if some mention were not made inline in the article of the online game anti-indulged system standard issued by the General Administration of Press and Publications. Or something similar. It seems to go straight to the topic of this article. I see no reason why it needs a separate section, nor why it needs to be lengthy. Perhaps retitle the last section "Platform provider and governmental responses"? And include a sentence or two?
It good Wikipedia style, I am prepared to be argued out of this, but I suspect that you agree with me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Retitled the section and I added new content. I'm a bit uncertain as to the reliability of this source in the article Online gaming in China, which was written after the publication of this (Permalink). I am unable to verify whether this proposal ever came into fruition in China. I have my doubts, considering more than a decade later they have proposed a similar thing. So I think its best to stick with the more recent information. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC) FYI I asked at Reliable sources noticeboard here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled the section and added China content summarised (sourcing thoughts above) --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Supporting. A top class article you have created. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Was a great review and a great process. --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming from a question on a different board and just trying to find some sources here "Government Regulation of Online Game Addiction" from CAIS, Enmeshed in games with the government: Governmental policies and the development of the Chinese online game industry from Games and Culture, Policy and prevention approaches for disordered and hazardous gaming and Internet use: An international perspective from Prevention Science, and a few more possible hits from Google Scholar search on this area. --Masem (t) 14:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that @Masem:. I'm a bit worried about the first source because for claims it cites the poorly cited wiki article Online gaming in China. Will take a look at the others tomorrow. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated predominantly with the fantastic last ref, @Masem:. What do you think? also if you have time to comment/review the rest of the article would be most appreciated. --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07

[edit]
  • I've just read the lead so far (where I couldn't see any problems, but I'll re-read after reviewing the rest of the prose). I believe this to be a very important topic, and I find the subject fascinating. It seems immaculately referenced (abundance of academic sources), so the prose should be a breeze to review. Should be able to post my initial review within 24 hours... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay. It's quite a large and dense article, so has taken me a bit longer than usual to get through. There are some very technical sentences that initially seem quite hard to digest on first read, so hopefully my review will be able to resolve such things. That being said, you've done a brilliant job so far of making the article as easy to understand as possible (for the lay person). For such a complicated and technological-based subject, it's (mostly) incredibly easy to follow. I agree with Gog the Mild above that there initially seems to be a lack of wikilinking on the article, but I found that many of the terms I was about to suggest linking were just redirects to the article itself, so that'd be pointless. It's clear this article is a stepping stone in the future creation of a massive series of articles. Kudos on your work so far. ;) Here are my suggestions so far:
Thanks for the kind comments. Yes its been a long time coming, hopefully this overview with all the sub articles and links leads to further expansion of sub articled down the track. --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


History and terminology

  • "A 2018 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report noted the benefits of structured and limited internet use in children and adolescents for development and education, and that excessive digital media use is associated with mental illness." → "A 2018 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report noted the benefits of structured and limited internet use in children and adolescents for developmental and educational purposes, but that excessive use can have a negative impact on mental well-being."
  • Link ICD-11 here; unlink same from 'Assessment and treatment' section.
  • "animal models" can be linked as animal model, or just animal model (which is a redirect. I personally prefer redirects, but I know others don't like them. I'll leave that up to you).
  • You could do with specifying who "Panova and Carbonell" are, because they come across as two random names that don't mean much to the average reader. How about something like: "Tayana Panova and Xavier Carbonell of Ramon Llull University"?
  • Done, but I changed to psychologists, and only using surnames.
  • population based → population-based?
  • Radeski and Christiaki, the 2019 editors of JAMA Paediatrics, published a review that investigated: there seems to be some inconsistency with how these two names are spelled throughout the article. All the sources identify the first as Radesky J or JS, and the second as Christakis D or DA; both academics have collaborated on several different reports, so I'm assuming these are all the same two people. However, the prose has different spellings of "Radesky"/"Radeski", and "Christakis"/"Christiakis". If it's as I suspect, the names should be corrected. If I'm mistaken, then please ignore. ;) Also, I believe JAMA Paediatrics should be italicised.

Problematic use

  • "This has led multiple experts cited by Hawi and colleagues to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated based on the type of digital media used." → "This has led multiple experts cited by Nazir Hawi and his colleagues at the University of Notre Dame to suggest that digital media overuse may not be a singular construct, with some calling for proposed disorders to be delineated based on the type of digital media used." Also, the latter use of "digital media" is a bit repetitive. How about switching it up to "device" (since it wa explained in the previous section that this relates to the type of device used—problematic smartphone use, problematic internet use, etc.)
  • Changed to digital platform and Notre Dame University – Louaize --[E.3][chat2][me]

Mental health

  • "A 2016 technical report by Chassiakos, Radesky, and Christakis identified"... → Some names that don't mean much as they are (to me anyway). How about changing this to "A 2016 technical report which appeared in Pediatrics identified"...
  • "but these were outweighed by negative effects, including those on sleep, body image, and "fear of missing out"." → "but said that these were outweighed by the negative effects, specifically on sleep, body image, and "fear of missing out"."
  • "Twenge and colleagues published in 2018 two cross sectional surveys of 506,820 American high school students," → "A report published in Clinical Psychological Science in 2018 featured two cross-sectional surveys of 506,820 American high school students,
  • "They concluded that more time engaged with electronic device use," → "They concluded that more time engaged with electronic devices"
  • "However, Ophir and colleagues questioned in 2018 the survey's research methodology," → "However, a later report in the same publication questioned the survey's research methodology,"
  • "The relationship between bipolar disorder and technology use has been investigated in a singular survey of 84 participants. The survey found marked variations in technology use based on self-reported mood states. Matthews and colleagues then postulated that for patients with bipolar disorder, technology may be a "double-edged sword", with potential benefits and harms." → "The relationship between bipolar disorder and technology use has been investigated in a singular survey of 84 participants for Computers in Human Behavior. The survey found marked variations in technology use based on self-reported mood states. The authors of the report then postulated that for patients with bipolar disorder, technology may be a "double-edged sword", with potential benefits and harms."

Screen time

  • Couldn't find anything to complain about here.

Proposed diagnostic categories

  • Who are "Stein and Parashar"?

Online problem gambling, Cyberbullying, Media multitasking, Assessment and treatment and Mental health benefits

  • Nothing to complain about here, except the previously mentioned random linking of ICD-11 in 'Assessment'.

Digital anthropology

  • Link first instance of digital anthropology (first sentence, as opposed to the first sentence of 2nd paragraph).

Digital sociology

  • "noting lower-income youths may spend up to three hours more time per day using digital devices, compared to higher income youths." → "noting lower-income youths may spend up to three hours more per day using digital devices, compared to higher-income youths."

Gonna have to leave it there for the time being, @E.3: will continue soon. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Neuroscience

  • "Although brain imaging modalities are under study, often neuroscientific findings in individual studies of digital media use patterns, similar to other behavioural addictions, fail to be replicated in further studies, and as of 2017, the exact biological or neural processes that could lead to excessive digital media use are unknown." → This sentence reads pretty awkwardly. Something like "Although brain imaging modalities are under study, neuroscientific findings in individual studies often fail to be replicated in future studies, similar to other behavioural addictions; as of 2017, the exact biological or neural processes that could lead to excessive digital media use are unknown." might be easier to digest. But feel free to rephrase however you like, because you've done a better job of rewriting things so far than I have. ;)

Digital technology use in mental health care

  • Research of digital health interventions in young people is preliminary with a meta-review unable to draw firm conclusions because of problems in research methodology. → I feel like you're missing a comma between "preliminary" and "with".

Response of large technology firms

  • "However, journalists have questioned the functionality for users and for parents and companies' motivations for these interventions." → "However, journalists have questioned the functionality of these products for users and parents, as well as the companies' motivations for introducing them."

The last of my prose review. See no problem supporting this once these small points have been addressed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable

[edit]

As long as a couple of minor inaccuracies I've just corrected aren't re-inserted to the 'Digital mental health care' section, I tentatively support . Tentative mainly as I've not really participated in the FA process for about 10 years, and Im conscious some consultants would have different takes on the POV. Personally though I think the article provides a good NPOV reflection of the emerging literature in this complex field, & in picking out key regulatory & platform operator action. Great job! ( Disclosure: I made a few small contributions to the article back before it reached GA. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Was a great collaborative effort. --[E.3][chat2][me] 10:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seppi333

[edit]

Since I was aware that E.3 intended to nominate this article at FAC prior to the nomination, I went ahead and made several revisions for compliance with [2] in mid-August (Re: Talk:Digital_media_use_and_mental_health#Input_from_Seppi333; my corresponding edits). I'll make another pass to make sure everything is still in order today or tomorrow. I intend to focus on WP:FA criteria 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2b, and 2c, as well as general MOS compliance for criterion 2 in this review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to support, but since my deep dive into novel, notable, and/or significant topical intersections between mental health and digital media/technology – as well as the major details or key facts I might find in abstracts of papers about them – is still ongoing, my support is conditional upon not finding the article lacking w.r.t. a body of published literature. I expect this to take me at most 24 hours to complete since I essentially need to perform a number of filtered Pubmed searches to assess this. If I do not follow-up by that time with an indication of an area of deficiency, then I support promotion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion based upon the the criteria that I assessed below. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1
[edit]
1b – Comprehensiveness

See discussion section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any problems. Support on comprehensiveness. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1c – Well-researched

I expected to have more time available to review this article earlier than I actually will this week, so I'm going to forego a review of this criterion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1d – Neutral

I've already provided extensive input on several of the sub-article talk pages regarding the classification of several social media related disorders as "addictions"; moreover, since I've read a number of related review articles that discuss the nominal topic in the past while working on related topics, I'm familiar enough with the scientific consensus on this subject to make the determination that there aren't any NPOV issues in the article at present, at least with respect to the (mis)-classification of mental health disorders, mental health benefits, or the discussion of neuroscience in the article. Hence, I'm inclined to support on criterion 1d. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2
[edit]
2 – Overall MOS compliance

As stated at the top of my subsection, I already made a preliminary pass of edits to this article for MOS compliance in mid-August. I'll do another pass within the next 48 hours. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made a second pass with a number of revisions for common MOS issues. There may still be a few relatively minor inconsistencies with the MOS overall, but very few featured articles are actually fully MOS-compliant, so I'm satisfied with the current state. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2a – Article lead

The lead is 3 paragraphs, which per MOS:LEADLENGTH is appropriate given the length of the body. It covers all the major topics included in the article's body, so overall I think the article is compliant with 2a. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2b – Appropriate structure

The layout/sectioning of the article is hierarchical and broken down into appropriate subtopics with links to sub-articles. I'm inclined to support on criterion 2b. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2c – Consistent citations

I intend to go through and standardize the citation formatting for website, book, and journal citations. @Boghog: I know that you standardize journal formatting in articles fairly often and noticed you revised a few in these edits. In the event you formatted all the journal citations for consistency in those edits, please let me know so that I can focus my attention just on the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates; otherwise, I'll see about reformatting the rest. Thanks.

I think I standardized most of the authors in citations including {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} by using either |vauthors= or |name-list-format=vanc. I will go through them one more time. I generally used full journal names, not abbreviations. Boghog (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I'll standardize the page ranges and journal abbreviations in the {{cite journal}} templates if I notice any inconsistencies in their formatting. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boghog did a good job standardizing the citations. The only issues I could find involved page numbers and I only ended up making (IIRC) 3 actual corrections across all the refs (I changed |pages= to |page= in a number of places, but the citation template/module automatically reformats the output, so it wasn't necessary). In any event, I support on 2c now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
[edit]

Digital media use and mental health#Other disciplines – I'd suggest either deleting the uncited sentence immediately under this heading or citing the sentence and adding at least one more statement under that section heading. One-sentence paragraphs aren't ideal w.r.t. criterion 1a. I don't intend to review 1a, but that sentence would need to be cited either way.

When thinking about comprehensiveness, I asked myself "What's the most obscure and novel topical intersection of digital media platforms and mental health care or mental illness that I know?" My answer to that was computerized cognitive behavioural therapy, but that was already covered in the article. Kudos for covering that.

Since the evidence supporting the therapeutic efficacy is preliminary/limited and since many other uses currently constitute alternative medicine, I will leave it up to you as to whether or not you think this should be covered: [24] Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/google-invests-mental-health-specialist-quartet-expand-machine-learning-team "Quartet sells what it described as a virtual environment for shared care planning that deploys algorithms to pinpoint patients with potential or unidentified mental health conditions and connect them to behavioral health specialists. The technology achieves that by binding together local mental health specialists and live psychiatry consults for providers with data-driven insights through adaptive learning algorithms and concierge-like support for patients." Basically, this company uses proprietary AI to identify patients with underlying/latent mental health conditions and, by coordinating with health insurance companies, connects them to in-network mental healthcare. Per their own website [25], they apparently also provide resources for computerized CBT.
There's a lot of news sources on this; IMO, this is definitely worth mentioning in the article since the use of AI (which is probably a deep neural network in this case) to identify individuals with mental health issues and connect them to psychiatric/psychological services is a rare instance of software technology (e.g., online CBT) finding a use in mental healthcare. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's very interesting! I included a brief mention in Industry and Government, because I can't find scholarly literature on it to warrant inclusion in the "Digital mental health care" section, which doesn't give me a specific reason to name that company other than one of Google's intiatives per se. What do you think? --[E.3][chat2][me] 01:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's far too new of a technology to adequately assess its efficacy for its intended purpose, so I actually had the Industry/Govt section in mind when I brought it up. In any event, that sounds good. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn

[edit]

As a random sample, I took a look at the start of the "Problematic use" section.

  • "Several studies have shown that women are more likely to overuse social media ..." cited to 6 sources, some of which are not WP:MEDRS - and PMID 27688739 as well as being primary is also in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal. This seems like an WP:OVERCITE or else orginal research; we are meant to be citing reviews not writing reviews. Suggest either find the one or two good sources which WP:VERIFY "Several studies have shown ..." and cite them, or the one or two sources which support the idea that women overuse more than man, and simply WP:ASSERT that information.
  • Understood. I'm not intentionally overciting here, I'm using Hawi as the secondary source, and I use all their citations. I'll remove them, use Hawi who say it clearest, and remove the other citations. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. These two sentences are the most difficult in the whole article, and I think this is a very important point, with extensive discussion in the DYK. I'll go through all the citations of Andreassen and the others that found this to see another reviewing it and stating this all together, but I'm not sure one exists, however the sex difference is repetitively found in all of the studies. What do you think of the current wording? --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording is good, but is there a strong source to support it? I think if so this should be cited to a single strong source; if none exists remove the content. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Hawi's notionally secondary content is sufficient rationale here to satisfy WP:MEDRS, but open to third opinion. They are reviewing the studies, drawing their conclusion before they embark on their own study, I'm not reviewing it. I removed their citations apart from the social media review citation, and I am looking for a video game citation to satisfy the request. The consensus for the reliability and suitability of this source was agreed and put on the front page in the DYK, see discussion.
  • I have included a very reliable source about males and video game overuse, that supports the other sources. I've still included Hawi at this stage, because their notional review said it clearest (ie. the least scholarly) for the encyclopaedia, to avoid WP:SYNTH and also keeping it accessible to the general reader. What do you think? --[E.3][chat2][me]
  • "This has led multiple experts cited by Hawi and Samaha of Notre Dame University – Louaize ..." seems like a really odd form of expression. Of the three sources cited, PMID 26831456 appears to be the only strong (i.e. both recent & secondary) source, and it seems to be arguing the whole concept of "internet addiction" is hopelessly vague & overloaded. Ideally concepts should be re-cast around this source.
  • "Experts from the fields of psychology and psychiatry have called for further study, especially to establish whether causal relationships exist" seems just a wordy form of Further research is needed, as diccouraged by WP:MEDMOS. The source is an editorial anyway, which is not great. Suggest removing this.

Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2019 (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) 12 October 2019 [26].

Hurricane Alex (2016)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Alex in January 2016 was one of the more anomalous hurricanes on record within the Atlantic basin. Its development marked the third-known occurrence of a hurricane-force tropical cyclone in January, with records extending back to 1851. The article is a bit more technical than would normally be expected, but there are hopefully enough explanations for lay readers to understand. The most notable aspects of this system is the meteorology of it, so that's where the focus lies. It did have some impact to people in Bermuda and the Azores; however, it was relatively minor.

I've gone ahead and looked for any additional information that may have arose in the years since I initially wrote the article and added the little I found. As such, this the article is as comprehensive as can be. It's been a few years since my last nomination, so apologies if I'm a bit rusty. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]
Source review
Lead
  • The first tropical cyclone of the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season, Alex originated as an extratropical cyclone near the Bahamas on January 7, 2016. - this might be confusing to readers, as to what extratropical, subtropical, and tropical are, especially if they are in the same sentence. I suggest making it more basic, such as - "Hurricane Alex originated as an extratropical cyclone near the Bahamas." Save the "first tropical cyclone" bit for when you say "As it turned north-northeast, Alex transitioned into a full-fledged tropical cyclone on January 14 and became a hurricane."
  • On January 12, it developed into a subtropical cyclone well south of the Azores, becoming the first tropical or subtropical system during January in the North Atlantic since an unnamed storm in 1978. - what about Zeta 05/06?
  • After weakening slightly, Alex made landfall on Terceira Island as a tropical storm the next day. - since the previous sentence didn't mention a date, I think you should write out "January 15" here instead of "the next day"
  • Concurrently, Alex began transitioning back into an extratropical cyclone; it completed this cycle hours after moving away from the Azores. - I feel like these thoughts could be combined
  • You should mention Bermuda impacts in the lead, so as to be thorough.
Background
  • Activity in January is considered extremely rare - I don't think you need the "considered", since then I would ask, who considers it?
  • When Alex made landfall on Terceira as a strong tropical storm this marked only the second time that an Atlantic tropical cyclone has made landfall in January, with the other being Hurricane Alice of 1955 which made landfall on Saint Martin and Saba. - add a comma after storm, and I suggest the last part be split as an independent sentence, or add a semicolon
  • In addition to forming well outside of hurricane season, Alex developed unusually far north and east, becoming only the second hurricane to form north of 30°N and east of 30°W. - second hurricane on record?
Met history
  • The significant deepening was accompanied by a warm-core seclusion at the upper-levels and the transition to a more symmetric structure. - the "was accompanied" is uncertain to me. Did they happen in tandem, or the result of? Also, the "and the transition to a more symmetric structure" seems important, but it might be too jargon-y for the layman to appreciate what happened.
  • You should probably mention somewhere that the National Hurricane Center classified the storm. That's not in the text anywhere. I suggest somewhere around "Upon doing so, the system received the name Alex"
  • "Though relatively shallow, owing to the seasonally low level of the tropopause, convection was deemed deep enough for classification." - good met details, but could you rewrite it to make it simpler for the layman? The "seasonally low level of the tropopause" threw me for a second. I suggest reordering.
  • The trough that previously enabled the sharp southward turn later steered Alex to the east-northeast and later north-northeast. - avoid two "later"s in the same sentence
  • As it moved away from the upper-level low it was previously situated under, Alex acquired a deeper warm core and upper-level outflow became established, indicating the system was becoming more tropical. - suggest splitting into two sentences
  • Becoming increasingly tilted with height due to shear - I think I know what that means, but I worry the user might. I suggest using "asymmetrical" instead of "tilted", since you mentioned earlier the symmetrical structure.
  • I appreciate that you have the structural evolution of Alex. I suggest you add another image for January 15th, after the storm weakened and when it struck the Azores. This way, we have satellite imagery of the historic January landfall. Your call though.
Preparations and impact
  • Gusts to 60 mph (97 km/h) disrupted air travel, downed trees, and left sporadic power outages, while waves as high as 20 ft (6 m) necessitated small craft advisories for the islands. - I suggest splitting, but it works fine as it is.
  • This last comment is rather nitpicky, but you have a pic of the waves in the Azores, without any textual mention. Could you add anything about surf/waves in the Azores?

All in all, it is a very good article. My comments are relatively minor, and hopefully aren't too arduous to complete. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image license and use seems OK to me. ALT text also looks fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

[edit]

Comments from JC

[edit]
  • I'm not sure the opening line adequately highlights the distinction between being in January and forming in January.
  • Slight weakening took place thereafter, and the system eventually turned → "After weakening slightly, the system eventually turned..." ?
  • "full-fledged" seems jarringly colloquial when bounded by otherwise very technical prose.
  • I've always known "concurrent" to connote at least a partial spatial component, whereas "simultaneous" could be purely temporal. Just me?
  • the period in which tropical cyclones are most likely to develop across the basin. – It's hard to say which "period" has the greatest probability of tropical cyclogenesis without defining that period. Is there another way to frame this explanation?
    • It would likely be way too clunky and have mixed messages. The current definition by the NHC is that the highest likelihood of cyclogenesis is within that period even if the maxima is concentrated in late summer. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it purely coincidence that Alex and Pali developed nearly at the same time, or have any sources discussed possible meteorological links?
  • There may still be some nuggets to glean from the TCR. The shortwave that gave the pre-Alex frontal low a shot in the arm is one example. Anomalously warm SSTs after the 10th is another.
  • and thermal symmetry extended from the upper-levels to the surface through the cyclone. - This should probably be removed unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of explaining what any of that means.
  • convection was deemed deep enough for classification - Maybe change "deep" to "intense" to avoid confusion with "deep" in the synoptic sense?
  • Despite moving over 72 °F (22 °C) waters, Alex continued to deepen - You need to indicate why deepening is not expected over 72-degree water.
  • The transition was enabled by colder-than-average upper-tropospheric temperatures - The source (disco #4) says upper-level temps were "significantly colder than the tropical mean", which I don't believe is the same as being anomalously cold for that location. Thoughts?
  • Becoming increasingly asymmetrical with height due to shear - Maybe just "tilted" would be easier on the eyes?
  • Ferry services to and from Cavello Bay, Dockyard, Belmont, Hodsdon’s Ferry, and Lower Ferry were suspended - The hyper-local place names don't do much to help our understanding of the storm's impact. I'd eliminate them and just say broadly that ferries were out of service.
  • ...only known hurricane to track... - I'd move this (and maybe the Gordon tidbit) to background.

Still a little rough around the edges and perhaps overly technical in spots, but I suppose that's just the nature of this sort of article – the vast majority of readers are already going to be weather enthusiasts who already know most of the jargon. No-doubt the most comprehensive account of the storm available anywhere, so I'll be happy to support after some minor changes. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing I noticed: you specify the precursor system affected Bermuda on January 8, but then include a three-day rainfall total. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Details about the power outages in Bermuda, if you're interested. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed everything. Thank you for the review! If there's anything left or adjustments to new material, please let me know. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Just a note that this has been on the Urgents list for a while and really needs a bit more substantive review to push it over the line. Maybe you can ping some editors active in the topic area? --Laser brain (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees, Titoxd, and Hylian Auree: if any of you have time to give the article a look, it would be greatly appreciated! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yessiree. Will do a full-criteria review, including spot-checks, asap! Auree ★★ 18:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hylian Auree: just a check in since it's been a week. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Been more swamped than expected, sorry about that. Today is the day though! Auree ★★ 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Hylian Auree

[edit]

Reading through it now and making changes to the prose as I go. Following Julian's comment above, the writing in parts of the MH, while understandably so given Alex's complex cyclogenesis, is quite technical. I had difficulties understanding the narrative at times, so I imagine those who are less-versed in severe weather might not fare well either. Auree ★★ 17:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The next day, an anomalous blocking pattern prevented the disturbance from continuing along a seasonal northeasterly track." – "Anomalous blocking pattern" is quite jargony, and "seasonal" has an unclear meaning. Since tropical disturbances are exceedingly rare (unseasonal) during this time, can we really consider a northeasterly track to be "seasonal"? May I suggest "The next day, an unseasonable air pattern blocked the disturbance from continuing along its northeasterly path." I chose "air" because it's simplest in its conveyance, but alternatives are welcome (maybe sth with "steering" or "current").
  • "Instead, the storm turned east-southeast into a region slightly more favorable for subtropical development." – This is the first time we mention subtropical development (tropical cyclogenesis is mentioned earlier). Can we have some sort of explanation here why the NHC was calling for this subtropical, instead of the former tropical, development, or something to link the two ideas?
  • "Concurrently, a warm-core seclusion at the upper-levels marked the transition to a more symmetric structure," – Can you simplify this?
  • "Slight weakening took place on January 11." – This is a terse, somewhat abrupt ending to the paragraph, and disconnectedly contrasting with the preceding information about warmer (more favorable) waters.
  • "frontal boundaries separated from the core of the cyclone;" – "separated" implies the boundaries existed prior, but this is the first time we encounter this (somewhat jargony) term.
    • There's no earlier mention of the fronts that I can find to support adding it earlier. It's largely implied that the system had frontal boundaries by being an extratropical cyclone, but without supporting refs I can't make an explicit mention. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alongside the system being co-located with an upper-level low, indicated its transition into a subtropical cyclone by 18:00 UTC" – Why is being co-located with an upper-level low an indication for subtropical formation, and why is it singled out? Can we maybe expound here and include this into the list of factors in the previous sentence?
  • "Though relatively shallow, owing to the seasonally low level of the tropopause,[nb 1] convection was deemed intense enough for classification." This reads as an afterthought that is needlessly divergent in its technicality, and can also be included more simply in the list of factors/structural changes (perhaps as "intense albeit shallow convection").
  • "The trough that previously enabled the sharp southward turn later steered Alex to the east-northeast and eventually north-northeast." – Current phrasing puts (presumably unwanted) emphasis on the trough over the change in movement, and this is the first time we read that its previous turn was a sharp one.
  • "An eye feature soon appeared within a complex of several banding features, marking intensification.[22] The 20 mi (25 km) wide feature cleared out early on January 14 and was surrounded by a ring of −75 °F (−60 °C) cloud tops." – Technically fine, but for the sake of layman comprehension, can we somehow link the eye feature to its location at the core/center of the system, especially in the context of "cleared out"?
  • "Becoming increasingly tilted due to shear" – Can we reword this to better explain what "tilted" means here? How does shear cause such a tilt?
  • "Furthermore, the overall structure became more "comma shaped" as a consequence of frontal systems" – What frontal systems, and why does this result in a comma shape?
  • "The hurricane indirectly led to one death—the person suffered a heart attack unrelated to the storm—when an emergency helicopter was unable to take off due to turbulent conditions." – How about "One person suffering a heart attack died as an indirect result of Alex when turbulent conditions hindered the emergency helicopter from taking off in time"?

That's it for now. Will do a source review and spot-check next. Auree ★★ 17:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't forgotten, just been distracted/busy. Should be able to get to it tomorrow. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking the time to do this and dealing with my slow response Hylian Auree! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
[edit]

Note: I can read Portuguese.

  • Refs 3, 5 & 6: support their statements without close paraphrasing.
  • Ref 9 a, b & c, p & q: all check out.
  • Refs 27 & 28 a): support the statement without synthesis.
  • Ref 28 b): Slightly picky, but the source does not quite make the distinct link between convective decay and the start of extratropical transition like the article does; they just forecast the transition to succeed the weakening.
  • Ref 30: checks out
  • Ref 31: links to a database site, so I can't retrieve the original source (!)
  • Refs 13, 32 & 33: support all but could be better placed around their respective statements.
  • Ref 37 (PT): checks out
  • Ref 42 (PT): source material is slightly mistranslated. Ponta Delgada reported six fallen trees, one destroyed roof, one flooded street, six landslides, and damage to six buildings. Nowhere does it state that the damage was caused by flooding.
  • Refs 43 & 44 (PT): both check out.

Spot-checks suggest the article is factually accurate without close paraphrasing or copyvio. Auree ★★ 22:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]
  • "[9] All these factors indicated its transition into a subtropical cyclone by 18:00 UTC on January 12, receiving the name Alex from the National Hurricane Center.[9] Though relatively shallow, owing to the seasonally low level of the tropopause,[nb 2] convection was deemed intense enough for classification.[21]" It seems to me that the position of these two sentences might perhaps be swapped for clarity. Plus the grammar of the first is a wee bit off; the factors didn't receive anything. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operationally, Alex was not classified as a subtropical storm until late on January 13" Huh? I thought it was classified as such the day before.. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Operational assessments refer to the in-situ advisories whereas the earlier mentioned classification is from the post-storm analysis. Mention of this difference isn't terribly important so I went ahead and removed it to avoid confusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ": frontal boundaries separated from the core of the cyclone;[9] its core became symmetric;[15] it became co-located with an upper-level low;[nb 1] and convection developed atop the circulation.[9]" OK this is nitpicky but I'm 95% sure that we are supposed to use commas to separate items in a list unless one of those items itself contains a comma. In that case a semicolon is used. None of those independent clauses in that list contains a comma, so semicolons are not recommended. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other atmospheric factors, as shown in the case of Alex, are the dominant factor" First, "other factors are the dominant factor" sounds a bit odd. Second, please forgive my obtuseness, but could you please list the specific features you had in mind? I mean... you can list them on this page, but... I'm not sure the article really made this point clearly enough either. Perhaps it did, but I am not sure. So I am asking. Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swapped the second "factor" for a synonym. The factors it's referring to are the upper-level outflow, instability, and wind shear (the latter of which was added after your comments) which are mentioned in the third paragraph of the meteorological history. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alex develops a well-defined eye and core structure..." So in the text we have "An eye feature soon appeared at the center of the cyclone's spiral bands, marking intensification.[22]" But the source says Alex had been trying to develop an eye. When did it become well-defined? Need another source? Or am I wrong? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alex develops a well-defined eye and core structure..." So in the text we have "allowing the cyclone to acquire a deeper warm core with upper-level outflow ... Alex continued to deepen" So what's the definition of a well-defined core.. they're deep? they have upper-level outflow? ... and which source says when that happened exactly? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Lingzhi2! I believe I've addressed everything. If there's anything else that needs adjusting please let me know. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hylian Auree

[edit]

Support in full on criteria 1, 2 and 4. All but my most nitpicky concerns have been sufficiently addressed, so I will be happy to see this innovative and well-research account on such a climatologically unusual system receive its star. Thanks for your diligence, CB <3 Auree ★★ 05:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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