Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2020

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

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

Third Punic War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the long-drawn-out bloodbaths of the first two Punic wars the Romano-Carthaginian conflict ended with this war and the complete destruction of the city of Carthage and the death of most of its population; the survivors were enslaved. For what it was worth, they went down hard. This article received a good poking at at GAN and I believe that it is potentially up to FA standard. Any and all comments will be gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

support comments by T8612

[edit]
  • Primary sources. I'm just going to comment on this section for the moment. I'll deal with the rest later. I think it needs significant changes, as it is mostly issued from articles on the First Punic War, but things are different for the Third one.
  • "The main source for almost every aspect of the Third Punic War". Not really. Polybius' books on the Third Punic War only survive in fragments (books 36 and 38, 37 is entirely lost).
  • Livy's books also end in year 166 BC. Two other major sources: Dio Cassius and Diodorus Siculus are also lost for this period, as well as Plutarch's Life of Scipio. In fact, the most important ancient author on the 3PW is Appian, a Greek living the 2nd century AD, who is known for making damning mistakes (although he apparently used Polybius for his book, cf. Goldsworthy pp. 22-23). As a result, the 3PW is the least known of the three PW, and I would say this ("The 3PW is the least known of the three PW, because of the loss of the two most important historians of the Roman Republic, Polybius and Livy, for the years dealing with the war. Appian is the only surviving author that left a full narrative of the events, but his reliability is often in question, etc. Polybius still survives in fragments etc."). Many questions on the war cannot be answered because of the sparsity of the sources (typically the reasons for the Roman agression).
  • Then, it is also necessary to balance the statement that Polybius is reliable, because Polybius' fragments on these years deal a lot with Scipio Aemilianus, who was Polybius' patron and friend. Therefore, Polybius is often biased in his favour; he unfairly berates Scipio's opponents several times (see Astin's statement in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 8, p. 5). This is not a problem for past events, but it is quite important for contemporary ones. Walbank says that Appian's text, which derives from Polybius, "has many of the marks of a panegyric on Scipio" (vol. III, p. 662). In short, you need to tell more about Appian, detail the loss of the sources, and balance your statement on Polybius. T8612 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gog the Mild, did you miss these comments? I can do a source review but it would probably work best if I waited until you got to these. (t · c) buidhe 18:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, yes, I missed this. Thanks for the nudge. T8612, apologies for the delayed response, I am currently on a family holiday and a certain amount of participation is expected. Plus the last place we stayed at the WiFi went down and I had a very limited mobile data. I am now back up and have read your comments, but don’t have the sources I need; in particular I have lost my link to Walbank! Which is a bit of a handicap. The earliest I am going to be able to come back to you is the 27th, possibly later. If you feel that it would be appropriate for me to withdraw this nomination, I would quite understand. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: Thank you for your considerable patience on this. I have heavily edited the "Primary sources" section along the lines you indicated. I would be grateful for your views on the revised version. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that's much better. I'll continue the review tomorrow.
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two short remarks:
  • I see that you have included the footnote about Punic in the text, but I find it a bit awkward to have such a long parenthesis in the beginning of the text. Is there a better way to place it?
In the text at Borsoka's request. I'm not sure that it is not better as a note. I have moved it out of parentheses and into the start of "Background", where I think that it fits as well as anywhere if it is going to be in the text. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sicilian Greek Diodorus Siculus". Diodorus Siculus means Diodorus of Sicily in Latin, so you don't have to say "Sicilian Greek" before, the English form "Diodorus of Sicily" also exists.
I'm trying to have it both ways, aren't I? Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background section
[edit]
  • Carthage and Rome fought the 17-year-long Second Punic War between 218 and 201 BC. I would mention both the 1PW and 2PW.
Done
  • I think we need a map with Numidia here.
Added.
  • The second paragraph details the building up that led to the war, but only from the Numidian side. You ignore the Roman point of view. The famous word by Cato the Censor Carthago delenda est ought to be mentioned here, as well as the Roman embassies that were sent to Carthage. I would also mention that the war was opposed by Scipio Nasica Corculum, the son-in-law of Scipio Africanus. The fact that Cato had to repeat his sentence in every speech is a proof that his opinion was in minority in the senate.
As is often the case we have a difference as to the level of detail appropriate regarding the minutae of Roman domestic politics. A FAC is required to meet "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." The detail you suggest may be appropriate for an article on the Causes of the Third Punic War, but not, IMO, for this one. I could see the point (just) in unpacking "Nevertheless, elements in the Roman Senate had long wished to destroy Carthage, and, using the illicit Carthaginian military action as a pretext" a little, although I doubt what a reader might gain from it; but not to the extent you suggest.
  • The problem in academic sources is that there is no consensus as to why Cato was so obsessed about destroying Carthage, and why the rest of the senate followed him. The ancient sources don't make sense; they say Rome felt threatened by Carthage, but it was hardly a threat; it couldn't even defend itself against Massinissa. There have been a number of alternative theories: (a) Mommsen developed an economic argument: Carthage was an economic competitor to Rome (hence was Cato brought fresh figs from Carthage in the Senate) (b) a Machiavellian argument: the Romans wanted to prevent Massinissa from building a huge empire in Africa and so had to take Carthage before him (c) an imperialist argument: after the defeat of Macedon in 168, Rome became a power-hungry state that conquered lands at the first opportunity (no more "defensive wars") (d) individual ambition: conquering Carthage would bring immense fame and fortune to the Roman general (Astin wrote an article in which he said Scipio Aemilianus sabotaged the peace negotiations between Massinissa and Carthage because he expected to be part of the incoming war, sadly he withdrew this idea in a later statement). I suggest you include information from this article by Ursula Vogel-Weidemann, which summarises the debates [she separates the immediate causes of the war and the longer reasons]. She suggests that Rome made a pre-emptive war to avoid the possible reemergence of Carthage as a rival, while Rome was waging wars on several fronts at the time: in Spain and in Macedonia (the Fourth Macedonian War) [it seems to be Goldsworthy's argument too]. W.V. Harris in th CAH still uses the economic argument (p.156). Interestingly Le Bohec in Hoyos' Companion to Punic Wars rejects all argument and seems to return to the ancestral fear of Carthage developed by ancient authors.
I refer to my response above. I simply don't find this, admittedly fascinating, content relevant, in this level of detail, to this article. The fact that there seems to be more theories than proposers and nothing even approaching a consensus makes me even less inclined to feel that a reader of this topic will find them either relevant or of interest.
By all means write an article on Causes of the Third Punic War or, better, Possible explanations for Roman involvement in the Third Punic War, but what, IMO, is needed here to meet criterion 4 is a one or two sentence summary.
I wish I had the time. I think it's possible to fit everything into a small paragraph. I've done a demo here. T8612 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
T8612 Frankly I find it a pointless addition, but I am just one editor so I shall work it in. Give me some time to source it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - at least a first draft. I have tried to work it a bit more holistically into the flow of the article. (Plus some sources I consulted flatly contradicted some of the stuff in your draft[?]) Hopefully I have retained both the intent and spirit of your suggestion. See what you think.
That will do. What was contradicting?
  • I think the wealth of the propositions shows that there is no consensus, so I would list the above arguments, saying that none of these explanations has reached consensus. Then I would tell about the debate between Cato and Scipio Nasica, and their embassies. See what I wrote here too (as an aside, I paused writing on this article as the literature was really confusing).
Well quite; so why inflict this confusion on a reader - at, it seems to me, to do it justice, possibly greater length than the whole of the rest of the article.
  • There is ground to explain internal politics in Carthage too. It seems easier: the constant one-sided Roman policy in favour of Massinissa led to the dominance of the "democratic" faction which pushed for the war, with Carthalo and Hamilcar the Samnite (see CAH, pp. 149-150). T8612 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Again I am not completely adverse to expanding this a little - although the current amount of information on the internal politics of Carthage is my personal preference - but this, again IMO, should be limited to a maximum of an additional sentence or two.
Hi T8612: responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 17-year-long Second Punic War between 218 and 201 BC. I would introduce Scipio Africanus here, as you mention him in aftermath without telling who he was. (sth like "-after the victory of Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama.").
Instead of in the footnote, as now? I'll transfer it up and we can see if it reads better. (I was mostly concerned about flow.) Done.
  • It was the long-standing Roman procedure to elect two men each year It was not just a "procedure", but the Roman constitution. I think it's better to say "The Romans elected two consuls every year, each received the command of an army; they could have their command extended for several years as proconsul." I mention the promagistracy here, because Scipio was prorogued as proconsul in 146 BC.
Done. Although using slightly different words.

T8612 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well Borsoka wants to include mention of a consul's other duties. I have tweaked. See what you both think.
Good.
  • Manius Manilius commanding the army and Lucius Censorius, it's Lucius Marcius Censorinus.
What a stupid typo - I am not even consistent. Thanks. Fixed.

If you want to shorten the name, I would prefer "Marcius Censorinus", then either Marcius or Censorinus. If you wish, you can say that Manilius was a good friend of Scipio Aemilianus, member of the Scipionic Circle.

Do you have a source? Miles, the CAH and Goldsworthy all abbreviate to just Censorinus after their first mentions.
I don't think you need for a source for that, use the most distinctive between praenomen/nomen/cognomen. Censorinus seems appropriate here. Sometimes it can be the praenomen too (especially with rare praenomina like Appius or Caeso). T8612 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the consuls made the further demand that, only Marcius did so. Frustratingly, the Cambridge Ancient History just says "to receive the consul's final demand." (singular). This article gives his name (p. 20). (As an aside, the arms given by Carthage were collected by Nasica Serapio, and Scipio Hispallus, son and nephew of the Nasica opposed to the war. There has been speculation that this demand, as well as Marcius', were last chance requests to avoid the war from Nasica and his friends.)
I had assumed that he was speaking on behalf of both of them - I mean, obviously only one of them actually said it. Goldsworthy's "Censorinus, elected first by the comitia, probably older and a better speaker, spoke in answer" strongly suggested this, and the CAH not giving a name seemed to support this. Nevertheless, tweaked.
  • Coming back to the primary sources section, Le Bohec in Hoyos' Companion is very critical of Polybius (pp. 430-431). "I would object that the reputation of Polybius is totally undeserved, for this Greek showed no objectivity when he spoke of the Carthaginians and the Romans."
I know. Consensus is not the same as unanimity. I keep hoping to come across another reputable opinion which speaks badly of Polybius to give myself something more interesting to say about him. As it is Le Bohec just seems a rogue outlier.

T8612 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612:: thanks for that; addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Any further input on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I've been busy. Will continue tomorrow. T8612 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing forces
[edit]
  • with a population estimated at 700,000 Harris in the CAH 8, p. 147 says it is "impossibly high". I think Miles reused the number given by Strabo. Hoyos likewise says "The total is impossible for the city alone" (Hannibal's Dynasty, p. 28), but adds it may have included the surrounding territories. Estimations for the city are between 125000 to 300000. T8612 (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I shall copy my response to Borsoka below:

I agree. A total population of 50,000 would have made Carthage (the city) impressive. Earlier in the article I write "The city of Carthage itself was unusually large for the time, with a population estimated at 700,000." This is based on Miles "the 700,000 inhabitants of Carthage just before its fall". In context it is very clear that he is referring to just the city. It boggles me, but as Miles is a very respected academic and this is from the only full length history of Carthage in English that I am aware of I don't consider that it is for me to OR about it. Hoyos - another impeccable modern scholar - quotes Strabo as "70 myriads of men [ie persons] in the city" in 149 BC. Square brackets in Hoyos. Ie, 700,000; which I assume is what Miles is relying on. Hoyos also discusses modern estimates of the population in the third century BC, ie some 70 years earlier, where a wide range of estimates go as high as 400,000. Allowing for 70 years population growth ... A very rough calculation based on the known size of the city in 149 BC suggests that a population of 700,000 would have 150-200 square metres each, so it is not physically infeasible.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reference for Hoyos? I've checked his book The Carthaginians and he too says there: "It was in this last period that the city’s population, according to Strabo, numbered 700,000. So great a throng could never have lived within the walls, while Megara was mostly a garden suburb, but Strabo may have mistaken a credible figure representing both city and chora as applying to just the city (or expressed himself badly)." (p. 210). T8612 (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: Hannibal's Dynasty 2003 p. 225. (It's in the appendix, section 3.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Hoyos doesn't give his opinion here, but makes a summary of all the population estimates for Carthage. His own position is given in page 28 (where he says "The total [700,000] is impossible for the city alone"). Hoyos does add that *some* scholars have accepted the figure of 700,000, but it's not a consensus (as often in ancient history). He cites Werner Huß (1985), but not Miles; he also says that Ulrich Kahrstedt estimated the population at 125,000 (a number he finds "implausibly low"). Apparently Walter Ameling went as low as 90.000. Read it again. I would say something like that: "Estimations for the population of Carthage have widely differed among modern scholars—from 90,000 to 800,000 people—depending on the interpretation of a number given by the Greek geographer Strabo, who tells that Carthage had "seventy myriads of men in the city". Any of these estimations would still make Carthage one of the most populous cities of the Mediterranean area." Then cites Hoyos Hannibal's Dynasty p. 225 who makes a good summary of the literature.T8612 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Course of the war
[edit]
  • Is it possible to add the date of Poynter's painting (1868)?
Of course. Done.
  • Can you give the full name for Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus? Because there were many homonyms at the time. You also find Calpurnii Pisones consuls in 139, 135 and 133.
Done.
  • I would mention the Lex Villia, which set the age requirements for public offices. Perhaps as a link on "age requirement". Another requirement for the consulship was to be a former praetor (which Scipio had not been too). (In fact this requirement was established after Flamininus had been elected consul at 29 years old in 198.)
The first suggestion would get jumped on as an Easter egg. And I am not sure that either is close enough to the topic to merit inclusion. (I could add 'and did not meet other requirements' if you think that would be helpful.
  • You can also add that Scipio also broke the rules by receiving his command from the people. Normally, foreign commands were distributed between the two consuls by lot (so Livius, the other consul, could have received the conduct of the war in Africa if the standard procedure had been respected).
Again, getting, IMO, a little off topic, but I have briefly summarised the point.
  • Finally, I would mention that his military successes since the beginning of the war made Scipio look like a successor of Scipio Africanus, on whose fame he was able to play to be elected consul. The source for these events is AE Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford UP, 1967, pp. 61-69. Tell me if you need the pdf. [OR: it seems to me that the legend that only a Scipio could win in Africa comes from this election, and from Scipio. One century later, Julius Caesar put (nominatively) at the head of his army a man named Scipio, because his enemy in the Civil War was Metellus Scipio. Both were related (we don't know how exactly), and the war was waged in Africa. Caesar knew that his men were nervous about fighting a Scipio in Africa, because the legend had survived.]
Most of that added.
  • There is a mistake in the name of "Mancinius". His name is Lucius Hostilius Mancinus. (He was an enemy of Scipio, and it seems that Polybius gives a negative account of him because of that.)
D'oh!. Fixed.

T8612 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: All responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Break
[edit]
It is already done at first mention in the main article, and that is the link for the infobox. Where else would do you think it should go.
Ah yes, it's because you linked it a second time below, so I thought it was the first mention.
  • For the mention of the Lex Villia, perhaps say something like this: "for which the minimum age requirement was 41, as stated in the Lex Villia".
This, and some of the points below, seem to me to be close to or over the "going into unnecessary detail", which is usually why they are not in the article already. Obviously this is a subjective matter at the margin, so Lex Villia included.
Thanks.
  • After "which successfully breached the walls", I would place here that the first to climb the wall was the young Tiberius Gracchus. Ref: TRS Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. I, p. 464.
I really think that this is getting too "going into unnecessary detail" for all but diehard afficiadados.
Reading it again, you're right for this article. I will ask it again for Siege of Carthage though (if you wish to move it to FAC).
Fair enough.
  • I think you don't write enough on the settlement of Africa at the end of the war, with ten commissioners appointed to supervise the annexation, ordered by a law of Livius, the consul of 147. Harris in the CAH summarises this nicely. Carthage also became ager publicus (eg. the land directly belonged to the Republic); this is important for the reforms of Gaius Gracchus explained below.
Added.
  • Harris adds that the destruction of Carthage also resulted in the annihilation of the Punic culture. Notably, the books of the library of Carthage were given to the sons of Massinissa (who had just died), except one book of Mago (soon translated into Latin by Decimus Junius Silanus).
As with many of the views in the CAH, the old timers are not always in full agreement with more modern accounts. Eg, Le Bohec p. 443 "For all that, Punic culture did not disappear. It survived while transforming itself, and present-day historians call it “Neo-Punic civilization.” It was indeed alive, and the Roman state never forbade it."; p. 445 "From the ruins of the city was born a new Africa, Roman Africa, which never denied the cultural heritage of Carthage"; Goldsworthy, p. 357, says much the dame, less directly, summarising "The Romans had not fought to destroy Punic Culture"; Fantar p.454 "But Punic civilization did not disappear with the destruction of Carthage and the elimination of the Carthaginian state in 146 BC", indeed, his whole "Punic Culture after 146" is worth reading in this context.
You're right, I've oversimplified; Harris does say Punic religion and language survived. Perhaps you could include what you just said above? T8612 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Before the sentence on the refoundation of Carthage by Caesar. I would mention that Gaius Gracchus tried to found a colony there as Colonia Junonia in 123. It was part of his agrarian reforms but he was murdered before the project could be realised. Ref is Andrew Lintott, Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 9, p. 78-79. (tell me if you want the pdf).
I have the info, thanks - I made a judgement call that this was unnecessary, but will now include it.
  • Then, Caesar wanted to refound Carthage and Corinth, destroyed the same year as Carthage. I would mention this similarity too. However, these colonies were only planned by Caesar; he died before their refoundation, which was carried by the Second Triumvirate. Ref from Elizabeth Rawson, CAH, vol. 9, p. 446-447.
I don't see the relevance of what other towns Caesar wanted to found or refound. Hmm, Miles p. 363, says that work did start under Caesar - carried out by Statilius Taurus - although he agrees that possibly not much work was done. He says that the project was resuscitated and completed by Augustus, starting in 29 BC, so I have amended accordingly.
  • In order to further distinguish between this article and Siege of Carthage, I think it would be a good idea to mention the tears of Scipio over Carthage burning, possibly the most famous event of the war. I would prefer to place it in Siege of Carthage though.
Good point. I have boldly added to the Siege article. See what you think. (None of the first three sources I consulted mention the famous tears!) Could you put any comments on that article's talk page? Courtesy ping to Harrias, who assessed that article for GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: More good stuff, thanks. All responded to. How is it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good additions to the last section. Some points though:
  • "In 123 BC a populist faction", I think it's better to write "the Populares faction", as well as "Optimates faction". Because "populist/traditionalist" are a bit judgmental and very controversial. Link these terms too.
"Populist" was a paraphrase of the source's (Miles) "reformers"; I have changed it to "reformist", per the source. Traditionalist seems both accurate and a reasonable paraphrase of the source's "conservatives". Both linked as suggested.
Done. (It is amazing what Wikipedia has stubs on!)
  • Remove ", led by Scipio,", he was already dead by that time.
I didn't mean that Scipio, but you are correct - obviously - that I need to introduce him fully or not at all. So removed as an unecessary distraction for the reader.

T8612 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the picture "Ruins of Carthage in 2006", are you sure it shows the ruins of Punic Carthage and not Roman ruins? I had tried to find such pictures but couldn't be sure as well.
No. I had been AGFing re the poster. I don't know it of my own knowledge. I shall have a look at the UNESCO site and see what they have.
The more I look into this, the less convinced I am that there are any free use photos of unambiguously Carthaginian remains. Which is a shame. That said, the image is in the aftermath section, where much of the discussion is about attempts to set up Roman Carthage so I don't think that a reader will necessarily expect the image to be of the Punic era ruins. I could swap in File:Quartier Punique.JPG which is specifically of part of the Punic Quarter, although I am still not certain that it is not of the Roman era Punic Quarter.
  • "The opposing, minority, faction included Scipio Nasica". I would remove ", minority" as we don't know numbers in the Senate; however the fact that Cato had to repeat his famous words in every speech indicates he was in the minority.
It's what the source says, but checking some others there seem to be a range of modern opinions on this. So deleted. Thanks for picking it up.

T8612 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T8612: I have addressed all of your points and you may wish to have a look at them while I try to check out the provenance of the photo. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. If you want, you can replace it or add this coin of Carthage (its last issue). T8612 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: Done. What next? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: Apologies, I swapped the other image and thought that I was done. Well reminded. Coin image included; up near where we talk about Carthage's prosperity. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added a source if you think it's necessary. T8612 (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now. @Gog the Mild: perhaps you want to format the ref in the caption for the coin though. T8612 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • How is the gallery more beneficial in this article than one or two images of the ruins?
Removed.
  • File:Carthage.png: I'm a bit confused by the attribution here - what component of this came from Livius, and what was the permission granted?
I may have been/be confused/wrong as to what goes in each section. The map is copied from Livius.org, about half way down. The information within it is the same as that in Goldsworthy p. 341, but is probably redundant and so I have removed it.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria: Thanks for looking at this, and apologies for the time taken to respond to you. I believe that I have now addressed both of the issues you raised. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria: How are things looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still confused about Livius. The site has an 'all rights reserved' notice; what permission was given for use and where is that recorded? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Firstly, apologies; secondly, I am an idiot. I persisted in seeing what I wanted to see on the page - or not even bothering to check whether it was or not what I wanted to see - long past any reasonable point. You are of course correct that the map seems to be a straight lift from Livius. I have no idea why this was not clear to me.
I have commissioned a fresh and original map - big thanks to Harrias - which is loosely based on similar maps in two separate, paper RSs. Hopefully this does, actually address your concerns. Let me know if you would like me to email you copies of the two hard copy pages. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, pls let me know when you can if this satisfies the image check. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I'll suggest to Gog that it would be helpful for that new map to be displayed slightly larger, but the licensing is now sorted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, do you mean the map of the city? If so, I think that I would need to move it out of the infobox to enlarge it. Is this what you mean?
If you mean the map of Numidia, I agree and have enlarged it slightly. Cheers, and thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys, happy for any fine-tuning to take place post-promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Borsoka

[edit]
  • Is The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC by Adrian Goldsworthy a reliable source? I am not sure the book was peer-reviewed.
It is about as reliable as you get. It certainly meets WP:RS. Books are not usually peer reviewed, but it has been well reviewed; eg here (paywall).
I did not find a single review about the book at JSTOR. I am not convinced that Phoenix publishes scholarly books and Goldsworthy seems to be the writer of popular histories. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsworthy is not an academic and his book doesn't bring anything new, but he has made good use of the academic literature. His book can be seen as representing the academic consensus on the subject. T8612 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like a FA in WP? :) I think we need further references to verify each statement based on his book. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very bold suggestion. You are saying that Goldsworthy should not be used at all. Can I ask what policy or guideline you are basing this on?
Like many scholars Goldsworthy writes some fiction - clearly labelled as such - as well as non-fiction - also well labelled. The copy I use was published by Phoenix, an imprint of Orion Books. A glance at their Wikipedia article would suggest a very reputable publisher. I note in passing that Goldsworthy has had at least four non-fiction books on Roman history published by Yale University Press.
Thank you. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I continue the review assuming that Goldsworthy's book is a reliable source. Borsoka (talk)
  • The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry. Could the term be introduced in the main text?
  • His works include a now-lost manual on military tactics... Is this relevant in the context?
I am trying to establish Polybius's military expertise, so I think yes.
  • ...he is now known for The Histories, written sometime after 146 BC. Do the cited sources verify the sentence?
In the light of T8612's comments above I am working on a rewrite of the "Primary sources" section, which hopefully will address that point and several of those below, which I am trying to work in.
  • Consider mentioning that now The Histories is a fragmentary work.
Does "In addition, significant portions of The Histories' account of the Third Punic War have been lost" - given that the article is on the Third Punic War - cover this?
  • He accompanied the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus during his campaign in North Africa which resulted in the storming of Carthage and Roman victory in the war. 1. Maybe this info should be presented soon after Polybius' introduction because this is the reason his work is the most important source of the war. 2. Here I would only say that Polybius accompanied the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus to North Africa during the Third Punic War, without mentioning the consequences of the war.
  • Polybius was an analytical historian and wherever possible personally interviewed participants, from both sides, in the events he wrote about. Do Shutt and Goldsworthy verify this statement?
  • ..analytical historian.. Source?
  • The accuracy of Polybius's account has been much debated over the past 150 years, but the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value, and the details of the war in modern sources are largely based on interpretations of Polybius's account. I understand Tipps writes of the relibiality of Polybius's account of the Battle of Ecnomus in the First Punic War.
  • The modern historian Andrew Curry sees Polybius as being "fairly reliable"; When stating this, Curry only writes of a specific naval battle.

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, and thanks for this start. An interim response above, with more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the ISBN for Miles (2011) correct ([2])?
I am looking at the hardcopy and that's what is printed in it. I would be happy to scan and email you a copy.
No.
OK. I found the book at Open Library ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes 3 and 4 seem problematic. 1. One of the cited sources, Lazenby (1996), covers the First Punic War, while the notes provide information in relation to the Second Punic War. 2. Scullard (2006) is obviously not correct. 3. What about consolidating the two notes?
  • I have consolidated the notes as suggested.
  • Scullard: You are quite right. I meant to refer to Scullard 1989 (The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume VII). However, as this merely duplicates Lazenby, I have removed the cite.
  • Lazenby: I am not sure that it matters which war is being referred to when the conversion rate is established. Anymore than, for example, establishing that a 24-pound cannonball weighed 10.9 kg in 1789 by referring to source discussing such things in 1748. Or today. If I were to state that a 24-pound cannonball weighed 10.9 kg at the Battle of Trafalgar It would be odd, IMO, if a reviewer were to insist on a cite which stated exactly this, and would not accept that the same was true at the Battle of the Nile, or forty years earlier, or later. (Lazenby 1998 p. 19 could also be used to establish a convertion rate, if you prefer a work on the Second Punic War.)
  • As far as I can remember conversion rates could change from region to region and time to time. The statement that "The ones referred to in this article are all Euboic (or Euboeic) talents, of approximately 26 kilograms (57 lb)." can hardly be verified by a reference to Lanzeby's book, taking into account the different contexts. We can state that the article accepts Lanzeby's conversion rate if none of the books about the Third Punic War determine it. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka I dropped by to comment that I have made changes to the "Primary sources" section which I believe mean that your outstanding comments above are now moot. Thanks for helping to spur me into the rewrite. I have a couple of RL issues, but will try to get back to these points later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your edits. I must admit that the change relating to the relibiality of Polybius' account seems to be quite radical for me ([4]). Could you read and double check the whole article? Please ping me if you think the review could be continued. Consider also seeking advice on Goldsworthy's reliability in the light of the above comments on him. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yourself and T8612 seemed to be requesting radical changes, and so I made them. Is there anything about the current section which you think should be changed.
  • The new version looks fair. When writing of a radical change above, I only referred to Polybius's introduction: in the previous version, he was described as a neutral historian, no his bias towards the Romans is mentioned. That is why I thought the article should be double-checked.
  • Thank you. I will continue the review.
  • I have no doubts as to Goldsworthy's reliability. I have not as yet sought advice as I would not know what to ask; which policies or guidelines cause you to doubt this work's reliability?
Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Source. I have not found a review about his book cited in the article at JSTOR; Goldsworthy is not an academic as T8612 mentioned above; and the Orion Publishing Group quite obviously publishes popular literature ([5]). For instance, Steven Tibble is a well-known specialist among people who regularly read books about the crusades. Tibble is not an academic, but his books are regularly cited in academic works and they receive positive reviews in academic journals. However, an experienced administrator associated Tibble's best known work with Emil's Clever Pig multiple times (both books were published by Oxford University Press). Tibble's reliability was also challenged by an editor who regularly edits articles about the crusades ([6]). What do you think is the best approach now? Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka: anyone can misuse a source, or make an honest mistake. That is what reviews and source reviews are for. If you cannot find a policy which rules it out, then, SFAICS, you have to let it go, whatever your doubts.
Buidhe is as thorough a source reviewer as one could wish for - as I have discovered the hard way; they have saved me from many an embarrassing error. They have indicated above that they are only waiting for outstanding issues to be resolved before doing a source review. If they are still willing, why don't we allow them to do a source review, with a concentration on Goldsworthy, and see what they think?
Re your points above, if we couldn't use any author who had ever written fiction, or any publisher which had ever printed it, or any book which didn't have a review at JSTOR, we would have very, very few sources we could use.
You may be relieved or horrified to hear that to my certain knowledge The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC has been accepted in 22 GA source reviews; 4 A class source reviews; and 11 FAC source reviews. It may be many more, I don't especially track it. In other words, it has already had a lot of scrutiny from a lot of experienced reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Goldsworthy is not an academic does not make his book unreliable on this subject. It is a good synthesis of the Punic Wars, on which there are not that many books in English, especially for the Third Punic War. As I said, he follows the academic consensus on the subject and refrains from making any bold assumption or generalisation. T8612 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your remarks. I agree that we can assume that Goldsworthy's book is a reliable source. I only raised the issue, because one of the best sources of a specific aspect of the crusades was challenged multiple times just a couple of months ago, because Oxford University Press also publishes popular literature and its writer is not an academic. Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: That's fine. If you have any qualms as a reviewer it is the role of the nominator - ie, me - to assuage them. You do quite right to press me on anything you are not happy about. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitary break
[edit]
  • The term Punic comes from the Latin word Punicus (or Poenicus), meaning "Carthaginian", and is a reference to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry. 1. Consider shortening the sentence. 2. Sidwell & Jones do not state that the Carthagians had Phoenician ancestry, they say that Cathago was established as a Phoenician colony. Could we state that USA citizens had British ancestry?
Considered, but I don't see how. (Why is it an issue? It is shorter than the sentences on either side of it.) This may no longer apply as it has been moved further to your next comment.
Tweaked.
We could, if like Carthage the US defined citizenship by direct descent from the original settlers.
  • Introduce Rome and Carthage (and the term Punic can also be introduced in this context).
Good idea. Done. (Also done, despite my qualms about defining it before the first usage of "Punic" in the text.)
In the mid-1st-century... Which century?
Gah! It's this backwards counting. Thanks. Corrected.
  • Introduce Hannibal and his war elephants and also Scipio Africanus (they are now mentioned in note 2 in the subsequent section).
Why? Hannibal had been dead for centuries, and war elephants were nor involved in this conflict; this is just a passing reference to a term of a 50-year-old treaty. If a reader really wants to know more, they can click on the Wikilink.
Hannibal and his war elefants are mentioned in the text. Scipio Africanus is mentioned in a footnote.
Hannibal introduced - I had missed that. Scipio Africanus - the first one, is only mentioned in a footnote, where he is already introduced. Reference to elephants removed.
  • ...the dominant indigenous people in North Africa west of Egypt. Does Kunze verify this statement?
Rephrased
  • In 151 BC Carthage raised a large army commanded by Hasdrubal and, the treaty notwithstanding, counterattacked the Numidians. Which source verifies this statement? Kunze, who is cited in the next sentence, writes of the late 150s and he does not mention Hasdrubal.

Additional citation inserted.

  • Introduce Hasdrubal.
I started to do this, but can't find anything useful to pass on to a reader. I have added 'the Carthaginian general' but I suspect that a reader will have already worked that out. I have also added that he was previously unknown in the records.
  • Carthage had paid off its indemnity and... Is this text verified?
Citation added.
  • Carthage had paid off its indemnity and was prospering economically, but was no military threat to Rome. Does Le Bohec verify this statement? I think Kunze is the source of the second part of the sentence.
She is, that is why she is cited. (I have moved the positioning of her cite in case it was not clear.)
  • Carthage ... was prospering economically... Does Le Bohec write of a prospering economy? He writes of an "economic renaissance", but he also emphasizes that "several arguments prompt us to limit its size" and he refers to "mediocre funeral stelae" and "currency of weak quality".
Kunze p. 405 "There is archaeological and epigraphical evidence that, despite Carthage having to accept defeats, building activity was nevertheless flourishing during the period of the Punic Wars. In addition, numerous finds of imported pottery from all over the Hellenistic world confirm a prospering economy and show that trade, one of Carthage’s pillars of wealth and success, was still thriving."; p. 408 "a closer look at Carthage’s economic and military situation near the time of the Third Punic War suggests that the city, despite a recent economic upswing, was not in a position to pose any serious military threat to Rome." Miles p. 324 "a remarkable economic recovery"; p. 325 "Further evidence of Carthage's renewed prosperity ... " a list of archeological sites and finds follows. Goldsworthy p. 327 "agricultural production was booming ... [t]he archeological record suggests a high level of prosperity ... a rich material culture ... new prosperity". Harris in the CAH p. 147 "'It was considered the richest city in the world', says Polybius, thinking of the final period of its existence ... the absence of mercenaries no doubt explains why its precious-metal coins were of increased purity". Borsoka (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If my understanding is correct, Le Bohec (who is cited) does not verify the statement, but there are other authors who could be cited instead of Le Bohec.
It seems that Le Bohes was a poor choice to support the statement. Swapped for Kunze.
  • Consider mentioning multiple possible reasons of the war, for instance, taking into account Kunze's and Le Bohec's summaries.
I always hate hypothesizing as to what went through, or failed to go through, the minds of prople long dead. The more so when the conclusion of the diversion is " ... and we don't know". It does not seem to me to be either helpful or encyclopedic; the ommission was not an oversight. That said, I can readily add something if you consider it an important point.
  • In this case, you do not like science: nothing is proved, but only proposed, especially in history. ( Joke :) ) A study about the possible reasons of the war could clearly distinguish this article about the Siege of Carthago. Borsoka (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because of "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style", but see discussion above.
Now included - although (again) see discussion above.
I cannot imagine an article about the Third Punic War without mentioning these famous words, but now it is OK.
  • Carthaginian embassies attempted to negotiate with Rome, but when the large North African port city of Utica went over to Rome in 149 BC the Senate and the People's Assembly declared war. 1. Does Kunze verify the statement? 2. The connection between Utica and the declaration of war is unclear. 3. Clarify that Rome declared war against Carthago.
1. Kunze and Goldsworthy between them do.
2. Clarified. (To the extent that the sources link them.)
3. The rephrasing "aware that its harbour would greatly facilitate any assault on Carthage, [Rome] declared war" makes this clearer, IMO.
  • Those who know that the Senate and the People's Assembly are Roman institutions realize that the war was declared by Rome. However, I am not sure that all WP users are required to know it by heart. :)
It's not!! OK, made explicit
True. Including each leading an army, which is what is relevant here. I have added a general indication that they had other duties, see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Opposing forces" describes the fortifications in the city of Carthago and provides numerical information about the armies. Consider adding a more detailed description: services, ships, arms, tactics....
If we had any reliable sources, I would be happy to do so, as I have for similar articles on the earlier Punic Wars. If you could point me towards some, I will see what I can incorporate, but I haven't come across any.

Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The second of these wars ended with a Roman victory... Both wars ended with a Roman victory.
D'oh! Fixed.
  • The Roman army moved to Carthage and twice attempted to scale the city walls, from the sea and the landward sides, being repulsed both times, before settling down for a siege. When? I know we are in the year 149 BC, but no more information. The chronology of the events sometimes remains unclear.
The sources give no indication of when things happen. A lot seems to have gone on in 149 BC. The order of events is mostly (not always) clear, but there is no suggestion as to when in the year any of them happened.
  • The first and second paragraphs are not linked in section "149 BC".
Hi Borsoka: I am probably being slow, but I don't understand your point here. Could you elaborate a little? (I have tweaked the first sentence of the second paragraph to, hopefully, be a little clearer; which may or may not have resolved the issue. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The same thing: the chronology of the events or their links remain unclear. We are informed about the siege of the city in the first paragraph and the next paragraph refers to a camp established by Censorinus. We are not informed whether the camp was established before, during or after the siege and we do not know where the camp was established. :)
Enlightenment! I have added "The Romans set up two camps: Censorinus one with the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius one intended to house the Roman legions." tot he first paragraph and changed the start of the second to "The camp established by Censorinus was ... ", Clearer?
  • He then led a night march with a strong force... Maybe the numbers?
If only. We are not told.
  • 4,000 Romans pushed into the city Were there Romans who did not push into the city?
On one level, no; or at least the sources don't say. On another level,, obviously yes; the Roman army was larger than 4,000. But what they were doing, and whether they were all asleep in their tents, we don't know.
  • ...blessed Scipio... Did she?
Le Bohec says "She wished every possible happiness to Scipio Aemilianus". I don't have an issue with paraphrasing that as "[she] blessed Scipio".
I missed the text. Do other sources cited in the article mention the story? It is too romantic to be true. :)
  • ...a small proportion of the pre-war population... 50,000 is a huge number in Antiquity - are we sure it represented a small proportion? Percentage? The population of what? The city? The state?
I agree. A total population of 50,000 would have made Carthage (the city) impressive. Earlier in the article I write "The city of Carthage itself was unusually large for the time, with a population estimated at 700,000." This is based on Miles "the 700,000 inhabitants of Carthage just before its fall". In context it is very clear that he is referring to just the city. It boggles me, but as Miles is a very respected academic and this is from the only full length history of Carthage in English that I am aware of I don't consider that it is for me to OR about it. Hoyos - another impeccable modern scholar - quotes Strabo as "70 myriads of men [ie persons] in the city" in 149 BC. Square brackets in Hoyos. Ie, 700,000; which I assume is what Miles is relying on. Hoyos also discusses modern estimates of the population in the third century BC, ie some 70 years earlier, where a wide range of estimates go as high as 400,000. Allowing for 70 years population growth ... A very rough calculation based on the known size of the city in 149 BC suggests that a population of 700,000 would have 150-200 square metres each, so it is not physically infeasible.

Borsoka (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka: good stuff, thanks. Addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scipio was awarded the agnomen "Africanus"... Does Le Bohec verify the text? He writes: [Scipio] "was showered with honors and he resumed the name of Africanus..."
Yes, I am reading Le Bhec's full sentence as saying exactly that " On returning to Rome, he was showered with honors and he resumed the name of Africanus, which in times past his adoptive grandfather had borne." However, now changed to "took the agnomen "Africanus" ".
  • The formerly Carthaginian territories were annexed by Rome and reconstituted to become the Roman province of Africa with Utica as its capital. Scullard is cited twice at the end of the text.
Yes; once to his 1955 article and once to his 2002 book. But you are correct that I am confused - the 1955 Scullard should have been Le Bohec! See next point

I think the text "with Urica as its capital" is not verified.

"Utica, promoted to the rank of capital of the new province": Le Bohec p. 443. But, yes, I messed up the referencing, as you point out above. Now fixed.
  • Worlds Together, Worlds Apart: A History of the World: From the Beginnings of Humankind to the Present (Fourth Edition) (Vol. One-Volume) has multiple authors, but I cannot find Pollard ([7]).
I am referring to this work - I suspect that a bot may have mangled the ISBN.
  • Numerous large Punic cities, such as those in Mauretania, were taken over by the Romans, 1. Numerous? Large? 2. Fantar is more specific. He writes that only the towns supporting Carthage till the end of the war were destroyed, but other towns survived under Roman rule.
So do several sources. If you consider that more specific, then fine. Done.

3. Consider mentioning some surviving towns in a footnote.

I would quite like to, but sourcing is an issue. You and me may "know" that modern Tunis and Utica, for example, are the linear descendants of the Punic cities, but finding a source which explicitly states this is the very devil! (Do you have any thoughts on this?)
  • Fantar lists about 10 towns where the survival of Punic institutions is well documented (Fantar (2015), pp. 455-456).
I had misunderstood you. In this case I would rather not, unless you consider it important.
  • My concern is that readers can assume a link between the following two sentences: "Seven cities which had gone over to the Romans early in the conflict, such as Utica, were rewarded." and "All of the surviving Punic cities were permitted to retain their traditional system of government." However, although seven cities were awarded (how?), the survival of Punic institutions can be detected in more than 10 towns. I do not insist on listing the towns, but the difference between the two group of towns/numbers should be clarified.
I am struggling a little here. Possibly neither of us are communicating our points as clearly as we might. The article attempts to say
  • Seven cities were rewarded; precisely how and how these seven were chosen we are not told. (We are told why.)
  • Some cities were punished - by becoming Roman property or, in at least one case, by being razed.
  • "All of the surviving Punic cities" remained Punic in their institutions.
I could change the last to 'All of the surviving Punic cities, whether rewarded or forfieted' but the additional clarification seems redundant in light of the preceding "all". Your choice.
Or am I (still) missing the point?
  • I made an attempt ([8]). Please feel free to edit the text. 1. I understand Fantar only refers to specific elements of pre-Roman administrative system that survived the Roman conquest. 2. I think the sentence about the seven cities which were rewarded could be deleted if we cannot list the cities and cannot say what was their reward.
We probably could, but I doubt it worth the effort. Reward sentence removed.
Fantar p. 455 "With the exception of those that were destroyed because they supported Carthage until the end of her days, the cities were able to continue and to preserve their institutions".
  • ...until the 7th century. Consider adding "AD".
Done.

Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again Borsoka, all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits and comments. I think there are 3-5 pending issues above. I think the "duplication" of the article, raised by Buidhe below is the principal issue to be solved. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: I shall get on with them. Re the "duplication" suggestion. My (inexperienced) understanding is that if an editor believes that two articles should be merged they can set up a merge discussion on the talk page of one of the articles in line with and according to the rationale in Wikipedia:Merging. But this is an issue outside the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. I think, merger is not the only or proper solution. Perhaps, the siege could be the main article of a significant part of this article. 2. I am convinced that it is within FAC criteria. If it were not, we could hardly describe WP as an encyclopedia. We cannot review an article as an isolated piece of work,because each article exists within a broader framework of articles. Borsoka (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will be opposing this nomination, as it is not within my power to delete the other article and I had thought that I had already made the siege "a significant part of this article". (I am aware of "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".) We do indeed review each article as an isolated piece of work so far as FAC is concerned; you will find nothing in the criteria requiring (or allowing) a reviewer to consider other articles. I would be grateful if when you oppose (I am aware of the orange issues above and hope to address them shortly) you could make very clear the basis of your oppose. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." - If an article exists about the Siege of Carthage during the Third Punic War, the article about the Third Punic War can hardly stay focused on the main topic if it repeats the article about the siege.
That would depend, it seems to me, entirely on what the content of the article was. (I intend to discuss this a little further under Harrias's comments.
Could we repeat all information about each segment of the universe in an article about the Universe?
Indeed we would not, and such an article would fail FAC. Irrespective of whether or not there were other articles dealing with components of the universe. This is, it seems to me, precisely my point.

Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would fail because of criterion 4. If this article presents all aspects of the siege, althouh a specific article about the siege exists, this article does not stay focused. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pending issues
[edit]
  • Euboic conversions: having twice reread this section above I can't work out if it is one which you consider still pending, and if you do where we are in the discussion. I would be grateful if you could clarify if this is still a live issue and if it is, perhaps summarise the state of play.
  • I could accept the present version if readers were explained that the conversion rate is from the time of the Second Punic War (as far as I can remember the referred work).
But we are talking about amounts agreed in the treaty which ended the Second Punic War. But done.
Hi Borsoka: Firstly thanks with sticking with this review; I am sure that it has become a much larger task than you anticipated when you started. Secondly, if I am understanding you correctly then a potential solution would be to remove, condense or summarise some of the information on the siege in this article. Do I have that right? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, plus expanding the article about the possible reasons of the war. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka: possible reasons for the war expanded, in the penultimate paragraph of "Background"; aspects of the prose which are more fully explained in Siege of Carthage have been cut back to summary style, mostly in these edits. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work. I enjoyed reading and reviewing this article. As soon as the issues listed above by T8612 are addressed I will gladly support this FAC. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A series of edits ([9]) convinced me that the Third Punic War is a FA. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Thank you for the work you have put into this and for the support. I look forward to reciprocating with Charles I. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

[edit]
  • When deciding if a source is reliable for a particular claim, there are multiple considerations to evaluate: author, publisher, reviews/citations of the work, how extraordinary the claim is, etc. One factor doesn't usually determine reliability all by itself. (BTW I don't share Iridescent's view of OUP, especially the very prestigious Clarendon Press—in my experience, more prestigious outlets are much less likely to publish garbage than other publishers). Likewise, although academic works are usually preferred to popular history, well regarded popular works and garbage academic ones also exist. However, just because a source has been accepted at previous source reviews is not a guarantee that the previous reviewers were correct in their estimation. (For example, Franz Kurowski was cited in several FA and A-class articles). (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source checks
  • "the modern consensus is that this proximity causes the normally reliable Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in an excessively favourable light" I wouldn't say that Astin supports "consensus" (see WP:RS/AC). I do not have access to the other source.
Hmm. This is definitely the case, but I see your point. Every historian who discusses Polybius at any length comments on his pro-Scipio bias. I am loath to support it by giving a cite to a dozen separate sources. {u|T8612}}, do you know of a source which expressly states that this is generally agreed?
See Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, pp.3-4 (see screenshot); and also the Cambridge Ancient History vol. 8, pp. 5-6.
@T8612: Thanks. Unfortunately CAH pp. 5-6 is precisely what Buidhe was unhappy with. I am sure that they will point out that the other Astin cite you provide is just one scholar's opinion and does not prove a consensus. Where is Lazenby when you need him? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cite Walbank, who is the most important scholar on Polybius. The Cambridge Ancient History is a reference work, especially the first pages on the "sources", which all the contributors certainly reviewed and participated, although it is signed by Astin. I think it is enough to establish consensus. T8612 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe: you convinced? T8612 explains the situation better than I could. Ot should I water down the claim? Your call. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bothered by it if there's at least one source which explicitly states "consensus" or that there is an agreement among scholars, as required for verifiability purposes. However, that does not seem to be the case here. I would change it to "this proximity causes Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in a favourable light" in wikivoice, without the claim to represent scholarly consensus. (t · c) buidhe 15:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buidhe, I have gone with "this proximity causes the normally reliable Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in a favourable light". That OK? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You will rarely find an author saying "consensus". However, when the most important reference works say the same thing, then you can assume there is consensus on the matter. T8612 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe: I am checking if my change noted just above satisfacorily addresses this point and if there is anything else outstanding on the source review? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is fine by me. I would do more source checks but I think that the duplication issue, also raised by Borsoka, should be addressed first. (t · c) buidhe 13:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Le Bohec does not support "significant portions of The Histories' account of the Third Punic War have been lost". He does say Polybius has not left us much information but that is ambiguous as to whether it was never written or lost.
OK. Replaced with Hoyos "Only Polybius’ first five books (out of 40) are complete, although we do have sizeable extracts from the rest" and Goldsworthy "only a small part of the total work has survived".
  • "Modern historians also use the account of the 2nd century CE Greek historian Appian" Bohec does not say that Appian was Greek or lived in the second century: he describes him as Appian, a provincial living under the High Empire
That had me stumped for a moment - as to how I had messed up. not as to its accuracy. In the next sentence I quote Mineo, from an earlier article in the same volume. I also cite to the appropriate page of Mineo in the previous sentence. I must have had it in my mind that this covered the sentence in question as well - obviously it doesn't, I am merely going senile. Mineo - "Appian was a Greek from Alexandria (born at the end of the first century AD, died in the 160s)." now cited at the appropriate place.
Other comments

Yann Le Bohec states on the first page of his chapter:

The conflict known under the name of the “Third Punic War” does not enter the category of wars in the general sense of this word: it amounted, in fact, to one single military operation, the siege of one city, in this case Carthage. The author who wishes to describe it will have no order of march to report, no great battle in open country to describe, neither armistice nor peace treaty to mention. But the expression “Third Punic War” has been adopted by tradition, and that is why we are allowed to keep it. In reality, the title “Siege of Carthage” would be more appropriate.

This supports my view, after reading both articles, that there seems to be a very high amount of overlap between this article and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War). I think that a merge would be a good idea, especially considering that both articles are pretty short. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat disagree, there were a small naval battle and other skirmishes. The general context and preparation with the Numidian confrontation don't really belong to the siege of Carthage too. I think the "background" section should be expanded to better show the diplomacy and political debates at Rome behind the Roman invasion (will comment on this tomorrow). Le Bohec is deliberately simplifying things here. It could be possible to merge all the skirmishes into Third Punic War, but the article would be quite large. T8612 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my limited investigation, Le Bohec is in a minority, probably of one, in holding this view. While there is overlap, other authorities consider the War and the siege to be separate. I could OR as to why they may consider this so - not unreasonably none of them attempt to deal with this negative - eg the Carthaginians fielded an army of 30,000 entirely separate from the siege, which was involved in several pitched battles (not, IMO, "skirmishes") and was eventually (after nearly three years) destroyed when its camp was stormed by a Roman legion. Yes, there is overlap between the Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia of course, is not a reliable source. I note in passing that both the siege and the war are separate vital articles; not, of course, a conclusive point, but one assumes that a similar discussion to this one was held at some point. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit odd that you would emphasize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but then count Vital articles (a Wikiproject) as a reliable indicator of anything. According to a free online tool https://www.cortical.io/freetools/compare-text/ 85% of the text in the articles is identical. I have often been concerned by overlaps in your Punic Wars articles, but this is worse than usual. I can't support this article until the issue with having a substantially identical duplicate in mainspace is addressed. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree, we do not need two almost identical articles. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Purely on the use of the tool you mention. "85% of the text in the articles is" not "identical". A skim of both articles, or a look at the grid the tool produces, would seem to confirm this. The introduction to the tool states "overlap in meaning between the two texts is quantified as a percentage" (emphasis added). I cannot see that "meaning is defined.
Checking out a few existing FAs, not at random, I find that HMS Princess Royal and Lion-class battlecruiser have an 84% "overlap of meaning"; Reign of Cleopatra and Cleopatra 86%; Chough and Red-billed chough 70%. Third Punic War and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War) currently have an 83% "overlap of meaning".
I am not with this post attempting to address or refute your main point; I am refuting the assertion that "85% of the text in the articles is identical". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe and thank you for picking up assorted idiocies of mine above. Now addressed bar Polyibius's pro-Scipio bias. Let's see if another editor has an explicit source; if not I shall have to do it the hard way. Is there more to follow? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More source checks
[edit]
  • Harris 2006
    • Article says: "The former site of the city was confiscated as ager publicus, public land." Source states "Much of Carthage's own land, however, became Roman ager publicus.":::Quite right. I don't know what I was thinking. Replaced with Le Bohec "The former area of Carthage, called chora by the Greeks and pertica by the Romans, became the collective property of the Roman people, in Latin ager publicus populi Romani".
  • Vogel-Weidemann
    • "since the 18th century he has been credited with ending all of his speeches with Carthago delenda est ("Carthage must be destroyed")" not supported
Miles establishes that he alledgedly said it, Vogel-Weidemann that it was an 18th century invention.
    • Both Cato and Nasica were members of embassies to Carthage., not entirely supported by the source which states that Nasica only had "probably been a member of the same mission"
Hmm. I took the stress to be on "the same", but I see your point. Changed to "Nasica was likely a member of the same embassy."
    • Vogel-Weidemann 1989, pp. 79–88. I need a shorter page range to be able to check this.
Well, the whole article is a summary of modern explanations for the war; I will break it down against each phrase, but this may cause some loss of context.
  • Not a source check, but you may be interested to learn that "Cartago delenda est" is said to be the first recorded incitement to genocide.
I have come across that. I am not personally persuaded that Cato envisaged genocide, and anyway, it is well established that the words were a much later invention, so I skipped it.

May do more tomorrow. (t · c) buidhe 05:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • " The province became a major source of grain and other food." not supported by the cited source
I no longer have (easy) access to that. Perhaps Mitchell p. 345 "The large hinterland of Carthage ... was mainly taken up with cereal agriculture. ... two thirds of the annual harvest is said to have been exported to Rome. ... Africa was rich in all things, including grain, fruit [and] olive[s]."
  • "What role Rome's political divisions played in this decision is unclear. The modern historian William Harris describes these political issues as "the large historical problems involved in the Third Punic War" As far as I can tell, Harris discusses the political divisions in Rome and then says, "we are now getting to the large historical problems involved in the Third Punic War" . So I'm not sure this is supported.
Weeell, that's not how I read it, but this has been added since the review started, so I am happy to remove it. I started a rather complex explanation as to how I feel that Harris p. 151 and other sources support "What role Rome's political divisions played in this decision is unclear." but, again, that is a review accretion, and reading through the section, I think that it works better without it, so gone.
  • "Modern scholars have advanced a number of theories as to why Rome was eager for war. These include: a Roman fear of Carthaginian commercial competition; a desire to forestall a wider war which might have broken out with the death of Masinissa, who was aged 89 at the time; the factional use of Carthage as a political "bogeyman", irrespective of her true power; a greed for glory and loot; and a desire to quash a political system with Rome considered anathema. No consensus has been reached regarding these and various other hypotheses." I think most of this is supported by Le Bohec, but verifiability would be improved if you broke up the refs and cited each clause individually. (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That ties in with your Vogel-Weidemann point above and my response there. I will sort it. Done.
  • "A large Roman army landed at Utica in 149 BC under both consuls for the year, Manius Manilius commanding the army and Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus the fleet. The Carthaginians continued to attempt to appease Rome, and sent an embassy to Utica. The consuls demanded that they hand over all weaponry, and reluctantly the Carthaginians did so. Large convoys took enormous stocks of equipment from Carthage to Utica. Surviving records state that these included 200,000 sets of armour and 2,000 catapults. Their warships all sailed to Utica and were burnt in the harbour. Once Carthage was disarmed, Censorinus made the further demand that the Carthaginians abandon their city and relocate 16 kilometres (10 mi) away from the sea; Carthage would then be destroyed. The Carthaginians abandoned negotiations and prepared to defend their city." It would be much easier to verify this info if refs were broken up. Most or all of this is not supported by Le Bohec, IDK about the other sources.
OK. Done. It is all based on Goldsworthy - let me know if you would like a scan - except for Purcell clearly establishing that it was Censorinus who made the demand re moving the city. Le Bohec is not really needed and I have removed him.
  • "The Carthaginians raised a strong and energetic force to garrison the city from their citizenry and by freeing all slaves willing to fight." Slaves are not mentioned at all in Le Bohec.
That's in Miles p. 341 "It set free its slaves to fight in the army."
  • "They also formed a 30,000 strong field army, which was placed under Hasdrubal, freshly released from his condemned cell." not supported
I am an idiot. I both conflated two sources and typoed the army strength. Correct army strength now cited to Harris - I believe that the rest is supported by Le Bohec.
Hi Buidhe, all done and awaiting further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Sorry for the additional ping but just checking in on where we are with the source review. --Laser brain (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will get to it later today. (t · c) buidhe 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Buidhe. (And I am going to go back to school before posting another FAC, in the hope of avoiding giving my next source reviewer as hard a time as I have given you.) Pinging Laser brain, source review passed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]

I will proceed with what will mostly be a prose review. I have not reviewed this article before, but I did carry out the GA review for Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War), which I note that buidhe and Borsoka have mentioned above, so I will do my best to weigh in on that topic too. Note that when I ran the external duplication tool mentioned by buidhe, I only got a 30% match: I don't know if that is because changes have since been made, or something else. I am also competing in the WikiCup and will claim points for this review.

  • "..but after 167 BC it has survived only as a list of its contents." Sorry, are we saying that 1) All that survives of the account now (after 167 BC) is a list of its contents. 2) That all that is left of what he wrote after 167 BC is a list of its contents, or 3) That all that survives dealing with events that occurred after 167 BC is a list of its contents?
Ah. Nice. Fixed. I think.
  • "Both wars wars ended.." Duplicate word.
Fixed.
  • "At the end of the war the Roman ally Masinissa emerged.." While I don't think it is actually wrong, I find the definite article slightly jarring here. Although it adds a sub-clause and more commas, I wonder if "At the end of the war Masinissa, an ally of Rome, emerged.." or "At the end of the war an ally of Rome, Masinissa, emerged.." might be clearer. This might just be a personal preference thing.
It may be personal. I am quite prepared to change to one of your suggestions, but standing back as best I can, the increase in commas and sub-clauses seems to me to make the meaning less accessible.
Noting the discussion below, I have gone with your suggestion of "At the end of the war Masinissa, an ally of Rome, emerged".
  • "..Rome backed its ally, Masinissa, and refused." Not sure it is necessary to include "its ally" here, it feels repetitive, "..Rome backed Masinissa, and refused." seems to suffice.
OK.
Fair point. Changed.
  • Is there a more accessible term than "temporised"?
dissembled?
  • "..the Senate and the People's Assembly of Rome declared war." Presumably on Carthage?
Added.
  • There is a lot of commonality between the "Opposing forces" and "Course of the war" sections in this article and Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War). If a merge is not justified, then the two articles need to rationalise their purpose. This article should provide a summary of the entire war, and therefore provide less detail on the Siege. The article on the Siege should provide greater detail on the Siege (clearly), but only a summary of the other events and Background. If it is felt that the two are too entangled for that to be achievable, then I would concur with the suggestion that the articles should be merged. I'm going to hold off any further review comments, particularly as most of what remains is very similar to what I already reviewed at Talk:Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War)/GA1. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harrias—not my period, so I would bow to your superior knowledge here but there appears to be two separate questions. In progress in this FAC, the only question here is whether the article meets the criteria. On that basis I would urge you to complete your review. The second question is whether the two articles should merge. No one is progressing this through a merger discussion. As a lay reader of this article the action seems to amount to more than a single siege and over a period of several years: more a campaign with a single objective. I don't know if there are articles on other engagements in this war but with limited sources I would be surprised if the area warrants a summary article for the war (here) with child articles for the various engagements. This article is less than 4k words, the siege article is less than 3k. Where your expertise comes in handy is answering the question would any reader search for siege of Carthage and if they did would this article serve the purpose. If so I would suggest completing this FAC then initiating a discussion to get the siege article deleted. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, and very much the answer to the question I was asking. Having flicked through them all they look very underdeveloped though, largely Start Class at best B. Are they ever likely to develop further? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that as to how things break down, and also that Norfolkbigfish's suggestion is the appropriate course of action. Although we seem to be in a minority.
As an aside, the various Punic wars campaign boxes have a number of articles which IMO would be best merged/deleted. (I am not at all sure that I would consider Siege of Carthage one of them, but that would be where a merge/deletion discussion would establish consensus - and I am probably too close to form a disinterested view.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: I think there is sufficient content to justify separate articles on the Third Punic War and the Siege of Carthage, but I think that this article should trim back some of the detail on the siege (and similarly, the siege article should trim back some of the extraneous detail in its "Course of the war" section, but that is beyond the purview of this review). For example, at the moment the 146 BC section includes a note saying that the "Main article" for that section is Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War), but in fact that 146 BC in that article is almost identical, so suggesting one is the "main" article and one is the "summary" article is a little misleading. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias and thanks for that clear steer. I have reduced, I think, the content in this article which is more fully explained in Siege of Carthage to summary style, mostly in these edits. I have also expanded a little on possible reasons for the war, in the penultimate paragraph of "Background", at Borsoka's request. Hopefully this will allow you to continue with your review: let me know either way. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and energetic force.." energetic seems an odd word to use here, I have images of the soldiers constantly breaking out into star jumps or something.
Perhaps they did! I am trying to paraphrase "fought long and hard" and "the whole Punic citizen body threw itself wholeheartedly into the war effort" and Norfolkbigfish didn't like "enthusiastic". I think that I am reverting to "enthusiastic" based on the second source, unless there is a better idea?
I think "enthusiastic" works, suits me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They set up two camps: Censorinus one with the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius one to house the Roman legions." I find this phrasing awkward, and I don't like it. Maybe "They set up two camps: Censorinus's had the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius's housed the Roman legions." or similar?
OK. Done.
  • "Hasdrubal moved up his army and harassed the Roman supply lines and foraging parties." To avoid the double "and" statement, could this be "Hasdrubal moved up his army to harass the Roman supply lines and foraging parties."?
Good idea. Done.
  • "Arriving there, Manilius ordered an immediate assault.." Rephrase to avoid the easter egg link to Battle of Nepheris (149 BC). To be honest, given that article redirects to the Content section of Battle of Nepheris (147 BC), which gives less information about the engagement than this article, I would just bin it completely.
Binned.
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink for "winter quarters"? (I seem to recall from my own articles that there isn't really; unless you know of one, we could do with adding something.)
Redirects to cantonment. Which is not, IMO, what we want.
I think it would definitely be worth creating something for if we can find some decent sources, but that is clearly beyond the purview of this review. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "..or captured by the Romans. The Romans now.." Awkward immediate repetition of "the Romans".
Fixed.
  • "Hasdrubal's wife, watching from a rampart, then blessed Scipio, cursed her husband, and walked into the temple with her children, to burn to death." This sounds like the romanticised sort of thing that is often written, and I'm always pretty incredulous. I know there is an RS for it, but is there enough corroboration that this definitely happened, or should it be a softer "it is said that.."?
I know exactly what you mean. Note how I have specified that "Carthago delanda est" is an invention; likewise the salt sowing. I have not gone with requests to have Scipio crying. But IMO weakening the statement would be OR. It is as nailed down in primary and secondary sources as anything about the war, and more so than quite a lot. And perhaps not that improbable. See Sati (practice).
If it is that prevalent across the sources, then that's fine. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A curse was placed on anyone who might attempt to resettle the site in the future." Is this not repeating "The site was cursed with the intention of preventing it ever being resettled." from the previous section?
It is. Sorted. Thanks.
  • "..had been dug up by wolves - a very poor omen." Use an endash, not a hyphen.
Sloppy! Done.

I think that's the lot. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, happy to support this now, excellent work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Norfolkbigfish

[edit]

Lay readers' view of the article, comments below.....

Primary Sources

  • Uses Punic prior to explaining definition
  1. This has been a footnote, in brackets; at first mention, at first mention outside "Primary sources". Each change has been at the request of a reviewer - not necessarily at this FAC.
  2. We are attempting the impossible: if I move it to the opening sentence of the main article (the first mention is currently there) it is open to the valid criticism that it is not comprehensible because I have not yet introduced "Carthage" or "Rome".
  3. Neither where nor how it currently is is my personal first choice, but I really would prefer to avoid restarting this particular merry-go-round when we seem to have reached a compromise everyone is content with.
  • this proximity causes the normally reliable Polybius to recount Scipio's actions in a favourable light, proximity is a strange use of words, maybe Polybius account of Scipio's actions may therefore be overly favourable or something similar
I am attempting to suggest physical closeness,, but if you don't like that I have deleted "proximity".
  • Second paragraph uses historian 5 times, might be worth a ce!
Good spot. Reduced to two - both "modern historians".

Background

  • Carthage and Rome had fought the 23-year-long First Punic War from 264 to 261 BC I think one or more of your dates is wrong, or my maths
Its your maths. (Honest. Count backwards on your fingers if you don't trust me.)
It was actually a typo: I fixed this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. That's why I need good copy editors! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over the following 50 years he was he really campaigning for 50 years?
Yep. Goldsworthy p. 335 "88 years old, but still fit enough to ride without a saddle ... and to lead his men into battle."
  • ended in disaster is it worth linking this to a page that does not exist?
Changed to specify the battle. Still a red link. It's policy; and is firmly on my to do list, so shouldn't be red for too long.
  • Carthage had paid off its indemnity and was prospering economically, but was no military threat to Rome. grammar, could lose had, and and replace the comma with and for the same effect?
That would change the meaning t my eye.
  • which temporised is not needed
It has been changed to "which dissembled" at another reviewer's request. If I delete it a reviewer is going to ask "And is it known how the Romans responded?"
  • I notice this is written in British English, would be worth tagging to that effect
It is - dated August 2020.
  • Utica, where is that in relation?
Nice. Added.

Opposing Forces

  • Do two small paras warrant a section?
I personally think that it helps to seperate this overview of the two sides out from the rest of the background. And I don't think that the article is overloaded with sections. But I am not wedded to it. I could make it a sub-section.
  • and enthusiastic really? I doubt we know their level of enthusiasm.
Changed to "energetic".

149 BC

  • being repulsed both times is redundant
Not to me it's not. Deleted, but I shall refer any complaints to you ;-) .
  • Censorinus one with the primary role of protecting the beached Roman ships; and Manilius one to house the Roman legions I think the ones are redundant
Erm, if I delete them, the sentence isn't grammatical; or at least doesn't mean what we want it to.
  • pestiferous I think is not the right word, although I understand what you intend, unless the camp was plague ridden?
That's exactly what it was.
  • made repetitions of repeated?
Good grief! Did I really write that? Changed.
  • foodstuffs food?
Changed.
  • led out 300 cavalry and with a led 300 cavalry in a?
Done.
  • pulled back withdrew?
I think that "pulled back" communicates what is meant a little more clearly. Is this a major issue?
  • had cut off had redundant?
It needs the "had" to match the past tense "That night it was realised" earlier in the sentence.
  • the cut-off trapped?
Done.


  • Romans back retreat?
Changed to "Manilius withdrew after the Romans ran out of food ..."

So far, so good. All very interesting and understandable. More to follow......Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Norfolkbigfish, just what was needed. All addressed bar your very first point, which has had so many opinions that it makes my head spin. I shall try to get back to you on it tomorrow. I have gone with, I think, most of your suggestions; with queries, comments or defences against others. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

148 BC

  • Hasdrubal, commander of the Carthaginian field army, overthrew the civilian leadership of Carthage and took command himself phrasing commander, command
Tweaked.

147 BC

  • Scipio intended to stand in the 147 BC elections for the post of aedile; this was a natural progression for him and at age 36 or 37 he was too young to stand as consul, for which the minimum age requirement was 41 long sentence worth breaking
Broken
  • There was considerable political manoeuvring behind the scenes, much of which is opaque in the sources, and it is not known to what extent, if any, Scipio helped orchestrate this outcome not sure we can say there was considerable manoeuvring if the sources are opaque and things are not known
Without wanting to give chapter and verse - which I could if you wish - the sources say a lot about this manoeuvring, but it is opaque because we lack the context to make sense of it. Happy to rephrase, but obviously will need to reflect the sources; the current sentence is reasonably close to a source, hence its attractiveness to me.
You were not alone in not being totally happy with this, so I have worked some more detail in.
  • Once the channel was complete this sailed out this sailed out, perhaps the fleet sailed through is better?
Very good. :-) Changed.
  • struck at the Carthaginian field army attacked the....?
Done.
  • This section has a number of subordinate clauses, not important but it would read clearer if these were rewritten as sentences.
Done with all bar one.

146 BC

  • helpless to prevent them and furious helpless, furious.....really?
Goldsworthy p. 352 "Nothing Scipio or their officers did could persuade the men to return to return to their duty ..." seems to cover "helpless". Grr; can't find the cite for "furious", so removed. I'll let you know when/if it turns up.
  • holdouts not a word, at least according to the OED
{{wikt:holdout]]
  • The site was cursed (evocation) this can be rewritten without parenthesis
"(evocation)" removed.

Aftermath

  • as his adoptive grandfather had as had his adoptive grandfather
Done.
  • foodstuffs food
Done.

Nice work, I enjoyed readin that. I assume the facts and sources will be checked by the other guys

Oh yes!

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: Thanks for that. I owe you one. All of your points responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on prose, interesting article, well done.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mardus

[edit]

In reply to User:Harrias:

  • "At the end of the war, the Roman ally Masinissa emerged as..." — the definite article inicates, that Masinissa was an ally of Rome, but from outside the Roman Empire, and not a a Roman, as he's been indicated to have been a Numidian. Were the definite article absent, Masinissa would be interpreted as a Roman who was an ally. -Mardus /talk 10:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Lots of commentary already, but I have a hard time figuring out where the support is going, so I thought I might chime in anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some duplinking, especially in the aftermath section, can be highlighted with this script.[10]
Sorted.
  • Link Numidia in caption?
Done.
  • A minor point, but it always annoys me when left aligned images "clash" with section headers. You could circumvent this by reversing the alignments of the images from the "149 BC" section and onwards.
Anything to keep a reviewer happy. Reversing the images doesn't prevent the clash at 146 BC, but I assume that you are less concerned, as it is right alined now.
Hi FunkMonk and many thanks for stopping by. Those points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The alignment of the catapult image could probably depend on which direction the catapult aims at. If it aims to the left, it might be cool to right align it, so it could aim towards the text... FunkMonk (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "Carthage had paid off its indemnity" By what year?
Good point. Added.
  • "Map of Numidia at its greatest extent" Perhaps add to the caption that it was the rival of Carthage for context?
I dislike repeating information in a caption which is already in the text. In fact I dislike chunky captions in general - if the information is that useful/important, I put it in the text.
Heh, I guess this is another place where interpretation of MOS can lead to different philosophies. I take WP:captions to imply that image captions should establish the the context of the images, but I won't press the issue. "Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious, such as its relevance to the text... captions are the most commonly read words in an article, so they should be succinct and informative." FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that this is a case of "succinct" and "informative" fighting it out. :-)
  • "political system with Rome considered anathema" Which?
Ah now, there is a whole paper on this, and even Le Bohec's half page summary doesn't really make sense without a lot of background knowledge. I have tweaked this bit but am not convinced that it is an improvement.
Ah, I should have been clearer, I meant should "with" be "which" in the sentence? "desire to quash a political system which Rome considered anathema"? FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That gave me a genuine LOL! Sorted.
  • "nabled up to 4,000 Romans to fire" With what?
Not specified. I assume whatever came to hand, but that's OR. I am guessing that the primary sources took it as read, and no secondary source I have seen ventures a guess.
  • "At this point Hasdrubal surrendered to Scipio on the promise of his life and freedom. Hasdrubal's wife, watching from a rampart, then blessed Scipio, cursed her husband, and walked into the temple with her children, to burn to death." This almost sounds like dramatic war propaganda, and surprisingly specific. Maybe a case where we could state who this claim is attributed to and how reliable it is? Especially since another dramatic claim right after is shown to have been a later invention.
As I responded to Harrias's similar point "I know exactly what you mean. Note how I have specified that "Carthago delanda est" is an invention; likewise the salt sowing. I have not gone with requests to have Scipio crying. But IMO weakening the statement would be OR. It is as nailed down in primary and secondary sources as anything about the war, and more so than quite a lot. And perhaps not that improbable. See Sati (practice)." Just because WP:We Don't Like It doesn't, in my opinion, mean that we are entitled to pick it out to undermine it's credibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, can't say I don't like it, but since as you say in the article, one of the main sources about the event was biased in favour of the Romans, it is easy to imagine he would exaggerate. But yes, that is of course speculation if none of the sources go into this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not enthusiastic about it either. But once we as editors start deciding which RS backed ideas we are going to question the reliability of in an article we are on a slippery slope. I entirely understand why you and Harrias both queried it.
  • One wonders what happened to Hasdrubal subsequently? Especially since you do state what happened to Scipio afterwards.
Not specified, but I have managed to infer without, I think, ORing.
  • "and is known to modern scholars as "Neo-Punic civilization"" Anything to link?
Sadly not. The closest is Punic language. But I mean quite a bit more than that, and while the language article gives "to 6th century CE" in the infobox, it actually peters out not long after the fall of Carthage.
  • "the ruins of Carthage lie 16 kilometres (10 mi) east of modern Tunis" Are there cities at the site itself today?
There is a sprawling suburb of Tunis with about 20,000 inhabitants. It is a separate administrative area and so has a mayor. I have added "As of 2020 the modern settlement of Carthage was a district of the city of Tunis." (Sourced to UNESCO.)
  • "the mayors of Rome and the modern city of Carthage" But is there a modern city of Carthage? All I could find is Carthage municipality...
Good point. Well, I suppose it depends on what you call a city, I have removed "city" as it smacks of OR, and I think the addition noted above serves as an introduction.
  • "via blockade runners" Should these be mentioned i the article body as well?
Good spot. Went MIA in a large cull requested by another reviewer. Added back.
  • "Here, over several months, they constructed a structure as high as" In the intro you mention it was made of bricks, could be stated in the article body as well?
As above. Reinstated. Thanks.
Thanks FunkMonk, all useful stuff. I responded once, but an edit conflict seems to have eaten it, so this is take two. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added some comments above, but you only have to act on my miscommunication about "which", the rest looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With/which typo sorted. A couple of random comments added as well. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Girth Summit

[edit]

A great read, as usual. I was disappointed to learn that the sowing with salt was apocryphal, that was one of the few things I could remember about this campaign from my classical studies lessons at school. To my mind, this is already there, so I'm supporting, but I have a couple of thoughts for consideration:

  • Would the bit about Utica going over to Rome bear an additional sentence expanding on how and why the city did that? My impression from the current text is that Utica could see which way the wind was blowing and decided to switch allegiances, but it might be helpful just to spell that out for the reader?
It would be, and I wish I could. It seems obvious. But it would be OR. The sources give it only the most passing of mentions.
Fair enough - yes, if the sources don't expand on that, then best leave it as it is.
  • In 148 BC, the sentence "He failed: Neapolis surrendered and was subsequently sacked; but Aspis withstood assaults from both the Roman army and navy; while Hippo was fruitlessly besieged." - are those semi-colons necessary? There are conjunctions between the clauses, wouldn't commas suffice?
I would not dream of arguing with you. Now comma'ed.

That's it from me. GirthSummit (blether) 12:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Mr Summit, how thoughtful of you to drop by. Thank you for the review and the input. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome :) GirthSummit (blether) 14:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Since this has a lot of commentaries I'll have a look before this will be promoted.

  • In 149 BC Carthage sent an army, under Hasdrubal Hasdrubal who?
Not known.
  • the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus --> "the Roman General Scipio Aemilianus"
Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • Probably never gonna learn it.
  • of the Third Punic War have been lost.[10][7] Re-order the refs.
This is not a requirement of either the MOS or the FAC criteria. But done anyway.
  • That's true but my perfectionism wouldn't let these go. ;)
  • while Carthage was a large city state Not "city-state"?
Apparently either is acceptable. My paper Chambers only gives "city state".
  • Just in case I've searched on Ngram which one is mostly used and it looks like in British English city-state is more popular. I also found out that city-state in general is more popular in English.
Fair enough. Changed.
  • "modern northern Tunisia" (lead) vs "in the north east of what is now modern Tunisia" (body) One says northern and the other north east.
One says where the fighting was; the other says where Carthage's territory was. Two different things.
  • the Second when the Roman general Scipio Africanus --> "the Second when the Roman General Scipio Africanus"
See above.
  • Link Masinissa in the body.
Oops. Done.
  • Carthaginian general Hasdrubal and, the treaty notwithstanding, counterattacked the Numidians --> "Carthaginian General Hasdrubal the Boetharch and, the treaty notwithstanding, counter-attacked the Numidians"
g → G, see above; hyphen inserted.
  • of Utica, some 55 kilometres (34 mi) north of Carthage --> "of Utica, some 55 km (34 mi) north of Carthage"
Done.
  • Carthaginians abandon their city and relocate 16 kilometres (10 mi) away Same as above.
Done.
  • Carthage would then be destroyed.[63][62] Re-order the refs.
This is not a requirement of either the MOS or the FAC criteria. But done anyway.
  • with walls of more than 35 kilometres (20 mi) circumference --> "with walls of more than 35 km (20 mi) circumference"
Done.
  • This army was based at Nepheris, 25 kilometres (16 mi) south --> "This army was based at Nepheris, 25 km (16 mi) south"
Done.
  • The Romans launched another assault on the city but were thrown MOS:EGG here.
Removed.
  • the ruins of Carthage lie 16 kilometres (10 mi) east --> "the ruins of Carthage lie 16 km (10 mi) east"
Done.
  • Maybe switch the last two sentences since they are not in chronically order?
Done.
  • Purcell, Nicholas's source should have a "pp. 133–148" not "pp. 133–48".
Eagle eyes. Fixed.
  • 10,000 talents was approximately 269,000 kg (265 long tons) of silver at the time of the Second Punic War 10,000 is the start of a sentence and maybe link long tons?
Fixed and done.
  • Hasdrubal escaped to Carthage, where in an attempt Typo of wherein?
No; missing commas. Added.
  • the beached Roman ships; and Manilius's Strange choice to use "and" after a semi-colon?
Entirely normal when semi colons are used to separate items in a list.
  • Optional In spite of the greater forethought --> "Despite the greater forethought"
Good. Done.
  • Optional death on the walls, in view of the Roman army --> "death on the walls, given the Roman army"
I am not sure I understand your alternative. Is there a typo?
I think CPA-5 is assuming that you are using the phrase 'in view of' in the sense that would be synonymous with 'given' (or with 'in light of'); I believe you actually mean 'within the sight of'. I don't think it needs changing, but you could consider rewording if there's any chance of someone misreading this. GirthSummit (blether) 17:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. "view" changed to "sight".
  • he considered ill disciplined or poorly --> "he considered ill-disciplined or poorly"?
Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5. It is so good to see you back in action. Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yes since my classmate tested positive; I'm now put in quarantine until the 1st. Thus I have a lot of time unless I feel under the weather within this week. :( Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Ah. So a "bad news and good news" situation. City state tweaked. Have I missed anything? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: @Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Ealdgyth: This one looks close to done for me. Which obviously is a decision entirely for you. If you do feel that a consensus has been reached, it would make me a happy nominator if this could be agreed before the end of play today, as I am in the WikiCup and today is the end of the final round. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's it worth t'ya then?! Seriously, it does look sufficiently advanced to permit a new nom so feel free... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian but my referencing has been poor recently, so I intend to take a break from FAC nominations for a while until I sort myself out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, do you intend to tweak this article further in that regard? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. No. This article is as good as I am likely to get it and there are no unaddressed comments. This process for this one felt a bit rough and I am probably getting a bit stale/burnt out. It was just a passing/chatty comment to that effect. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [11].

Favorite Son (Star Trek: Voyager)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about a Star Trek: Voyager episode in which Ensign Harry Kim falls into a trap used by female aliens to attract and kill men as part of their sexual reproduction. In the original premise, Kim was revealed as an alien and would have remained that way for the rest of Voyager. This idea was abandoned after multiple script rewrites. The episode has received primarily negative reviews from critics and fans, and has been the subject of academic analysis.

Thank you again to @No Great Shaker: for doing the GAN review. I hope this nomination encourages other editors to work on articles on television episodes. Thank you in advance for any comments! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by No Great Shaker

[edit]

Thank you, Aoba47. Having done the GA review only a few days ago, I've nothing to add for the moment but I will keep a watch on this discussion. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you again for the help (and hopefully I have not opened this FAC too soon). I think that is a great idea as it is always help to see what other editors bring up in their reviews. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the comments raised below by LuK3| and the answers by Aoba47, I think the article is as ready as it can be and I support its promotion to FA. It is a very good article. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Comments by LuK3

[edit]

First off, great job Aoba47 on a great and informative read. I do have few minor comments:

  • " The VHS packaging uses the British spelling— "Favourite Son..." Per MOS:EMDASH, there should not be a space on either side of the dash.
  • Is it relevant to note the reasoning (if any) to use British spelling instead of American spelling on the VHS release?
  • I have done further research on this, and I unfortunately could not find an explanation for this. It is likely a misprint, but that is purely speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, the last sentence states that critical reception was "mixed" however the section mentions the critical response as "largely negative". Would the cast and crew response warrant a mention in the lead as well?
  • "Critics disliked the Taresians." seems a little abrupt in my opinion. Maybe a transition from the first paragraph to the Taresians response would work well?

That's it from me, again great work Aoba47. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

[edit]

One of the weakest episodes of the weakest series in the franchise, featuring the weakest character, and a plot hole big enough to fly a starship through. The article conveys the process that turned a workable idea into a steaming pile of crap. One can only speculate how much better the episode and the whole series would have been with the original concept. It still left some questions in my mind:

  • Any idea why the episode is called "Favourite Son"?
  • I could not find an official explanation for the episode title. It is odd to name an episode after a well-known term despite it have no bearing on the plot whatsoever, but the episode as a whole is a mess. It could be something to do with Kim believing he is a member of the alien species and how the women fawn over him, but that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from Lisa Klink, do we know who the other writers referred to as part of the writing team were?
  • I could not find exact names. Wang mentioned both studio executives and multiple unnamed writers (likely those who regularly contribute to Vogayer), but does not name any of the people. I have added in a quote from Wang to hopefully clarify this further. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What changes the cast and crew made?
  • I could not find any further clarification on what Rush meant by his statement. It is likely that the actors tried to alter their performances to better sell the plot and the crew built the sets and filmed it in a way to get more out of the story than the script had provided for them. Aoba47 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the number of reshoots more than for an average episode?
  • I could not find a source that explicitly stats that this episode received an unusually large number of reshoots. Most of the focus seems to be on the unusually large number of script rewrites. Wang said that there was a lot of reshoots, but he does not compare it to other Voyager episodes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving the first paragraph of "Casting and filming" into the previous section
  • TV tropes refers to the trope as "Lady Land" [12]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hawkeye7: Thank you for your review. I love Voyager, but it certainly had a lot of issues, and this episode is representative of that. I feel bad for Lisa Klink because it seems like very little if any of her original script survived the rewrites and made it to air. However, it does make for an interesting example of executive meddling. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if anything else can be improved. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Moved to support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Heartfox

[edit]
  • A viewership number isn't a Nielsen rating. Yes, it's according to Nielsen but a rating is a percentage; it's not expressed in millions. I'd reword instances of this to "according to Nielsen, ...". This is a similar case for another featured article of yours, Abby (TV series). The 2.6 and 1.6 aren't viewership, they're the rating.
  • That makes sense to me. I have removed it. I have only recently started to use clippings so the subscription part is a carry over from when I linked directly to the newspaper which required a subscription to read. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed both of them. Please let me know if anything else needs further improvement. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a fair point. I have unlinked ensign to avoid this. I have tried to think of ways to reword the sentences in the lead and plot summary, but my revisions always come across as awkward or clumsy so I think unlinking that one word is a simpler solution. Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • placed it in 88th place maybe just "placed it 88th"
  • is the first instance of ref 30 necessary given it also appears at the end of the very next sentence?
  • Although Cinefantastique and writer David A. McIntee both panned "Favorite Son",[9][13] a Star Trek Monthly contributor gave it a more positive review of four out of five stars, which the magazine defined as "Trill-powered viewing".[36] eh... this feels kind of non-neutral to me (two negative opinions made to seem less-than one positive). I'd remove "although" and just separate them with a semi-colon. Maybe I'm just confused I haven't watched any Star Trek and so I didn't really understand the "Trill" reference even with the link

Heartfox (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a fair assessment. It does put too much of my own opinion into the reviews and can be read as favoring one response over another. I agree that a semi-colon is better and more neutral. I have removed the trill reference completely as it is unnecessarily confusing to an unfamiliar reader and it does not add much to the overall sentence. As someone that has only seen Voyager, I'd be hard-pressed to define what a trill is myself since they do not appear in this installment of Star Trek.
  • I have a quick question about these two sentences. I do not have access to any of these three sources. I included the Star Trek Monthly one because it was the only favorable review that I could find for this episode (at least from a reliable source). Do you think I should keep this part? I am only wondering because all I can say is that they gave a positive/negative review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, how did you add the info if you "do not have access"? I'm confused.
I think it's okay to keep them. The other reviews described do give more specific details, so as long as the whole section isn't just x said it was good, y said it was bad (without saying why), I would personally keep them. Heartfox (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Thank you for the response. I know about the reviews from the Memory Alpha entry on the episode, but I could not track down the full reviews for them. Aoba47 (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: well in that case I would remove them as Memory Alpha is on Fandom and Fandom is considered generally unreliable per WP:RSPSOURCES and (even though they're probably correct) this is for FA so...
I support the promotion of this article. Heartfox (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the review. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with any Wikipedia work. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tintor2

[edit]
  • I'll be doing the 'source review. I used two citation bots for both archiving and fixing any issue. I was wondering about IMDb as a source but it seems it is well handled by the article. Every source is reliable and the citations are quite consistent. As as a result, I'll give it a direct pass. Good luck with this article Aoba.Tintor2 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help and using the citation bots. I have immense respect for the editors that put together the citation bots. I included the IMDb ranking because it was discussed in by a third-party, but I think it is always good to pay close attention to how IMDb is used. I have added a part about when IMDb ranking was published as I am not sure if that is subject to change. I do not think it is (particularly for an older show like this), but I wanted to play on the safe side. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SatDis

[edit]

Hiya, well done on an excellent article. With no background in Star Trek, I was easily able to follow along. Hopefully I can provide the insight of a casual reader. Please let me know if there's a specific section you would like feedback on from an outside reader. I have also worked backwards through the article, apologies.

  • I have just scanned through the references and I believe that any mention of Star Trek or Star Trek: Voyager in reference to the television series should be italicised; I believe even if the published article title doesn't follow that protocol.
  • Ruditis 2003, pp. 170-171. The dash should be – , check this for others, but I think you're okay.
  • "compared the plot negatively" I don't like "negatively", maybe "she unfavourably compared the plot to..."?
  • "with Harry Kim put in a role similar to Odysseus" Is there a better word for "put"? "Placed", "adapted" or "his role paralleling that of..."?
  • Can you place a brief description such as "the Sirens from the epic poem Homer's Odyssey"?
  • "rather than featuring the female captain" Remove "featuring" or change to "utilising" or "making use of"?
  • Apologies, I really dislike "put" in "forgot to put alien writing on". You could write "inscribe" to make it sound more professional. Also, what is alien writing? Symbols, hieroglyph, emblems? Yes, the quote mentions "Sharpies" but can the article paraphrase to "black markers" or something similar? This sentence just reads like a Twitter anecdote.
  • "Rush had some difficulty with the Taresian actresses... I had to do a little convincing, but we got there" Have I missed something? As I am unsure what the "convincing" and "difficulty" is all about... especially as it is the start of a new section.
  • "more action and sex". Did the executives want sex in the episode, or sex appeal?
  • The episode does include a few on the nose sexual references, but since sex is not shown on the episode itself, I've changed it to sex appeal to better reflect the actual content. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that I couldn't find much to critique - I really had to nit-pick. This article is very well written and I will be happy to lend my support to it. I appreciate your support on my featured article review as well. SatDis (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SatDis: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if anything else requires further improvement. I can remove the Twitter part completely as it was a later addition, but I wanted to get your feedback before making a decision on my own. I will look at your FAC by the end of this week at the latest. Thank you again, and I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent job revising those suggestions. I think the reword of the Twitter note makes it sound a lot more notable, and definitely worth keeping. Well done, happy to support this article. Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • "Rush focused on treating the Taresians" What does that mean?
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I am not sure how I missed it. I must have accidentally delete a part while revising this section. I have revised this part some what and included a quote to hopefully clarify the meaning. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had some difficulty with the Taresian actresses" That sounds a little strong -- and they're not Taresian actresses, they're human actresses! I confess the whole paragraph makes me cringe a little, but maybe that's just because you're quoting interviews from the '90s.
  • Apologies for that. It was not my intention and if there is anything in the prose that contributes to the cringe, then please let me know. I have attempted to revise this part, but let me know if further work is necessary.
  • Looking back on the source, I realize Rush attributed his difficulty to the episode itself and how to best portray these female characters and not the actresses. Unfortunately, a certain amount of cringe is unavoidable with this episode. The Geisha comparison was the one that really made me roll my eyes. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the episode's production, Kathryn Janeway's actor Kate Mulgrew said Star Trek: Voyager and the Odyssey both use "mythic storytelling"." I am not quite sure the point of this sentence.
  • Removed. It was something added in one of my early drafts for the article, but I forgot about it later. It is not really about the episode and was from my research on Voyager's connections to the Odyssey. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pleased the sexism of the plot is acknowledged. I wonder if a note about sexism and the fact fans seem to hate it is worth mentioning in the lead? Just thinking aloud -- I appreciate that the lead is already long.
  • I am glad that the plot's sexism is discussed in sources (both popular and scholarly). I have added a part to the lead, and changed a part in the "Critical reception" subsection to match this. Please let me know if this needs further improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to insist on anything, but it is not usual to provide locations/publishers for journals/magazines in reference lists. Meanwhile, it is usual to provide locations and publishers for books. At the moment, you don't seem to be consistent on what you're providing and when.
  • There is nothing with insisting as I want the articles (and citations) to be in the best shape. I have removed the locations, but kept the publishers to be consistent with the books. I can remove the publishers from the journals/magazines though if necessary.
  • "From the Replicator" is included in the bibliography, but is not cited.

Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your help with the article. Your copy-edits have helped to improve the article immensely. I have tried my best to address your above comments, but I would more than happy to do further revision. I find this episode fascinating because it is really representative of Voyager's behind-the-scenes issues while also being a time capsule on how women were represented in the 90s. Female representation can definitely be improved further, but looking back at this episode does make me realize at least some progress has been made. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SandyGeorgia

[edit]

The only nit I can find to pick is:

  • Harv ref error: Baker, Djoymi (2018). To Boldly Go: Marketing the Myth of Star Trek. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78831-008-6. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBaker2018.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for pointing this out, and apologies for that. I somehow completely skipped this citation while writing the article. I have pulled information from the source and attempted to incorporate it into the article. I will look through it again tomorrow to clean up the prose. It is quite interesting because it adds to the point on how this episode connects with other moments in the Star Trek franchise. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

[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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [13].

1789 Virginia's 5th congressional district election

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little known but important episode in US history. The article has, perhaps, not the most impressive of titles, but tells of the only congressional election in US history to feature two future presidents, James Madison and James Monroe. Madison was the victor of this battle fought one cold Virginia winter, and had he not been in Congress to use his influence to fight for the Bill of Rights, the key issue in this campaign, it might not have passed.Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
How so? It's not in the article anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a crop would be helpful because there were no state lines near the Fifth District. As for a jpg, the best I could do is screenshot the tif, which strikes me as rather crude. Open to suggestions.
I just meant crop out the areas that weren't part of the map. Anyway, I was able to create a jpg using GIMP. The filesize was reduced from 80mb to 2mb without reducing map detail. (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the Madison and Monroe images in the infobox, which was added recently and not by me. I doubt an infobox is that useful, but I'm not getting into that. Note my comment above re the map. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • There appears to be a rounding error in Madison's infobox percentage
  • The lead says Madison got frostbite from the debate, while the text says it was from riding home afterwards - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with these. Thank you for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I checked the image that was added, and it is also freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • I think it would be worth mentioning in the lead that the election was to the First Congress; no doubt a US reader would know that, but I didn't.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map is good to have, but can we also get one that shows the district that's easy to read? A modern map outlining the (current) counties comprising the district would be fine. I wouldn't oppose over this.
    I don't have a better one. Four of the counties in the district have split into two counties, plus there are the independent cities of Fredericksburg and Charlottesville that have split off from their counties. And since the Fifth District was not near a state line, I wonder if a map detailed enough to be helpful at thumbnail size would really help the reader unfamiliar with Virginia. I'm open to ideas.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I sometimes think that one paid service that the WMF could provide is a full-time mapmaker who could create maps for high-profile articles, or FAC or GAN nominations. It's a specialist skill, with high value to the reader, and surely not controversial enough. Anyway, no problem for this article, just a nice-to-have if a map is ever available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the map: One could be based on the one here; the Fifth District is the one in the middle with red in its southwest corner that is above the one that is almost entirely brown.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That links to this which per this page has a Creative Commons licence. I'm no image expert but I think that could be used at least on the 1789 Virginia elections page, and I think it would work on this page too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added this image. I'd like the image reviewer, buidhe, to take a look at it (and also check the one remaining issue in the original review). My thanks to both of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Buidhe's approved it; outstanding. I think that's a great addition, and perhaps that site will be a source for other articles about early US elections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But he felt it to be important that Congress proposed them, rather than an Article V convention favored by the Anti-Federalists such as Monroe, feeling that route to be the quickest, easiest, and safest means of passage. It took me a moment to parse this and realize that the last clause is Madison's opinion, not Monroe's. Suggest: "But he felt it to be important that Congress proposed them, feeling that route to be a quicker, easier, and safer means of passage than an Article V convention, which was favored by the Anti-Federalists such as Monroe." That has "felt/feeling"; perhaps "considered it important"?
Done that using "believing".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come; still reading but I have guests arriving shortly so it will probably be tomorrow before I can add to this. It's very good so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done up to date, thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • In the negative campaigning paragraph you list two accusations made by Monroe's supporters, with parenthetical explanations. The first one explains the basis for the accusation ("he had supported including such a power...") but the second one seems to contradict the accusation. I was expecting some parallelism here -- that is, an explanation for why it was claimed he pronounced the Constitution perfect, or else something like "(in this case there was no basis for the accusation)" or "(he had done so, but had subsequently admitted...)".
I've clarified that the basis was that he had been against amendments, and his opponents used that against him.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be a contradiction to say that Monroe was initially taken by surprise by Madison's idea of campaigning via letters, but then to say that Monroe took this approach "from the first days of the race".
The quote from McGrath is “Knowing he was no orator of Patrick Henry’s caliber, Madison bombarded the district with a letter-writing campaign, arguing for his beloved Constitution. Taken unawares, Monroe responded with his own broadside of letters.” I guess this was still "the first days of the race". The campaign did not have a formal beginning, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it I think this is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • did not provide sufficient protection to their religious liberty: I think "of" or "for" would read more naturally than "to". I didn't copyedit this in case it's a common usage I'm just not familiar with.
"For" is probably the better of the two.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monroe stated of Madison, "It would have given me concern to have excluded him." I'm not sure I follow -- Monroe is saying he would have been sorry to have won?
He's writing to Jefferson so he's putting the best face on the situation. It's the same letter as quoted earlier to the effect that those who were impressed with him sort of dragged him into the race.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You used "noted" in quoting two historians at the end of the article; "note" carries an implication that what follows is definitely true, rather than just an opinion, so I would suggest something like "commented" instead.
I've used that and similar synonyms.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see "Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=" against the DeRose and Labunski sources at the end of the article. I opened up the section to see if it was an easy fix but whatever is causing it appears to be buried in the sfnref template.
I don't see any cite errors and the citation appears normal to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently what's going on. It seems to be not something you did, so I'm going to ignore it, but perhaps someone who knows more about the way these things work will come along and fix it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it now. I doubled the "|" and thus it is detecting an empty parameter. They should be fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see. A very engaging read about something I knew nothing about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've addressed or responded to each item, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very easy read, well-organized and well-written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All of the sources appear reliable.
  • Formatting looks correct, but I wonder why you didn't put the sources in footnotes 2, 3, 13, and 20 below and link to them by a short cite, as you did with the rest.
I've done that for the books. For the other two, which are brief bios of Madison and Monroe before their presidencies, I generally don't put single-page web pages into the bibliography.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except as noted, done. Thanks for the source review. Hope you're doing well and staying safe.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hope you're well, too. I'm hoping to be on here more again, so I'll see you around. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

[edit]

Fascinating. My support is based on prose and (from my POV) reader engagement; its a gripping read, depicts realpolitik at its rawest and is wonderfully told. Am impressed that you kept the article relatively short when it could have been bogged down with dry facts, rather than paced by narrative thrust. Made light copyedits, nothing major, feel free to revert. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • As a resident of a county adjacent to this congressional district, how can I resist reviewing this article?
  • A bit too much detail in the second para of the lede, IMO. I'd suggest deleting all after Monroe campaigning.
  • Link Sect'y of State, President
  • I have no other comments other than to say, "Very well done". I'll withold supporting until I reread it in a few days on the off-chance that I see something that I missed this time through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've gotten these covered. I did keep one sentence in the lede. I think something has to be said about the campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. My county's three away from the district.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll take a look at this soon. Might claim it for the WikiCup, or I might not. TBD on that front, but I've still got to make the disclosure. Hog Farm Bacon 15:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we get a better source for the Monroe infobox picture than "own work"? The image is clearly PD, but I'm not so sure that's the best way to put that
I've changed it to the painter's name
  • Link Anti-Federalists at the first mention in the body
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although defeated for Congress, Monroe's frequent court appearances kept him in the public eye in Virginia." - Maybe it's just a comprehension issue for me, but it's unclear to me what court apperances these are referring to.
As a lawyer. Clarified.
  • "Riding away afterwards, likely home to Montpelier, Madison suffered a frostbitten nose. In his old age, former president Madison would tell the story of that night, and point to the left side of his nose" - So is the note saying there's ambiguity where Madison was frostbitten, or where he would point?
He would point at the injury site. It's a question of who you believe. I find the ear in William Rives's bio in the 1860s and the nose in Gaillard Hunt's of 1902. They may go further back and I don't know of any way of determining this with certainty. I did look at a couple of paintings of Madison but they were no help and paintings tend to flatter. It's too good a story to ignore.
  • Maybe this is common practice, but I'm pretty sure that Virginia did not have an official state flag in 1789, so that flag in the infobox is a bit on an anachronism.
Cut. I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this one. That's all I've got to say, and most of these are probably just comprehension issues on my end. Hog Farm Bacon 18:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Hog Farm. Thanks for the review and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Very interesting and informative read. Hog Farm Bacon 18:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [14].

Peter Raw

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Raw was one of the Royal Australian Air Force's leading pilots during the post-war era, but turned in a mixed performance in an important command role during the Vietnam War. He cut his teeth, and demonstrated remarkable skill and bravery, as a bomber pilot during World War II and remained in the air force after the war. He placed second in the 1953 London to Christchurch air race and commanded the RAAF's first jet bomber squadron. In 1966 he was posted to South Vietnam to coordinate air support for the Australian Army force there. He was not well suited to this role, and ended up in frequent shouting matches with his Army counterpart. This culminated in a bitter argument during the crucial Battle of Long Tan where Raw was probably wrongly perceived to be reluctant to risk RAAF helicopters to save an Army unit which was close to being overrun. After completing his posting to Vietnam, Raw served in administrative roles and commanded the RAAF's base in Malaysia.

I created this article in 2011 (before Raw's Australian Dictionary of Biography entry was published), and have worked on it on and off since then. It was assessed as a GA in 2013 and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in 2014. The article has since been considerably expanded and improved, and the recent digitisation of back issues of the RAAF's in-house newspaper make me feel confident that I haven't missed anything significant. As such, I think that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll give this a look later. Might be claimed for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Bacon 00:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Optional, since this is given in the date range, but maybe tack on that he died in Richmond in 1988 to finish off the lead.
Early career
  • Why did the RAN reject him?
  • "Raw completed his training and was commissioned as an officer in December that year" - What specific rank? Based on ref 9, he was an F.O. (I'm assuming Flying officer) by the time of the 166 holes in the fuselage incident, but it's not clear when he was promoted to this rank. A little more detail on his various early-war ranks and promotions would be helpful. The source given for the engagement places him as a flying officer at that time.
    • He started out as a pilot officer - added. None of the sources say when he became a Flying Officer, and unfortunately his personal file at the National Archives of Australia hasn't yet been digitialised.
  • "He assumed command of No. 205 Group Communication Squadron in 1945" - Where was this unit based?
  • Did he get the DFC for a specific action?
Commanding officer
  • Are there any further details about what he did between 1957 and 1960? It's pretty thin in there.
    • I've added the only mention of him in the Australian media I could find, which was pretty marginal for inclusion. The coverage of Raw's career is heavily focused on his flying roles and role in the Vietnam War, and there's not much on his staff and training positions. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent career
  • Did he do anything after retiring from the air force? Did he move to Richmond after the retirment? It's a little bare in the 1978-1988 time frame, too.

That's my first round of comments. Hog Farm Bacon 20:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Can I please check whether I've addressed your comments, and if you have any others? Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This is in great shape. A few comments:

Lead
Body
  • Use his full name at the beginning of the Early career section, otherwise it is uncited
  • link Apprenticeship and Electrical artificer
  • was commissioned as an officer, pilot officer? If so, when was he promoted to flying officer?
  • why link Romania but not Hungary?
  • what did No. 205 Group Communication Squadron do?
    • I'm not sure I'm afraid - I've looked extensively for this, but with no luck. I'd be guessing that it undertook miscellaneous light transport and liaison duties with light aircraft and castoffs like the RAAF's communications units did (which are themselves very obscure). This source hints at this role for the squadron when it was a flight. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • what was the DFC for?
  • "was appointed the commanding officer of No. 2 Squadron" say what sort of squadron it was at the time
  • "He regularly flew combat missions" did that mean he was trained as a helicopter pilot?
  • I'm not sure about the timeline here. AFAIK No. 9 Squadron started flying missions on 30 June 1966, so if "there were tensions between the Army and RAAF over the employment of No. 9 Squadron" when Raw arrived, when did he arrive exactly? The article implies May, so this really doesn't work.
  • wasn't there also a Dept of Air directive that peacetime regs applied? See Eather, quoted in the No. 9 Squadron article.
    • That's noted in the article. The regulations weren't quite peacetime, but they were unrealistic (Alan Stephens is quite scathing about how badly prepared the squadron was for combat due to the RAAF's misconception that the war wasn't a big deal). Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were only 108 men of D Coy, 6 RAR at Long Tan, not 200.
  • Given the Warsaw airlift was a airdrop operation, I don't see how Clark could conclude "his experiences in the Warsaw airlift meant that he understood the dangers facing the helicopter pilots". I would have thought flying helicopters into a ground battle is a completely different kettle of fish.
    • I've added more material about the Warsaw airlift - the point Clark is making is that Raw had flown very difficult and risky transport missions so understood that the helicopter pilots lives were at great danger if he gave the resupply mission the go-ahead. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be worth looking at Scott's memo, reproduced as an appendix in McAulay, which gives the RAAF line on the situation on No. 9 Squadron support to 1 ATF immediately before Long Tan. I also wonder if we are getting a mainly RAAF perspective on No. 9 Squadron at Long Tan given the sources used are all RAAF-oriented. I've checked Duty First and it is silent. Could you have a look at the official history volume by McNeill and see what it says, and perhaps the other books written on Long Tan?
    • In response to the above comments, I've reworked the two paras on No. 9 Squadron and the Battle of Long Tan, including by expanding this out to three paras. Interestingly, Stephens (the official RAAF historian) is more scathing about the state of the squadron and the RAAF high command than any other source! McNeill and David W. Cameron provide a less sympathetic portrayal of Raw though which I've tried to work in. It seems that he was out of his depth during the battle, but took only slightly too long to make the right decision. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was Operation Hayman a US or Australian op?
  • The motivation for Army to take over battlefield helicopters is essentially ascribed to Long Tan, but there was more to it, and I think this is a simplification. There are plenty of journal articles and media releases about the decision, which should be consulted and reflected in the article to give a less RAAF-centric perspective.
  • I note that the ADB says Raw "hesitated" rather than refused regarding Long Tan. I wonder if the Long Tan para couldn't be more closely cited.

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support Comments by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties, I took part in the MilHist ACR way back when, and have kept an eye on the article ever since. Having copyedited a little before this nom, and again just now, I have the following comments:

  • I would've thought it was worth putting No. 178 Squadron under Units in the infobox.
    • The guidance for this infobox states that the 'unit' field should only be used 'for persons who are not notable as commanding officers'. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well there you go, I always assumed it wasn't an either-or thing, you'd use this for units they belonged to without commanding, and the other for units they did command -- I guess no-one else knows about this 'cos I've always used both in "my" military bio FAs... ;-)
  • I notice you haven't included any Gazette refs. While three of the four I found don't really add to what you have, the DFC one includes a full citation that gives you more to work with than you have now, and includes an intriguing reference to Ploesti that could also be worth mentioning at this point.
    • I'm not familiar with navigating the London Gazette, and didn't have any luck with it - thanks. I've added material from the DFC citation, which is quite interesting as it's explicitly for the entire combat tour and notes his success as a leader of his bomber crew - this helps to explain why he made the cut for the post-war RAAF and was then given choice assignments. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He regularly flew combat missions with the UH-1 Iroquois -- since it appears unlikely he was ever at the controls, would it be worth tweaking to "flew on combat missions", or "accompanied combat missions"?
  • the relationship between Raw and senior Army commanders in 1 ATF was "most difficult" throughout the remainder of his time in South Vietnam -- I'd usually recommend attributing a quote inline (though I have little doubt it's Clark) but in this case since it's just two words I wonder if we could paraphrase ("strained" perhaps, or even "very strained"?).
  • Raw's initial reluctance to commit helicopters reinforced the perception among some Army officers that the RAAF was reluctant to support their service in battle -- could we avoid the "reluctance"/"reluctant" repetition?

That's about it, except to say no concerns with the breadth and quality of the sources -- shame that we can't pinpoint a few more precise dates but you can only work with what you have and I don't think anything vital is missing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. I've made a couple of minor copyedits. Other than that I can only find one thing to complain about, which doesn't affect my support.

  • fostered an enthusiastic aircrew: I know what you mean but I think the wording isn't quite right. One fosters enthusiasm, not a crew.

A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Nick, I have only a few minor comments...

  • London to Christchurch (x3) v London-to-Christchurch (x2)
  • task force v Task Force
  • new speed record for a flight between New Zealand and Australia, completing the crossing between Auckland and Sydney in two hours and 49 minutes. - maybe needs context eg at average 500 mph and/or distance? I.e., was it a record time rather than a record speed he reached at some time during the flight? Do we know what the previous time record was?
  • air/land warfare - no link available to explain what this term refers to?
  • He regularly on flew combat missions - flew on? (or is that jargon?)
  • Australian Army is linked only in lede
  • with Raw personally briefing the crews - "personally" redundant (though I understand if there for emphasis)?
    • Yeah, I included this for emphasis given that it illustrates that he played a particularly active role in this battle after a rocky start (briefings like this would usually be handled by the squadron operations order or squadron commander at the highest, not a senior officer). Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the relationship between Raw and senior Army commanders in 1 ATF was strained " ... "did lead to a better working relationship" - any way to avoid 2 x relationship? Maybe even 'working relations'?
  • was better suited to operations in Papua New Guinea - explain why PNG came into consideration. Is the relevance for aid, training, highlands? Maybe add 'Australian administered'. (Can't have readers thinking we were at war with PNG!)
  • Raw further stated that there was - swap "further stated" to said?
  • Raw was portrayed in Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan (by Christopher Sommers) per this but I can't find an RS.
    • Yeah, I'm not sure if it's worth noting though given it doesn't seem to have been a major role/character in the movie given that lack of sourcing (I haven't seen the film, though I understand that it's pretty good).
  • Cite 25 The Advertiser. 1 January 1954. p. 3 - not a link to dab but add Adelaide?

Nothing else I can find, regards JennyOz (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [15].

2010 Football League Championship play-off Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk), The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another step towards that elusive featured topic, for the world's richest association football (soccer) match. This is a joint nomination, most of the hard work was done by Kosack and I tagged along for the ride to hopefully get it up to snuff for FAC. A ding-dong of a game, at least in the first half, and "little old" Blackpool's zenith of glory for 40 years. Both nominators will work tirelessly to assuage reviewers' concerns, as ever, and thanks in advance for all the time and effort everyone puts into the review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination may be used in the WikiCup competition. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Images appear to be freely licensed, the only issue is that File:Blackpool vs Cardiff 2010-05-22.svg should indicate the source for the players' positions in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 01:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks for taking a look so quick. I can provide sources for the image, but where is best to place them? When you say in the image description, do you mean on the page itself or over at Commons where the image is hosted? Kosack (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image description on Commons. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Kosack (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Amakuru

Amakuru I've done most of the trivial stuff, Kosack I've left the hard ones! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finished up the last few. Kosack (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy turnaround, guys. It looks up to snuff to me now, so happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski cheers, much appreciated, I've addressed all bar one issue above which I've asked Kosack to comment on/address. Many thanks for your review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski I'm done on the second set, thanks very much. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski hey dude, have we addressed your concerns? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will try to get to this tomorrow, will likely be claimed in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 01:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's some minor formatting inconsistencies. For instance, BBC Sport is not linked in ref 9, but it's linked in about all the other instances.
    Linked ref 9. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a location for the Saunders book?
    Added. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with most of these sources, but not with Soccerbase or the Football Club History Database. The latter appears to be self-published. Soccerbase looks to be a sports betting site. What makes either of these high-quality RS?
    These two were recently addressed at another FAC HERE, and I believe they are both widely used and well regarded sources. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
  • "Cardiff kept their team hotel location secret in order to avoid any attempts of a retaliation attempt by fans of Queens Park Rangers. This followed an incident prior to the 2003 play-off final when the two sides met in which a Cardiff fan was arrested after triggering a false fire alarm call at the Rangers' team hotel during the night prior to the match." - Checks out
  • "The referee for the match was Andre Marriner (Birmingham)" - Checks out
  • "With just over 20 minutes to play, Cardiff were awarded a penalty, which Whittingham scored to level the aggregate score again at 3–3" - Checks out
  • The match rules from the report - Source doesn't mention the substitutes
  • " Blackpool midfielder Keith Southern was named man of the match" - Checks out
  • "The 2009–10 Championship title was won by Newcastle United with 102 points, returning to the Premier League one season after being relegated" - The 102 points isn't mentioned in the source, but it's cited in the table, so it's alright, I guess
  • "Cardiff City finished fourth in the Championship, three points behind Nottingham Forest and level on points with Leicester City in fifth" - Checks out

Pretty confident that the article well follows the sources. Hog Farm Bacon 15:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm thanks very much for your help, I think this is "oven ready" @FAC coordinators: . Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Looks all in order on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any deal-breakers prose-wise. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Cas. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2020 [16].

Hurricane Hector (2018)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NoahTalk 17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Hector... While not an impactful storm in any manner, it did pose a threat to Hawaii when its track was unknown. Hector was the longest-lived storm of the season and broke intensity records. NoahTalk 17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Similar to the other storm, this is just being used as a source for a sentence introducing the topic (at least the first half of it does) and relating it to the season. NoahTalk 12:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eighth named storm, fourth hurricane, and third major hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season,[1] Hector originated from a disturbance that was located north of South America on July 22. - could be split into two sentencesBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, thunderstorms group together rather than have individual bursts, winds increase a little, and the pressure drops a bit. The NHC doesn't make mention of this as it is minor compared to what happens later. NoahTalk 10:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]
  • I'm not a fan of "long-lived", since hurricanes aren't alive. Could you reword in the opening sentence?
  • Could you link "named storm" and include a note or some explanation for what a major hurricane is?
  • You never really describe what a "disturbance" is. I get it that it wasn't a tropical wave, but I'd like some more specific wording and less jargon
  • As the NHC doesnt specifically mention what it was as the origins were difficult to ascertain, I will add a note with a dumbed-down version of the definition for tropical disturbance. NoahTalk 20:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you link or explain what the "Big Island" is? You link it on its second usage.
  • "It fell below major hurricane intensity around 18:00 UTC on August 11 after spending a record 186 hours at that intensity." - is that a worldwide record or basin one?
  • Maybe add the latitude markers for where the CPAC and WPAC are in the lead? You made a point about the three NPAC basins
  • Is there another way to describe "convective activity" to the layman?
  • Thunderstorm?
  • How can a system "strengthened into a tropical depression"? Why not "developed into"? Also, is it worth adding that it was TD 10E?
  • "After strengthening into a tropical storm, increasing easterly wind shear caused..." - the shear strengthened into a tropical storm?
  • "Soon after" - IDK how well this works starting a brand new section (which you do twice!)
  • "At the same time, the storm continued to track westward." - you ended the previous section with "continued to travel due west", so I'm not sure this is needed again
  • "About six hours later, a 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron plane recorded a stepped frequency microwave radiometer (SFMR) wind speed of 158 mph (254 km/h) as it surveyed the cyclone." - was this a gust?
  • "As Hector approached Hawaii, mid-level dry air, low ocean heat content, and 81 °F (27 °C) sea surface temperatures caused the weakening trend to continue." - the sentence structure got confusing after you said "mid-level dry air" and it turned into a list. Avoid using lists of three items right after you used a phrase like "As Hector approached Hawaii", which would naturally be followed with what the storm did; in this case, weaken.
  • " Hector weakened into a low-end Category 3 hurricane as it passed south of the Big Island on August 8." - how far south?
  • "Many remained in temporary tent structures that could not withstand a hurricane; however, plans were made to relocate people to sturdier structures." - what happened with these plans?
  • "All absentee walk-in voting sites, as well as, Whittington, Punaluu, and Milolii Beach Parks in Hawaii County were closed on August 8 as the hurricane passed south of the island." - this could've been stronger
  • "Hector began to rapidly weaken soon after as wind shear increased to a high 35 mph (55 km/h)." - I'd end with "as wind shear increased further to 35 mph", as the current wording is odd
  • Is the subtropical transition worth mentioning in the lead? That's a semi important status change for a TC.

All in all it's a fine article. Some of the wording just needs to be spiffied up, and a few things reworded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink:I should have addressed everything. I wish the CPHC would have put more into certain aspects of their TCRs as they did neglect them quite a bit (more evident on other storms). NoahTalk 14:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support! Thanks for the quick fixes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

All images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC

Support by JavaHurricane

[edit]

Will do. JavaHurricane 04:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "degradating" in the last line of the second MH section.
  • "it had the highest accumulated cyclone energy since 1994's Hurricane John." Which basin?

No issues otherwise. Excellent article. JavaHurricane 04:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er in like half an hour irl issue distracting me... Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval date for ref 2?
  • ref 30 missing author
  • These are very minor things and reliability looks good so I'm give a preemptive pass for source review, with the expectation that these issues are addressed. Aza24 (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issues should be fixed now. NoahTalk 02:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please put NBSPs between Category and the number (Category 4) in prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be done (for much more than that). NoahTalk 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedit; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • I had no idea what "all three North Pacific basins" meant and had to dig around till I found Pacific hurricane, which explained it. I assumed it was a geographical division, but it appears to be purely administrative. I don't think this needs to be in the lead; if you think it's notable I would suggest finding a way to explain it inline to someone like me whose knowledge of hurricanes is restricted to having reviewed a few FACs.
  • Per this discussion I think you should get the months and year into the first sentence.
  • Hector restrengthened into a tropical around 18:00 UTC on August 14: looks like a word missing after "tropical"; I think it must be "storm".

These are all minor points and I expect to support. It's rather a technical article, since it has almost no impact on land, so there's not much to talk about except the meteorological details; I don't think it's all that engaging as a result, but that's not anyone's fault. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the points above. Just noticed the Twitter source in the references; I assume this is an acknowledged expert. I don't think I've ever seen Twitter used as a source; can you point me to whatever policy or discussion covers this case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS and WP:TWITTER cover how this can be used as an acceptable source. this is his Colorado State University page. NoahTalk 19:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember now; thanks for the pointer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments (Support)

[edit]
  • Hector reached Category 3 status by 00:00 UTC on August 4 and went through an eyewall replacement cycle soon after, which caused the intensification to halt. Upon completion, the cyclone continued to organize, developing a well-defined eye surrounded by cold cloud-tops. I think that's a dangling modifier? It was the replacement cycle that completed, not the cyclone? How about ...
    After the replacement cycle, the cyclone continued to organize, developing a well-defined eye surrounded by cold cloud-tops.
    We have the article cloud top. Why is it not linked, and why is it referred to here as cloud-top? Are they different things?
  • Long sentence alert ... too many clauses :) Hector crossed the 140th meridian west, entering the central Pacific Ocean early on August 6 as a Category 4 hurricane and reaching its peak intensity around 18:00 UTC that day, with winds of 155 mph (250 km/h) and a pressure of 936 mbar (27.64 inHg). I suggest breaking with "It reached its peak intensity ... "
  • It fell below major hurricane intensity around 18:00 UTC on August 11 after spending 186 hours at that intensity – longer than any hurricane in the eastern Pacific basin. This is more labored than necessary, but I'm unsure how to fix it ... does this work?
    Hector spent 186 hours as a major hurricane – longer than any hurricane in the eastern Pacific (ever or just that season?). At around 18:00 UTC on August 11, it fell below major hurricane intensity.
  • Just a personal preference, feel free to ignore if you disagree, but I don't see why the overview that is supposed to be a lead has to include the time detail; they seem to be an excess burden on the reader, when that detail is in the article, and we could just give dates. To lessen the effect of too much data to absorb in the lead.
  • I would still have to give some indication of time for events, especially ones that occur directly after another. It would be easier for the reader to see times rather than "in the middle of the day" or "later on that day" each time. NoahTalk 21:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Hector did not make landfall, its close approach warranted the issuance of tropical storm watches and warnings for the Big Island, as well as tropical storm watches for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Again, more labored than necessary. How about ...
    Hector did not make landfall, but as it approached, tropical storm watches and warnings were issued for the Big Island, as well as tropical storm watches for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
  • Overall, the impact on land from the storm was minimal. The "overall" seems redundant, and would this sentence be better placed at the start of the paragraph?
  • I think we need the word "northern" over South America here ... while traveling westward over South America ... that is, presumably Venezuela and Colombia, although unstated. I don't think it dipped down to Peru or Ecuador did it? :)

That's it for me, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does that look? NoahTalk 21:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2020 [17].

1982 Formula One World Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 36th running of the Formula One World Championship during the 1982 season. This is the third time I am attempting to get enough participation for the article to get to FA, and I really hope that this time around, some editors might find the time to go through it and make suggestions. Unfortunately, a peer review I initiated in the meantime also yielded no comments. Feel free to comment and I'll gladly respond to them asap. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by WA8MTWAYC

[edit]

The 1982 season was very eventful and unique, so I'm interested. I'll finish this later (hopefully this weekend). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Lead[reply]

  • Link "World Championship for Drivers" and "World Championship for Constructors".
Done.
  • Just noting here that I personally read this as being a motorsport journalist, not a journalist for Motor Sport magazine, in which case the change isn't necessary. Zawed (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While Roebuck has worked for Motor Sport, in this instance, I actually just meant motorsport in general, not the magazine. He wasn't at Motor Sport in 1999 as well, as far as I know. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image

  • I would rather say "Constructors' Championship" instead of "Manufacturers' Championship".
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Driver changes

  • In the lead, Mario Andretti is listed as "World Champion", whereas Alan Jones is a "world champion". Is World Champion with or without capital letters? Please be consistent with this.
Have chosen capital letters in all instances. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but won none with only one podium finish to his name" better to rewrite it to something like "with a third-place finish as his best result".
Done
  • Did Surer broke his legs or his feet?
His feet, as stated. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar changes

  • "with several of them pulling out of financing the race due to uncertainty following the drivers' strike at the previous round at Kyalami" is quite a large sentence. Better to rewrite it with something like "as several pulled out due to uncertainty following the drivers' strike in the opening race".
Done.
  • "held the previous year" > link that specific GP and not the previous season.
Done.
  • "Two races were added to the calendar compared to 1981" two new races or two extra races (which in case it would only be one)?
Done.

Politics

  • "works" teams is a bit vague. Do you mean non-British?
I have wikilinked it, a works team describes a motorsport team run directly by a car manufacturer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation changes and technological development

  • "making it hard to see while driving" this part is redundant and can be deleted as it's clear what a blurred vision leads to.
Removed.
See above.
  • "including special qualifying tyres, which provided much increased levels of grip during the qualification sessions that determined the starting order for the race" > simplify it by saying something like "including special qualifying tyres with an increased grip level" and drop the latter part of the current sentence.
Done.

Pre-season

  • "The week before the first Grand Prix of the season in South Africa, going into race week itself, testing for the season was conducted at the Kyalami circuit." needs rewording as it reads odd.
Reworded.

Opening rounds

  • Maybe move the heading "First European rounds" above the previous paragraph? (Since the San Marino GP is discussed there)
I had deliberately done it like this, since in that paragraph, I am writing about the after-effects of the first races, which obviously would have had effects on the San Marino race, but I wanted to seperate it, since the disqualifications cover the non-European rounds. But I could change it if you think that's stupid, I am open to that.

First European rounds

  • "was from their number" I've never heard of this expression. Is this correct?
Rephrased.
  • Motorsport journalist > Motor Sport journalist
See above.
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This a really interesting article and I think it's certainly in with a chance of success. The content is excellent (it covers all events as far as I know) and the sourcing is (after a quick glance) done well. However, I feel there is a difference in the level of prose at some places throughout the article. It would be good if a native English speaker had a look at this article (English is not my first language so I can't really help). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WA8MTWAYC: Thank you for your comments, see my responses above. Looking forward to more! I agree that the prose might need some work at places. I am not a native speaker myself. The biggest problem I faced was that I am not certain how well I managed to convey the very complicated technical stuff. I need outside input from others to determine this, since it all makes sense to me, but it might not do to others. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at the article in the near future, but I'm positive. I think the technical information is well put and clear, and some things just can't really be simplified. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work, Zwerg Nase. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

Lead

  • ...increase driver security... suggest safety instead of security
Done.

Team changes

  • ...their L4 turbo... I think it better to state inline four-cylinder turbo engine, I can't say I've seen L4 used to describe them.
Done.
  • ...would only be using the new BMW engine... suggest "were committing to the use of the new BMW engine throughout the season..."
Done.
  • The phrase BMW engine is used twice in close succession, suggest rephrasing to avoid this.
Done.

Driver changes

  • who was then removed from the squad seems a little vague, can we say dismissed or fired? Also suggest replacing squad with team.
Just wrote "fired", should work.
  • the car went to Henton suggest replacing car with seat.
Done.
  • Swedish driver Slim Borgudd had moved from ATS to Tyrrell, but was forced to leave the team suggest "Swedish driver Slim Borgudd had moved from ATS to Tyrrell in the off season, but was forced to leave the team after only three races..."
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Zawed (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar changes

  • I thought the Falklands War played a part in the cancellation of the Argentine GP?
The problem is that I cannot really find a reliable source that clearly states this. Hilton only writes about the monetary issues. It appears that the race was originally postponed but then cancelled altogether, in which the war might have played a part, but there's no source which says that particularly. The two sources given in the Argentine Grand Prix article on this are GrandPrix.com, which is really vague and The Guardian which mentions the race being cancelled, then calls it postponed, and then never picks up the thought again... I am trying to find another source, and if I do, will expand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Denis Jenkinson in Motor Sport called the race definitely cancelled in March, so before the war even started, see here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

  • "Formula 1 Constructors Association (F1CA)": no need for the abbreviation if it isn't used in the abbreviated form. Ditto "Commission Sportive Internationale (CSI)"
Done.
  • The FISA was running the sporting regulations side of Formula One, delegated by the FIA: suggest rephrasing to "The FIA delegated the running of the sporting regulations governing Formula One to FISA." For some reason "The FISA..." doesn't sound right.
Done.
  • ...of the majorly British constructor teams... suggest "of the majority of the British constructor teams"
Well, not all of the constructor teams are British, that's why it is phrased that way.

Sporting regulations

  • You mention only 11 races counted for the Driver's Championship but perhaps should explicitly state all points finishes count for the Constructors.
Done.

More to follow. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

  • Suggest moving the discussion on turbo lag to follow the discussion on their speed and reliability. That then makes the mention of Toleman a little more logical since it will now follow the discussion on Ferrari. Perhaps also say. "As well as Brabham, Toleman also used turbo engines..."
Done.
  • By 1979, Renault had shown that races could be won with this formula, and in 1981, Ferrari had followed them by introducing their own turbo engine.: suggest "In 1979, Renault won its first race with a turbo-powered car and in 1981, Ferrari introduced their own version of the technology."
Rephrased.
  • ...but did not race with it until the next season. The technology section jumps around chronologically so suggest specifying the 1983 season here for sake of clarity.
Done.
  • But maybe more importantly,... suggest deleting this phrase as possibly editorialising?
Removed.
  • Watson's uninjured escape from a severe accident... suggest "Watson's lack of injuries from a severe accident..."
Rephrased.
  • In other regulation changes, ... shouldn't this paragraph be in the regulations section?
Hmm, but then again, it's a technological change, and since the regulation changes for ground effect and engines are also dealt with in this section, I think it's the place to be?

Preseason

  • going into race week itself,... suggest deleting this phrase, don't think it adds anything
I think I removed this when dealing with the comments above.
  • Surer broke his feet during the testing sessions and was due to be replaced by Tambay at the Arrows team. suggest "Surer, driving for the Arrows team, broke his feet in an accident and had to be replaced by Tambay."
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening rounds

  • On the Wednesday between testing and the first practice session, for clarity, suggest "On the Wednesday between testing and the first practice session of the South African Grand Prix,..."
Done.
  • during a meeting of the Formula One Commission no context for the Formula One Commission, this is its first mention.
I have added a footnote.
  • Brabham abandoned their turbo-charged BT50 for now... probably need to mention why (reliability is alluded to team changes section but worth mentioning again I think).
Done.
  • The case was taken to the FISA in Paris,... grammatically, I don't think the needs to be there.
Now that I read it, I agree. Which is strange, because if it were the FIA, I would add the article... strange.
  • FIA International Court of Appeal sided with Ferrari and Renault... the mention of the FIA is inconsistent with the case being taken to FISA.
But I think it's correct in this case. While FISA was in change of Formula One for the FIA, the Court was still a body of the FIA, the main organisation.
  • I agree with the previous reviewer that the "First European Rounds" be moved to begin the paragraph where the San Marino GP is first mentioned.
Done.

More to follow. Zawed (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: I am horribly sorry for how long this has taken. It's always a gamble when you enter an article for review, you never know when the comments come and how much time you have then to address them. I am looking forward to more and pledge to be turbo-charged next time around! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: No problem, I have been neglectful in not coming back to this sooner. I will do some more over the next few days with the aim of finishing it off at the weekend. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First European Rounds

  • Pironi however attacked him and took the lead on lap 46...: suggest rephrasing: Pironi appeared to disregard the signals from the pitwall and too the lead on lap 46...
Done.
  • I was coasting those last 15 laps."; Pironi... grammatically, I don't think that the fullstop should be there given the construction of the sentence, with the semi-colon following the quote mark.
Removed the semi-colon.
  • before falling off in performance. suggest: "before their performance became compromised."
Done.
  • even the only turboengined finisher, you seem to use turbo-charged elsewhere so suggest changing for consistency. Also perhaps mention this marked the return of the BT50 to competition.
Done.
  • Renault teammate Prost. Prost... close repetition of Prost. Suggest: "Renault teammate Prost. He in turn..."
Done.
  • Should mention here Patrese was running the BT49D, not the BT50. It will provide context for the related comment in the second para of the North American section.
Done.
  • Perhaps also mention Ferrari only running a single entry for Pironi.
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North American Rounds

  • During the shortened qualifying,... suggest "During the shortened qualifying session,". Also need to explain why it was shortened. If you can't I suggest just deleting "shortened".
I felt that the reasoned for the shortened session was clear from the preceeding sentence? Have added the word "session".
  • who qualified just 17th on the grid: the use of "just" comes across as editorialising.
Done.
  • had his Michelin tyres perform very well... suggest: got his Michelin tyres working well on the Detroit circuit
Done.
  • Riccardo Paletti, who competed in... suggest: "Riccardo Paletti, who was competing in..."
Done.

Back to Europe

  • It has been quite some time since Tambay was first mentioned so suggest providing his full name here.
Done.
  • For the next race at Brands Hatch, the British Grand Prix, Brabham had devised what they referred to as "The Ploy". suggest mentioning the team was now running BT50s for both drivers.
Will need to get back to that once I find a source, I am currently not at home.
How are you getting on with that source? I have Henry's Brabham book, I could look it up to see if it is mentioned there if necessary. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, it turns out, the race report was missing in Motor Sport's online database, but I was able to find and source it through the PDF of the entire August issue. What a hassle. If you find a mention in Henry's book as well, that would obviously be nice! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a fuel pressure issue led to his car being stationary. suggest: "...a fuel pressure issue led to his car being stationary on the grid while the other cars got underway."
Done.
  • ...the accident left no one dead or even seriously injured Not crazy about this wording. Suggest: the accident did not result in any fatalities or serious injuries.
Done.
  • Tambay went on to win the race for Ferrari,... suggest reminding readers that this was his first win.
Done.
  • Arnoux on lap 73 of 80 Rather than mentioning the length of the race at this point, I suggest amending the first sentence of the paragraph to read: "...the Swiss Grand Prix, held at the Dijon-Prenois circuit and scheduled for 80 laps."
Done.
  • ...winning the title, in case he won the last race of the season and Rosberg failed to score. not crazy about this wording. Suggest: "...winning the title; this would require him to win the last race of the season with Rosberg failing to score."
Done.

Last Round and Title Decision

  • While Arnoux retired,... This leaps from qualifying to the race, so suggest: "While Arnoux retired from the race itself,"
Done.
  • Suggest breaking the paragraph into two at this point: "The 1982 season was the last for Lotus team owner..."
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • No author for note 13?
Motor Sport does list an author for this article.
  • Notes 25, 40, and 42: Is F1fanatic a reliable source? For notes 40 and 42 at least, you may be able to use Nye.
This has been discussed several times in the WikiProject and each time, F1Fanatic, which has since been renamed to "RaceFans", was considered a reliable source.
Happy with that. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 36 (Trzesniowski) - this is a book source, so should be listed in the bibliography and sfn format used instead (as per your other book sources). Ditto Notes 48 (Pritchard) and 120 (Higham)
My thought here was, as I learned in my studies, to only include works in the bibliography if they are used more than once. I am unsure if there is a MOS policy on this? But I can surely change it if necessary.
I'm not sure of a specific policy on this but I have not heard of this approach for sources only used once. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • No author for notes 64, 83, and 112 (it looks like Jenks did all the race reports for Motor Sport?)
When I wrote the article 2 years ago, Motor Sport did not give the author names on the website, which made it hard to find out who wrote them. It has since been amended, at least partly, so I have filled the authors in where possible. Unfortunately, this was only the case for the first one of the three.
  • Towards the end, I notice you switch from using Motor Sport race reports as a source to Grandprix.com race reports. I wonder for sake of consistency whether you could continue to use the Motor Sport race reports throughout (not a biggie though, won't affect my support)
I added some GrandPrix.com reports on the behest of the GA reviewer, who preferred an online source without a paywall. I personally prefer the Motor Sport articles as well. I have added the Las Vegas GP race report from Motor Sport alongside the Grandprix.com source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, my support won't hinge on this. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • The titles of some works are in title case while others are in sentence case. Consistency needed.
Done.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the thorough review! I guess one or two things are still left to do, I hope I'll get to them later today! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few replies above, very close to confirming my support here. Zawed (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: I think everything is addressed now :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks good, so have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
Reworded.
Done.
  • Motorsport journalist Nigel Roebuck later wrote that the 1982 season was "an ugly year, pock-marked by tragedy, by dissension, by greed, and yet, paradoxically, it produced some of the most memorable racing ever seen".[1] - I don't think this should be before the info on the season, probably better afterwards. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
I oriented myself on the only article of this kind to already be featured, 2015 Formula One World Championship, which also has two pictures in the lead, of the championship winning driver and car.
I have added a sentence before the table, again modeled after the 2015 article. But I cannot move the table below the changes section, since this would violate the way all of these articles are done by the respective WikiProject. Such a change would need to be discussed there.
Done.
I have split two which were particularly long. But I feel the others are OK as they are. I tried to group them so that each paragraph represents a race, to make it easier for the reader to follow the flow of the article.
@Laser brain: I'm on it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Please see my replies above. Also, good luck with the last weeks of the WikiCup, I see you are sitting pretty! Hopefully next year, I can challenge you into the final round :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No issues, I'll change my !vote. I fear my goose is cooked on the cup this year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Coordinators

[edit]

@Laser brain: It looks like this article might finally, after two years, have a chance to get promoted. Question: The article received a source and image review during my second FA attempt a year ago here. Are new reviews necessary? There were no new images added since then and very few sources. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think fresh image/source reviews will be necessary. I see the last ones, and it looks like a couple of reviewers here looked at the images and sources as well. --Laser brain (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Alright, thank you! I don't know the procedure, is three support votes enough? Maybe not? It's so hard to find reviewers these days... Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: I understand! Reviewers are always in short supply. It's not really a count—three supports is sort of a de facto number where we start looking at whether the nomination can be considered for promotion but the quality of the review is what really matters. Next time I pass through the list I'll take a look at where we are. --Laser brain (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Thank you :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]

Sorry to see this is the third attempt, largely due to a lack of reviewers. Hopefully we can get this over the line. I've gone through the article and picked out a few things, but it's an impressive article overall.

  • "Later, championship favourite Didier Pironi suffered a career-ending accident", you use later here, but the preceding sentence has no real timeframe as we don't know when those races occurred by this point. Perhaps reword to "Championship favourite Didier Pironi also suffered..."?
Done. Also change favourite to "front-runner", since that seemed less biased.
  • "their inline-four engine turbo engines", the double use of engine reads a little oddly here. You know the technical jargon better than I do, so would inline-four turbo engine work instead?
Done.
  • The team changes section seems a little short, is that the only changes made by all the teams from the previous year?
Indeed, I've already sort of blown it up by including the engine information. Apart from that, same teams as the year before.
  • "they reverted to the Cosworth DFV motor several times", when you say several times, do you mean they were alternating between them? Or was the BMW used up to a certain point and the Cosworth carried on from there? If it's the latter, I think this could be made clearer.
Tough to paraphrase, they started with the BMW, then reverted to the DFV for the second race, then gave Piquet the BMW for a couple of races, while Patrese was still running the DFV and then they both started using the turbo from the British GP onwards. However, I don't think it wise to lay that out here, since it is explained in the season overview later on, so I guess the more abstract wording here makes sense? Feel free to disagree.
Yeah I agree with what you have here given that. My only concern was if there was a clear cut-off point for the engines but, if that's not the case, that's fine. Kosack (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including full control over television rights for FOCA", including obtaining full control?
Done.
  • Could the "In other regulation changes", paragraph be added on to the previous one? It's pretty short at two sentences and the weight theme is not too dissimilar to the water tank part.
Done.
  • "The drivers in turn reacted by going on strike the next day", is this referring to all of the drivers in the competition or the six who refused to sign? It's a bit confusing because I'm assuming we're still talking about the six at this point, but note f mentions Mass and Fabi.
All the drivers except for the two mentioned in the note. Will make that clearer.
  • "The teams then moved to Brazil", moved doesn't seem quite right here given the context. Travelled, perhaps?
Done.
  • "even though his car had been as illegal as the others", I'm a bit unsure of using the term "illegal" here as I'm reading it as he did something wrong when in reality it was perfectly legal at the time. Perhaps just mention that Watson's car also used the water tank?
Well, the Court decided that the practice was not legal. Have rephrased to "his use of the water tanks had been as illegal as the others".
  • "After some swaps of position", reads a little clunky. Can this be rephrased?
Done.
Apparently not, changed.
  • "Pironi said that "The 'Slow'", does slow need capitalising here?
Done, had taken that directly from the source.
  • "followed by Andrea de Cesaris", de Cesaris is only mentioned a few paragraphs before this. I don't think there's a need to use his Christian name again.
Done.
  • "Next up was the inaugural Detroit Grand Prix", next up sounds a bit informal. Why not simply "The next race"?
Done.
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: Have reacted to all your comments so far :) Thanks for chipping in! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, I have no further concerns and I'm happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM

[edit]

Just some mainly technical stuff.

  • I know it's a "season" article but the word appears no fewer than eleven times in the lead, sometimes more than once in a sentence, I'm finding it pretty jarring.
Done.
  • "1982 Drivers' Championship winner, Keke Rosberg" avoid starting with a number, perhaps make this a complete sentence, i.e. The 1982 .... was Keke Rosberg."?
Done.
  • The table in "Drivers and constructors" has no col or row scope parameters, and no caption, so it doesn't really comply with MOS:DTT.
I think I fixed it properly? I am VERY inexperienced with tables... as far as I can see, no row scope parameters are needed, since no row has a header.
Ah, figured it out now.
  • Are those tyre symbols accessible? I don't know what they mean unless I click on them, that doesn't seem right.
I don't know how accessible it is... but I do not see any way how I can change how those are portrayed unless we change it for ALL Formula One season articles. The only other FA article of this kind (2015) does not have this problem since there was only one tyre supplier in 2015...
  • And MOS:FLAG, I would expect there to be a country code included for these as, once again, I don't find the information until I actually click away from this article. I normally use {{flagathlete}} for these.
Done for the entrants table. Per MOS:FLAG, once a flag is used once, this should suffice. Which would leave the calendar table, but I am hoping that the Grand Prix names and locations are enough here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rounds is used in the table heading but "races" is used in the lead, do our readers know that these are synonymous? Some tournaments have more than one race per round (e.g. British Touring Cars used IIRC).
Changed to "rounds" in the lead.
  • Similar MOS:DTT concerns with the race calendar table.
Done.
  • "one of two new events " I think these could be marked in the table too.
I don't think that would add anything to the table and is definitely something for prose. The tables in this articles already carry too much information to begin with.
  • " Formula One Constructors' Association (FOCA)" you already abbreviated this in the previous section.
Done.
  • "when Italy is due to host three Grands Prix" don't forget to update this in a couple of weeks!
On it.
  • "ten out of 16" 10 out of 16 or ten out of sixteen.
Done.
  • I don't think MOS:BOLD recommends the use of bold text alone to denote something specific, it's another ACCESS issue.
Please specify what you mean.
If you check MOS:ACCESS, it reminds us that By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline) so using bold or italics alone to denote a particular characteristic (e.g. pole position/fastest lap) is inaccessible. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Oh dear, this is going to get controversial... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well sadly compliance with MOS is mandatory. It often upsets Wikiproject members to realise that the way they've been approaching things for years has been making articles less readable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Thankfully, the way it's handled this year gave me a way out. Please check if this is more accessible now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better to me. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grands Prix table needs MOS:DTT compliance.
Done.
  • As do the following tables.
I think I've got them all now... hopefully...
  • I loathe blank cells, I think in the "standings" table you could and an en-dash in the empty cells because, unless I'm mistaken, they are all "did not compete", right?
Is there a rule against blank cells? I see plenty of blank cells in the example tables in MOS:DTT actually. I would prefer to keep it this way, since, in fact, not all are "did not compete". Most are "Did not enter". But Ferrari at the Belgian Grand Prix for instance, they entered, but then did not compete after Villeneuve was killed. Next race in Monaco, they did not enter. Writing all of that out in the table would make it an incomprehensible mess in my opinion.
There's no rule, sure, but a blank cell is like "what does it mean" and you yourself above have demonstrated that it means different things. If information is known, why isn't it included? This is FA so deliberately omitting information seems an odd approach. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Blank cells mean "did not enter". If they entered and did not compete then (depending on the situation) WD, DNP or DNA would apply. I have to agree with Zwerg Nase that filling out all these cells would make the table harder to comprehend, or at least messier. These blank cells don't represent ommited information, it just isn't being stated explicitly in that table, though it can be interpreted with basic analysis of the "Drivers and constructors" table. Or that's how I see it anyway.
SSSB (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then add "blank cell means did not enter" to the key! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I can already see the anger of the WikiProject coming onto me... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No-one there seems too bothered – no-one's commented at all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent date formats in the refs (accessdates and publication dates).
Done. Stupid bot screwed it up...
  • Ref 124, isn't ESPN the publisher?
Done.
  • Only some of the online references are archived, some of the archived ones are still live however. What's the strategy?
Strategy is to archive all. Done. Except for the Ferrari link (#123), which cannot be archived.
  • Consistent formatting of ISBNs in the bibilo.
Done.

Otherwise a nice piece of work. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments. I will address them in more detail tomorrow. For now, let me just say, that in terms of the tables, these formats are debated over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One. I do not know how the policy at FAC is, if we can overrule what is set there, but I am hesitant to make changes without discussing them in the Project first. And believe me, the tables in particular have been the subject of many, many, many debates over the past years, including how to deal with flags (though that subject does not seem to have gathered any attention last time round...). I would welcome for a senior FAC moderator to chip in how to proceed with this, since I am very unsure on what to do. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FAs are supposed to follow the MOS and part of that is MOS:ACCESS. Right now there are a number of elements missing from the tables which can be easily remedied. This is not really a local Wikiproject issue once you're at FAC, it's an adherence to the manual of style. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Do you know of any precedent on how to deal with these sorts of situations? I can try to make adjustments to the best of my knowledge (I have basically zero experience with how tables work, I will freely admit), but there are some things mentioned above that would have an impact on ALL Formula One articles and contradict consensus reached in the respective WikiProject. @The Rambling Man: Have made some comments above, more to follow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from my perspective, this is a FAC issue and not Wikiproject territory. FAs comply with all aspects of MOS and I can't see a good reason why this one shouldn't. And if the F1 project needs to be updated to take that into account, so be it, but right now we're dealing exclusively with this one article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have notified the WikiProject of the discussion here. Maybe this FA review can help in addressing some of the debates we had over there over the past years... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TRM is correct that the priority is following the MoS. Local wikiprojects may make decisions that violate the MoS which is obviously a poor practice regardless of whether the article is at FAC. I'm making a generic remark without having looked in detail at the tables. At a glance, the tyre column looks accessible because you're using a wikilinked letter, not an image. Empty table cells are poor accessibility because they are quite disruptive for users of assistive technology (screen readers, for example). --Laser brain (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear(er), my concern over the tyre column primarily stems from the fact there's no key, so the only way to understand what G and P etc mean is to click on them and head away from this article, which is highly undesirable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. If I mouse over the letter it shows me the name in alt text but I'm unsure if that's best practice. It certainly wouldn't be good on mobile. --Laser brain (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't see it being any different to any other tabulated information with abbreviations: they usually appear in a key at the least. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too familiar with how keys work, would there be a way to add them to the tyre templates? That seems like the best approach, if possible. Would solve the issue for every F1 season article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little like the MOS:FLAG issue. You can't assume that our readers will know that a G icon means Goodyear and they certainly shouldn't be forced to click away from this article to find that out. So either spell it out (I don't really see why we're not doing that anyway) or add a key which explains that G means Goodyear. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I think I am through. Please check above. There was one point where I could not agree with you, but I don't really think it should stand in the way of promotion. The bold thing is still pending, since I could not understand what you mean. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The changes have made a marked improvement. I'm still wary of the blank cells (not being called out by screen readers) so would go for putting en-dashes in them instead. Just that and the tyres issue above I think. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Added key to the entrants table for the tyres (it doesn't align quite right, no idea how to fix that). With the blank cells, I still do not see a violation of MOS:DTT and I have adjusted the key as you asked above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see nothing explicit at MOS:DTT about empty cells. I was echoing Laser Brain's note above that some screen readers wouldn't announce them so they remain inaccessible to some readers. But since MOS:DTT itself features plenty of empty cells, I can't oppose on that! Good work, I'm happy to support this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! This was tough, but I think worth it! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: Sorry to pick on the table again, but is it really necessary to have the single letter "t" wikilinked to an article? It's an almost impossible click target using a mouse and I can't even imagine trying to tap that on a mobile device without hitting the other text. --Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I don't think so, removed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [18].

2018 FA Cup Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jose, Butch, Prince William.... This match had it all (or most of it). The oldest and greatest association football cup competition in the world, 2018 edition. Worth a read. As always, I'll endeavour to address every comment as soon as I possibly can, and thanks in advance for your time and energy in reviewing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination may be used in the WikiCup competition. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Comments by RetiredDuke

[edit]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]

A few minor points I picked out from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack initial points dealt with, many thanks. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made two very minor fixes in addition, but I'm happy to support this. Nice work. Kosack (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

indopug

[edit]

Driveby comments for now: what's your source for the formation diagram? Indeed, the sources you've used seem to contradict it; thefa.com says Chelsea played 3-5-1-1 and 11v11.com lists Hazard as a midfielder (both of these seem more reasonable than Hazard playing right alongside Giroud). And surely the first sentence of the article (and of Background) can be rewritten to avoid "FA Cup" appearing thrice in quick succession?—indopug (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the formation is in the Commons file. I've reworded both other issues. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the FA website says Chelsea played 3-5-1-1, that's certainly a good reason to change the formation diagram, although since they don't have a graphical version of the team and the BBC does, I'm hesitant at this point. Do either of you have a preferred course of action? – PeeJay 18:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine as it is. I believe Hazard behind Giroud would be more accurate, but not easily justifiable (for the reasons you listed).—indopug (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

Placeholder for now. I've got another FAC review on the docket before this one, but I should be on this one soon. I'm on quarantine, so I have way to much time on my hands. Might be claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much to pick on here, at least from my non-expert eyes, although it's possibly I missed something through ignorance. Hog Farm Bacon 22:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm thanks very much, I've addressed and/or responded to all your comments, I appreciate a non-expert view on it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]
  • Very consistent formatting with the refs, no issues there. The archive links are appreciated
  • All from reliable news sources
  • Not much to say here... I spot checked 6, 14/15, 24, 33, 40 and 46 – all checked out. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 thank you very much. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Dweller

[edit]
Dweller cheers, responded to all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support irrespective of the outcome of the final bit of chitchat here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [19].

Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The twelfth and last instalment in my series of Featured Articles on South Australian Victoria Cross and George Cross recipients, Arthur Sullivan was a bank clerk who enlisted too late to serve in World War I. After the war ended he sought discharge from the Australian Army and joined the British North Russian Relief Force. He fought during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, where he saved the lives of four members of his unit who had fallen into a river, some of whom had been wounded, and did all of this under intense fire from Bolshevik troops. Awarded the Victoria Cross, he survived the intervention and returned to Australia where he continued his successful career in banking. His reticence to talk of his exploits meant that he became known as the "Shy VC". He died in a freak accident while in London for the coronation of King George VI as part of the Australian Coronation Contingent in 1937. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks Nikkimaria, all done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll try to take a look at this soon. Probably gonna claim 5 WikiCup points for this. Hog Farm Bacon 02:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but don't bust a gut, Hog Farm. I'm going to have limited internet access from this Saturday till about 5 Oct. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I have to have something to do during boring university classes Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox gives the birthplace as Crystal Brook, but the prose says he was technically born in Prospect, although he was raised in Crystal Brook. I get there's some question as to which one it was, based on the note, but you align with one in the prose and one in the body. Might be worth having the birthplace note in the infobox too, unless you consider it to be clutter
Fixed to be consistent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 30 October of the following year he returned to his home state" - Comma after year? I'm not good with commas, though, so I'll defer to your judgment on this.
I don't think it is necessary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He played golf and football" - Which football? Association or Aussie Rules?
Good point, Aussie Rules of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " training camp at Heytesbury, Wiltshire on 5 October 1918" - Geographic comma after Wiltshire?
Yep, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " on board the Steigerwald" - What type of ship is this?
cargo ship. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link bayonets?
sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aboard the Nestor" - Either provide the ship type, or drop "the"
troopship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the manager of the Casino, New South Wales branch of the bank - Comma after New South Wales?
yep, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "embarked at Melbourne on the SS Oronsay" - Drop "the" or call it a troopship or whatever it was
ocean liner, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Oronsay sailed" - Drop "the", ship names without classes don't have the the
dropped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chauvel was also a friend of Sullivan's and, as a director of the National Bank of Australasia, also knew Sullivan on a professional level." - Is there a way to remove one of the two alsos here
dropped one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the prose stuff from me. Hog Farm Bacon 14:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm, all done I reckon. Anything else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. I could find almost nothing to complain about. Below are a couple of very minor points and a question that I'm curious about, but these don't affect my support.

  • Australian recruits to the NRRF had to forego their repatriation rights: I think this must mean that the AIF would pay to bring Australian soldiers back to Australia, and this is the right that had to be given up, but I think it should be clearer -- perhaps a footnote.
  • All four would have drowned if it was not for Sullivan's gallant action: I don't think we need "gallant" -- the reader can see that for themselves. And "was" is wrong; it should be subjunctive, though that sounds odd to some ears. Suggest "All four would have drowned without Sullivan's action".
  • Due to legislative requirements, Sullivan's inquest was conducted with his coffin in the court: not at all necessary, but out of curiosity I'd be interested if this were linked (or redlinked) to the relevant law, if you know what it is.
    • Great question. A quick check indicates that s4 of the Coroners Act 1887 required the coroner and jury to view the body,[20] so this may be what is being referred to here. For reasons of convenience it may have been the practice to bring the body (in the coffin of course) to the court so the coroner and jurors could view it. Quinlivian doesn't say this though, what he says is what is in the article at present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, Mike. Thanks for having a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Plan on hopefully getting this done tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 03:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources are all reliable, and the weakest source, the SA BDM, is used sparingly and only in a footnote along with other sources.
  • "Arthur Percy Sullivan was born on 27 November 1896 at Prospect, South Australia,[a] the only child of Arthur Monks Sullivan, a storekeeper" - Source doesn't support that he was an only child, so far as I can tell
It was hidden in the citation cluster about his POB, copied to the end of the sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The National Bank of Australasia gave Dorothy a gratuity of £250, sufficient to purchase a cottage near Manly so she could be close to friends and family. In March 1939, Sullivan's mother presented an enlarged photograph of her son to the Crystal Brook Primary School" - Of these two sentences, only the second is backed up by the citation
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For most conspicuous bravery and devotion to duty on the 10th August 1919" - This is from the block VC quote. Both the National Archives and the London Gazette quotes include a comma after the word August
It is terrible grammar, but added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some pretty large-scale spot checks, and this is all I can find. I'm pretty confident that this article does a good job of being faithful to the sources, although I can't access Quinlivian and Challinger, which are the two heaviest-used sources. Hog Farm Bacon 14:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking these up, Hog Farm! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24

[edit]

I'll leave some either tomorrow, or more likely the day after. Aza24 (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to coords, I do some stuff with MILHIST occasionally, but I'm a non-expert here
  • Another note, in going through this I only find very minor issues, so feel free to disregard anything that you may disagree with – nothing here would prevent my support
  • 28 May is also 1919? Would add just to avoid possible confusion with this date that seems to be especially important
Sure, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is he referred to as "Arthur" instead of "Sullivan" after "Beginning on 9 February 1904"? If it's to avoid confusion with his parents I'm not sure that does much since his dad's name was Arthur as well
Good point. Changed to "he". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last four sentences of Early life have two in a row that begin with "On" and then two that being with "He", some variation may be worth considering
Varied. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since he saw no action in WW1, I'm wording if this should be a note in the infobox or something after WW1? Not sure what procedure for this is
Actually, anyone who left Australia was considered to have served in WWI (and got the relevant medals, presumably on the basis that their troopship could have been sunk by a u-boat etc), so I don't think it is necessary to note in the infobox that he didn't see combat per se. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Australian government specified that Australian recruits to the NRRF had to forego their right to be repatriated to Australia by the Australian government, and could not be married seems like redundant phrasing, surely "to Australia by the Australian government" is implied?
Yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "D Company" referring to – can this be clarified? The current phrasing makes it sound like something different than 45th RF when I'm assuming it isn't?
A sub-unit, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add a sentence clarifying that the VC was never actually raffled?
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon his return to Australia, he returned" sounds odd with the double "return"
Yes, used "resumed". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commemorative March should probably be lowercase, unless I'm missing something
It is the proper name for the march. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for taking a look, Aza24. I think I've addressed all your points, happy to discuss further. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need for that, I'm happy to Support this nomination for featured status. Aza24 (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Greetings PM - I have a few comments.

Lead

  • Sullivan was promoted to corporal in March 1919, but, wanting to see active service, sought his discharge from the AIF on 28 May.
Consider this -> Sullivan was promoted to corporal in March 1919, but wanting to see active service he sought and received his discharge from the AIF on 28 May.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was in London for the coronation of King George VI as part of the Australian Coronation Contingent in 1937 when he died of head injuries received in a fall.
Consider a comma after 1937?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Russia

  • Sullivan was hospitalised with gonorrhea at Bulford between 25 November 1918 and 11 March 1919.[21][22] He was promoted to acting corporal on 23 March, and served as a camp orderly room corporal at Codford.[5][23][24]
After reading these two sentences a few times, the following things jumped out at me.
  • Was he still posted at Heytesbury, Wiltshire, while in the Bulford hospital, or had he been transferred?
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about "sexually transmitted disease" rather than gonorrhea?
The sources are explicit, so I think we can be. It was very common, of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! Having served in the U.S. Navy for several years, I’m familiar with the term. Pendright (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sullivan was hospitalised with gonorrhea" - this is about as straightforward as one can get. For my part, though, I think this delicate phrase would benefit from a few preliminary words like, While Sullivan was posted at xyz, he contracted and was hospitalized ... , or some other type of intro?
Tidied this up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thes two sentences are poles apart, so they need a bridge of some sort between them. Maybe, In spite of this, or follwng his release ...
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These events all seem to have happened in England, as is much of this section?
I think it ok though, because it is all about him going to Russia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dvina offensive

  • They were ferried across the river to the village of Yakovlevskoye and set off on the afternoon of 7 August,[42] on a wide sweeping approach march of nearly 31 miles (50 km) through a thick forest to be in position for the attack at 12:00 on 10 August.[43]
This is about a 50 word sentence -> Consider breaking it up into two sentences?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without their commander and running low on ammunition, the remaining officers decided to try to break out rather than push on towards Seltso.[46][47]
Break out? spelling?
Not sure what you mean here. Breakout vs break out? This is written in AustEng, we tend to use British forms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I thought I had checked it out - Sorry. Pendright (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the river crossing, the column partly broke up into small groups that made their way back to the British lines at Troitsa about 07:00.
Is hours needed after 07:00?
No, per MOS:TIME. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When questioned about his name, Sullivan replied, "Corporal Sullivan VC to you, you pommie bastard".
When questioned about his name, Sullivan replied, "Corporal Sullivan VC to you, you pommie bastard".
"you pommie bastard"
  • Consider linking pommie?
Done. Not sure of you are suggesting something else as well? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever I have a statement in an article such as this, a reviewer always says, it should have a citation. What say you?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Later in life Australian Coranation

  • On 9 April 1937, 34 days before King George VI's coronation, Sullivan attended an afternoon tea in St James's along with about fifty members of the ACC.
to breakup the sequence of numbers, suggest adding the adjective "just" between them?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Pendright (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over, Pendright! Your reviews are always insightful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting! Always a pleasure - Pendright (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Hi PM, I noticed this nom at 'older noms' a few days ago so started a review. Since then though there's been a lot of activity. Still I think there are a couple of tweaks not yet brought up so here are my questions and suggestions (and one tiny spelling insistence!)

linked both. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the best Australian Rules Football player" and "He played golf and Australian rules football" - decap first mention, delink second?
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 30 October of the following year - is "of" needed?
This has been fixed by an earlier review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the attendees all congregated at the town - remove all
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on 23 March he was promoted to acting corporal - do you get actually "promoted" to an acting position? 'made' acting?
yep. I was once. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • had to forego their repatriation rights - forgo spelling (ie go without v go before)
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and could not be married - ambiguous? maybe 'must be single'
done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • allotted to the 45th Battalion, The Royal Fusiliers (45th RF) - no cap T on The Royal Fusiliers?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Australians were permitted to continue wearing Australian uniform - why "permitted"? Did they request such or was it convenience?
Probably for convenience, but do doubt the Australians wanted to do so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: Members of the 45th Battalion, The Royal Fusiliers in North Russia in 1919, including a seated Australian wearing a slouch hat - remove cap T?. Are there are two men (not one) seated with slouch hats?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I didn't look for that... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • that a swamp made a direct attack on the village impossible - 'the location of' a swamp?
Yep, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • hit by Bolshevik rifle and machine gun fire at a range of less than 330 feet (100 m). The fire from the Bolshevik ambush increased as the rearguard crossed, and four men fell into the swamp and were in danger of drowning. Despite the intense Bolshevik gunfire - 3 times "Bolshevik", could remove the second one?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crossing was via a crude single-plank bridge - 'over' rather than "via"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • set about retrieving them - why not rescuing? It was at 02:30 therefore 'in the dark'?
G'day Jenny, are you suggesting adding "in the dark" to the end of that sentence? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, PM, no, not suggesting adding. It was just me amazed at his actions. I should have removed that from my notes before adding here. JennyOz (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • column partly broke up into small groups - remove partly? ie can't "partly" break up?
Reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • spent exactly 100 days - "exactly" not needed?
  • promulgated in The London Gazette. the citation - cap The citation
  • one last welcome home - welcome home 'event'?
  • welcome home on 6 January 1920, at - comma after "home"?
  • at which he was the guest of honour - use Sullivan instead of "he" (because last person mentioned was Brown)
  • at Government House, Adelaide on - comma after Adelaide
These done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Dvina offensive" could be broken up? (It includes the fighting, the VC action, the return to England and his return to Aust.) Maybe break at "British forces successfully evacuated" with new section 'Departure/Return from Russia',... or at "The Australians arrived in Plymouth on 9 October" with 'Home to Australia' or similar?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon his return to Australia, he returned to his former employment - 2 x return, maybe 'he resumed his former employment'?
Fixed from another review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was promoted and had to be transferred to take up his new appointment as part of the bank's relieving staff. - was transferred do we know where?
Presumably Adelaide, but the source doesn't say other than implying he left Maitland. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They had three children, including twins, Moya born in 1931, and Brian and Shirley in 1933. - maybe better as 'They had three children, Moya born in 1931, and twins Brian and Shirley in 1933'?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sullivan was made the manager of the Casino, New South Wales, branch of the bank. - of the bank's Casino, New South Wales, branch?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1937, he was selected to join - new section so Sullivan instead of "he"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur Evans, VC, DCM, of the Lincolnshire Regiment - 'formerly' of the Lincolnshire Regiment? ie was serving in Australian Tank Corps at time of death?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sullivan had promised to return Evans' ashes - escort (or accompany) would be a better word here? (The ashes would have been "returned" to UK anyway.)
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
linked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sullivan did not take to being under military discipline again, as he was charged - 'and' he was charged?
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 9 April 1937, just 34 days before King George - "just" doesn't seem right here, sounds like 'only' and 34 days is quite a while. Maybe something more like 'a little over a month before'?
Good point. Went with your suggestion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an afternoon tea in St James's along - is this at St James's Palace (as opposed to the wlinked district) ie where diplomatic receptions are held?
The source makes it seem like in the district (which was then home to all sorts of men's clubs, palatial houses of the aristocracy etc), not the palace, because I think it would have said the palace if it meant that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that he left the tea party early - drop "It appears that"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sullivan had fallen before the cyclist hit him - collided with him?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with his coffin in the court. - present in the court? (Actually, this says the coffin was in a hearse in the courtyard. Because the inquest was held the very same day as the funeral at the Guards Chapel, I'd guess (yep, only a guess), that the funeral couldn't go ahead until inquest decision and his coffin was only waiting outside the court in case coroner Oddie decided he needed to view the body. Does Quinlivian say in the court or at the court?)
  • afforded a full military funeral - could wlink military funeral though the UK section isn't very informative
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • His ashes were returned to Sydney - there was so much ceremony and such a long procession over the bridge to North Ryde! Too much to mention (eg and, and, etc) of course, but could change after "and a mourning party including nine VC recipients" for a procession to the Northern Suburbs Crematorium where his ashes were interred under a tree with the spot marked only by a simple metal plaque.
Added some detail from those contemporary newspaper sources. Thanks for finding them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the spot marked only by - remove only?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whacked them in as "see also"
  • Footnote 71 Quinlivian 2006, pp. 210. - single p
  • Footnote 72 Quinlivian 2006, pp. 219. - single p
  • Footnote 86 Quinlivian 2006, pp. 259–261, 264. - ampersand per others?
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category Australian World War I recipients of the Victoria Cross‎ - broader cat Australian recipients of the Victoria Cross? (though I do see that Samuel Pearse is also in the WWI cat)
Fair enough, I did wonder about that earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me PM, sorry if I've doubled up on anything. A sad pleasure to read this, JennyOz (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is absolutely great thanks, Jenny, I always light up when I see you've decided to review one of my noms. Always en pointe! Anything else that needs a tweak? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PM, this nom is a credit to you and another thorough rendition of a VC bio. I am very pleased to support it. JennyOz (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this is progressing well, and has a review from Mike (who is non-Milhist). Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom, please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure PM, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [21].

SMS Preussischer Adler

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on an early vessel of the Prussian Navy, though it was actually initially built as a commercial vessel. Preussischer Adler had a long career, taking part in the First and Second Schleswig Wars and seeing action in both; she was still around during the Franco-Prussian War but did not see combat, and she ended up being used as a torpedo target. I wrote this article last year, and it passed a Milhist A-class review shortly thereafter. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll be looking at this soon. Might be claimed for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 16:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The ship was purchased by the Prussian Navy and rearmed, once again as an aviso" - I'm assuming this is shortly after the packet route became obsolete in 1862. If not, indicate a date.
    • Yes, in 1862
  • "Prussia's ally Austria. the combined squadron attacked" - Start the sentence off with a capital letter
    • Good catch
  • You might want to qualify in the infobox that the two mortars were the original armament.
    • Clarified in the box caption
  • I'm not familiar enough with naval cannons to tell if these links are the same guns as those had by the ship, but look into 32-pounder gun and 24-pounder long gun to see if they're correct links.
    • No, those aren't right
  • Go ahead and indicate that Barandon was a civilian when the crew is still civilian; I'd assumed that he was Prussian Navy commanding civilians until I got to the part about his commissioning into the military later
    • Good idea
  • " the two 32-pound guns were added." - Use pounder, instead of pound.
    • Done
  • "though Preussischer Adler was hit once by a shell that killed one man" - This almost implies that the ship only took one hit
    • I don't know that it wasn't a single hit; Hildebrand et. al. just say "Ein daenischer Treffer hinter die Maschine hatte den Bootsmann Treptow so scher verwundet, dass er spaeter verstarb...der erste Gefallene der jungen preussischen Flotte". Naval gunnery in this period was pretty poor (even with early fire-control systems and early computational devices, the best the British did at Jutland in 1916 was in the range of 5-6% hits)
  • " At this time, she received her armament of 36-pound guns" - From my understanding of 19th-century cannon, it ought to be 36-pounder, as the name comes from the weight of the shell fired.
    • Fixed
  • "At the time, unrest in the Kingdom of Greece threatened German interests, including the reign of King Otto of Greece—a member of the German House of Wittelsbach, who was deposed in 1862." - At the time appears to refer to 1863, when the ship was commissioned for the long international cruise, but then the phrasing suggests that Otto's reign was threatened at the time, when it ended the year previous to what "at the time" is implied to mean. Is there a more straightforward way of phrasing this?
    • See how it reads now
  • "of the steam frigates Niels Juels and " - Is this the same as Niels Juel mentioned earlier?
  • "The war ended with the Treaty of Vienna" - Can we get a date for the Treaty of Vienna?
    • Added
  • " Kapitänleutnant Reinhold von Werner," - You generally give English equivalents for the German ranks, but not for this one. Specific reason why?
    • Nope, just an oversight
  • "The ship was recommissioned briefly in early 1870 for use as a harbor vessel in Kiel.[19] She was mobilized after the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in July" - Was there a decommission between the two dates?
    • Yes, but Hildebrand et. al. don't say exactly how long the "kurze Indiensthaltungsperiode" in early 1870 was.
  • By bow ornament is the intended link Figurehead (object)?
    • Yes, I'd say so - probably a useful redirect to create as well
  • It's in Category:Ships built in Leamouth, but Leamouth isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.
    • Leamouth and Blackwall are roughly (but not exactly) synonymous

I think that's it from me. Nice work. Hog Farm Bacon 18:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • I'll have a look down the line, being from Denmark, this will be interesting... FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance I wonder why the meaning of the name (Prussian eagle) isn't stated?
    • Good idea
  • Link place names in captions.
    • Done
  • "this was the first naval battle of the Prussian Navy after it had been re-established" Maybe I'm missing something, but when was it de established?
    • Under Frederick the Great, but I think it's beyond the scope of this article
  • You link commodore twice, but first to the German version, second to the English, which seems confusing.
    • Deleted the second one
  • "The war ended with the Treaty of Vienna" Perhaps state what it ended with, Danish loss.
    • Good idea
  • "The French Navy send a squadron" Sent?
    • Good catch
  • "She was sunk by two torpedoes in tests conducted on 26 June." Do we know from what ship they were shot?
    • Added
  • "the ship's bow ornament was removed and is preserved at the Mürwik Naval School" Would be interesting to have a photo of this...
    • It would be, yes, but I looked through the Commons category when I wrote the article and didn't find anything.
  • "SMS Preussischer Adler[a]" It's a bit distracting that the first name in the article has a footnote, perhaps it could be relegated to the article body or something?
  • Support - looks nice to me. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM

[edit]

Up to your usual high standard, Nate. Having looked at this at Milhist ACR and found little to quibble about, I only have a few comments:

  • the lead says "the first naval battle of the Prussian fleet" but the body parses this as "the first naval battle of the Prussian Navy after it had been re-established". We haven't been told about a previous Prussian navy, so it jars a bit
    • The issue is, I don't want to get too far down a tangent that isn't really related to the topic
  • a similar comment could be made about "the first battle death of the Prussian fleet"
  • suggest "received repairs for the shell hitdamage"
    • Good idea
  • link mobilized
    • Done
  • "Preussischer Adler spent the war at Friedrichsort" as you've just been talking about the Baltic Sea Forces
    • Good idea

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

All the sources are high quality reliable sources, exactly what you would expect for a Prussian ship of this vintage. The citations are properly formatted. There is an unused Notes subsection under Footnotes. There is a snippet of additional detail on the Battle of Heligoland in Sondhaus [22] that could be included. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:SHIPPRONOUNS calling a ship "she" is optional and 100% acceptable. Some people think it's weird or it's sexist but it's one of the few last rules in English to call some objects genders like countries, vehicles and others are outdated only Lexico of Oxford use them. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, I really couldn't find much. Happy to support, a few comments above maybe worth looking at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee! Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Sturmvogel_66

[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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [23].

Muhammad IV of Granada

[edit]
Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sixth Nasrid Sultan of Granada, the last Muslim state on the Iberian peninsula. The five preceding sultans, as well as his successor Yusuf I have passed FA review, I hope this can continue the series. Compared to his predecessor and successor, there is somewhat less content here because he only ruled for 8 years, and some of it while he was underage. His rule included a civil war between his general and ministers, an invasion by an alliance of Christian kingdoms, the arrival of the North Africans who then captured Gibraltar with his help, and ended abruptly when he was assassinated in a conspiracy by his own military leaders. I believe it is ready to be considered for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 09:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll try to take a look at this soon. Disclaimers: I know little about the subject matter, and I might end up claiming this for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Bacon 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was the ruler of the Emirate of Granada on the Iberian Peninsula from 1325 to 1333. He was the sixth sultan of the Nasrid dynasty, succeeding the throne at ten years old when his father, Ismail I (r. 1314–1333), was assassinated. - The end of Ismail I's regnal span does not make sense. So if Ismail was assassinated when Muhammad IV was 10, and Muhammad IV was born in 1315, that would imply Ismail's death date as 1325. How did Ismail I reign until 1333?
    You are correct, this is a mistake - Ismail's death was at 1325. Article corrected.
  • " reconciled with Uthman" - I'm not familiar with Islamic naming concepts. Is this Uthman the same as Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula or Abu Said Uthman II?
    Good observation, indeed without context it can refer to either. Added full name (Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula) to disambiguate, as well as several other instances in the article where the identity of "Uthman" might be in doubt. Let me know if you think there's more places where I should spell out his full name. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I could generally puzzle out which Uthman was being referred to through context in the other areas, so I think the changes should be fine.
  • "the last Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula[1] Through a combination of diplomatic and military" - Lacking a full stop before the ref
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three galleys and 300 men were captured and taken to Seville" - Link galleys, and move the link for Seville from later in the article to here.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uthman, back in his previous position of power, sent the pretender Abu Abdullah to North Africa," - The lead implies that Muhammad IV did this
    Updated the lead. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " was recorded to include 4,000 horseman" - You're gonna want to use the plural form of horsemen
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Fez where it appears in the body
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Muslims have reinforced the town by moving supplies from Algeciras," - Wrong tense
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfonso Jofré Tenorio is a duplink
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with Guadiaro
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to discuss any of these. Since I don't have a whole lot of background knowledge, this is mostly prose/MOS type stuff. Hog Farm Bacon 20:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you for taking a look and for your review. I have addressed all of your comments above. Let me know what you think, or if you have more feedback HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Borsoka

[edit]
  • Founded by Muhammad I in the 1230s, the Emirate of Granada was the last Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula. Do the two cited pages verify the sentence? Maybe page 22?
    Hmm weird. Replaced by another source that directly says this. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sultans of Granada swore fealty ... to the kings of Castile... Do the cited page verify this part of the sentence?
    You're right, the fealty part is not in this page. The instances of such oaths by the individual sultans can easily be found, but I can't find a source that says it in this manner - so I deleted the fealty part. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentioning the imposition of illegal taxes in Granada to finance the tribute to be paid to the Castilian kings. (O'Callaghan 2013 p. 456)
    added "a heavy burden for Granada", which should suffice as a background info. Unqualifiedly calling it "illegal" might be too strong. Even though O'Callaghan used this word, he qualified it as "not sanctioned by the Quran", and also mentions that there are legal opinions justifying it in the following sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...while Muslim sources never described the relationship as such The cited source does not state this. Harvey writes that the concept of "vassalage" was alien to Muslims, and Muhammad made "repeated acts of submission to Muslim suzerains".
    Harvey writes "nowhere in any Arabic source is there any mention of Muhammad being Alfonso's vassal or liege man" (p.28) HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And in the following sentence he explains: "It seems likely that we have to do with a problem at once political and linguistic: a lack of communication between two incompatible worlds." (page 27) Harvey also writes that "That Muhammad I made an act of feudal submission to the Christian monarch at Jaén in 1246 is confirmed by all the Christian sources, and his political conduct over the next two decades is consonant with his continuing acceptance of such status". (page 27). I still think the article does not reflect Harvey's approach: from Castilian PoV, Muhammad was a vassal and he acted as a faithful vassal for lengthy periods, but from a Muslim PoV the Castilian interpretation was irrelevant and Muhammad was ready to repeatedly express his loyalty to other Muslim rulers.
    Any suggestion how to improve the current text?
    What about this ([24]) version?
    That looks good to me. HaEr48 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of Muhammad's accession... I guess you refer to Muhammad IV (not to Muhammad I who is mentioned in the previous sentences).
    Yes, clarified. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the first son... Does the cited source state that he was the first of the sons of his father?
    Replaced with another citation that specifically state this. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...who took the throne in February 1314 after deposing his uncle Nasrí. Does the cited source verify this statement?
    Same as above. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...his father was assassinated by a relative, Muhammad ibn Ismail of Algeciras. 1. Catlos writes of two assassins, Muhammad ibn Ismail and his unnamed brother. 2. Catlos clarifies that the assassins were Ismail's cousins. 3. Can we refer to the governor of Algeciras as "of Algeciras"?
    1) My reasoning of writing this way is that Vidal Castro's more detailed account explains that it was the named Muhammad ibn Ismail who actually stabbed him and the other person was just an accomplice (see p. 371 about the identity of the assassin and p.375-376 for the full account of the event). I mentioned the brother in the following sentence "as well as his brother who participated in the attack". 2) Similarly, Vidal Castro has analyzed the identity in more detail and proposed that the "sahib al-jazira" (lord of Algeciras) and the cousin of the sultan was as actually the father of the named assassin, and calling the assassin as the cousin/lord of Algeciras was a misreading of the sources. By calling him a "relative" we avoid having to go too much into the details (a longer discussion of this assassination in Ismail's own article if you're interested), I hope that's fine 3) removed "of algeciras" . HaEr48 (talk)
  • The direct motive of the attack was a personal grievance, but Christian sources state that it was secretly masterminded by Uthman ibn al-Ula, the powerful commander of the Volunteers of the Faith, North African troops in Granadan service. 1. Harvey refers to a single Christian source (Chronicle of Alfonso XI) 2. Harvey refers to the same chronicle when writing of the assassins' personal grievance. 3. Is the adjective "powerful" necessary? It is not verified in the cited source. 4. Harvey emphasizes that an alternative narrative (by Ibn Khaldun) exists.
    1) named the chronicle. 2) the personal motive is also attested by another historian and appeared to not be in dispute. Added another citation. 3) removed "powerful". 4) Added "According to Ibn Khaldun, Uthman was instead the person who found and executed the murderer", which was how his narrative differ from the previous one. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Among the people who swore their allegiance were judges, preachers, sufis, ulama, grammarians, and secretaries of the chancery. Is this important?
    Arié mentioned it, so I thought it can be considered notable. It can be removed if you think it's too much, but I feel it adds a nice flavour to show what kind of courtiers were present in an bay'ah in Granada.
  • ...his link to the vizier made him a powerful figure in the young sultan's court. Catlos writes of the conflict between Uthman and the vizier.
    Their conflict would be covered in the second paragraph of "The young sultan" section, as well as in the "civil war" section, but initially it appears they were allied. Added a better source for the statement you quoted HaEr48 (talk)
  • Is reference 15 correct?
    Are you referring to Catlos 2018, p. 437? (the numbering might have changed since my last update). If yes, the purpose was to identify the full name/identity of Ridwan (Rubiera Mata, also cited in the sentence, only call him "his [Muhammad's] tutor Ridwan"). If this is confusing I can remove it. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uthman ibn al-Ula, the commander of the Volunteers of the Faith and Uthman, who kept his post as Chief of the Volunteers (shaikh al-ghuzat). 1. The Arabic term should be added when his post is first mentioned. 2. I would change the "Chief of the Volunteers" term to "volunteers' commander/commander of the volunteers", because now the article contains two translations for the same group of soldiers (Volunters of the Faith/Volunteers).
    Mentioned the Arabic term in the first mention, but it now looks a little awkward because I have to introduce the translation of the title, as well as the organization, in the same sentence. Let me know if you have a better idea. As for shortening the name to just "Volunteers", I think it's fine to do so in order to avoid too much repetition of the long nae, as long as the reader is clear that it's the same thing. Similar to, for example, after introducing the Knights Hospitaller in Great Siege of Malta the text can just refer to it as "the Knights". HaEr48 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not seem look awkward for me: both parts of the Arabic term are explained in the same section. :)
  • ...he had to surrender Ronda and Marbella, followed by Algeciras in the next year, to the Marinids in exchange for troops. Is this presented as a fact or as a possibility in the cited source?
    Added "probably", per source. HaEr48 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 6 November 1328 Muhammad's household slaves assassinated Ibn al-Mahruq when the vizier was visiting Fatima's residence to discuss state affairs. Vidal Castro writes that Muhammad ordered the assassination of Ibn al-Mahruq. Vidal Castro also writes that Ibn al-Mahruq was assassinated in his own palace.
    Added "Muhammad ordered" (I thought it was implicit by saying they're his slaves), and added Vidal Castro's reported location in addition to the location mentioned by the other sources. HaEr48 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we want to know where he was murdered? I deleted this info ([25]). Do you agree?

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meanwhile, Muhammad, now 13 years old, began to exercise effective control of his government. I think the reconciliation with Uthman and the assassination of Ibn al-Mahruq - facts mentioned in the previous sentences - are the signs that Muhammad began to exercise effective control of his goverment. Could this sentence be an introduction to the changes? Now the sentence is unexplained at the end of the section: it does not contain actual information, because his actual acts are explained in the previous sentences.
    Good point, reordered. HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, James II died in 1327 and was succeeded by his son Alfonso IV, who took a more belligerent stance towards Granada. Alfonso's more belligerent stance towards Granada is unexplained, although O'Callaghan writes that Alfonso was "disturbed by Muhammad IV's alliance with Abu Said, the Marinid emir, who was reported to be preparing an invasion of Spain".
    Added the reason of Alfonso's wariness. HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He cancelled the Aragon–Granada treaty in March 1329. O'Callaghan writes that "In March, protesting persistent Muslim attacks he nullified his pact with Muhammad IV..."
    Added more details. HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...was recorded to include... By whom?
    Arie does not say by whom, and her footnote only points to another modern source. Reworded the sentence to not beg the question of "by whom". HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1330 campaign was a declared a crusade, according to O'Callaghan. This info is not mentioned in the article.
    Added. HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfonso IV sent his troops to Granada in early 1330, while Alfonso XI personally led his troops from Córdoba in July 1330. Does the cited page verify this sentence?
    Yes, it's just the page number was slightly off. Corrected. HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abu Thabit Amir Thabit or Tabit in English?
    Thabit is the standard rendering of ثابت‎‎ in English. HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • O'Callaghan and Catlos use the Tabit form. Could you check it?
      • Harvey (p 188) and Latham & Fernandez-Puertas use "Thabit". ثابت‎‎ (standard English transliteration = Thabit) is a moderately common name in Arabic, frankly I don't think there's any doubt that it was the actual name. It is possible that O'Callaghan & Catlos used a non-standard transliteration. By the way, I don't see O'Callaghan mentioning the name of Uthman's sons, but in p. 121 he is referring to another Abu Thabit who was the Sultan of the Marinids in 1307-1308, see Abu Thabit 'Amir. HaEr48 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Castilian forces ravaged the Granadan countryside... The statement is correct, but I think it does not present the facts properly. I understand crusaders (mainly Castilians) under the command of the infante Juan Manuel ravaged the countryside. O'Callaghan emphasizes that the infante did not want to cooperate with the Castilian king (we do not need to mention this fact in the article).
    Changed to "Crusading forces operating independently from Alfonso XI ravaged ..."
  • ...sent his representative to pay homage to Alfonso XI Do the cited source verify this statement? O'Callaghan indeed refers to this act of homage, but he writes of more than one representatives.
    By this I mean the representative that Muhammad is supposed to send annually. Clarified. HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfonso XI soon broke the truce by stopping the food exports to Granada. O'Callaghan mentions that a general rise in prices persuaded the King to stop the food export to Granada.
    Not sure if it follows from the source. It mentions one of his courtiers manipulating prices, and later asking the king to stop the export, but I don't read it as the prices causing the stoppage. HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...was given safe conduct... Plural?
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the Castilian nobles who were supposed to oppose Muhammad rebelled and attacked the Alfonso's castles... I cannot check the cited source, but O'Callaghan writes of 1. Castilian nobles deserting Alfonso's camp, and 2. the infante Juan Manuel who not only deserted Alfonso's camp, but also plundered Alfonso's realm (page 164)
    Hills mentioned that Juan Manuel was one of the plunderers, but not only him. Added his desertion and pillage to the text. Also, is he an infante? HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moreover, the Marinid military involvement on the Iberian Peninsula caused the two brothers—who were the leaders of the Volunteers of the Faith—to lose the influence they previously had as the dominant military force fighting for Granada. 1. The cited source only refers to Abu Thabit/Tabit succeeding their father as Chief of the Volunteers of the Faith. 2. The Volunteers of the Faith (not the brothers) were the dominant military force.
    Reworded to be more precise. HaEr48 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the historians L. P. Harvey and Brian Catlos, who follow the report of the Castilian chronicles,... 1. Harvey only quotes text from the Chronicle of Alfonso X, without stating that he accepts the chronicle's report. (Actually, he emphasizes that the Castilian chronicle and Ibn Khaldun provide concurring explanation for the murder.) 2. Vidal Castro is cited instead of Brian Catlos. 3. A single Castilian chronicle is quoted in Harvey's book.
    The contrast is not about the manner of the murder, but the manner in which Yusuf was proclaimed as Sultan. 1. Reworded to not imply that Harvey endorses it 2. Vidal Castro also cites it (also without endorsing) - reworded to make it clear 3. Vidal Castro says "las fuentes cristianas" (in plural), so keeping it in plural.
  • ...after consultation with Fatima,... Do any of the cited sources verify this statement?
    It's based on this: "with assent and collaboration from the queen mother, Fatima, ..."
  • The proclamation took place the next day. Does the cited source verify this statement?
    It's from this: "Fue proclamado el ... 26 de agosto de 1333, solo un día después de que su hermano fuese asesinado."
    • Sorry, I missed this text.

End of my review. Thank you for this interesting, thoroughly researched and well-written article. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your very thorough and constructive review, it has been very nice working with you. HaEr48 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one pending issue: Thabit/Tabit (see above), but this does not prevent me from supporting this candidate. I hope you are plannig to improve the articles about Muhammad's successors. Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Thank you for the support. I missed the open point about Abu Thabit, I replied above. HaEr48 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with.

Thank you, I checked and everything is excellent. HaEr48 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any portraits of Muhammad IV that could be used in the infobox?
    Unfortunately no. It's very rare to find a portrait of any Nasrid Sultan: Muslims rulers at this time usually didn't get themselves drawn and I guess Muhammad IV is not important enough to be drawn by someone else. HaEr48 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map of the Emirate of Granada seems to be aimed at a broader period of history than just this article. I wouldn't oppose over this, but it would be nice to have a map that only showed territorial changes and locations relevant to Muhammad IV. Several place names mentioned in the article are not included in the map -- Pruna, Ayamonte, Torre Alháquime, and Ronda, for example.
    Ronda is in the map, but you're right about the other location, as well as territorial changes. I'll see what I can do in the medium term, but in general modifying maps has been hard for me. HaEr48 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on Abu Sa'id Uthman II includes the ayn; you omit it, but you include it in some other names -- any reason for the inconsistency?
  • You're right, I have been inconsistent. I think more names have their ayn omitted than included in this article, so will remove the remaining ones (mostly Abu Nu'aym, unless I'm missing something else)
  • He was already involved during the civil war between Muhammad's ministers: I don't understand "already": the open civil war doesn't start until 1327, and Alfonso XI reached his majority in 1325.
    Removed. My intention was to show that the first two sentence of this paragraph 'rewinded' the events a little bit (the previous section already talked about the end of the civil war). Any suggestion? HaEr48 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That explains why I was confused but I think I'm not yet clear on this. It seems definite from the previous paragraph that we can't say "civil war" until January 1327 at the earliest. If Alfonso XI is fighting on Uthman's side, he must have been doing so in 1327 or 1328, but we contrast this with James II's preference for renewing the 1321 treaty, which he does in 1326, before the war starts. Am I missing something? I don't think we can contrast these positions without making it clear that James had already renewed the treaty by the time Uthman starts the civil war; we would have to say something like "His neighbour, James II of Aragon, preferred to keep to the terms of his peace treaty with Granada, signed the previous year", and then give the details. In fact we never mention the 1321 treaty earlier in the article; it might be good to do so in order to abbreviate the explanation at this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: No, you're not missing anything. It's just the article explains Alfonso's situation first (which covers 1325-1327), then that of James (covering 1326-1327), to avoid having to interleave accounts about the two monarchs if we attempt to write it strictly chronologically. I gave it another try, can you take a look? HaEr48 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muhammad then moved to Gibraltar to join Abu Malik's relief forces. Muhammad initially encamped on the banks of the Guadiaro, and then went to the Sierra Carbonera to join forces with Abu Malik. This appears to repeat itself, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
    Sorry if it was unclear. The intention of the first sentence is to show that Muhammad shifted from his raids to the siege. The second was to show the tactical movement. I reworded a little bit, any suggestion how to make it better? HaEr48 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how there come to be contradictory versions of Yusuf's proclamation? Are there two conflicting contemporary sources? And I'd suggest introducing Harvey and Vidal Castro as historians, as you do with Catlos.
    Added the "historians" introduction. I suspect that is what happens. For sure one version comes from the Castilian chronicle (and it is noted in the article), Vidal Castro does not say from which sources he got the other version, but I suspect it is from one of the Muslim sources.

These are all minor points; the article is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple of points from Lingzhi's ref check script:

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for reviewing, and responded to your comments above. Let me know if you have more feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Doing shortly Aza24 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [26].

Squirm

[edit]
Nominator(s): GamerPro64 00:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Late in the evening of September 29, 1975, a sudden electrical storm struck a rural sea coast area of Georgia. Power lines, felled by high winds, sent hundreds of thousands of volts surging into the muddy ground, cutting off all electricity to the small, secluded town of Fly Creek. During the period that followed the storm, the citizens of Fly Creek experienced what scientists believe to be one of the most bizarre freaks of nature ever recorded. This is the story...."

This is the second attempt of having Squirm nominated for Featured Article. Thanks to an extensive Peer Review, I believe that we finally reached the point where this can have a bronze star to its name. GamerPro64 00:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Joe

[edit]

Coming soon. JOEBRO64 13:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here goes. Sorry for the wait!

  • "Makeup artist Rick Baker provided special effects for the film, using prosthetics for the first time in his career."
  • "The script was based on an childhood incident in which Lieberman's brother..." I think this should be here for clarity and to line up better with the lede
  • "... after which the project moved very fast swiftly..." "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very'; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." - Mark Twain
  • "Production began in the warmer climate of Georgia in the late fall of November 1975." MOS:SEASONS
  • Disagree. I added that redundancy specifically to deal with the seasonal issue in the rest of that passage and to address the SEASONS problem, because it was a seasonal schedule. Here's the issue. The producers read the script during the summer ... that is ... the project was moving quickly. We don't know in what months they read the script, so we can't avoid saying "summer". The point is they moved quickly when it was warm weather, but then had to move production to the south (Georgia) as fall (colder weather) approached in New England. SEASON is about avoiding ambiguity in the months corresponding to seasons, as they differ between the southern and northern hemisphere. That doesn't mean we can never mention seasonal (weather) issues ... we just have to explain that fall in New England = November, which is a date that we do have. If someone can think of a more elegant way to address this, great ... but we can't remove mention of season and weather-related issues that affected production because of an interpretation of SEASON. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Principal photography wrapped after five weeks, seven days one of which were was dedicated to..."
  • "... but the film it still received an "R" rating."
  • I'd add the years Swamp Thing and Return of the Living Dead were released in parenthesis next to the titles

Don't have anything else to say. Nice work. JOEBRO64 12:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • For this sentence, (In the rural town of Fly Creek, Georgia, a powerful storm blows down an overhead power line, leaving the town without electricity.), I would avoid repeating the word "town" twice. Maybe something like, (leaving the area without electricity), to avoid this?
  • I would move the worm farm link to this part, (worm farmer Roger Grimes), earlier in the plot summary.
  • I think these two sentences, (Geri and Mick arrive at Beardsley's house; they do not find him but Geri sees a human skeleton outside the property.), to something like: (After arriving at Beardsley's house, Geri and Mick cannot find him, but Geri sees a human skeleton outside the property.) Something about the current wording seems choppy to me.
  • For this sentence, (Alma, who survived by hiding in a chest comes out of the chest and looks out the window), I would avoid repeating the word "chest" twice. I would just say something like, (Alma, who survived by hiding in a chest, comes out and looks out the window), to avoid this.
  • The word "sandworms" is linked twice in the article, and both instances go to different articles.
  • This part still needs to be addressed. The word "sandworms" is linked twice in the article, with one instance going to Arenicola marina and the other going to Alitta virens, and I find this confusing since it is not clear from the prose that these two words are referring to what I am assuming are two different types of worms. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should AllMovie be italicized in the prose? I am only asking because it is not italicized in the database's Wikipedia article.
  • For this part, (The cinematography was praised, with John Kenneth Muir commending the cinematography and the film's imagery), I would avoid repeating "cinematography" twice in the same sentence, and I have been told in the past to avoid using the "with x verb+ing" sentence structure in featured articles.

I hope this review is helpful. Wonderful work with the article. Once everything is addressed, I will support this for promotion. I always enjoy watching the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode on this movie lol. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made the following edits (here). Feel free to revert anything that you disagree with.
  • These two sentences, (While on the boat, Mick is bitten by a worm. Roger tells him worms attack when electrified.), read rather awkwardly to me as there is rather abrupt transition from a worm attack to an informational bit. I would try to make this part flow a little bit better.
  • I am confused by this sentence, (Mick leaves Geri with Roger so he can tend to his wound), specifically the (he can tend to his wound) part. Why would Mick leave Geri with Roger if Roger was going to tend to his own wound anyway? Is that accurate or should it be (she can tend to his wound) instead? Aoba47 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the sentence about AllMovie's praise of soundtrack fits in the paragraph about negative reviews on the film's production, performances, and direction. It should be kept in the article, but its placement seems rather random to me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, (The original filming location and setting was planned to be New England but this was changed to Port Wentworth, Georgia), is not correct because the film is set in a fictional Georgia town not Port Wentworth.
  • I do not think "idiot" needs to be put in quotation marks.
  • As I said in the previous FAC, I think this sentence, (Squirm was the only film produced by The Squirm Company), is necessary, but I am uncertain about its current placement. I think it seems out of place in a paragraph mostly about the worms, and I think it would be better suited for the section's first paragraph which is more so about the film's development and production.
  • I would recommend cutting the first paragraph of the "Production" section into two, with the first focusing on the film's inspiration and the second on the writing and filming. This part, (He completed a rough draft in six weeks and gave it to producer George Manasse, who saw potential in it.), seems like a good place to start a new paragraph after changing "He" to "Lieberman". The paragraph just seems like a rather large wall of text so I think this separation will be helpful in keeping a reader engaged with the prose.
  • For this part, (He runs off into the woods and Geri tells Mick.), I would clarify what Geri told Mick. If it was about the worm attack in the previous sentence, I'd say something like, (Geri tells Mick about the attack), to be clear.
  • Admittedly, I have only seen the MST3K episode on this movie, but I have a question about this part: (he remembers the worms only come out at night). I rewatched the scene, and he hypothesizes the worms are repulsed by light so I do not this current wording is quite right. I would not say he "remembers" this and he does not directly say the worms only come out at night. The exact line of dialogue is: "See, if I'm right, the only thing holding them back is the light".
  • I rewatched the part right after the tree scene, and I am uncertain about this part: (Mick realizes electricity is still being released from the power lines and that the wet soil is acting as a conductor). I could be missing something as again I have only seen the MST3K episode and not the film itself, but I do not see the part where Mick comes to this conclusion.
  • I am uncertain about this part, (Some retrospective reviews were less than positive), as there is only one less than positive retrospective review so "some" does not seem accurate unless other citations can be added here to better support this claim.
  • The following book (here) has an estimated production budget for the movie. The book was published by ABC-Clio which seems like a credible publisher to me.
    • Yes it says the estimated amount is $470,000. But in the Fangoria article, it mentions they also had a few investors before the Broadway producers. So a majority of the budget is 470K, but I'm not entire sure if having the budget section say "est. $470,000" is standard. GamerPro64 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American Film Institute entry mentions planned premieres in Buffalo, New York and New York City. The entry also mentions that the film had four screenings at the Cannes Film Festival, and specifies that Lansbury and Beruh had intentionally invited "non-pro locals” as seat fillers. Are these elements notable enough for inclusion in the article?
    “Papering the house” (filling unsold seats by giving away tickets) is so common in theatre and film that I would not worry about mentioning this. Thanks for the solid review! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my review is helpful and thank you for your patience. Once my comments are addressed, I believe that should be everything, but I would like to do one last read-through tomorrow to make sure as I want to give a thorough review. You have done a wonderful job with the article, and it would be great to see a smaller, cult film get the bronze star. Aoba47 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I still think there should be a brief sentence in the "Release" section that mentions the film being available digitally as that section already mentions VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray releases. Once that is done, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just don't think mentioning it being on these services are necessary. We don't always have mention of movies being on TV. Nor have I seen other articles mention that they were on Netflix or Hulu or the like. GamerPro64 03:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still uncertain about mentioning the VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray releases without even a brief part on its digital release at all. The specific names of the services do not need to be used in the prose, but it still seems like a gap in information to mention all of these other ways that the film has been released for public consumption and leave one release method out completely. I can wait to hear other editors' opinions about this, but it does hold me back from supporting. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the comparison to "movies being on TV". I personally do not find a digital release to be comparable to television syndication. Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

[edit]

In reviewing changes to this point, please let me know if I have missed anything with this reinstatement of one word, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks good to me. I removed "unsuccessful" because I thought it would already be understood from the word "attempt", but it is probably best to as clear as possible to avoid any potential confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be aware: [27]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just wait for the result of that discussion. GamerPro64 03:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been extensively involved at this article since the first FAC, and during the Peer review. At the first FAC, I had concerns that the prose could be better. A good amount of that has been addressed, but I am waiting to see what others think. If others think that the prose is now up to snuff, everything else looks good, per the earlier FAC and PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64 is there any possibility of describing the character, "Barbara Quinn as Sheriff's Girl" in a less provincial-sounding way? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: during the peer review and precious FAC, I read every source, and think we can consider this covered already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from David Fuchs

[edit]
  • While on the boat, Mick is bitten by a worm, leading to Roger telling him and Geri that worms attack when electrified, showing the two his bitten-off thumb—this sentence stumbled me a bit. For the last part, it's Roger showing his thumb? And it was bitten off by worms previously, as in some time in the past or during the film? How'd regular worms bite off his thumb? Is this really important anyhow?
    • Yes Roger is showing his thumb. And it was bitten off when he was a child because of the electrified worms. I thought it would be worth mentioning to show how violent the worms would end up being. I can remove it. GamerPro64 03:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • My issue is that it's not entirely clear in the sentence how it relates. If you think it's an important detail you could reword the sentence along the lines of something like While on the boat, Mick is bitten by a worm. Roger shows his bitten-off thumb and tells Mick and Geri that worms attack when electrified. so the attack detail follows from the bite and makes it a bit more clear.
  • Mick gets off the boat to tend to his wound, leaving Geri with Roger; he and Alma—likewise here, the "he and Alma" I think refers to Mick, but it's unclear since you mention Roger most proximately.
    • Its Mick. Changed it.
  • Special make-up effects artist Rick Baker created the make-up in New York for R.A. Dow's character Roger, who turns into "Wormface", and made a facial mold using prosthetics, which he had never worked with before. This sentence just kind of runs on. I would start a new sentence after "Wormface".
  • I don't really think you need the explanatory 1975/76 dollar footnotes. I think it's naturally understood the prices are contemporary.
  • I'd reword This version was also released in the United States on Blu-ray by Shout! Factory under its label Scream Factory on October 28, 2014.[14] Squirm was also released on streaming services Prime Video, Tubi, and Shudder. a bit so it's not repeating "was also released" phrasing twice in two sentences.
  • Mick deduces the worms killed Beardsley but cannot figure out why they attacked him.—does this get followed up on in the story? The second part of the sentence suggests there's some reason other than "evil worms attack when electrocuted" but the plot doesn't suggest it.
    • The reason really is because of electricity but at this point Mick and Geri don't realize that there is still electricity in the ground. Mick later remembers a customer mentioning it at the diner he was at earlier so he pieces it all together when the tree falls into the house. GamerPro64 16:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images look fine.
  • Source check forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources follow-up:
    • You've got a stray DVD Talk ref where the website isn't wiki linked, whereas it is elsewhere.
    • www.weirdpaul.com should lose the www.
    • JoBlo.com is the only website that's not italicized.
    • I don't see any major issues with the sourcing. The only source I'd see about removing if at all possible is the weirdpaul.com; in the prose it's cited alongside another ref for the same information, and it seems like it'd be better to leave out a primary source for this. Otherwise the sources are all reputable, and I don't have qualms with them being reliable or high-quality in their fields.
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 27, 32, 35, and 38. Didn't spot issues with too-close wording.
      • Ref 4 is used to cite He was also inspired by a news story from Floyds Knobs, Indiana about migrating millipedes invading homes by the hundreds—the source doesn't give a number, and gives the "you could stomp a hundred with a boot"-kind of response which can be credibly taken as hyperbole. I think if you want it as color, include the quote, otherwise leave out the mention of actual numbers of millipedes.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [28].

Réunion swamphen

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since we've had an extinct mystery bird at FAC, and here's one of the most enigmatic ones. The few things known about the bird are covered here, and there is probably little more that can ever be said about it until a fossil is some day found. Since it is only known from contemporary accounts, most of these are included, similar to how most sources treat the bird. It is therefore rather quote heavy (with commentary on these when available), since merely summarizing them would need unwarranted OR interpretation, and would be less interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

NB: It is my intention to claim points for this review for the WikiCup.

I had a look at this at GA and it seemed destined for FA. Good to see it here and this is a placeholder for me to have a proper look over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not getting back on this. A series of issues have limited my contributions to Wikipedia in general and reviews in particular over the past few weeks. I shall endeavour to get it done over the next day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've also been busy with other things! FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Should that be 'previously known as the oiseau bleu'?
English sources as recent as Hume 2017 and 2019 list it as "Réunion Gallinule (Oiseaux Bleu) ", so it would seem it has not fallen completely out of use. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lang template should be used for each mention of a foreign language word or phrase, eg every mention of oiseaux bleu.
Added, as well as for quotes (and Plaines des Cafres, though it does not seem to have an English name), not sure if I overdid it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also considering it akin to the takahe". "akin" is a bit ambiguous; it can mean either related to or similar to. Possibly clarify which is meant?
It could actually mean both in this case, but I just said related to keep it simple. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bird was subsequently mainly considered a member of Porphyrio or Notornis throughout the 20th century" I am not too happy with "mainly", and the whole sentence is a bit clunky. How about 'Throughout the 20th century the bird was usually considered a member of Porphyrio or Notornis'? (I think that "subsequently" can be taken as read.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were two more contemporary accounts". Is "more" intended to mean 'further'?
Not sure what the difference is, but changed to further. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yet he considered it to be no doubt a derivative of Porphyrio" Maybe 'yet he considered there was no doubt that it was a derivative of Porphyrio'?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generally agreed to have been a large, terrestrial swamphen". What does "terrestrial" mean in this context?
That it spent most of its time on the ground, linked to Terrestrial animal. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "The Réunion swamphen was possibly similar to the takahe, and was at times thought to be closely related." Maybe 'and has at times been thought to be closely related'?
Done. By the way, did I get all the captions that are "complete sentences" right with the periods? FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it to me, but what do I know?
Probably more than me! In regard to this "While it probably derived from", should that be "was derived from"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first description of the Réunion swamphen is that of Dubois from 1674, which reads as follows:" Optional: delete "which reads as follows".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was said to nest among grasses and aquatic ferns"; "the Réunion swamphen did not inhabit swamps". There may be nothing to this, but I tend to think of aquatic ferns as growing mostly in or on the margins of swamps.
Or waterbodies at least, which we know existed on the plains, temporary marshy pools mentioned under behaviour/ecology, and the brook mentioned in the quote under extinction. The sources don't address a supposed discrepancy, but I think it's because the waterbodies there just weren't swamps. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the crunch point. We have no description of the Plaine des Cafres, the supposed location of these birds, which I think would be helpful. And, for the moment leaving aside MOS:QUOTE ("While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".) I am still genuinely unsure what "The air is very pure, but as cold as winter’s day in England. When the clouds pass over the surface of the plain, they have all the effect of a gentle rain. A brook runs through the middle of it, which is broad but shallow, has a sandy bottom, and freezes in the winter" adds to an encyclopedia article. Frankly, to me this part of the quote reads as waffle, and I fail to see what it communicates to a reader about the topic of the article.

The only description of the area provided by the modern the sources about the bird is already summarised under behaviour and ecology: "At least in the latter part of its existence, it appears to have been confined to mountains (retreating there between the 1670s and 1705), in particular to the Plaine des Cafres plateau, situated at an altitude of about 1,600–1,800 m (5,200–5,900 ft) in south-central Réunion. The environment of this area consists of open woodland in a subalpine forest steppe, and has marshy pools." That's it, which is probably why some of the sources include this quote, which appears to be the most precise description of the area as it was when the bird was alive back in the 1700s... As you can see in the photo under extinction, there is not much vegetation left, but plenty of buildings, so the best we can do to give an impression of it is look to the contemporary sources (which is why I'm reluctant to cut it further, it was already reduced by almost half). FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Description: fair enough. Trying to describe what an area was like 300 years ago is probably bootless anyway.

A cracking article, but you have been let down by your copy editor. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and nah, you had to leave something for the FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, that's all of the routine stuff dealt with. On to quotes. For the moment leaving the MoS aside, could you explain for the hard of thinking - ie me - what "The air is very pure, but as cold as winter’s day in England. When the clouds pass over the surface of the plain, they have all the effect of a gentle rain. A brook runs through the middle of it, which is broad but shallow, has a sandy bottom, and freezes in the winter" adds for a reader? I am making a real effort to understand your PoV, but I really baulk at these sentences in particular. Could you talk me through them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is overly flowery for sure, but what's interesting about it is that we get a description of the climate and environment not given anywhere else; cold, rainy, and with a broad, shallow brook. As Hume 2019 presents it before quoting it: "includes an insightful contemporary description of the Plaine des Cafres, the prime habitat of the gallinule". You could argue it's excessive to quote all that for this information, but I'd argue it is more engaging this way. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have put your finger precisely on our difference. I do not have a major issue with it being flowery. My point is that we do not "get a description of the climate and environment". We get one person's impression of one day. Perhaps it was mid-summer and that shallow brook is a raging torrent ten months of the year. Or was it the rainy season and it is empty most of the time? How cold was a winter's day in England in 1763 anyway? Even you seem to struggle to interpret it "we get a description of the climate and environment not given anywhere else; ... rainy"; there is no mention of rain, the account is speaking of the effect of the clouds. (Possibly a flowery attempt to describe their cooling effect[?]) Perhaps the brook is fed entirely by snow melt and it never rains there? And much of the quote describes physical features which (I assume) will not have changed ("The plain des Caffres, is formed by the summits of mountains at a very considerable elevation above the sea: it is said to be twenty miles in extent, and is very flat, and without stones. The access to it is very difficult in certain places, though it may be ascended on horseback") not "a description of the climate and environment". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can agree that it's subjective whether the article is better off with it or without? Perhaps the other reviewers, Dunkleosteus77, Hog Farm, and Nikkimaria, have some opinions on this. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can. And I would also be interested in the other reviewers opinions. I would however, above and beyond any question of subjectivity, like to draw their attention to MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, by the very wording, I'd say it's subjective and ambiguous: "try not to overuse them". "Try" leaves choice, and "overuse" leaves interpretation... The question is, when is it "overuse"? Also note that the guideline begins "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." That would imply the limitations are mainly to prevent copyright violations. But given these quotes are centuries old, it should hardly be a problem, FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall good use of quotes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find the quote useful. It's one of those things where IMO its ambiguous enough that keeping it in the original words is the best option. The one question I would ask is the season that the plain des Caffres description is suppose to describe. I doubt it's known, although if known it would give context. Honestly, I think since, per the reasons Gog mentioned, it's not a great description of the climactic elements described, so using the quote for the climactic elements actually avoids a bit of drawing too heavy of conclusions based on a singular experience. Hog Farm Bacon 16:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now it is also mainly used under extinction to give an impression of how the area was in its pristine condition, before humans destroyed interfered. The circumstances around the quote aren't precisely known (not even who wrote it), so info on the season is probably unavailable. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's not a copyright issue, but in terms of style in the case of the particular quote mentioned I lean towards Gog's perspective. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, seems like an even split, then. Could we wait and see if potential further reviewers bring it up? To me, this still seems like a matter of individual taste, not hard policy. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rather like it, for what it's worth, but I certainly wouldn't fight to keep it. I like the floweriness, and I think it's fairly evocative. I quite like a "human" angle in these biology articles; much as I love Ucucha's articles about long-dead mice, they're a little cold when contrasted with this sort of thing. I hear what is said about over-quoting; in my judgment, we're not running up against this here, but it is possible that my judgement is flawed. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FunkMonk: I am still not sure that this instance doesn't fall foul of the MoS, but consensus would seem to be against me. And it is a cracking article, which I have no desire to stall over a quibbling interpretation of the MoS. So, supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I do see your side, and wouldn't have taken it personally if you had refrained from supporting (the harder the FAC, the better the article). So it was nice that others could weigh in so it wasn't just a battle of opinions between the two of us. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
  • "Visitors to the Mascarene island of Réunion during the 17th and 18th centuries reported blue birds, referred to in French as oiseau bleu" since oiseau bleu means blue bird, it may be better to say "reported blue birds (French oiseau bleu)". Also, you have singular/plural confusion, you say blue birds but say singular oiseau instead of plural oiseaux   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to parenthesis as "(oiseaux bleus in French)". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "in an old account". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should already be covered by "Responding to Strickland's book later that year, the Belgian scientist Edmond de Sélys Longchamps coined the scientific name". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The then recent discovery of the takahe showed that members of Porphyrio could be large" are you talking about the discovery of the bird being recent or it being moved from Notornis to Porphyrio? The next paragraph seems to indicate that many still included it in Notornis until later in the 20th century, so maybe you should say something more generic like "showed that swamphens could be large" or maybe "rails" if accurate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit complicated, because even at the time, some placed the takahe in Porphyrio (such as Schlegel, who is the one cited), while others placed it in it's own genus, Notornis. I've added "Schlegel argued that", because it was his paper the statement is from, and "(now called Porphyrio hochstetteri, then also referred to as Notornis by some authors)". FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think most (if not all) of the quotes were translated from French, so it would be a bit arbitrary to only clarify that for Dubois (especially since the sources don't always state which other accounts were translated and from what language). But the names and indications of nationalities for some of the writers should give some indication. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is Dubois, mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the " [in colouration]" part? I'm not sure why that is added in the 2019 paper, it is not in the 2008 book the translation is taken from. I have removed it by quoting the 2008 book instead, which should remove ambiguity, but of course still doesn't explain why the brackets were added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not from what I can see, but the sources imply it was more widespread before humans arrived anyway. The IUCN also just shows the entire island:[29] FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, I tried to avoid mentioning the relevant specific species and subspecies within Porphyrio because their classifications seem to be in flux (they were considered species, then subspecies, and then very recently species again, see purple swamphen), but it's what I allude to here: "Some writers equated the bird with extant swamphens". To complicate matters further, Barré and a co-author also suggested African swamphens in 1982, while he somehow changed his opinion in 1996. But I've now added mention of specific species. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you italicize everything in French?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was a suggestion by Gog the Mild above, to add the language parameter to all foreign words. I haven't heard about that before, so I can't say whether it's overdone? Perhaps it shouldn't be in the quotes and in place-names? FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you shouldn't italicize place names (otherwise we'd have to say Réunion swamphen)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it earlier after a comment about the same issue below. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll give this a look; I might wind up claiming WikiCup points for this. Hog Farm Bacon 14:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "since Dubois' account stated the Réunion bird tasted good, which extant swamphens do not" - This just doesn't read right to me. "which" doesn't doesn't seem to fully match with the rest of the phrasing
I replaced "which" with "while", does that look better? FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cattle grazing on Plaine des Cafres was promoted by the French explorer Jean-Baptiste Charles Bouvet de Lozier in the 1750s, which may have also had an impact on the bird". Hmmm. Seems a little to me like maybe this statement should be qualified about if the birds were still in existence at that point. If the source includes that, maybe include such a qualification.
Before that sentence, it is stated the bird perhaps survived until 1763. Shouldn't that be enough for the reader? In any case, it is not known for certain. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in pretty good shape. Not much for a non-expert to gripe about here. Hog Farm Bacon 16:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added one comment above and will try to fix the other tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
Not being a native English speaker, I am not entirely sure which captions are complete sentences, but I have added periods for three captions. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both points should be addressed. but not sure about the first one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph is a bit unwieldy.
Split in two, any better? FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you italicise Plaine des Cafres? We don't italicise place names.
That came from a discussion above about adding a language parameter to foreign words, but since two editors have now questioned it, I'll remove it from placenames. But I wonder if oiseaux bleu should also be looked over? Now it is in italics at every mention, maybe it should only be at the first? FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the italics there are right -- and, if not, it should be none of them italicised. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed italics from mentions of Plaine des Cafres. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the size of their ancestral, wild red junglefowl" Their ancestor, perhaps? This doesn't read that well.
Changed to "the size of their ancestor, the wild red junglefowl". FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species was termed a land-bird by Dubois, while other swamphens inhabit lowland swamps in contrast. This is similar" "In contrast" feels redundant, and it isn't obvious what the this refers to.
Changed to "The Réunion swamphen was termed a land-bird by Dubois, while other swamphens inhabit lowland swamps". FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though it does not describe it, and could apply to other species" Could be clearer
Tried with "though no description of it was provided, and it might refer to another species", not sure if this helps... FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a slightly mediocre point to end on!
Which one? FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point about cattle grazing. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now rearranged this section so the causes of extinction are mentioned first, and then the quote, which may be the last mention of the bird, comes last, which is probably a much more appropriate note to end on. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small puzzle: Is the consensus that this bird definitely existed? There was a note about it being a "hypothetical species", but it does strike me that the article is written from the point of view that this is a "real" species.
No sources doubt it existed, but a few older sources have stated it may have been sightings of extant swamphens, and while those are mentioned in the text, most recent sources list it as distinct. I've now added the bolded to Hume's 2019 statement: "Hume stated that while it had been mentioned by trustworthy observers, the Réunion swamphen was "perhaps the most enigmatic of all rails"".. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that struck me. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will have a look soon! FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; these improvements look great. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I haven't looked in detail at the sources, but this article looks to be where it needs to be. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I particularly like the new arrangement of the extinction section, can't believe I didn't think of that before... FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]
  • All links work and all sources have an appropriate identifier of some kind
  • I spotted no issues of unreliable sources
  • Formatting is mostly consistent – I linked some publishers and standardized ISBNs to fix this.
  • Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [30].

2020 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2020 edition of the World Snooker Championship - an event disrupted twice by the COVID-19 pandemic changed dates and was eventually a test event for an audience to be in attendance which lasted for a single day.

Ronnie O'Sullivan won his sixth world championship, defeating first time finalist Kyren Wilson in the final. One of my favourite recent events, due to the quality of play at times, a maximum break made by John Higgins and one of the best days of snooker in the semi-finals where both matches went to a deciding frame. Please let me know what you think! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Support from Hurricane Noah

[edit]

Will review this tomorrow. NoahTalk 23:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry for not getting to this. I have been busy with a lot going on right now. I will leave comments today after my college class. NoahTalk 17:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


That is everything I noticed with the prose of the article. I do have another FAC up if you would be interested. It could use someone outside the field to help make things more understandable in places if it isn't already. NoahTalk 00:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review: BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]
  • "...World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association..." is in the lead but not in the article body and is uncited. (I'm not sure that subsidiary is the right word, as Matchroom Sport is the controlling entity of World Snooker/World Snooker Tour (link) -as well as being one of the broadcasters!)
  • Background: "The 32 players for the event are selected through a mix of the snooker world rankings and a pre-tournament qualification round" not verified in the cited source.
  • Background: "Stephen Hendry ... seven times" seems to all be supported by the BBC source, so the Global Snooker source archived in 2012 can be removed here.
  • Format: "This was the 44th consecutive year that the tournament had been held at the Crucible, and the 52nd successive world championship to be contested through the modern knockout format" - not verified by sources cited.
  • Qualifying stage: "The final round of qualifying was played on 27 and 28 July, with matches played as the best of 19 frames over two sessions." is uncited.
  • Second round: I've added a Snooker Scene source for this being O'Sullivan's 28th appearance and a record. This is redundant as there is already a source, but I think it's more easily to verify against than the Eurosport broadcast. Happy for either ref here to be removed to avoid overkill.
  • Qualifying: I checked a number of results against the reports in Snooker Scene, no issues found. Although Snooker Scene is more reliable than snooker.org for results IMO, I'm happy to keep snooker.org as the source in the article as 1. snooker.org is the more easily accessible of the two and there is no consensus against using it; and 2. Snooker Scene doesn't include all of the nationalities and seedings for qualifying.
  • Made some minor changes to parameters, hopefully uncontroversial.

Assessment against criteria:

(1c): well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; Yes BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(2c): consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes? YesBennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • The first World Snooker Championship in 1927, with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, which was won by Joe Davis. - word in bold should probably be removed.
Support for promotion. I can't see any outstanding issues with sources or citations. (I must acknowledge the exhaustive review by Rodney Baggins here). The article appears to me to be suitably well-researched and comprehensive, and is definitely improved since I reviewed it for GA a few weeks back. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

[edit]

I should note that I plan to claim WikiCup points for this review. epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The event was one of the first to allow live audiences since the outbreak of the pandemic - I would say "the onset of the pandemic". While I don't think "outbreak" can be confused for a noun here, it still sounds strange.
Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 players reached the main stage of the tournament - This immediately follows a semicolon, so I suggest either spelling out "16" or saying something like "of these, 16"
Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was O'Sullivan's 37th ranking event win of his career, the highest of any player. ... This was Higgins' tenth career maximum break and his first at the World Championship; aged 45, he became the oldest player to make a maximum in a professional competition. - In my view, having two sentences in such close succession begin with "This was", is pretty awkward. I would consider combining the sentences Ronnie O'Sullivan won his sixth world title, defeating Wilson 18–8 in the final. This was O'Sullivan's 37th ranking event win of his career, the highest of any player. However, I can understand if that isn't desirable.
Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • but was postponed until 1 July to 16 August as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. - I suggest "but was postponed to between 1 July and 16 August" for consistency with the other half of the sentence, and because "until 1 July to 16 August" sounds strange.
Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it has been since 2015 - "as it had been" should be past tense
Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internationally, the event was broadcast by Eurosport in Europe and Australia,[18] by Superstars Online, Zhibo.tv, Youku and CCTV in China, by NowTV in Hong Kong, and by DAZN in Canada, the United States, and Brazil - In this case, you should add semicolons to break up this serial list, since each list item also has commas. I.e. Internationally, the event was broadcast by Eurosport in Europe and Australia; by Superstars Online, Zhibo.tv, Youku and CCTV in China; by NowTV in Hong Kong; and by DAZN in Canada, the United States, and Brazil
Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reduced audience was to be admitted to allow for social distancing - I'm not sure, but should the sentence clarify that social distancing required more space between people?
Hmm, I have linked it - to me its enough to say there was a limited audience due to the pandemic. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summary

  • health concerns over the coronavirus - I would be consistent in using "coronavirus", as the rest of the article mentions "COVID-19 pandemic", and it may not automatically be clear that these are the same.
They... aren't the same thing? Coronavirus is the branch of disease as I understand it, whilst COVID-19 is the specific disease. Whichever, but I've changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, these are different things. The specific coronavirus being mentioned is the one that causes COVID-19, which was my concern. The current wording works fine. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ding had not played in any tournaments since the COVID-19 pandemic - since the onset of the pandemic? (Only because the pandemic is still ongoing)
  • Two 50-minute frames were won by King, leading to a deciding frame - I suggest using active voice just to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph.
  • Williams potted the black, and also the respotted black to win the frame - there should probably be a comma after "the respotted black".
  • The pair were reprimanded by referee Jan Verhaas, however, Clarke was followed out of the arena by McGill. - is there a particular reason that McGill followed Clarke out of the arena? Also, this should probably be in the active voice too.
  • Wilson, however extended - there should also be a comma after "however" because that word is used as a qualifier for the text that follows it.
  • The penultimate frame saw McGill be trapped in a snooker, - This wording strikes me as strange: it raises ambiguity about whether McGill was becoming trapped in that frame, or he was already trapped. I think you can change the word "be" to "become", in the case of the former, or remove it altogether in the latter instance.
  • He also stated that his shot choice was due to not being able to control shots out of snookers the same as Selby - I'd rephrase this too, particularly the wording "not being able" (there should probably be a noun there instead of a verb) and "the same as Selby". E.g. "He also stated that his shot choice was due to his inability to control shots out of snookers the same way Selby did".

Qualifying

  • Originally organised for all matches to be best-of-19 frames, the first three rounds were played as best-of-11 frames, with only the final round being played as best-of-19 - There might be a dangling modifier here. I'd add a word such as "although" in the beginning, e.g. "Although all matches were originally organised to be best-of-19 frames..."
  • Also, two invited players from the World Women's Snooker Tour, Ng On-yee and Nutcharut Wongharuthai, declined to participate due to COVID-19 safety concerns - I would move "also" to before "declined". It sounds strange to begin a sentence like this with "also".

@Lee Vilenski: These are all the prose comments I have. epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rodney Baggins

[edit]

Just in the process of finishing this off, so will place my comments here within next 24 hours. I'll do some general tidying and non-contentious copyediting afterwards. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think I just about met my self-imposed 24 hour deadline! Here are my comments on the main article. I do still want to take a closer look at the sources so I'll get back to you on that. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Change "The tournament was organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association and the World Snooker Tour," to "The tournament was organised by the World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association," ?
Background
  • Only the final of the 1927 WSC was held at Camkin's Hall, not the whole thing, so I think this sentence is inaccurate. Would this make more sense: "The first World Snooker Championship took place in 1927, with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England; Joe Davis won the title."
  • General background runs into sentence "The previous year's championship was won by England's Judd Trump..."; as we're now talking about the 2019 event, it's a bit confusing. We need to either explicitly state "The 2019 championship was won by England's Judd Trump..." OR use this sentence to start a new mini-paragraph?
  • I find it rather confusing that we call the organisation the "World Snooker Tour", as in "World Snooker Tour chairman Barry Hearn" but then in the next sentence we refer to the actual World Snooker Tour. Could we get away with just calling him the "World Snooker chairman Barry Hearn"? In fact, do we actually need to mention him by name in relation to this announcement? Could we just say: "World Snooker [Tour] announced..."?
    • Kettle = worms. I agree, it's a silly rebrand and causes exactly this issue. However, we can't just change the name of the organisation because it makes no sense. Arguably however, Barry is also the chairman of the Tour as a whole. I've removed his name, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 2019–20 snooker world rankings in "the latest 2019–20 snooker world rankings"?
  • Move Seed (sports) link up to first mention of seeding in Format section? i.e. "with seeding given to players" instead of "for the main draw as seeded players" lower down.
  • At end of Format subsection, "played as best-of-19 frames" should be "played as the best of 19 frames", and "played as best-of-25 frames" should be "played as the best of 25 frames". This is because "best of 19 frames" literally just means "the best out of a total of 19 frames"; the "best of 19" bit does not modify the word "frames", and since "best of 19" is not a compound modifier there is no need for any hyphens. However, "a best-of-35-frames match" at end of paragraph is correct because the hyphenated "best-of-35-frames" is a four-part compound modifier for the word "match".
  • Maybe add a sentence above the prize fund list to introduce the list? Something like "The total prize fund was £2,395,000, of which the winner received £500,000." Then you could remove the "Total: £2,395,000" entry from the list which I think looks a bit out of place.
Qualifying (1)
First round
  • "After the performance, Williams said..." — sounds a bit odd, maybe change to "After his victory, Williams said..."?
  • In para 4, "Between frames 9 and 13 there were four century breaks in a row." — strictly this should be "frames nine and 13" but I didn't change it as obviously it gives two different numeral formats in close proximity, might look odd.
  • Maybe add this sentence at end of section: "Kyren Wilson received a bye through the first round, after Anthony Hamilton withdrew from the event at the end of qualifying." because at the moment his bye is not mentioned until we get into the 2nd round section. (see below)7
Second round
Quarter-finals
  • "Selby commented that he had lost confidence at reaching that stage of the tournament again." — Not sure this is very clear, do you mean he had lost confidence that he could reach that stage of the tournament again? Or are you saying that he had lost confidence once he got to that stage? (I think it's the first, in which case please reword?)
  • "Trump was contesting the Crucible curse" — Not sure "contesting" is the right word here. Maybe change to "facing the Crucible curse", meaning he was "up against" it?
  • "no such player had retained the championship" sounds odd — maybe change to "no player had retained the championship in defence of a maiden world title." or simply just "no player had successfully defended a maiden world title."
  • "Scot Anthony McGill and Norway's Kurt Maflin" > do we really need to accentuate their nationalities here? On first reading this, I thought "Scot Anthony McGill" was the guy's name, as Scott is itself a first name!
Semi-finals
  • Shouldn't we mention at start of section that the semi-finals used a single table setup (with the sessions alternating between the two matches)? And should we not explicitly state that the first semi-final was between Kyren Wilson and Anthony McGill (to match the statement "The second semi-final was between Mark Selby and Ronnie O'Sullivan." lower down)?
  • The World Snooker source used in paras 2&3 (ref.166: "Wilson Beats Champion Trump") is about the Trump/Wilson QF, not the Wilson/McGill SF. For example, it certainly doesn't say anything about the record combined score of 103–83! Maybe this source should be used in para 2 of QF section and we could do with a different source here?
  • I don't think "wracked" is a word. Did you mean "whacked" or "rapped"!?
  • "broke down" is snooker jargon and is not included in the glossary, so maybe we shouldn't be using it here?
  • Selby quote in last para is a bit long-winded and repetitive, maybe cut the last bit out, i.e. "I felt he was being a bit disrespectful to me and the game, not many players would just get down and hit them at 100 mph when you put them in a snooker. Some would look to work it out or put you in trouble. It just felt like he was doing that throughout the match..."
Final
  • "This was O'Sullivan's sixth world title and his 37th ranking event victory, the most of any player." — Last bit sounds awkward to me. Possibly change to "This was O'Sullivan's sixth world title and his 37th ranking event victory, a record number of ranking titles." or just "This was O'Sullivan's sixth world title and a record 37th ranking event victory."
Qualifying (2)
  • Could we rename this section "Qualifying stage" as there is already a section further up called "Qualifying" (under "Tournament summary") and it would be consistent with "Qualifying stage centuries" subheading in next section...?
  • Fixes needed per previous comments (if you agree): "organised to be best-of-19 frames" > "organised to be the best of 19 frames"; "played as best-of-11 frames" > "played as the best of 11 frames"; "final round being played as best-of-19." > "fourth-round matches played as the best of 19 frames."
  • Likewise, "Best-of-n frames" in table headings should be "Best of n frames" per previous comments

(End)


Further comments from Rodney Baggins (5 Oct)
  • There's a slight error in the semantics of this sentence in the lead: "It was the 44th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible, and was the final ranking event of the 2019–20 snooker season." The two clauses don't sit naturally together in the sentence. The subject of the first clause is the year 2020, but the subject of the second clause is the 2020 event, so grammatically speaking they cannot share the opening "It". (I notice same thing in 2019 article). Not sure what to do about it. Maybe break off first clause as a single sentence: "It was the 44th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible." followed by "The final ranking event of the 2019–20 snooker season, the tournament was originally scheduled..."?
  • I still think the 1927 sentence in Background section sounds awkward. The first clause needs to state explicitly that the first WSC was in 1927, i.e. "The first World Snooker Championship took place in 1927..." My suggestion for the whole sentence would be: "The first World Snooker Championship took place in 1927, with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis." or even "and the first world title was won by Joe Davis."
  • In Qualifying stage, it says: "This was the first time in 17 years that Carter did not play in the main stage of the event"... It was actually 18 years since he last failed to make it to the main stage (last knocked out in qualifiers in 2002), so we're counting from 2002 to 2020. It was 17 years since Carter first made it to the Crucible (in 2003) but that's not what we're saying here. Anyway, might it not be clearer to just change this to say "first time since 2002". In fact, I'd change the sentence to "This was the first time since 2002 that Carter had not qualified for the main stage of the event."
  • I still think it's odd that we don't mention Wilson's bye in the First round section, since that's the round that it applies to, and it's currently not mentioned until we get into the Second round section. I certainly think the sentence needs rewording because at the moment it says "Anthony Hamilton withdrew and met Martin Gould" which isn't true. Suggest expanding to: "Kyren Wilson met Martin Gould in the second round; this was Wilson's first match of the main draw, having received a bye through the first round when Anthony Hamilton withdrew from the event at the end of qualifying."
  • I would say it's quite a fundamental piece of info to say how many tables are being used in the arena at each stage of the main draw. When the dividing screen is removed for the semi-finals, the atmosphere in the arena changes as all eyes are on the one match, and the commentators tend to make quite a big thing of it. The single table setup is mentioned in the 2017 article and the number of tables is included for each round in the 2018 article (that one even has a cuegloss link in Semi-finals!) I'm thinking we should retrospectively add this info to 2019 and also include it in 2020, and make the articles consistent. I'd be happy to sort that out if you agree. What do you think? (I notice that we do mention the eight-table set-up in the Qualifying section.)
References (6 Oct)
  • Why do all the Sporting Life refs have UK set as their location? It looks a bit out of place. The BBC Sport refs don't have it, for example.
  • It looks like the Eurosport archives aren't working. I just get a blue screen with a message saying "Eurosport is unavailable in your region" – or is it just me!? Examples: refs. 14, 31, 57, 74, etc. etc.
  • Ref.15: This sources the new dates (31 July to 16 Aug) but says nothing about the tournament being "the last of 17 ranking events in the 2019–20 season on the World Snooker Tour," which is the statement it is tagged against.
  • Ref.7 & Ref.45: Why are these two BBC Sport articles in a different format to all the others? The URLs have both got an /amp branch in them for some reason and they look different to the others. What does the amp bit mean? Why not just use [31] and [32]? Is it something to do with the archives for the original URLs being problematic?
  • The RTE refs (42/113/117) have no work alias parameter. I did try adding website=rte.ie, but Benny deleted it (I think because there was already a publisher param and you shouldn't really have both?) Maybe we just need to get rid of the publisher param altogether or change it to work=RTÉ ?
  • Refs. 57/70/71/76: These articles were all live reports that used the same URL ([33]) and this URL was then reused for the article on the final "...Ronnie O'Sullivan Beats Kyren Wilson" It appears that the four articles just used this URL temporarily while the matches were in progress, hence all titles have "World Snooker Championship LIVE – " at the start. So they can't really be used. Unless you can find some archives that were captured for the specific dates, but Eurosport archives are looking a bit temperamental.
  • Ref.143: This source fails verification because I can't find the quote anywhere in the report or the video. I think we need another source for the statement: "Although O'Sullivan had won four of their six previous meetings, Wilson had won their latest encounter in the semi-finals of the 2020 Welsh Open."

So, that's everything from me. Cheers for now, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The London Evening Standard source is still in (now ref.143) and the live Eurosport broadcast (ref.100) You did say you'd removed these two but seem to have forgotten? I can look at the single-table setup issue at a later date. Other than that, I'm happy to support if you just sort out those two outstanding refs. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should all be gone now. Busy night ;). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have my support for this article now. I'll do some further copyediting later, but generally it's looking good. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Images look OK except for File:World Snooker Championship 2015 Logo.png. Although it is probably below TOO in the US, the UK has very low standards for copyright protection. I've nominated it for deletion on Commons, but it could be local uploaded as PD-logo (enwiki only pays attention to US copyright laws). (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07

[edit]

Lead

^ There's an unnecessary repetition of "it" in this sentence, and is there any way you could quantify what a "ranking event" is here? I was confused about the term until I read Snooker world rankings (which is linked to later in the 2nd paragraph of the lead). So it may be a good idea to add that link to 'ranking event' here, and remove the link in the 2nd paragraph?

^ Reads like it's missing a comma after Tour.

Background

  • "The first World Snooker Championship in 1927, with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, which was won by Joe Davis."

^ Could be more simply reworded to "The final of the first World Snooker Championship in 1927 was held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and was won by Joe Davis." I see this sentence was mentioned by another reviewer above, so I hope my rephrasing is to both of your liking.

  • Couldn't find anything to complain about in Format, Coverage or Prize fund sub-sections.

Qualifying stage

^ That is, unless you know of someone intending on creating 2019/20 Challenge Tour Playoff? Since there's no corresponding article for the 2018/19 Challenge Tour, I doubt one will be created anytime soon.

    • Well, there was no playoff in 2018/19, so it won't have been created. The playoff itself is notable enough for an article of its own merit, so I don't see the need to remove it. Also see WP:REDLINK for where its suitable to retain links to articles to promote them being created like in this case. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will review subsequent prose sections later, as the article gets quite technical from this point onward. Having said that, there's quite a bit of WP:Overlink in the 'Main draw' section. I'd understand if you want to link every name during the first round phase, but there's no need to link the same names over and over again in subsequent rounds. It seems the 'Highlight duplicate links' tool isn't working anymore, so I'm afraid this will need to be done manually. I know this is a tedious task. So let me know if you want me to chip in with link removal at any point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summary

  • I honestly found myself becoming bored reading line after line of 'player 1 was ahead until X happened, then player 2 took the lead until Y happened, with player 1 winning the game by [X score]'. But I guess, as a sports article, this style of prose is similar to what's found in any other sports FAs: goals and points and scores and events which had an impact on the overall game, etc. Like I said elsewhere, I genuinely don't know anything about snooker, but even for me, this section was easy to follow. I particularly liked what you did in the Ronnie O'Sullivan vs Mark Williams paragraph in Quarter-finals. No typos jumped out at me either.

Qualifying

  • If you've followed a template, then please disregard this point, but wouldn't it make more sense for this section to be included above the Tournament summary? The qualifying stage of the main tournament took place concurrent to the qualifying stage for the amateurs, right?

I accept your responses to my previous points. Will be happy to support this for promotion soon enough. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Co-orninator comments

[edit]

Hi Laser brain - is this enough commentary on this nomination, or should I seek additional input? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [34].

1984 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the World Snooker Championship event in 1984. A year before the blackball final, Steve Davis won his third world championship. He defeated Jimmy White in the final, which was White's first of six losses at this stage! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

[edit]

I am reviewing the prose of the article. I will leave the source checking to the editors more experienced in this realm of Wikipedia. If you could review one of my GANs in return, that would be great. NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting on prose! NoahTalk 01:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 10:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]

Not a topic I am familiar with, but the article is in good shape and I'm leaning toward support. I have a few comments:

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I have added this to the Urgents list hoping to get more feedback. Otherwise, it will need to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720

[edit]

NOTE: It has been many years since I reviewed an FAC, so disregard comments if they are not applicable. I will do a more in-depth review later today, but here are some preliminary thoughts:

  • "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players.[a] As defending champion, Steve Davis was seeded first for the event; the remaining 15 seeds were allocated based on world rankings for the previous season." Can you use a synonym for "seed"? It's a lot of the same word in two sentences.
  • "Eight-time former world champion Fred Davis won his match against Jim Donnelly 10–5 to become the oldest player in the main competition, at the age of 70." This sentence confused me. Do you mean Davis was the oldest player to qualify for the main competition? I would restructure this sentence to clarify.
  • "One player, Canadian John Bear, was scheduled to play but did not" Do any sources say why he did not play? I won't oppose if this information is missing.

Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • In the qualifying section, it says "Eight-time former world champion Fred Davis won his match against Jim Donnelly 10–5 to become the oldest player in the main competition, at the age of 70" and then in First Round it says "Aged 70 years and 253 days, he became the tournament's oldest-ever player." It sounds like you are stating the same fact twice (if a person is the oldest player to ever compete in a World Snooker Championship, then I can logically conclude that he's the oldest player in the tournament.) Pick one place to state this information.
  • "Many of the matches had emphatic scorelines." After reading the scored in the subsequent sentence, I am confused why these matches were "emphatic". Is this sentence trying to say that the matches were lopsided victories for one player? I think there are better words to use here to instantly convey meaning to the reader.
  • "Knowles, who had been the only player to beat Steve Davis in the World Championship in the previous three years, with a 10–1 surprise win over Davis in the first round in 1982, lost 7–10 to John Parrott." This feels like it's meandering because the sidebar of the sentence (everything from "who had been" to "in 1982") is too long. Consider restructuring or deleting "with a 10-1 surprise win over Davis in the first round in 1982"
  • "There were eight centuries in the championship" I would wikify century.

Those are all my comments. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. I support promoting this article to FA. Z1720 (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM

[edit]

That's what I have on a first run. I think most of them are easily dealt with but the "legacy" of the match needs much more coverage as far as I can see. For example, I imagine White and Davis both mention this in their autobiographies, so that should be covered. Who was favourite to win, what did commentators and the players say after the match? Etc etc. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Benny, was there any post-match conferences? I've added a little on what the players went on to do, specifically about White, but needs a little more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to confirm, Benny, there's only two things I have outstanding from above - is there anything additional for the qualifiers that covers a few more players? Also, have you got anything further for the legacy section. Also, how did the prize money work? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll have another look for info about qualifying, but generally there was a lot less press coverage available pre-1985 than post 1985. (e.g. NewsBank has 45 or 55 snooker articles each calendar year for 1982 to 1984; 292 for 1985; and over 600 articles a year for the rest of the 80's.) For legacy, I've got Davis's latest autobiography (signed by him in-person!) and coincidentally I picked up White's 2015 one from the library last weekend. I also have some other stuff that may help. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an additional paragraph (and a bit) regarding the legacy TRM, is this the sort of thing you are looking for? I'm yet to find much particularly notable about the commentary team, but I've added bits on the competitors post-match comments, as well as their futures, and even a little on Jimmy's drug use (might be too far, a little tangental?) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look at this today. I can see several issues in the refs (e.g. inconsistent ISBN formats, publisher names in article titles, inconsistent author name format, etc) so those will all need to be resolved too. I'll try to list them out later. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man - I removed the Guardian ProQuest links as there were no urls and access to that database is quite difficult (e.g. for me I need to be on-site at the British Library), whereas there are other easier ways to get access to old Guardian articles - e.g. via newspapers.com. I'm thinking that I should probably also remove all the "via The Times Digital Archive" statements, as, without a url, that info is not very useful. What do you think? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • General - yeah, if you’re not linking to the archive, not sure you need the "via" in each case.
  • Now linked at first instance.
  • Ref 4 vs Ref 5 vs Ref 6 etc - format of "Snooker Scene" is inconsistent.
  • Ref 2 vs Ref 14 vs Ref 18 - inconsistent snookerdatabase format.
  • Ref 19 etc - Crucible Almanac has no publisher, ISBN etc.
  • Refs 25, 52 - can you demonstrate that cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk is RS?
    • This one is discussed a lot. The site itself was written by Chris Turner (now sadly deceased), a noted "snooker historian"[35], [36], [37], was the statistician for Eurosport for many years. Various conversations about the reliability of the source have been discussed at WT:SNOOKER, but never really come up to much of a consensus. What I do see, is that this source is used almost as a defacto resource for results across wikipedia, so we may need to look further into this. My experience is that we take into account where else the author has written when discussing reliability of the source itself. Happy to look for a replacement if not suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29 - just checking, no author information?
  • Ref 45 vs Ref 1 - you have Global Snooker in non-italics but World Snooker in italics, what’s the logic?
  • Ref 56 - publisher, why not consistent, i.e. BBC Sport?
  • Ref 57 - no need for website title in ref title.
  • Ref 58 - no need for website title in ref title.
  • Ref 63 - can link author, and should be pp. 78–81. And it should be Second Wind.
  • Ref 65 - is that in German, if so language=German
  • Ref 66 - if using "snooker.org", that’s presumably a website, so italics.

The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Ref 6 and ref 29 need consistency.
  • ISBNs still not formatted consistently.
  • I suggest if you link each work/publisher each time, you should link each author (where possible) each time.
  • Ref 25 and ref 50 need consistency.
  • Ref 62 needs an en-dash.
  • Ref 54 is definitely BBC Sport, not BBC.

The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, I think I'm done here. Really good work both Lee Vilenski and BennyOnTheLoose, happy to support this now. Oh, and I might submit this paltry offering to the WikiCup if it's deemed suitable... Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image use and licence are OKish, as are their locations. ALT text is so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Please work with Jo-Jo Eumerus to determine what can be improved here and polish it up. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Jo-Jo Eumerus, could you be a little more specific? I'm a little shaky on what things should/should not go under commons licenses. There's three images in the article, so I've tried to add what I can (and I had missed an ALT, which I've amended.) Anything that I need to do, let me know. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I am a little uncertain too. The thing with the ALT text here is that "Photo of " is arguably unnecessary; ALT text doesn't need to describe the image, just provide the same essential information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No issues, in that case, I have removed these from the alt text. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was there anything else Laser brain or Jo-Jo Eumerus? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2020 [38].

Magnavox Odyssey

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 14:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third in a series of early video game FACs (Spacewar!, Computer Space), here we have the Odyssey, the first video game console. Released in 1972 after 6 years of development and 21 years after Ralph Baer first had the idea, it had the good fortune to come out not only the year after Computer Space proved arcade video games could be a thing, but only a couple months before Pong, allowing for a mutual sales growth for both of them due to how similar Pong and the Odyssey's Table Tennis were. Though, as 20 years and US$100 million of lawsuits in Magnavox's favor proved, that wasn't exactly a coincidence. Calling one of Baer's patents for the console "the pioneering patent of the video game art", as a judge did, is frankly pushing it, and calling him the father of video games requires ignoring a lot of earlier video game history, but it's safe to say that his work on the Odyssey launched the entire concept of video games in the home before any other company had even considered the idea. It draws a line and three dots, and not much else, but the Odyssey is one of the first parts of the multi-billion dollar video game industry. I originally wrote this article in 2016, but worked it up to bring to FAC now due to better sources only recently coming out. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Spicy

Quite a well-written article. Speaking from the viewpoint of someone who's not particularly interested in video games, I found this a very accessible and enjoyable read. Comments below.

Not a full image review, but I have a couple of concerns about the images:

(I'm not an expert on image copyright, though, so would appreciate feedback from more experienced image reviewers).
  • I'll hold off on a full image review before removing the two images, though I understand your point and won't argue it. I disagree on the final point- a digital image representing the visual elements is very different from the fuzzy analog shapes that would have been shown on a television in 1972, and I think that an actual picture of a CRT television showing a game is more relevant than a clean digital reproduction, even if it's fair use. I appreciate your point that it may still be free use- I'm not sure, I was playing it safe since it was a crop of someone else's television set. --PresN 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the white dots and lines are simple enough to be free use. But then you should take a free use picture of the TV and game, and not rely on an uncredited internet image. Also consider CRT emulators. - hahnchen 10:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose:

  • It is capable of displaying three square dots on the screen in monochrome black and white, with differing behavior for the dots depending on the game played, and with no sound capabilities. - it seems a little jarring to introduce the final part of the sentence with “and”, because it’s talking about what the console can't do, while the sentence opens by talking about what it's capable of
  • The Odyssey console came packaged with dice, paper money, and other board game paraphernalia to go along with the games” - “go along with” seems informal; what about something like “to accompany the games”?
  • The idea for a video game console was thought up by Baer in August 1966 - “thought up” also seems informal, would replace this with “conceived” or similar
  • The reset button does not reset the game, but instead is used by different games to reset individual elements - is “by different games” necessary?
  • The games include plastic overlays which stick to the television via static cling, to create visuals for the game - do we need "for the game"? Seems like this is implied
  • Different games that use the same game card can have different overlays - the first “different” seems unnecessary, and in fact confusing, since the “different games” are actually the same things with different overlays
  • and demonstrated it for months prior to Magnavox dealerships and media. - seems like there’s something missing here? “prior to its appearance in Magnavox dealerships…” maybe? (have not read the sources so just guessing at what might be meant here)
  • Magnavox won more than US$100 million in the various patent lawsuits and settlements involving the Odyssey related patents - is it necessary to specify “patent lawsuits” when you later say "involving the Odyssey related patents"?
  • Done; done; done; tried to adjust to make it more clear that what it resets depends on the game; done; done; tweaked (it was demonstrated to the dealerships + media over that summer); Done. --PresN 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: Thanks for the review! Responded below both sections. --PresN 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicy: I've now removed the two images you raised concerns about and replaced the third with your suggestion, as the consensus seems to agree with you on that, so I believe I've now addressed all of your points. --PresN 04:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now that the image issues have been resolved & the article has been reviewed by people knowledgeable in the subject area I am happy to support. Just want to add that I think you'd have a valid fair use claim for the image of the overlays, since it's an integral part of the gameplay and there is no free alternative. Spicy (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Indrian
  • "It was developed by a small team led by Ralph H. Baer at Sanders Associates and released by Magnavox in the United States in September 1972 and overseas the following year." - I know we do not want to get too complex in the lead, but this is not quite accurate. Baer and his team at Sanders developed the internal hardware, but a console is more than that. The casing, the controllers, the circuit cards, the overlays and other pack-in materials, etc. were developed at Magnavox or at other partners of Magnavox. So to say that Baer developed the console is misleading.
  • Reworded a bit to not imply that Baer et. al. did literally everything
  • "It is capable of displaying three square dots on the screen in monochrome black and white" - It can also display one line of varying height.
  • Added
  • "Players place plastic overlays on the screen to create visuals" - Nitpicky again, but placing the overlays is not an act of "creation" by the players, which implies they are building something out of parts or whatnot.
  • Tweaked (display)
  • "The games do not make sounds or track scores." - Should probably refer to the system itself here as opposed to the games?
  • Done
  • "Baer's patents for the system and the games" - More nits to pick. One of the important patents was Baer's, but the critical patent relating to machine-controlled objects changing vectors belonged to Bill Rusch.
  • Well, I only discuss the '480 and '285 patents in an attempt to streamline it, though you're right that '285 is awarded to several of them, and the one I don't discuss was to Rusch. Reworded.
  • "The release of the Odyssey marked the end of the early history of video games, the beginning of the first generation of video game consoles, and the rise of the commercial video game industry." - This is original research based on how Wikipedia organizes information rather than how scholars at large necessarily do. And it cannot really be considered the start of the rise of the commercial industry when Computer Space predated it by a year.
  • Hmm, reworded- I don't want to lose the concept, as I think it's important to the lay reader to see that while it's not literally the first commercial video game, when it launched there was only Computer Space and I guess its '"Star Trek clone, which relatively few people ever played, and by a few months after it launched between it and Pong there was beginning to be an "industry", or at least the idea that commercial video games were possible.
  • Its a little better, but I am still not completely satisfied. The problem is that "early history of video games" is a Wikipedia organizational concept. I know you want to get that article name in the lead somehow, but its not really accurate to say that the Odyssey was transitioning out of anything. Its creators did not see it as some kind of transition in computer games. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, alright, redone in the lede and legacy sections. I should just stop trying to shoehorn in these links with awkward phrasings; I really do it just to push readers to check out the rest of semi-related history but it's a stretch here.
  • "which allows the player to switch the television input between the Odyssey and the regular television input cable, and presents itself like a television channel." - It is probably worth mentioning that the Odyssey tuned to Channels 3 or 4 specifically, and that this became a video game industry standard.
  • Eh, added; I know it became a standard, but as the 'first' quite a lot of it became a 'standard' for at least a while, and the 3/4 thing stuck partially because most regions didn't have strong tv channels on both of those, so it's possible that even if the Odyssey had never existed, the new 'first' console would have done the same.
  • "In addition to the overlays, the Odyssey came with dice, poker chips, score sheets, play money, and game boards much like a traditional board game." - I do not believe the Odyssey came with any game boards. The only game that used a board, Invasion, was sold separately. On the flip side, it did ship with card decks, which are not mentioned here.
  • Replaced
  • "While the commercial video game industry did not yet exist at that point, the very first electronic computer games had been developed at the start of the 1950s, and by 1966 several early mainframe games had been developed for mainframe computers, which were typically only found in large academic or research institutions." - All true, but it really has nothing to do with Baer and his brainstorm and breaks up this material in an unhelpful way.
  • Condensed, rewrote, and moved to the end of the paragraph so as not to break up the thought as it definitely got away from me there, but I do want something like it early in the development section- as a million shoddy articles have shown, there's a common conception that Baer "invented video games", but what he invented in 1966 was the video game console and the ability to play a video game in your home- whether he knew it or not, by 1966 "video games" had existed for years, they just weren't commercial or available.
  • "by the time he finished it he was referring to it as Channel LP, short for 'let's play'" - This is a common misreading of the material. The hardware was never called "Channel LP." He called the signal frequency on which the hardware would transmit data to the television "Channel LP."
  • Fixed
  • "Baer instead commandeered an empty room" - Its all nitpicks today. I don't think Baer ever described commandeering a room at this point, just a technician. I think the technician just worked wherever he normally worked. The dedicated space would come later.
  • He did, actually, I don't recall which interview with him it was- he oversaw a group of ~500 of engineers/technicians (cite: Smith 143) in a fairly large space, and he had Tremblay work in a room that was far away from the main hallway so that he wouldn't get questions about it before he had something to show. "Commandeered" is maybe a bit strong- it's not like he needed to ask permission to use that room, it's just that he didn't go out of his way to tell anyone what the project in there was.
  • I mean, yeah the guy had to work somewhere. My confusion was just that he later secured an official project room that he kept secret. But I agree there is no need for a change here. Consider this struck. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Baer, meanwhile, collaborated with engineer Bill Rusch on the design of the console, including developing the basis of many games for the system." - This does not quite capture the relationship here. Rusch was not a design partner on anything at this point, but they did brainstorm some game ideas together.
  • Hmm, yeah, I'm combining the Feb-May 1967 discussions with the post-August development there. Fixed.
  • "by coming up with a way to display three spots on the screen at once" - Just as important was making one of the dots machine-controlled. Earlier dots were only movable by the players.
  • Fixed.
  • "Vice President of Marketing Gerry Martin" - He was VP of Planning for Console Products, not VP of Marketing.
  • Gah, that's clear in both Smith and Tristan, I don't know where that snuck in.
  • George Kent should get a shout-out. We don't know anything about him but his name, but he led the Magnavox team that transformed the Brown Box into the Odyssey.
  • May as well, done.
  • "The games for the system were designed by Ron Bradford and Steve Lehner" - Its probably worth noting that these were outside contractors working via Bradford/Cout Design, a firm that had done work for Magnavox's ad agency in the past.
  • Namedropped the firm, though it's previous history with Magnavox seems a little too much
  • I feel like the article skips over a lot of important details between Baer's design of the system and the September retail launch. These include: conducting customer surveys in California and Michigan, deciding to break the system out of the Color TV Division and assigning it its own product planner, the initial launch plans in terms of how many to produce and where they would be sold (geographic areas, not the dealer exclusivity part, which is covered) and how those changed over time, the official unveiling at Tavern on the Green in May 1972, and the roadshow that followed over the next few months. Some of these things are mentioned in passing, but I think it can all be fleshed out a little for comprehensiveness. All of this info can be sourced to either Baer or Smith.
  • Yeah, this and the previous two points are things that I tried to flense away to avoid bogging down the reader with small details; adding them back in.
  • "the company hoped that as the first such product" - The first what? I realize its the first home video game, but the article has not actually connected the dots here.
  • Now connected earlier, and connected here again since it's a ways later
  • "Other sources have stated that dealers misled customers to sell more televisions" - I think its more accurate to say that other sources state that dealers may have been misleading. There is not proof, just reasonable speculation.
  • Yeah, that's fair.
  • I think a little fleshing out is needed on the post-launch period as well, including Don Emry producing new games and Bob Fritsche proposing several extensions of the line that were rejected. Its probably also worth noting that, per Smith, the system was discontinued and replaced with the TTL-based 100 and 200 largely due to manufacturing costs. Again, I know this is touched on briefly in the legacy section, but its probably better served being fleshed out and moved into the narrative around the performance of the system in 1973-75.
  • Expanded both the Reception and Legacy sections a bit with this- Legacy for plans made for the Odyssey itself (even if they didn't happen), and Legacy for the 100/200 bits.
  • "no other true home video consoles were produced until the 1976" - They are all video game consoles, putting "true" on there feels like OR.
  • Reworked to avoid that word- there's a real distinction to be made between a console that only plays what it comes with and a console that can play games created for it after release, but that was a clumsy way to do it
  • "saw a demonstration of the Odyssey at a dealership" - The demonstration was at a hotel. It was part of the roadshow Magnavox did between May and September
  • Fixed
  • "The root of the conflict was a pair of patents by Baer" - As above, one by Baer and one by Rusch.
  • Reworded
  • So there are a lot of patents that flew back and forth, which I think is where the confusion here lies. There are some patents with Baer's name, some with all three names, and some with just Bill Rusch's name. The two patents that were actually litigated and ruled upon in multiple cases were the '480 patent (US3728480) and the '507 patent (USRE28507E). The '507 patent is the one that secured Magnavox most of its judgments, because the '480 patent was more conceptual and the '507 patent was concrete. This was the big patent in the original suit decided in 1977; this was the patent that Activision fought literally to the death (or at least bankruptcy), and this was the patent that Nintendo tried to invalidate (alongside a reissue of the '480 patent, U.S. Patent No. Re 32,305, just to confuse the issue even more). While the patent you are currently citing, US3659285A, is quite similar to the '507 patent, its the wrong patent because '507 superseded it. And '507 is Rusch's alone. So we still need a little work on this one. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, learning a lot about patents here- specifically, I saw a mention of a '284 patent somewhere, but then not again so I didn't include it. RE'507 is, as it turns out, the reissue of '284 (US3659284), but there's no easy linking in either the espace or google patents sites- you have to look at the actual patent, where it's written on the first page, and the fact that it's a reissue is why it has an application date in 1974- the original was in 1969. And now that I'm specifically looking for it, I see Smith referring to the '507 patent as the other important one besides '480, just as you say here. Good catch, thanks! Fixed, I hope.


On the whole, I think there is a lot of good information in here, but I believe we are still a little short of meeting the comprehensiveness FAC criteria. We are not that far off though, so I can see myself supporting before the end of the nomination period. In addition to mining Baer and Smith a little more, I would recommend sourcing DP's interview with Don Emry, which it appears has only been referenced indirectly through other sources that used pieces of it. Indrian (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to all but the more open-ended post-launch bullet point, which I'll sort out separately. Thanks so much for reviewing this in such depth! --PresN 03:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Indrian: Okay, responded to the last one. I haven't used Emry's interview- while it's a good interview with some useful bits, I'm not confident that I can justify DigitPress as a source in this FAC, even if Smith used it as a source- it looks like an interesting site/forum, but while I'm personally lenient when it comes to interviews it's hard to say it's an RS. I actually culled a couple Baer interviews just before nominating for the same reason- small hobby sites are hard to swing. --PresN 02:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: I don't think anything critical has been missed in the Emry interview, so that's fine, but I don't see a reliability issue. The interview subject is the source of the content, not the hobby site, and Emry is a reliable source on things that happened at Magnavox while he was there. The only time the reliability of the site would be in question would be if there was reason to believe the interview itself was a forgery. Anyway, you have cleared up nearly all of the issues I had with the article. Two more still need some attention, but we are getting close. Indrian (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Joe

Should get to this soon. JOEBRO64 14:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not terribly familiar with console articles, I'm doing a prose review. Starting with the lede and design:

  • I'd add a "(1972)" after Pong in the lede.
  • "The controllers, which are designed to sit on a flat surface..."
  • "Different games direct the player to adjust the dials to different positions, for example to change such as changing the center line of a tennis game into the side wall of a handball game." I think it flows a bit better this way.

That's all for now. I should have more time later this week for a full review, but it's looking great so far. JOEBRO64 21:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PresN: I looked through the rest of the article and nothing glaring stood out to me. The only comment I have is on the Reception section. Do you think it'd be better to retitle it "Sales"? That seems to be the main focus. Otherwise I'm ready to support. JOEBRO64 12:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support by David Fuchs

Yell at me if there's nothing here by the beginning of next week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: poke. --PresN 02:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is in pretty good shape, and there are only a few issues I have before supporting.

  • General and prose:
    • Overall I think the article meets criteria with regards to layout and structure; it covers the overall parts of the topic appropriately, and from my look into sources I didn't see anything that seemed missing.
    • The prose still needs a bit of work, primarily in reducing wordier sentences. Even simple stuff like Loral did not decide to pursue the idea to Loral did not pursue the idea would help.
  • Images:
    • I agree with Hahnchen above about File:Magnavox-Color-Screen-Overlays.jpg and File:Magnavox-Odyssey-Accessories.jpg; the use of original art seems too high to meet public domain thresholds to me. Likewise, while I understand why you want to use an example of what the gameplay "actually" looked like with File:Magnavox odyssey gameplay.jpg, I don't think the fair use rationale is strong enough; it could be replaced by a free alternative that isn't as good, but the article isn't significantly harmed by its loss.
      • Alright, well, there seems to be a consensus on that, so replacing/removing images.
  • References:
    • Referencing schema generally seems internally consistent. Doesn't appear to have issues with excessive reliance on single sources, or reliance on primary sources.
    • I did spot one or two places where it looks like the publisher should be italicized (Diehard GameFan,
    • THE USPTO filings seem like they're missing publisher information, and are formatting differently with regards to author location, etc.
      • That's just the way {{Cite patent}} renders, unfortunately- it doesn't seem to match the general CS1 pattern. I'm... hesitent to haul off and design my own version of cite patent, or make up a new format with bare text, but I can if you insist.
        • No, that's fine. Might be something to bring up at cite patent.
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 2, 3, 4, 7, 13, 16, 21, 23, 24, 26, 33, and 25.
      • Ref 2 is used to cite the following passage: The controllers, designed to sit on a flat surface, contain one button marked Reset on the top of the controller and three knobs: one on the right side of the controller, and two on the left with one extending from the other. The reset button does not reset the game, but instead is used to reset individual elements depending on the game, such as making a player's dot visible after it is turned off during a game. The system can be powered by six C batteries, which were included. An optional AC power supply was sold separately. The Odyssey lacks sound capability and can only display monochrome white shapes on a blank black screen. However the source does not include much of that info.
        • Okay, found it- there's no way I just made up something so specific as "6 C batteries", but completely losing a reference is unfortunately in character. That whole thing is from a PC World article, now added.
      • Ref 4 is used to cite In addition to the overlays, the Odyssey came with dice, poker chips, score sheets, play money, and card decks much like a traditional board game—while the ref mentions these items, it doesn't directly compare them to an analog board game.
        • That sentence has drifted over the course of this FAC; removed that comparison.
      • Ref 6 and 7 are used to cite {[xt|and the next morning wrote up a four-page proposal for a US$20 "game box" that would plug into a television screen and play games on it.}} I don't have access to 6, but 7 gives "perhaps, twenty-five dollars at retail", rather than $20.
        • The quote from ref 6 (Donovan p. 11) is "The next morning he set about writing a four-page proposal setting out his ideas for a $19.95 game-playing device that would plug into a TV set.". Since they contradict, I'll defer to Baer and change it.
      • Ref 3 and 21 are used to cite the Odyssey being a financial disappointment, but I'd note that several other sources used in the article (c.f. [39] specifically push back on that summation, so it might be worth including those takes.)
        • The article doesn't call it a "financial disappointment", though, it says "the Odyssey is not generally considered a major commercial success", and the VGHF article doesn't contradict that- it counters the narrative that it was a flop due to the 1972 overproduction, but does not go so far as to declare it a major success. And it wasn't, by all indicators- they cancelled most of the planned extra games, decided not to make further versions or accessories, and cancelled production within 3 years when inflation overtook the profit margin. It sold well enough that "flop" would be wrong, though you could argue about calling it a "disappointment" as the interview Indrian wanted me to add pretty explicitly said Magnavox felt that way, but "not a major commercial success" is pretty on the nose, I think.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Responded inline; thanks for reviewing and doing a source review! --PresN 04:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will take another look at the article this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did a minor copyedit, supporting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Masem

I am a VG editor so I am biased here but also well aware of this area having done a lot of work in this early history area recently.

  • "while doing so, Baer claims he had the idea to build something into a television set..." shouldn't this be past tense (particular with Baer now passed away?)
  • Fixed 2 places that implied present tense
  • "As a "game box" had little to do with the typical military contracts Sanders worked on, rather than bring the idea to his bosses Baer instead picked an empty room and assigned one of his technicians, Bob Tremblay, to work on it with him." I'd flip the back part of this sentence around, eg "...worked on, Baer picked an empty room and assigned one of his technicians, Bob Tremblay, to work on it with him rather than bring the idea to his bosses." (two "flipped" phrasings here , just sorting them out better).
  • Flipped
  • You may want to date the Brown Box prototype image since due to how you have images, its displayed a bit earlier than its discussed. Since you have the text well dated, stating in the caption that that prototype is from 1969 preps the reader that they aren't seeing the early prototypes being discussed.
  • Done
  • In the dev section you want want to briefly mention the patenting of the system which they did before seeking a manufacturing partner. Obviously you seek more on these later, but I think alluding to patenting in the timeline (as it would have been standard practice then) helps to show this earlier.
  • Done
  • In the Legacy section it is probably worthwhile to briefly note the connect to the Color TV-Game line from Nintendo since some of these were developed under license from Magnavox based on their later-generation Odyssey's. (see [40] if you need a ref).
  • I feel like it's getting far afield for this article to call out specific licensees of later Odyssey dedicated consoles, as this article is about the original Odyssey only, not the 100+ line.
  • In discussing the recognition Baer got, probably should also add how he is recognized as the "father of video games" or "father of home video games" (depending on which side one takes).
  • Added
  • Minor nit but while Bushnell is THE name for Atari, not including Ted Dabney at least once is a bit of a oversight. But it is Bushnell's story about the lawsuits over Pong/Odyssey so Dabney only needs a brief mention. Eg "Inspired, when he quit Nutting to start his own company, Atari, with Ted Dabney, he assigned..." would be sufficient.
  • Good point, added
  • Date Pong 's release in the Lawsuit section
  • Done
  • Reading on the lawsuit, mentioning the patents earlier in the Dev section might help the flow here. I don't know if you need to establish what the patents were in the Dev or this Lawsuit section, I feel they would fit better in Dev , and then that description doesn't break the flow in the Lawsuit section, but it could go either way.
  • Hmm, I think it's better to leave it here- as per the discussion above, there are other patents beyond those two, those are just the ones that were the basis for the lawsuits, so it'd be awkward to describe only a couple of patents in the dev section without explaining the context why those were more important for a couple sections. I do now mention that patents were filed in the dev section, as per above.
  • I believe (Based on what I researched over for video game clone that the Atari-Magnavox settlement also gave Atari perpetual licenses to the Baer patents, which was sorta critical for Atari to make the home versions of Pong. (based on "They Create Worlds", here [41]) This was something not afforded the others involved in the lawsuit (which were seen to judgement).
  • I think that is getting in the weeds a bit, and I'm not entirely sure the implication is true- specifically, while the settlement may have included that Atari bought a permanent license, there were a ton of Pong clones, so all the other manufacturers either bought limited or perpetual licenses themselves (and figuring out which was which isn't doable), and actually many of the lawsuits besides Atari were also settled and Smith doesn't specify their terms. It also implies that Atari got a better deal than others due to settling- which is an urban legend that isn't true (though this article used to say so as well), they arguably got a worse deal with the "Magnavox gets access to all their technology for a year" thing.

There's something else related to the lawsuit (on its importance to IP and video games) I could have sworn we had somewhere but I can't find it, but otherwise

  • Well, let me know if you remember it.

Also complete happenstance in trying to find a source, I came upon this article from the Video Game History Foundation on the advertising used for the Odyssey: [42] Yes, non-frees, but one could easily be justified, and also described the font used. --Masem (t) 15:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I use that as ref 16; I'm not actually convinced that I could use them as the article does not go into detail about the advertising for the console. I'll be replacing some images in a bit per Fuchs' review, so maybe, though. I don't think that the packaging/ads used a tweaked version of the "Moore Computer" font is non-trivial, that level of packaging detail isn't usually something we cover, as interesting as it is.
@Masem: Thanks for reviewing! Replied inline. --PresN 16:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think all my points were fairly addressed, the latter ones were more optional/thoughts, and as I said, if I can relocate this source that put the weight on the Magnavox suit as critical, I'll let you know or add it myself. --Masem (t) 19:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Sorry to bug; can you explicitly support if you're satisfied? I don't want the coordinators to miss it. --PresN 02:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am satisfied with the adjustments. --Masem (t) 04:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not do this when the reviewer hasn't explicitly supported promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, being bold and putting a bolded Support here then, since that's the magic word that the nominations viewer script uses when counting. --PresN 13:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Can you explicitly use the magic bold word support? Or not if you don't want to, but as per above it has to be you and words to the same effect don't count. --PresN 14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC.---Masem (t) 14:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference concern Support by Lazman321

[edit]

I am concerned about citation 3. The website is managed by a librarian who researches video game history as a hobby. The website is powered by WordPress, making the website self-published. Despite being self-published, the citation is the most used citation in the article, being used 11 times. Maybe I am worrying too much. What do you guys think, should this citation be kept, or should it be removed and either replaced by better sources or the statements that the citation supports be removed. Lazman321 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this as well, but the author of the Wordpress blog has published a book on video game history through a reputable academic publisher (CRC Press), so I believe it qualifies as a reliable source according to the guidance at WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Spicy (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the reference is a website containing research notes as he was writing the book; the book itself is used extensively as a source in the article, as it's a reputably published book and the the highest quality book yet written about the time period in video game history. Most of the notes made it into the book, so I cite that preferably, but some specific details (exact details of the internals/controls of the console, descriptions of all of the games, etc.) did not. It should be fine as a source due to the book; in fact the reason I waited years after I got this article to GA before bringing it to FAC was that I was waiting on the book to be published. --PresN 02:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this article is featured article status. I was able to read throughout the entire article and the details presented in an understandable way, along with the reliable sources used throughout and the amount of effort that was put into the article makes this a great article and one that deserves to be a Featured article. Lazman321 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Ultimate Boss

[edit]

I think the article looks amazing and is definitely ready for the gold star! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

We have a good amount of commentary but no support for promotion after almost a month open. I'm willing to keep it open for a few more days so see if we will have any significant movement, but otherwise it will need to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Indrian, TheJoebro64, and David Fuchs: to return. --PresN 18:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2020 [43].

French battleship Suffren

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of my ill-fated battleships, Suffren was the last predreadnought battleship built for the French Navy. She spent almost all of her career in the Mediterranean, frequently serving as a flagship. She was an unlucky ship before the start of World War I, twice colliding with other ships and she had a strange habit of breaking propeller shafts. Thoroughly obsolete by the beginning of the war, Suffren was ordered to the Dardanelles in late 1914 where she bombarded Ottoman defenses on multiple occasions. The ship was badly damaged when she collided with a British cargo ship at the end of the 1915. After repairs she spent most of 1916 in Greek waters. Suffren was ordered home to refit in November and she was sunk by a German submarine with no survivors en route. The article had a MilHist A-class review earlier this year although I recently overhauled it a little in preparation for this FAC. I'd like reviewers to look for the usual suspects like unexplained or unlinked jargon with particular attention to the prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm

[edit]

Will probably be claimed for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Bacon 18:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • General characteristics in the infobox, should maybe be qualified as (as designed), as the horsepower and top speed were different as designed and as in practice.
    • Trial speeds and horsepower generally exceed the specifications because the ship often isn't as heavily loaded as it would be in service and the designed figures are closer to what the ship could do in service. So I usually put which ever is lower in the infobox
  • For consistency's sake, use either 164.7 mm guns or 164 mm guns (one's used in the infobox, and the other's used in the prose)
    • Good catch
  • Coastal artillery is a duplink
  • "The armour plates were 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in) high of which 1.4 metres (4 ft 7 in) above the waterline and 1.1 metres (3 ft 7 in) below it - Feels like there's a word missing in this
  • Isn't conning tower armor normally included in the infobox for these ships?
    • Usually, but it's not a requirement. Everything in the infobox must be sourced in the main body, but not vice-versa.
  • "remained in the area until she fired her last mission on 31 December." - What does "fired her last mission" mean?
    • Her last gunfire support mission as mentioned in the preceding sentence.

That's all, I think. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 18:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, see if my changes are to your satisfaction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I was surprised to discover this was my first look at this. A few pretty minor prose things:

  • "the constant thickness of the waterline belt armour compared to Iéna's belt which thinned towards the ends of the ship" but Suffren's did too, didn't it?
    • Damn good catch. Caresse's article didn't mention the thinning of the armor in what is a pretty cursory description, but his book with Jordan provides much more detail.
  • perhaps add that the main battery turrets were on the centerline and move that link up?
  • the secondary guns are 164 mm in the infobox and 164.7 mm in the body
  • what is "special-steel"?
    • I wish I knew, Jordan & Caresse never explicitly state what it is.
  • link ship commissioning
  • "When Suffren was commissioned on 3 February 1904 in Brest" as you've already given the date
  • "Suffren accidentally rammed the submarine Bonite"
  • Escadre de la Méditerranée and Mediterranean Squadron are both used. Suggest choosing one, perhaps the French as it seems to predominate in unit names within the article.
  • "German battlecruiser SMS Goeben and the light cruiser SMS Breslau"→"Ottoman battlecruiser Yavuz Sultan Selim and light cruiser Midilli, both of which had been transferred to the Ottomans by the Germans in August"
  • predreadnought or pre-dreadnought?
  • suggest "The pre-dreadnought Bouvet assisted Suffren"
  • Asian side or Asiatic side?
  • "On 7 March the French squadron attempted to suppress the Ottoman guns while British battleships bombarded the fortifications." where?
  • "They returned to assist in the major attack on the fortifications planned for 18 March." which ones?
  • "Admiral John de Robeck's"
  • drop the comma from "she collided with and sank, the British steamer Saint Oswald"
  • "the French ship returned to theirits harbour"
  • "which was en route to the Austro-Hungarian naval base"
  • perhaps say that Cattaro was in the Adriatic

That is all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no worries, a pleasure as usual. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I have added this to the Urgents list hoping to get more feedback. Otherwise, it will need to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • The opening sentence of the body begins "To save time..." I think the body should be able to be read independently of the lead, so how about an introductory sentence that gives us the background -- was the French Navy building up strength at the time? Was this part of a string of builds? You mention Iéna as if the reader should know what that refers to.
    • D'oh! I've added a paragraph adding some context that I hope lays the groundwork adequately.
  • The biggest changes were the mounting of the bulk of the secondary armament in turrets, rather than Iéna's casemates, and the stowage of shells for the main armament increased from 45 to 60 rounds per gun. Suggest "The biggest changes were that the bulk of the secondary armament was mounted in turrets, rather than in casemates as in Iéna, and the stowage of shells for the main armament was increased from 45 to 60 rounds per gun." I think it reads more naturally if the two halves of the sentence have parallel structures, and this is one way to do that.
  • I looked to see if there was a suitable link for "Indret"; it seems it would be Naval Group, but perhaps that's not clear enough to be useful for the reader.
  • While a new shaft was ordered from Indret, Iéna's corresponding shaft: so Iéna was broken up after the magazine explosion and her parts used as spares?
  • The annual manoeuvres of the 1er Armée Navale began on 19 May and the ships were reviewed by President Raymond Poincaré, when they were concluded. What does "when they were concluded" mean? I think it means that the manoeuvres concluded on the day Poincaré reviewed the ships. If you have the exact date, it would be clearer to write "The annual manoeuvres of the 1er Armée Navale began on 19 May and concluded on xx May, when the ships were reviewed by President Raymond Poincaré."
    • Annoyingly, my sources do not give the exact date, but I've adopted most of your wording.
  • She remained in the area until she fired her last mission on 31 December. I don't understand what "fired" means here.
    • Reworded and combined with the following sentence.
  • Why were French ships prepared to fire on Greek ships in Eleusina? Were the Greeks allied with the Central Powers at that time? If so, how were they able to come to a peaceful resolution?
    • The situation was complicated, as the King wanted to remain neutral, but a significant portion of his gov't was pro-Entente and they split off to form a rival gov't in August. My sources do not cover why the Allies stood down, but it may have been something to do with the former prime minister, Eleftherios Venizelos, joining the pro-Entente faction several days later.

These are all minor points and I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over and pointing out several major flaws. I'm not entirely happy with some of my reworked text, feel free to make any further suggestions for improvements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think your revisions look fine; I'll have another look through but this is FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

[edit]
  • WP:BADITALICS proper names in non-English languages need not be italicized. Samples, 1re Division cuirassée (1st Battle Division), Contre-amiral (Rear Admiral). On that score, a query/suggestion, your choice: since there are so many foreign terms in the article, would it be more readable to define the French word in parentheses on first occurrence, and use English only on subsequent occurrences ... just to lower the amount of italics along with the ship name italics ??
    • Crap, I missed that bit about proper names of organizations not needing to be italicized. And I've so careful to properly code the multitude of italicizations! That will negate most of the italics in the article other than ship names, so I'm not sure it would be worthwhile to use just the English terms subsequently. Lemme de-italicize everything and you can decide if the plentiful French terms are still a problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two shells, fired with full charges, cracked the plate, but Suffren's turret was fully operational, as was her Germain electrical fire-control system and the six sheep placed in the turret were unharmed. Add a comma after system? It took me a while to figure out what sheep were doing in there to begin with (for testing purposes?), so maybe something can be added.
    • Reworked.
  • Pre-war ... magazine is linked twice in successive paras. Is there a distinction between the general and specific (naval) magazine ?
    • Interesting, the duplicate link widget didn't catch that. The latter term is more specific to ships which are generally more elaborate affairs than land-based.
  • Another shell tore a hole 80 millimetres (3.1 in) across in the bow which flooded the base of the forward turret ... "tore" feels somewhat dramatic for a 3-in hole, perhaps punctured or something else?
  • Not sure that Portugal needs to be linked when it follows closely by Lisbon, which will get the reader to Portugal. off the Portuguese coast near Lisbon, she was ...

Support. That's all I've got, nothing to hold off promotion, mostly queries and personal prefs, but the BADITALICS should be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandy, appreciate you taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2020 [44].

Limusaurus

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC), Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC), Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This little dinosaur may seem inconspicuous, but there are many interesting aspects to it. All known specimens were found stuck in what appears to have been mud pits formed by the footprints of giant dinosaurs (which gave it its name). while it had teeth when juvenile, these were entirely lost as it grew up, a feature only known from a few other animals. Adults appear to have been herbivorous, though it belonged in a group of otherwise carnivorous dinosaurs. In addition, its unusual hands were also thought to have implications for bird evolution, but this idea has fallen out of favour. The article was originally brought to GA by Lythronax, and Jens and I have since built further on this solid skeleton for FAC, so the entire literature about the animal should be covered here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • Caption: "Block containing holotype (green), gastroliths (red), assigned specimen (blue), and a crocodyliform (purple)". Should that be 'Block containing the holotype (green), gastroliths (red), an assigned specimen (blue), and a crocodyliform (purple)'?
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It underwent a drastic morphological transformation as it aged; while juveniles were toothed". I think that semi colon should be a colon.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is also confirmed". Suggest deleting "also".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As in most dinosaurs, the skull featured five principal fenestrae (openings), including". I am not sure that "including" is the right word when you go on to list all five. Perhaps replace "including" with a colon?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is also unique for this genus". Do you mean 'which is also unique to this genus'?fs
Yes, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had three fingers (the middle three, as compared to the five fingers of more basal relatives)". Optional: move the closing parenthesis to after "three".
Done, much more elegant. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third finger only had three phalanges". Optional: A) 'The third finger also only had three phalanges' B) insert a comma after "phalanges".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: Wiktionary link to "stout".
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unique for the genus"> Again, I think that 'to' would express your meaning more clearly.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another unique feature, the hallux (the first toe or dewclaw) was reduced". This doesn't really work. Maybe 'The hallux (the first toe or dewclaw) was reduced, another unique feature,"? Or 'Another unique feature was the hallux (the first toe or dewclaw), which was reduced.'? Or whatever.
Your first suggestion is correct, took it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only known specimen of Elaphrosaurus itself". Delete "itself". (What else would it be?)
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the Middle/Late Jurassic period". Optional: → 'during the Middle and Late Jurassic'.
Added "to". FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Along the lineage that led to birds, however, the number of digits in the hand decreased"> Does the "however" add anything?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which includes birds, two digits had disappeared from the hand, leaving three digits." Optional: delete the second "digits".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to not receiving the necessary signals". I think that this either needs further explanation (possibly a footnote?) or deleting.
Hope it is understandable now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The major alternative hypothesis supported by Xing and colleagues," A) "major" → 'main'? B) comma after hypothesis?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The divergent developmental pathways of ceratosaurians and tetanurans is associated with". "is" → 'are'. (Or "pathways" → 'pathway'.)
Changed to "are". FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tetanurans utilized their hands for grasping, while the hands of ceratosaurians almost certainly played no role in predation." This makes the assumptions that "grasping" only occurs when grasping prey, and that a reader would understand this. Perhaps a bit of tweaking?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will have a look soon, pinging my co-nominators Jens Lallensack and Lythronaxargestes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wang and colleagues analyzed". Suggestion: let the reader know when this was.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "growth had ceased in these particular individuals" I am not sure that "particular" adds anything.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most extreme case of tooth morphology changing with age among dinosaurs". Do we need a 'known' or 'recorded' somewhere in there?
Added "recorded among dinosaurs". FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the others are the red mullet and striped red mullet, several armored catfish, and the platypus)" Could we make this a separate sentence?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "genetic developmental signal pathways". Is there any way of making this a little more accessible?
  • "the small head with toothless jaws and long neck were interpreted as". When?
Added date. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gastroliths (stomach stones)". I know that you have Wikilinked, but perhaps expand the bracketed explanation? '(stones ingested to be used to grind fibrous vegetable matter in an animal's stomach)' or similar.
Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in old adults". Possibly 'in older adults'?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the increased amount of gastroliths". "amount" → 'number'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trapped on any other basis than size". Optional: maybe 'trapped on any basis other than size'?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it is yet unknown whether". Is there a missing 'as'?
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sedimentary rocks that was deposited". "was" → 'were'.
Changed, though I think "was" may have referred to "a succession". FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of a map to show where Xinjiang is within China? Ideally, also Shishugou Formation. Personally I like the two in Shishugou Formation.
I made a new map[45] that specifically shows the Wucaiwan locality (based on another published map showing an adjacent fossil locality). FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporaries of Limusaurus in the Wucaiwan locality include the theropods Haplocheirus, Zuolong, and Guanlong, the latter of which is, like Limusaurus, frequently found in mud deposits; the sauropod Mamenchisaurus; the ornithischians Gongbusaurus and Yinlong; the cynodont Yuanotherium; the mammal Acuodulodon; the crocodyliforms Sunosuchus, Junggarsuchus, Nominosuchus and an unnamed species associated with the holotype specimen of Limusaurus; and the turtles Xinjiangchelys and Annemys." The section after the semi colon is not grammatical.
disentangled. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The high abundance of Limusaurus indicates that the abundance of small theropods". Would it be possible avoid "abundance" twice in seven words> Possibly replace the first with 'incidence' or whatever?
Took incidence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The high abundance of Limusaurus indicates that the abundance of small theropods is underestimated elsewhere as these animals are generally less likely to fossilize." Is this universally accepted? It seems a bold statement to make in Wikipedia's voice.
Added "According to Eberth and colleagues". FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the article by Eberth and colleagues" → 'in the XXXX article by Eberth and colleagues'?
Added year. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a bit more context, authors and dates to other studies with this[46] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "range in depth from 1–2 m (3 ft 3 in–6 ft 7 in)" For clarity, consider changing the em dashes for the word 'to'.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "laminae": is there a link? If not, perhaps an in line explanation?
Added link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guanlong, would merely have been 66 cm (26 in) tall" → 'Guanlong, would have been merely 66 cm (26 in) tall'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "could have led to soil liquefaction, creating a trap for smaller animals". Why might soil liquefaction create a trap? (Rhetorical question.)
Fixed, hopefully. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much larger individuals likely got stuck in a highly viscous sediment and got preserved in their original death positions". Second "got" to 'were' or 'became'.
Changed to became. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four theropod dinosaur skeletons including two Limusaurus, two Guanlong and one individual of a not yet described species". I make that that the four skeletons included five individuals.
Oh yeah, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "low sediment cohesivity". What that?

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've gone through some issues, but I'll need my co-nominators to help with other parts in sections I didn't write. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many thanks for the detailed review. I think everything should be fixed now? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is nearly all looking good.

  • "Xu and collagues replied in 2011 that they still a step-wise shift more plausible" There is a word missing; or possibly several. And a spelling error.
Fixed both. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wang and colleagues analyzed growth rings (visible in bone cross-sections and analogous to the growth rings of trees) of the tibiae from the various developmental stages of Limusaurus in 2917". :-) Probably not.
We're dealing in millions of years here, how much difference do a few centuries to or from make... Fixed, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in smaller animals such as Limusaurus to get stuck". Grammar. Maybe 'resulting in smaller animals such as Limusaurus getting stuck'. Or (better, IMO) 'which resulted in smaller animals such as Limusaurus becoming stuck'.
Took the latter suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggest low sediment cohesivity". I think that "low sediment cohesivity" is going to sail over the heads of most readers.
I think Jens knows it best, so I'll leave this tasty morsel for him (oh, and you forgot to sign the nomination, Jens!). FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we loose too much if we just call it "soft mud". Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, much of those were my late night, half asleep additions from yesterday, should now be fixed, except the last one... FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it :-) . All good. Just the cohesivity issue outstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, last issue fixed now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from LittleLazyLass (Lusotitan)

[edit]

Given the triple nomination, there's less WP:DINO folks available to review, so I might as well chip in.

Thanks, yeah, that's always a danger, we're a bit low on manpower in the FAC department... FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skull section seems rather lopsided in terms of paragraph size, and as far as I can tell the information is not conveyed in any particular order (notice, for example, information on the jaws spread all across the section instead of collected together). It seems to me that about half of the section is spent talking about fenestrae, so why not put all that in one paragraph and then the rest of the info in the second? It would balance things out and make it feel more organized. Merely a suggestion, but I thought it would be worth bringing up.
It follows the order "Cranium" (first paragraph) and "Lower Jaw" (second paragraph). The lower jaw does not belong to the cranium, that's why I thought it should go into a separate paragraph. Teeth are discussed at the very end since this is the usual order followed in the literature. We could, however, make three paragraphs out of it ("Fenestrae", "other cranial autapomorphies", "lower jaw"), would that improve things? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's there is fine now that it's been explained. I just didn't appreciate the logic of the order. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 07:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest renaming "Classification" to "Classificiation and evolution", because I don't think the current title really encompasses "Digit homolgy" very well.
good point, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was often considered an ornithomimosaur from 1928 and well into the 1990s - I'm not sure what "and" is doing there, "from 1928 well into the" seems to convey the intended meaning in a clearer fashion.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Together with an as-of-yet unnamed taxon represented by specimen CCG 20011 (formerly assigned to the tetanuran Chuandongocoelurus, and not included in other analyses), the three taxa formed the clade Elaphrosaurinae - this should say "the two taxa", since "the three taxa" is referring to the aforementioned taxa. The current wording implies three taxa plus CCG 20011.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the part "(formerly assigned to the tetanuran Chuandongocoelurus, and not included in other analyses)" is really needed here, thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This info could be useful, but I also think that there is excessive detail that makes the sentence convoluted and difficult to read; I would support simplification and remove this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would likewise say to cut it; while it's technically background info, it's just an incorrect classification, so it communicates no relevant info about what this specimen actually is. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed for now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which Rauhut and Carrano used to extrapolate the complete length of the former taxon at 6.0–6.3 m (19.7–20.7 ft). - it seems reasonable to note that Limusaurus clarified the position of Elaphrosaurus, but I think talking about the size of said relative is digressing a bit too much - how exactly is this passage relevant? I would cut it.
yes, done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added it because Limusaurus was the "key" to a more accurate size estimate after so many years of uncertainty, and because it is interesting to note how much larger it was. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, fair enough then. If you go to User:Lusotitan/sandbox you'll find a slightly restructured version of the section with the statement re-inserted. I changed the wording a bit to put more focus on how it was the size estimate was made possible by the discovery of Limusaurus. The purpose of the restructuring was to place the sentence in the first paragraph. While it may seem intuitive to place it with the other info from the same paper, I think it fits better to talk about its impact on our knowledge of Elaphrosaurus right after we introduce the idea that they're related, as opposed to in the middle of the paragraph about them moving to Noasauridae. It also happens to balance out the paragraphs quite nicely. No obligation to follow this, you could just put it back in like it was, but I thought it was worth making the suggestion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the way the section is written is chronological, study by study, though, so it seems kind of misplaced to have this info upfront when it wasn't even considered or had an impact until 2016. Putting it at the beginning would make it look like it was conclusions already made in the 2009 description of Limusaurus. Also, I'm a bit uncertain about saying "the closely related Elaphrosaurus" already at the beginning of the section, because though the 2009 paper made comparisons between the two, it did not yet consider them "close relatives", as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They found the two to nest together in a cladogram in the supp. info; and your version already says they're related, it's just that you do it in parentheses. If you think that keeping it strictly chronological is better (I disagree) than that's fine, as I said it was just a suggestion. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back with your new wording. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cladogram below shows the position of Limusaurus within Noasauridae according to Wang and colleagues, 2017: - pretty big concerns with this; first of all, neither tree appearing in the paper shows such a cladogram. Both instead show Deltadromeus, Genusaurus, and Velocisaurus as noasaurines. One of them also shows Spinostropheus as an elaphrosaurine, which seems like a very relevant detail to include in this section.
I'm not sure when this cladogram was added, but it would seem there are also newer ones we could use, anyone have suggestions for what would be the best, most inclusive one to add? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cladogram is in the supplementary information of the paper, the last one (including both juvenile and adult Limusaurus as seperate taxonomic units). But this also makes that cladogram unusual, and its difficult to declare why we use this and not one of the other versions presented. Let's just use the cladogram published in the recent Huinculsaurus paper instead, I can include it later today. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the cladogram. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In restructuring the section you misplaced the reference for the Wang et al. paper; reference four should be included at the end of this sentence: significantly through growth. A 2019 study by. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added back. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (continuing from the above point) Why is the cladogram restricted down to just Noasauridae? Retaining the original extent that also shows "Ceratosauridae" and abelisaurs would be more informative, and it isn't like it would be much larger anyways. As is it's just a tiny polytomy that is barely useful at all. Related suggestion, the "Etrigansauria" paper could be sourced used instead, being a similar but more recent tree; you could perhaps go for a paired cladogram format to show both theories as to whether Noasauridae or Ceratosauridae is closer to Abelisauridae.
The "Etrigansauria" do not seem to get much support however, the paper seems to reflect a minority opinion, and therefore maybe is not the best choice. Let's just go for the most recent cladogram. They are usually restricted to Noasauridae though, so not sure if we can "expand" them without violating WP:Synth? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also say that the wider interrelatiobships of Ceratosauria aren't that important here, maybe if it had been in Noasaurus, which is more important for the history of the clade. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cladogram you've gone with seems agreeable. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a similar vein to the lack of mention of potential relative Spinostropheus, the recently described Huinculsaurus was found as an elaphrosaurine so is also worthy of mention in this section.
Huinculsaurus is mentioned now; what makes Spinostropheus more relevant than the other unmentioned noasaurids? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the trees from Wang et al. (2017) found it within Elaphrosaurinae, so it seems to me relevant to include a (very brief) mention that it's a possible member of the group. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hint, Spinostropheus is now mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biologist Josef Stiegler and colleagues stated in a 2014 conference abstract that Limusaurus is the earliest known toothless theropod - the original description paper of Limusaurus says this as well, so it seems preferable to cite it to that, where one can assume Stiegler got that fact from in the first place.
I can't find this in the 2009 paper? It says it's toothless, yes, but not the earliest known, as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LittleLazyLass, all other points should now be addressed, but neither one of us could find this specifically mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the paper's statement Limusaurushas a fully developed rhamphotheca. Amongnon-avian theropods, this condition has been previously reportedonly in some Cretaceous coelurosaurs8, so this new find extendsthe distribution of rhamphothecae within theropods both temporallyand phylogenetically., but in hindsight saying it has a fully developed beak is a bit different from saying it's toothless. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, but of course, a beak does not preclude teeth... FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most basal theropods had five digits on the hand. - this phrasing seems awkward, wouldn't "on each hand" be a less clunky way of saying this?
OK, but we must make clear that we are talking about manual digits, not pedal digits. "five digits in the hand" or "five digits in the forelimb" maybe? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The former sounds good to me. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 07:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • by the emergence of the group Tetanurae - I would probably link the word "Tetanurae"; it was done earlier in the article but that way back in the lead and this is a term meaning nothing to a layman reader.
did that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and has been used by paleornithologist Alan Feduccia to support the hypothesis that birds are descended not from theropods but from some other group of archosaurs which had lost the first and fifth digits. - are BANDits really so significant that they specifically are worth giving specific mention to amongst "200 years of debate"? It has no bearing on anything else in the section. I'd cut this passage.
Not sure, I think a bit of background is usually a good idea, and this is perhaps the most significant discussion related to the digit homology thing. But will see what my co-authors think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since he was the most vocal proponent of this idea, and is respected in ornithological circles, we can't really leave out mention of him just because we disagree with his ideas, per WP:NPOV. He was not exactly David Peters. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Feduccia is certainly relevant to the LDR/BDR hypotheses, and thus Limusaurus. Nevertheless, I think we should clarify the sentence to make it clear that the BANDit hypothesis is a fringe theory at best. Perhaps it can be rewritten as "to support the fringe hypothesis that birds..." Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it fringe, but maybe we can add "now widely refuted" or something similar to make clear that this hypothesis is a minority opinion? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would also be good. Fringe is just a nice way of saying pseudoscience anyways. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my main issue was that it's brought up but nothing else in the section ever comes back to it. In other words, it's relevant to the topic of the section but not to anything in the section, if that makes sense. It would be nice if there could be some resolution later about how Limusaurus provided evidence against this, but sources probably don't give anything to work with there. I won't pursue the issue further since how significant it is is rather subjective; it's inclusion or not has no bearing on me supporting or opposing. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But we'd need reliable sources stating that his ideas in this particular context (digit homology) are fringe or pseudoscience, which I don't think exist. It was legitimate, peer-reviewed science, but the conclusions reached from it have fallen out of favour, which the article already states in the intro and with these sentences in the article body: "and therefore have no bearing on the issue of avian digit homology", "and is unconnected to the pattern of digital reduction and frameshift that occurred in tetanurans". But what I think we need instead to counter the statement "to support the hypothesis that birds are descended not from theropods but from some other group of archosaurs" would be to see if one of the relevant articles directly refutes this part, stating that birds more likely evolved from theropods. I'm not familiar with that part of the literature used here, but we can have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added a counterclaim sourced to this multi-authored paper[47], so that it now reads: "to support the hypothesis that birds are descended not from theropods (wich is the mainstream view on bird origins) but from some other group of archosaurs" What do you guys think? FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make it its own sentence, but it looks a bit tacked on: "The mainstream view of bird origins among paleontologists is that birds are theropod dinosaurs." But I think the source is good for what we want to say, it can be arranged any way we like. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Saltriovenator description paper had quite a bit to say that's relevant to the digit homology section, so I think it's worth incorporating that into the section here. At the very least, Figure 15 of the paper seems like it would fit wonderfully into the section.
This is of course an important paper to include. Added now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the image would do well to be included, but it's not a deal breaker of course.
Whoops, I completely missed the good suggestion about the image, now added, of course! I moved the more general arm diagram up to description instead. Also spelled out Cristiano Dal Sasso and linked him. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the arm diagram to the left side; it goes against the direction of the image but having four images in a row be on the same side always look a bit awkward if you ask me. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's reasonable. Moved. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I layed it on pretty heavy for that Classification section, so I'll stop here for the moment. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the classification section was also the hardest to get into shape. FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juveniles began with one tooth in the premaxilla, eight in the maxilla, and eleven in the lower jaw (42 teeth in total) - I think some explanation of the math might be needed, this is quite confusing. I'm assuming the logic is that this is per side, so maybe swap out "in the premaxilla" for "in each premaxila" and so forth. But that still only makes 40 teeth, is one of the numbers here wrong?
It should be "at least 12" in the dentary, not sure what happened here. Corrected. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the next stage, the first, sixth, and eighth teeth in the maxilla, as well as the sixth in the lower jaw had all been lost (34 teeth in total), although the sockets were still present, and there was a small replacement tooth in the socket of the sixth lower toot - I would move the total number of teeth to the end of the sentence, since I was quite confused at how eight teeth were lost but the total only went down six until I read the bit about the replacement teeth.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the growth and diet sections could be combined? The latter is a singular paragraph and it builds off the section before it, even referring directly to the mullet and catfish comparison. This is another "just a suggestion" comment.
There is a detailed description of Limusaurus on the way I just learned, so I'm sure these sections will both grow a lot when that's out, so I think it's easier to keep them as they are, as the structure will be ready. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - ah. That's unfortunate. Where did you hear this? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can bring it over to WP:PALAEOPR once new research comes around. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current citation 19, a conference abstract which is a precursor to a coming article (it says so). And yeah, PR was also a good place to get a new look on the expanded Ankylosaurus FAC (still there if anyone has comments). FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I think I may have conflated that abstract with this statement in the Elaphrosaurus paper: "Further possible apomorphies of this clade that are currently unknown in Limusaurus, pending a more complete description of this taxon". But the level of information in that abstract certainly implies something bigger is underway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I likewise wonder if the social behaviour section would feel too out of place in the taphonomy section alongside the preservational information it builds off of.
I think we also need to consider where the reader would look for such info, and it probably wouldn't be under taphonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paleontologist Rafael Delcourt agreed in 2018 that assemblages of associated Limusaurus and Masiakasaurus specimens suggests these small ceratosaurs lived in groups. - this could be easily misunderstood as saying that Limusaurus and Masiakasaurus were found associated with each other, I think some re-wording is necessary.
Yeah, tried with "since both Limusaurus and Masiakasaurus have been found in assemblages of multiple specimens each, this suggests these small ceratosaurs lived in groups", better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I can find to comment on, good work. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, things seem in order now. I will pledge support for promotion. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a lot of improvements came out of it! FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • You imply that there is only one species in the genus but this should be spelled out.
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Limusaurus was the first known member of the group Ceratosauria from Asia. Along with its closest relative, Elaphrosaurus, it was a member of the family Noasauridae, a group of small and lightly built abelisaurs." This is difficult to relate to the classifications in the infobox. If I understand correctly, Limusaurus and Elaphrosaurus are genera of the group Ceratosauria, an unofficial classification which is part of the Elaphrosaurinae sub-family. These are all part of the family Noasauridae, which is part of the abelisaurs super-family, which is mentioned in the text but not in the infobox. Is it possible to make this clearer?
The hierarchy is Ceratosauria > Abelisauria > Noasauridae. I have reworded this sentence but I'm not sure it is an improvement. In particular, I cut out Abelisauria entirely. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which has implications for the evolution of birds, though this has been contested." You first state the implications as fact, then as contested, then in the intro to the FAC as out of favour.
Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably corresponded to a dietary shift from omnivory to herbivory" This does not seem logical as most herbivores have teeth.
Not so in dinosaurs, where many herbivorous lineages modified their dentition into beaks. Indeed, even fewer carnivores lack teeth. I don't think your assumption is a common one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tip of its jaws was covered by a beak, a feature that was previously unknown in theropods more basal (or "primitive") than coelurosaurs". It may be me but I am not clear what this means. Are you saying that there are theropods which are less basal than coelurosaurs which also have beaks?
The group of theropods "less basal than coelurosaurs" is just the coelurosaurs, so yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still seems to me confusing as you only explain later under 'Classification and evolution' that Limusaurus was more basal than the coelurosaurs. Indeed, its basal status seems to be disputed, although the discussion is difficult for a layman to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the pelvis, the ilium was small and tilted towards the midline of the body, as is the case in Elaphrosaurus" "Of the pelvis" sounds odd and seems unnecessary. Why not "The ilium was small"? Also there is a change in tense with "was small" and "is the case".
The opening lays out that the paragraph pertains to the pelvic girdle and legs, so it is relevant. Reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that this review was going so I'll take some of these comments. Responses soon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Limusaurus is one of the only known jawed vertebrates where teeth are completely lost during growth." "one of the only known" is confused. Do you mean "one of the few known"?
Changed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Limusaurus is one of the only known jawed vertebrates where teeth are completely lost during growth. The other known examples are the red mullet and striped red mullet, several armored catfish, and the platypus. Its complicated pattern of losing teeth from both the front and the back is most similar to that of the avialan Jeholornis." You say that the only parallels are in fish and mammals, and then that the closest parallel is in avialans. This seems contradictory. Perhaps worth saying that this is convergent evolution?
There are two issues here: total tooth loss and the pattern of tooth loss. Reworded to note the difference. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image label: "Restoration of two Guanlong and a Yinlong, contemporaries of Limusaurus in the Shishugou Formation". "Restoration" is the wrong word "Artist's impression" would be better.
Restoration/reconstruction is the common term for illustrations of prehistoric animals (paleoart), used both in technical and popular works. In any case, "impression" would imply the artist had observed the animals, and I have never seen that term used in relevant sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A climate consistently dry with wet summers seems a contradiction.
Reworded to "relatively". It can be drier than other environments overall but still wetter during the summer. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that Limusaurus was in a layer 14-16 inches thick, and then that one of the mud pits containing specimens was 21 ft higher in the stratigraphic column than the others.
I think there is a mistake. According to the source the former should be 350–400 metres thick. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, certainly helps to get a "layman" review for clarity! FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've requested an image and source review. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All images seem like they are in a good section. Is the licence of File:Wucaiwan locality.jpg shown somewhere? File:Limusaurus size.png doesn't give the source images. Is File:Limusaurus-skull-diagram.png really an own work and freely licenced? No ALT text as far as I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
It is also stated on the journal's website[48], I added this link to the file page. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um... about this image - Wucaiwan is misspelt "Wucaivan". FunkMonk, can you correct this? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, fixed, remind me to not delete psd files for images with text haha... FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is a modification of Headden's skeletal[49], added to file description. The human is a PD image by NASA. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah thats correct (also my contributions rn are throttled by university). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Images seem now OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a peek at the sourcing. As it's quite late here I won't be doing a source spot-check unless asked. I am not so sure if BCC, CNN and The Guardian are good sources to use on a paleontology article, there should be more scientific sources available for these claims (#43 is a better use as it explicitly sources a statement on how media depict this thing, rather than the academic facts). All sources appear to be of the type that are expected at this type of article, but I notice that the available information (DOI, PMC, archivelinks etc.) often varies from citation to citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the news sources are used for circumstantial info that would be unnecessary to mention in scientific papers, such as how the animal has been depicted in life, and that some specimens were preliminarily considered different species from each other, and what the press called the "death pits" the animals were found in. Removing this info would not make the article better, so I don't see how we could remove those sources. In any case, those news outlets are not unreliable by any stretch of the imagination. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the citation bot. I don't think there are any other identifiers that can be added. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Any updates, or where are we on the review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we are OK unless someone wants a spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2020 [50].

Landis' Missouri Battery

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Bacon 21:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An understrength Confederate artillery battery, Landis' Battery was formed in Missouri in early 1862, may have fought in the Battle of Pea Ridge, and then spent the rest of it's combat career in Mississippi. After surrendering at the conclusion of the Siege of Vicksburg in mid-1863, it was not reformed. I've created this from a redlink and taken it through DYK, GAN, and MILHIST ACR. After a comprehensive rework after the ACR, I'm ready to take on the final leg of the Four award. Hog Farm Bacon 21:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Per my review at ACR (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I gave this a close look at ACR, and haven't a lot to add:

Lead
  • suggest "The battery fielded two 12-pounder Napoleon field guns and two 24-pounder howitzers for much of its existence,"
    • Done. Someday, I might write the 24-pounder howitzers article, in which case the link could be readded.
  • suggest "where the unit was commanded by Lieutenant John M. Langan, as Landis had been promoted." given the battery is named after him it is important to say what happened to him
    • Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body
  • say what sort of riot it was ie pro-secession
    • Done
  • "Price followed up the Confederate victory at Wilson's Creek"
    • Done
  • is "the anti-secession elements of the legislature had previously voted against secession" a repetition of "The state legislature voted against secession", or did this vote occur after the pro-secessionist elements were ejected from Jefferson City?
    • Clarified that the second vote occurred in July. I think it's important, as it underscores Missouri had two rival governments at this point
  • "The battery was assigned two 12-pounder Napoleon field guns"
    • Done
  • "However, several sources indicate that the battery did not see action in the battle" do they specifically say it didn't, or it is that they don't mention it?
    • McGhee explicitly states that the battery was not with the army at this time, and Barr states that the battery did not see combat (although Barr doesn't state if the battery was present in reserve or not with the army)
  • "on the night of May 29/30" as suggested by MOS:DATERANGE
    • Done. I wasn't aware of that part of DATERANGE
  • was Van Dorn's army the Army of the West? Suggest stating that Price was relegated to commanded a corps.
    • Done
  • "beggingbeginning the Second Battle of Corinth"
    • Oops. Fixed
  • "from the outer line"
    • Fixed. Evidently, I wrote this section too late at night

Down to 1863, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the defenses ofn the Big Black River" as the river itself wasn't being defended
    • Done. Good point.
  • as the battery wasn't involved, suggest condensing to "On April 29, Union Navy vessels commanded by Admiral David Dixon Porter bombarded the Confederate position at Grand Gulf resulting in the Battle of Grand Gulf, but Landis' Battery was not part of the Confederate front line at Grand Gulf.[35] Due to one fort which held out, Grant landed 24,000 men downriver at Bruinsburg," including relevant links, of course
    • Done
  • move the link to Vicksburg to the first mention
    • Done
  • suggest moving "During the campaign, Lieutenant John M. Langan replaced Landis as battery commander,[62] after the latter became divisional artillery commander within Bowen's Division.[63] The change in command occurred before Champion Hill.[61]" immediately after "During the battle, Landis' Battery provided artillery support for the Confederate center." in the form "By this time,[61] Lieutenant John M. Langan had replaced Landis as battery commander,[62] after the latter became divisional artillery commander within Bowen's Division.[63]"
    • Done
  • add |author-link=Richard Holmes (military historian) to Holmes entry in the Sources
    • Good catch, I'll need to fix that at the Battle of Newtonia article, too

That is all I could find this time around, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other things that occurred to me on a last read through:

  • suggest just adding field gun to the infobox for the Napoleons
    • Done
  • suggest moving the mention of Landis' promotion in the lead to the point where it occurred, along the following lines, "After Major General Ulysses S. Grant landed Union infantry at Bruinsburg in late April, Landis' Battery formed part of Confederate defenses at the Battle of Port Gibson in early May, after which Landis was promoted and Lieutenant John M. Langan took command. In mid-May, the battery was part of the defences during the Battle of Champion Hill."
    • Done, although I went with something slightly different that removed the second (somewhat repetitive) "defenses"

The rest have been addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Thatoneweirdwikier

[edit]

I'll take a look at this. Will be starting in about an hour due to the technical work going on soon. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 13:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In mid-May, it took part in the Champion Hill." Considering how the other sentences in the lede have been structured, I think a little variety would be beneficial.
    • Changed the sentence opening, does this help?
  • "...as much of his support was from the northern states, while he received no electoral votes from the Deep South." Replace ", while" with a semicolon.
    • Done
  • "The fort surrendered on the 13th." Change "the 13th" to "the next day".
    • Done
  • "Two days later, the Missouri State Guard suffered another defeat at hands of Lyon..." Should be "at the hands of Lyon", should it not?
    • Good catch. Fixed
  • "Price was eventually joined by Confederate States Army troops commanded by Brigadier General Ben McCulloch, McCulloch commanded the combined force." These two sentences feel awkward. I would suggest a rewrite. Also, there's a comma where there should be a full stop.
    • Rephrased
  • "After Port Gibson, Grant was faced with a choice: he could approach Vicksburg from either the south or the east. An attack from the east presented the better chance of a complete envelopment of Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton's garrison at Vicksburg, so Grant decided on that route." I think it would be worth presenting the reasons to go south as well.
    • Done

That's all I could find. Ping me when you're done and I'll change my vote. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 17:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from nominator

Well, I've become aware that the MOS would have this title be at Landis's Missouri Battery, rather than the previous one. I'll be moving it (if it'll let me move it over the redirect) after the relevant promotion/archival. Hog Farm Bacon 20:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • "Order of Battle – Confederate" has a last updated date, which should be added as the publication date.
    • Added
  • Given all the other sources include it, add a publication location to "Wright, William C. (1984)"
    • Added, had to get if off worldcat
  • Other than that, all citations are made in an appropriate, consistent format.
  • "However, several sources indicate that the battery did not see action in the battle." The definition of several includes "more than two", but only two references are provided.
    • Changed "several" to "other"
  • Bevier 1879 is a primary source, but is used in a limited manner, and only for factual statements.
  • Spotchecks on McGhee 2008 all check out.
  • Spotchecks on Bevier 1879 all check out.

Overall, this just needs a couple of minor changes, and then it will be sorted. Harrias talk 10:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Adding to the urgents list to hopefully get another review or two outside the subject area. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM

[edit]

I'll get to this tomorrow assuming I don't contract Covid. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I'm surprised to not see this at "Landis's" although I'm old school and prefer its current title, yet MOS doesn't agree I think.
    • See the note above, it's gonna be moved there after promotion/archival, although I prefer the current title as well
  • Is John M. Langan not notable enough for an article/red link?
  • "in the Champion Hill." surely "in the Battle of Champion Hill"?
    • Weird piped link. Fixed.
  • "the battery saw was part " remove "saw"
    • Removed. Apparently when I rewrote the lead, I didn't copy edit.
  • "the Siege of Vicksburg. While at Vicksburg, " quick repeat, why not just "While there.."
    • Done
  • Especially as you link Vicksburg second time round.
    • Well, it's the first time now...
  • Infobox red-links "24-pounder howitzers" (not surprised) but in the lead you just linked howitzer for this purpose, be consistent.
    • Went with the redlink. I hope to try to stub 24-pounder howitzers at some point.
  • "the northern states and the southern states over" the respective articles suggest these should be capitalised, e.g. Northern States/Southern States.
    • Done
  • " 1860 United States Presidential Election" presidential election.
    • Decapped
  • "after Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860. Lincoln's " quick repeat of Lincoln, why not "His..."
    • Yep. Done
  • "electoral votes" redirects to a general "electoral college" article, should really be pointed at United States Electoral College.
    • Fixed.
  • "On December 20, th" what year?
    • 1860. Added.
  • "nascent nation's" is nation the right word? Our article calls that collective a "state"?
    • I went with state. Whether or not the Confederacy was an independent nation is debatable. I'd say that if the US can give a founding date of July 4, 1776, then the CSA was comparably a nation, but the consensus of RS is that it probably wasn't a nation.
  • "the important military installation" important in what sense? According to whom?
    • Removed "important". I can't really explain that without going down too much of a rabbit trail.
  • "The fort surrendered on the next day" maybe an ENGVAR thing but I don't require "on" in this sentence.
    • Removed
  • "the important St. Louis Arsenal" similar to above, important in what sense and according to whom?
    • Nixed important. Importance was really on a local thing for that one
  • "Major General[b] Sterling Price" awkward, I would move to end of sentence and expand footnote to a proper sentence.
    • Done
  • "12-pounder Napoleon cannon" previously referred to as a "field gun"... Is there a difference between a "cannon" and a "field gun"?
    • Went with field gun. A field gun is a specific type of cannon
  • "defeat at the hands of Lyon, this time at the Battle of Boonville. The defeat at Boonville" repetitive.
    • Blended the two sentences together
  • " of his command, under the command of" likewise.
    • Rephrased
  • " Ben McCulloch" looks like his common name was Benjamin.
    • Fixed
  • " to full-strength" no need to hyphenate.
    • Removed hyphen
  • " 24-pounder howitzers" again red linked here, I doubt an "s" would ever be in the title anyway.
    • Moved the s to after the link. It's probably a notable cannon type; it's just an underwritten area.
  • " fighting[2] as" awkward ref placement, just end of sentence would be fine I'm sure.
    • I've actually rewritten the sentence so that the ref now follows a comma after a clause break, so it should be fine now.
  • " Corinth, Mississippi found" comma after Mississippi.
    • Added
  • "May 28[22] " awkward placement again.
    • Moved to end of sentence
  • " Iuka, Mississippi as" comma after Mississippi again. See MOS:GEOCOMMA.
    • Added. I always forget these.
  • "E. O. C. Ord " why not just "Edward Ord" per his article?
    • Personally, I get why the article is at Edward, not E. O. C. for simplicity, but the majority of ACW sources call use E. O. C. Ord. I prefer to stick with the nomenclature used by the sources. It's like P. G. T. Beauregard, sometimes the initials are just used more commonly.
  • "fought on September 19, Landis' Battery fought ..." fought, fought... repetitive.
    • Reworded to avoid the first usage
  • "had escaped from Iuka.[23] ... The escape from Iuka " repetitive.
    • Rephrased the second usage
  • I guess if you decide to go "Landis's" then you need to check for things like "Rosecrans' " as well...
    • Yeah. Changed Landis' and Rosecrans'. Did not change states' rights and four days', as those seem to be standard usage
  • " to Jackson, Mississippi for repairs." comma after Mississippi.
    • Added
  • "Due to one fort which held out," -> "One fort held out so..."
    • Done
  • John S. Bowen is overlinked.
    • Removed the second one
  • "After Port Gibson, the Confederates ... After Port Gibson, Grant was ..." repetitive.
    • Replaced the second one with Meanwhile
  • "By this time,[49]" awkward and odd, you've said nothing, move this to the end.
    • Moved this to before the NPS ref in the middle of the sentence.
  • "10[1] or 13" ditto.
    • I actually like this, as it makes it clear which source the different numbers are from. I'll change it if you have really strong feelings about it, though.
  • "15 were the result of battle, while six" MOSNUM, comparable items either all words or all numbers.
    • Spelled out fifteen

That's all I have, FWIW I'll claim WikiCup points for the review. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24

[edit]
  • Note to coords, I'm a non-expert here Aza24 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the extensive comments given above, these may be nitpicky, so take what you will:
  • This one may be just me (so feel free not to implement) but the "The unit may have suffered the capture of two cannons during the battle." might work better if combined with the previous sentence ("...at the Battle of Big Black River Bridge, during which two cannons may have been captured."
    • Done
  • This also may just be me "especially after (anti-slavery/northerner?) Abraham Lincoln was elected president..." – I know it's somewhat explained later but an "identifier" here might make it clearer to those very unfamiliar with the subject
    • Used abolitionist. Is that clear enough?
  • I notice that the background doesn't actually ever say anything like "The Northern states then formed the Union"
    • They didn't really specifically form it. They were just kinda what didn't succeed, and called their army the Union Army.
  • "Shortly after Fort Sumter was attacked" is implied (and redundant) since you just discussed Fort Sumter, would stick with "Shortly after" or "Shortly after the attack"
    • Done
  • The last paragraph in background has four sentences that begin with "On (date)..."; "However..."; "On (date)..."; and "On (date)..." – the on dates here get redundant – try and rephrase at least one, preferably one of the last two that are consecutive
    • Rephrased the last one and the however.
  • "It has been suggested that" – do we know who suggested... a historian I'm assuming?
    • The source isn't particularly over who exactly thinks it, so I went with "Archaeological evidence suggests ..."
  • Is it known how many officers were elected?
    • Unfortunately, not that I've seen.
  • "During the ensuing Battle of Iuka, which took place on September 19, Landis's Battery" may flow better as "During the ensuing Battle of Iuka on September 19, Landis's Battery"
    • Done
  • "Landis's Battery's two howitzers were sent to join the blocking force" – to me this sounds like only the howitzers were sent but I'm assuming members of the Battery were as well since there were casualties?
    • Added that the crews went as well.
  • I'm confused was the "one member of the battery was murdered" not killed in battle?
    • Not a combat death. Source doesn't specify exactly what happened, but probably a camp quarrel.
  • These are all minor comments of course, the article is in great shape. Lol, the biggest issue I see is that you use "Landis's" but the article is named "Landis'" – surely one should be picked and standardized? Aza24 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aza24: - Thanks for taking a look at this. I've replied to all above. Landis's is the correct form, and the title will be moved, but not until after this FAC is closed, so I don't screw things up. Hog Farm Bacon 14:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I agree that waiting to move makes sense and "abolitionist" is by far the appropriate term – I have no idea why that didn't occur to me. Anyways, all my comments have been fully addressed or implemented, I'm happy to support this article's promotion. Aza24 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2020 [51].

Discovery of nuclear fission

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the discovery of nuclear fission in 1938. It is better known than other scientific discoveries because nuclear fission led to the development nuclear power and nuclear weapons. It is also controversial. The award of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for 1944 to Otto Hahn (but don't mention the war!) raised issues about whether the discovery was about physics or chemistry, and what indeed is meant by a scientific discovery. It has also been touted as an example of the Matilda effect. This carries over to Wikipedia as well; in the English language version, Lise Meitner gets more page views than Otto Hahn, but in the German Wikipedia the reverse is true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Up to the start of "Discovery"
Looks pretty good so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the longest-lived having 13- and 90-minute half-lives" Wouldn't you list the longest first?
    No, why? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What they found was three different decays series, all alpha emitters—a form of decay not found in any other heavy element, and for which Meitner once again had to postulate multiple isomers. They did find an interesting result: these (n, α) decay series" should "decays series" be "decay series"?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you're consistent with hyphens in "half life" and "half lives".
    Settled on the hyphen, per out article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meitner departed for the Netherlands with Dutch physicists Dirk Coster." Were there multiple physicists or should this be "physicist"?
    Just one. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bohr Institute v. "Bohr's Institute". Wouldn't mind if it was lower case but ...
    Because it wasn't officially called that until 1965, but the name was in use before that. Corrected to use the possessive.
    This tale has a moral, tho' we knew it before.
    It's foolish to question the wisdom of Bohr.
  • Why is Fermi linked in the US section? He's been mentioned many times.
    Probably because the text was lifted from another article. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the Fifth Washington Conference at Princeton (which I found odd) or at Washington? You say both.
    At The George Washington University. My geography of the US isn't too good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "straight forward" rather than "straightforward" an Engvar thing?
    Possibly. Going with "straightforward". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A clearer timeframe for the first two paragraphs in "Nobel prize" might be helpful.
  • "During celebrations in Germany of the 100th birthdays of Einstein, Hahn, Meitner and von Laue in 1978," Does it matter that Einstein was born in 1879?
    It's apparently within the margin of error. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I didn't know much of this. Look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Hahn and Meitner in 1912.jpg — unclear copyright status, nominated for deletion

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

Excellent work, lovely prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, mostly typos and questions etc as my knowledge of physics and chemistry is very sketchy (though I will say I could understand 95+% of this story of discovery) ...

That's it. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fab, happy to support, JennyOz (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've requested a source review. Please let me know if there's one I'm not spotting. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imma make some comments on the sourcing. First, the |ref=harv can probably be removed. It seems like the source formatting is consistent and has the requisite information. I note that the bibliography relies heavily on books written by physicists - I take these are good enough sources for a heavily historical physics article? Likewise, many of the references are to individual academic papers. I am a little too unfamiliar with the topic to judge NPOV on the subject matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of the books in the References section are by physicists; Otto Hahn is the only chemist. The others are notable historians of science: Ronald W. Clark, Richard Rhodes and Ruth Lewin Sime. Sime wrote a biography of Meitner, whose article has been languishing at GAN since July. The article is almost entirely sourced from the secondary sources in the References section; the original papers are provided to allow the readers to look them up themselves, as is usual in scientific articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

I'm not really sure if the above comments were meant to be a formal source review but just in case I'll do one below.

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) 7 October 2020 [52].

Biblioteca Marciana

[edit]
Nominator(s): Venicescapes (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Marciana Library is the only institution of the Venetian government that survives and continues to function today. Founded in 1468, it is one of the earliest repositories for manuscript in Italy and holds one of the greatest collections of classical texts in the world. The historical building, designed by Jacopo Sansovino, is considered a masterpiece of the Italian Renaissance and contains works by the great painters of sixteenth-century Venice.

To offer Wikipedia readers a complete resource for the library in the English language, one that covers the history of the collection and the institution as well as the architecture and art of the historical building, extensive research was conducted. Texts by international experts were consulted, and numerous architectural-related images, including floor plans, diagrams, and details, were created to clarify the more technical aspects. A complete set of the paintings from the ceiling of the reading room was also included.

It is currently a Good Article and underwent an extensive peer review (here). My thanks to everyone who helped get the article to this point.Venicescapes (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a phenomenal piece of work. The only issue that immediately jumped out at me was (you guessed it) MOS:SANDWICH, wrt the copious imagery. However. You made a comprehensive—and more to the point, as far as I'm concerned, persuasive—argument against the strict application of that guideline—[53][54]—at the previous FAC. ——Serial 10:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I'm glad you enjoyed it. If there are any suggestions or corrections, please let me know.Venicescapes (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial, Thank you again for reading through the article. Are there any changes/corrections that might be necessary to earn your support?Venicescapes (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • I understand what you're saying about wanting a lot of images, but I think a bit of reorganization would help avoid things like displacing headings
I believe you’re referring to the subheadings in the Architecture and Interiors sections. I actually made a conscious decision after moving the images around and trying them in various positions. Basically, because there are several images on the left, some of the subheadings were inevitably pushed to the centre and hence out of horizontal alignment with the others. The result was not very attractive, and I felt that it was graphically better to keep the subheading aligned. So I used the images to force the subheadings into alignment. This, at least, was the rationale.
Given the number of subheadings plus the number of possible screen sizes you're unlikely to get all of them aligned on all screens with that technique - for example on my screen some are pushed centre and some remain left-aligned. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I looked at the page on three different monitors (15", 17", and 24") and thought that it worked. I certainly don’t want to take up too much of your time, but could you please let me know what you are seeing? Which subheadings are flush left and which are pushed toward the centre? On the three computers where I checked, I see all of the subheadings flush left, with the exception of those in the Architecture and Interiors sections (six in all) which are pushed toward the centre and into horizontal alignment with each other. These two sections have the highest concentrations of images. So it is inevitable that some headings will be pushed toward the centre. With that in mind, I forced them all into alignment, but only in those two sections. If it’s critical, I can continue to move images around to see if there’s a more attractive solution.Venicescapes (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Testing on my end, I can see what you see on my laptop, but on my monitor in the Building section the first Sansovino header is centred and the second is left-aligned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Thank you for looking again. That was not intended. I think I corrected the problem by shortening the caption and lengthening the actual text. The subheading should now appear flush left under the image.Venicescapes (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the caption details warrant sourcing - eg the nomination of Sansovino in 1529
I added references at the end of the captions. There are others that I can add, but I’ll need a few days to get the relevant book.
Nikkimaria, I was able to go to the library (there are only 54 slots each week because of Covid), and I added the remaining references for the captions. Is there anything else that I still need to do?Venicescapes (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Open question on File:Bessarion,_Letter_to_the_doge_and_senate_of_Venice.jpg below. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images (eg File:Biblioteca_Marciana-construction_plan.jpg) use only colour to convey meaning, which is a potential accessibility concern
I added letters to the images and corrected the captions/legends.
  • File:Jost_Amman-detail_from_Procession_for_the_marriage_with_the_sea.jpg needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Jacopo_tintoretto-diogene-cropped.jpg, File:Bessarion,_Letter_to_the_doge_and_senate_of_Venice.jpg, File:Giusto_di_Gand-Bessarione.jpg, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-1.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-2.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-3.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-4.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-5.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-6.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-7.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-8.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-9.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-10.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-11.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-12.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-13.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-14.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-15.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-16.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-17.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-18.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-19.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-20.tif, File:Biblioteca_Marciana-Sala_sansoviniana-21.tif, File:Marciana-catalog-Greek-codices.jpg, File:Marciana-catalog-Latin-codices.jpg, File:Bessarion-arms.jpg, File:Martianus_Capella,_Musica.jpg
I added a US PD tag for these. Please let me know if it is correct.
When and where was File:Bessarion,_Letter_to_the_doge_and_senate_of_Venice.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I’m not sure if you’re referring to the manuscript itself or to that particular photo of it. It’s one of three images that I found on Wikimedia Commons (the other two are File:Martianus_Capella,_Musica.jpg and File:VA024RN-0025.jpg). All three are photos of manuscripts. In the case of the Bessarion letter, the manuscript is from 1468. I don’t know when and where the first-ever reproduction of that manuscript was published, nor do I know if that particular photo of it was ever published and, if so, when and where. I could ask at the library, but I’m not sure if they would know.Venicescapes (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to the manuscript itself - just wanting to double-check that it would have met the legal definition of published before 1925. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, My apologies. I thought you wanted to know the age of the manuscript. I'm a little confused in that I'm not sure why the potential problem concerns that specific manuscript and not the other two. All three images are faithful reproductions of 2D documents (one from the tenth century, the other two from the fifteenth century). Would the situation not be equivalent to a 2D photo of a Renaissance painting? I'll be at the library again on Wednesday. Please let me know exactly what I need to ask.Venicescapes (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which other two? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other two are File:Martianus_Capella,_Musica.jpg (fifteenth-century manuscript) and File:VA024RN-0025.jpg (tenth-cenutry manuscript). I found all three in Wikimedia Commons.Venicescapes (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For those other two I can identify a pre-1925 instance of the works meeting this definition of "published". The letter's a bit trickier - are you aware of it having been reproduced in print? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, That is a good question. Certainly, it has been published in recent times. I can ask at the library if anyone is aware of its having been published prior to 1925.Venicescapes (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I found it in a magazine from 1914 (Emporium, Vol. XL, n. 235, p. 73). http://www.artivisive.sns.it/galleria/libro.php?volume=XL&pagina=XL_235_073.jpgVenicescapes (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, suggest adding that information on the image description page and this should be good. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I added the information. Let me know if there's anything else. Thank you for your patience.Venicescapes (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italy doesn't have freedom of panorama, so images of 3D works should include explicit PD tags for the original works, in addition to the photos
I assume that the observation is in reference to the two interior photos (reading room and staircase). I’m not sure which tag(s) are appropriate since these are 3D works of art. Whatever guidance you can provide would be most appreciated.
This applies also to buildings, but they can be treated like any other artwork with regards to tagging - copyright will almost certainly have expired due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria For the general tag on the images of the staircase and the reading room (in addition to the US tag), I used PD-old-70 which is the only one I could find that did not make reference to a 2D work of art. I hope this is correct. Do the exterior photographs also require tags, other than the photographer’s authorization?Venicescapes (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the same as the sculptural works. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I added the general and US-specific tags for all of the external photographs as well.Venicescapes (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tiziano-la_sapienza.jpg: under US law reproductions of 2D works don't warrant copyright protection - this should instead have a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Battista_franco,_diana_e_atteone.jpg, File:Marciana-ex_libris-1722.jpg, File:VA024RN-0025.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the reproductions of 2D works, I changed the tags. For the 3D works (with frames), I kept the photographers copyright release and added additional tags. Please let me know if this is correct.
Thank you for your time and patience in reviewing the images.Venicescapes (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Hello. I had a few questions regarding the appropriate tags to use (interspersed above). I would be very grateful for whatever guidance you can provide. Thank you again.Venicescapes (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

[edit]

Have read this a few times in the last few months, and edited directly edited or participated in talk page reviews. The article is a huge achievement; and Support with enthusiasm and a few minor/stylistic quibbles:

  • Lead; Do we need il più ricco ed ornato edificio che forse sia stato da gli Antichi in qua
Translations are, to varying degrees, interpretations. Some of the nuances and the tone can’t always be rendered in a different language. So I always prefer to provide readers the original text. I also think the native text adds weight. If you prefer, I could place the original Italian (and the German in the next quote) in separate notes, but I felt that they were not so long as to significantly interrupt the reading. Let me know.
Ok with retaining as is Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also significant for its art, the library holds many works by the great painters of sixteenth-century Venice - would remove "Also significant for its art"
I'm reluctant to remove this. Without that part, the art seems an afterthought whereas art historians consider the library extermely important.
I think holds "many works by the great painters of sixteenth-century Venice" stands on its own merit, but then I know who they are and which paintings, so ok with retaining for lay readers. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it’s an adjective. I inserted libraries for clarification: Cathedral libraries and monastic libraries…
The sentence was confusing because of the blue linking. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • His travels to and from Germany - remove "and from"
Rewrote as: His travels as envoy to Germany for Pope Pius II brought him briefly to the city again in 1460 and 1461
  • and on 20 December 1461 he was admitted into the Venetian aristocracy - should begin as a new sentence.
  • The opening sentence of "Construction" could be broken up.
Done
  • consisting in a mixed government modelled along the lines of the classical republics. - should this be "consisting of"; what does "mixed" mean in this context
I looked again at the difference between consist of and consist in. The latter seems appropriate: consist in - to have (something) as an essential or main part. The mixed government is the principal argument to explain Venice’ longevity. But there are other factors.
Mixed government is the technical term. The link should help. Rather than a pure monarchy or a pure aristocracy or a pure democracy, there are elements of each. The theory is that this mixture prevents degeneration into the corrupt forms of government (tyranny, oligarchy, and anarchy)
I don't think you have hit the nail on the head here yet. Do you mean that the element is so named after Serlio described these specific structured. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is I don't think you have hit the nail on the head here yet. in reference to the mixed government (here) or to the Serlian (below)? I can look again at either or both.Venicescapes (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, meant the Serlian...below. Ceoil (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a variation. Let me know if it works better.Venicescapes (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was decided that the area of the building facing the palace was to be destined for the offices of the procurators and for the library. "Designated" rather than "destined"
Reworded with reserved for
excellent solution Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • had expressly stated that a perfect library with fine books would serve as an ornament for the city and as a light for all of Italy
Done
  • In 1582, following the demolition of the meat market in 1581, Vincenzo Scamozzi was selected - "The meat market was demolished in 1581. The following year Vincenzo Scamozzi was selected.."
Done
  • has led some architectural historians to argue that the result could never have been intentionally designed - "could not have been"
Done
  • But However archival research and technical and aesthetic considerations have not been conclusive - is "considerations" the right word
Could assessments work?
Ok Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The upper storey is characterized by a series of Serlians... add (or Venetian windows) - This para is a bit confusing for lay readers....establish what "they" are early on as the following "The element" is singular (The element, inspired by ancient triumphal arches such as - could be 'the elements', or even 'the windows')
Rewrote. Let me know.
  • making use of ancient columns recuperated from the sixth-century Byzantine Church - were these the actual columns taken from the 6th c church, or "influenced" by
I rewrote with taken and then inserted dilapidated
  • from the sixth-century Byzantine Church of Santa Maria del Canneto in Pola (Pula, Croatia) not sure we have to distinguish, or even mention, Pola vs modern day Pula; why not just "in Croatia."
At the time, it would not have been considered Croatia. I put Istrian peninsula with a link.

Support from Girth Summit

[edit]

I already gave the article a close read through after its last visit here, and made some comments on its talk page,which have been addressed to my satisfaction - I'm happy to support it now, and congratulate the author on an excellent piece of work. GirthSummit (blether) 06:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for reviewing the article and for helping me improve it further.Venicescapes (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Constantine

[edit]

As a Republic of Venice buff I definitely will check this out. I have no previous interaction with the article, but will read it and make my comments here as I go along over the following days. Constantine ✍ 18:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your willingness to review the article. I look forward to working together to resolve any issues that might arise.Venicescapes (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • a series of military crises and the resulting climate of political uncertainty. The library was ultimately built during the period of recovery unclear when/what the crises and the (presumably subsequent) recovery was. At the very least please add a chronological indication for both.
I added late-fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. That roughly places the events in time. The actual dates of construction are in the following paragraph. I changed crises to conflicts (There were four of the Italian Wars and two of the Ottoman-Venetian wars in that period). Does this help?
  • the masterpiece of Jacopo Sansovino -> "the masterpiece of its architect, Jacopo Sansovino,..."
Added
Historical background
  • Cathedral libraries and monastic libraries were the principal centres of study and learning throughout the Middle Ages. a bit of inadvertent Eurocentrism: add "in [Western] Europe" somewhere here.
I added in Italy to maintain focus.
The original text refers only to golden coins (nummum aureorum). Zorzi gives this as scudi d'oro. In neither case is the issuing entity indicated.
  • During Navagero’s tenure until when did his tenure last?
I rewrote the sentence to include the inclusive dates.

More to come. Constantine ✍ 18:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Building
  • Would suggest adding regnal numbers to the Doges for the readers' convenience. The {{reign}} template should be handy.
I used the reign template as you suggested, but I inserted the label in office. The technical term would be dogado, rather than reign, since the powers were not comparable to those of a monarch. But this could create ambiguity since the same term can also refer to the territory under the earlier doges. I thought in office was the best and most accurate of the available solutions. Let me know.
  • Instead of c. or circa, I also recommend using {{circa}}
Done
  • into a classical forum link classical and forum
Linked
  • of the bell tower clarify that this was the bell tower of St. Mark's
Added
  • in the period of recovery I'd say this is redundant; wars cost money, this is well known.
I deleted in the period of recovery since there is already following the ... war. I kept due to lack of funding since there could also be a labour shortage after a war. Is this okay?
  • in correspondence to the reading room what exactly does this mean? Is this the same as "corresponding to"? As a non-native speaker, the current phrasing is unfamiliar to me.
Corresponding to/with, in correspondence to/with, and in correspondency to/with (rarer) would be equivalent. Some grammarians argue that there is slight difference in meaning between to and with. At any rate, I rewrote one of them: This brought the building down to the embankment of Saint Mark's Basin and into alignment with the main façade of the mint.
  • down to the molo, or embankment, perhaps add to the Great Canal or similar?
Added: ...the embankment of Saint Mark's Basin.
  • it is not known whether the architect intended for the library to reach the final length of twenty-one bays contradicts the construction of the final five bays, continuing Sansovino's design statement before. I guess you mean that Scamozzi continued Sansovino's design for the building in general in the sense of its look, but not the specific plans? This should somehow be clarified.
Good call. I specified Sansonvino's design for the façade and changed the second reference from design to plans. Does this help?
Architecture
  • Link the various "pagan divinities"
Linked
Linked

Constantine Thank you again for your time and suggestions.Venicescapes (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Later history
  • Perhaps link the names in Coryat's quote? I doubt many readers will be familiar with who Eumenes of Pergamum was or what the "Ulpian" was.
I added links. For the Palatine Apollo, I created a stub page. From a quick internet search, I noticed that there is quite a bit of information, so it might be interesting to develop.
  • Isn't "Directorate" the more usual term than "Directory"?
I checked in International Dictionary of Library Histories where it's rendered as Direction. I changed it.
Collection
  • Franco-veneto, and Illyric what are "Franco-veneto" and "Illyric" supposed to be? The former I guess are French-language works made in Venice, and the latter possibly West Balkan Slavic-language works? But as the terms are technical (and in the case of Illyric, idiomatic) I'd suggest explaining them.
I found and added appropriate links. Franco-Veneto would be Franco-Italian. Illyric, in this case, would be Illyrian (South Slavic).

That's it. This is an astonishingly well-written and well-researched article, and an edifying read. Definitely worth FA status. Constantine ✍ 10:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine, I think I addressed everything. If there are other observations/concerns/suggestions, please let me know. Thank you for the review. Given your interest in Venice, I'm glad you found it interesting. Kind regards.Venicescapes (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Venicescapes: did another quick read-through, nothing more to comment on, so I am very happy to support. Constantine ✍ 19:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine, Thank you again.Venicescapes (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JM

[edit]

I had my say at the peer review after Venicescapes asked if I would act as an FAC mentor. I am afraid I have not been the most attentive of mentors, but I am pleased to see that the article has now attracted the attention it deserves. This article is a very fine achievement, and I look forward to seeing what what Venicescapes produces in the future. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn Your mentorship was actually invaluable, and the article is all the better for it. Thank you again for your time, suggestions, and support.Venicescapes (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Adding to the source review request list for same. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

This may take some time. Working off this version of the article.

Ceoil, thank you again for your time and willingness to take this on.
  • The quality of sources is first rank, and noting that roughly half of the writers used have wiki articles.
  • The style used for the sources not a format I'm familiar with, with no, or hardly any, periods used, eg author and work title separated by commas and isbns separated from the preceding element by a space. I've not seen publisher and dating in parenthesis before. However it seems consistent, which is the main thing. Not sure if its MOS compliant, and wile that's not a deal breaker for me, others may have different views
I’ve used the MHRA (Modern Humanities Resource Association) style guide which is very similar to the MLA (Modern Language Association) style guide, the main difference being that MHRA is a superscript system, whereas MLA is technically a parenthetical system. Also, MHRA gives more information to the reader immediately in the short reference. Both systems were specifically conceived for the humanities and use an author-title approach. The Chicago Notes & Bibliography system, similarly used in the humanities, also has an author-title approach. This places the emphasis on the author’s expertise and the subject. These systems also enable complex bibliographical information to be clearly organized, and they group all of the relevant publication information (place: editor, date) together. MHRA does so more clearly.
The various Wikipedia templates tend to generate a name-date citation. The full reference is generally in the APA (American Psychological Association) format (or various hybrids), which is used primarily for the Social Sciences, Education, and Engineering. The name-date system was developed for and is preferred by the sciences and medicine. It places the emphasis on the date of the publication in order to verify currency and relevancy. The formatting can be imprecise, and even inadequate, when dealing with complex bibliographical information, particularly XV and XVI century publications and manuscripts. With regard to the templates, some bibliographical details, important for the humanities, are not even contemplated.
  • again the inline citation format Labowsky, Besssarion’s Library…, p. 82 is unusual but consistent. If you get to main page expect mass changes and holy war from well intentioned gnomes, who will probably decide to mass change to a html heavy citation template format, that you will find hard to edit later. For this reason, changing now to a Zorzi (1988), p. 304 format might save heart break and RFCs (I'm not joking) in the future.
I did create an ad hoc tmbox on the talk page that indicates the style used. MHRA is one of the principal styles, and it is appropriate for a humanities article such as the Marciana. So, considering that the use of templates is not obligatory, I'm hoping to avoid a "holy war".
I just noted that I can also use the 'Wikicite' template to link the short references to the bibliography. It would involve a great deal of work. But let me know if it would be helpful/appropriate?
I'm not advocating change, your response to this and the point above are perfectly reasonable. Ceoil (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I went ahead and added the links between the short references and the bibliography. It should faciliatate consultation.Venicescapes (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that in the list of inline references, in a number of places, Zorzi appears consecutively a large number of times; eg 16-27, 32-37, 165-169, 197-215. This gives pause, however it does seem that these "batches of pages" are being used to cite individually narrow sections of the article, while there are 217 inline citations in total, and I can see that in some instances a number of individual citations could be condensed to a single one giving a range of pages from the source.
  • For the record, this is more of an observation, rather than anything actionable, but it may be an idea to state your case here, so it can be reffered to later (again I'm thinking of well intentioned but perhaps mercenary MOS orientated gnomes). Ceoil (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I may not be fully understanding. Are you saying that notes should be combined?Venicescapes (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. For completeness I'm making an observation that some might take issue with, and then refuting a need for change. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, the first group contains references to two separate works, both by Zorzi. So the references could not be fused. For the second two groups, I think that if the references were to be condensed into ranges of pages, the resulting page references would be too broad: pp. 90–102 and pp. 349–367, and pp. 299–391.Venicescapes (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: Most of those used are offline/copyrighted, and many are in Italian. If its ok, I might list a request of specific pages to be scanned/phone-cammed and sent to me via email. Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be happy to scan and forward specific pages. Please let me know what you would like to see.Venicescapes (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great...spot check will be on

Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I send these to you? Some are pdf and can be sent immediately. Others I'll have to scan. I'll have to go to the library next week for Bessarione e Venezia.Venicescapes (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mail user function. Either hover ofver my username and use the right click to find the email link, or go to my contribs, and on the left hand sidebar, under "tools" you'll find "Email this user". Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, you should have everything.Venicescapes (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have Zorzi 220 (?), but I do have Hartt 663 not listed above, which is used 7 times, and each instance supports the claims made. On that basis, and given there was no evidence of close paraphrasing etc found, I'm happy to close the source review as checking out and ok. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, thank you for reviewing this. I already had scanned the Zorzi note. So, I sent it to you.Venicescapes (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, have Zorzi 220, and checks out. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [55].

1940 Mandatory Palestine v Lebanon football match

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nehme1499 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following a substantial peer review, and having already brought the article to GA, I'm looking to nominate this page to FA. The article is about an association football friendly match in 1940 between the Lebanon national team, and the Mandatory Palestine national team (the precursor to today's Israel national team). With this year marking the 80th anniversary of the match, I thought it was a good idea to push for a FA nomination. I'm open to any comments and improvements, so just let me know if anything needs to be changed! Nehme1499 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kosack

[edit]

This is what I picked out on an initial run through. Something to get you started. Kosack (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: Thanks for your comments. I've amended some of the issues you pointed out (and commented on the rest). Nehme1499 (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few more minor points

  • "located on the banks of the Yarkon River estuary", might be worth adding "in Tel Aviv" at the end here.
  • "with their own football boots", I wouldn't think there was anything unusual about a player arriving with his own football boots, especially in the 1940s, unless I'm missing some context behind this?
  • "coach at the time, was spending time", the double use of time is a little repetitive here.
  • The Post-match section has a lot of repetition of first names. Generally, first names are not needed after the first mention. Kosack (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: Should have taken care of everything. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last points

  • "Mandatory Palestine scored in the first minute of the game", the rest of the article has the goal being scored in the second minute.
  • "Shalom Shalomzon was the only player of the game to make an appearance for Israel", I realise that Lebanon didn't play another game for 13 years, so it's kind of obvious that none of their players would have won another cup, but I would change the sentence to something like "make another international appearance, playing for Israel..." Just to emphasise the point of him being the only one in the entire game to do so.
  • Link United States to their national side.

A few more minor points from the additions made. I think this is probably about it for me then. Kosack (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack and Nehme1499: Went ahead and fixed those points up (mostly because I'm bored in quarantine). --SuperJew (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope for a user more versed in the nitty gritty of copyediting to go over this as well but, in terms of content and structure, I'm happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperJew and Kosack: Thanks for taking care of those points! Note that Camille Cordahi may have played in the 1950s for Lebanon (I'm still investigating); he played until the mid 1960s aged 40+, so it's not improbable that he may have played in 1953 (aged 34-ish). I've slightly amended the sentence. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Govvy

[edit]

It's a good article at GA and feel it is a good point to get too, however I feel there are far to many red-links for FA. That's a major red-flag in my opinion towards FA. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: If I were to create the 14 pages of Palestinian players who took part in the game, would you say that the article would be in a good position for FA? Nehme1499 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there needs to be delinking. Govvy (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: All those players (bar one on the bench) satisfy WP:NFOOTY, so they are eligible for an article (also the referee, who officiated a FIFA match, satisfies NFOOTY). Nehme1499 (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is a lot of work I suggest it would be wise to sort that out in order to support the promotion of this to FA in my opinion as an FA article shouldn't have vast amount of red-links. Govvy (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: Out of interest, which of the four Featured article criteria do you feel the article fails due to those red links? Harrias talk 09:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Well, I've only ever helped get History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. but to your question, 1-b, a red-link to me means we don't have that information. And an FA article should be comprehensive which in my view should have all the information. I would assume that also in-view will refer to not just the article in question, but also have content covered by the linked in articles. So yes, red-links can be viewed under 1-b. And as you can see, there are rather a lot of them at present. Govvy (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, also, do you think it's appropriate to have a red-link in the lead for an article to be displayed on the front page of wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per MOS:REDLINK: "red links have been found to be a driving force that encourage contributions". I disagree on your interpretation of 1b, but that's part of the joy of collaborative projects such as Wikipedia! Harrias talk 09:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is where we disagree, red-links are good for encouraging to create articles, yes, however for the top articles, FA ones. I feel it's bad form for an FA to have a mass quantity of red-links, I see todays article has two red-links, I don't consider that too bad. But I don't think it should be encouraged, it should be limited down and the opening paragraphs should defiantly not have any. That's my two cents! Govvy (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: I should have taken care of the red links (there are only four remaining). Thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's looks much better, I had another read through.

  • No official coach was appointed as Egon Pollak, Mandatory Palestine's coach at the time, was spending time in Australia. This sentence doesn't seem to read quite right.
  • In the summary Indeed, in the 60th minute Kaspi scored his second goal of the game. Do you need the word indeed there?
  • In the post-match summary "[t]he goals that did get past him would have beaten any custodian" Does the T, need to be in brackets? I don't see that in the source provided.

Regards Govvy (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: I've also added a couple of sentences regarding the wind during the match, and Mizrahi's saves in the first half. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nehme1499: It's looking and reading a lot better, my only qualm is the "indeed" and then you have it written again a sentence later. Other than that, I think the article is on the right track. Govvy (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: I've removed the two "Indeed"s. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kaiser matias

[edit]

I'll add a few comments. Apologies if they've been covered before:

  • "...the latter's first-ever official international match, and the former's last..." Curious why you went in this order ("latter" then "former"). I feel it would be more logical to go the opposite, but that's just my opinion, and not something I'll hold against the article. I also see that later on it notes Lebanon only (if I understand correctly) played clubs before, which I understand wouldn't be international matches anyways.
  • "...Lebanese forward Camille Cordahi scored to become Lebanon's first official international goalscorer." Again, I feel the "official" is a redundant word. It's clear already this is Lebanon's first official match, so no need to repeat it. It comes up again later in the article, too.
  • " Shalom Shalomzon was the only Mandatory Palestine player of the game..." Again, I find the "of the game" part to not be necessary; the context of the article suggests Shalomzon was in the game.
  • " Sawaya had friendly relations with several presidents of Palestinian football clubs, especially with the president of the Palestine Football Association." You don't happen to have the name of the PFA president? It would be good to have it here if so.
  • "They were told that each player had to go to the locker room at the stadium on their own. The players did not train for the game and, in the small dressing room, only 14 received the light-blue-and-white kit." Two things here: am I correct in understanding that the players had to go "on their own" meant there wasn't a team bus or something? And it says "only 14", but out of how many?
    • A source said 18 players were called up. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore (probably it's one of the Hebrew newspaper scans, so it's impossible for me to find it). I'll remove the "only". As for the rest: yes, "on their own" would imply not going together in some sort of bus. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arthur Baar, an Austrian football coach, was in charge of selecting the team, sending out the call-ups to the players. Baar became the de facto coach as Egon Pollak, Mandatory Palestine's coach at that point, was spending time in Australia." I would move the mention of Mandatory Palestine up, as it is not clear at first who Baar is coaching. Something like "Arthur Baar, an Austrian football coach, was in charge of selecting the Mandatory Palestine team, sending out the call-ups to the players. Baar became the de facto coach as Egon Pollak, the team's coach at that point, was spending time in Australia."
  • The date of the match (27 April 1940) is repeated twice within three paragraphs. I see the point of doing so, but feel it is a little repetitive. As it was noted in the background section, I'd think you could remove the mention in the match section without hurting the flow, updating the wording of the following sentence: "The match was Lebanon's first official game..."
  • "The match was played in Tel Aviv at the Maccabiah Stadium, which was decorated with the flags of both nations; around 10,000 spectators came to watch, many of whom were British." Again the stadium had been mentioned previously, so doesn't need to be said again. To simplify I'd say something like: "The stadium was decorated with flags of both nations, and around 10,000 spectators came to watch, many of whom were British."
  • "In the first half, Mandatory Palestine played against the wind." Does it mention the strength of the wind at all? Seems that if it was noted there would be some idea of how important that detail is.
    • I don't think so (Hebrew book/newspaper scan, so I needed @SuperJew and Eranrabl's help). The idea is that, despite playing against the wind, Mandatory Palestine played better in the first half; same for Lebanon, they played better in the second half even though they played against the wind. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • To support Nehme1499's point, the source doesn't mention the strength of the wind, only it's direction. As I wrote on my talk page: Regarding the wind, Haaretz says that in the first half Eretz Israel played against the wind (נבחרת ארץ ישראל משחקת בתחלה נגד הרוח), and in the second half with the wind but that despite that there felt there was a recuperation by Lebanon (עתה משחקת נבחרת ארץ-ישראל עם הרוח, ובכל זאת מורגשת התאוששות אצל הלבנונים). --SuperJew (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mizrahi was especially praised for his two saves in the 18th and 23rd minute." Who did the praising here?
    • Eranrabl said: "The article also states that the two stops made on the 18th and 23rd minutes were "Hard shots" and that the crowd cheered those stops". I changed it to "...was especially cheered by the crowd for his two saves..." Nehme1499 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mandatory Palestine regained control of the game later in the first half and, in the 31st minute, Gaul Machlis scored Mandatory Palestine's third goal." These commas seem unnecessary; I'd just delete them and let the sentence flow like that.
  • "The match was Lebanon's first official international, and their first official defeat. Mandatory Palestine's win was their first (and only) in an official match before they became the Israel national team after 1948." Like noted above, this repeats "official" a lot. I'd try and simplify it: "The match was Lebanon's first international, and their first defeat. Mandatory Palestine's win was their first, and only, in a match before they became the Israel national team after 1948."
  • "With his two goals, captain Werner Kaspi became the first player of the Israel national team (Mandatory Palestine's successor) to score a brace." It notes later that Kaspi never played for Israel, so is is accurate to say he was the first on the Israel national team to do this?
    • As FIFA recognizes a succession between M. Palestine and Israel, all of MP's records stand for Israel as well (as is the case with, for e.g., Macedonia and North Macedonia, or West Germany and Germany). Therefore, Kaspi scoring a brace statistically counts for Israel as well. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regarding Palestine's 12 players involved, the match was the only cap for eight..." MOS:NUMNOTES says that you should be consistent with the numbers, either spelled out or in numerals, but not a mix. While either are good here, I'd lean towards numerals myself.

That's all from me. I will note that I'm coming from this as a Canadian with a more casual understanding of the sport (so not much on the specific jargon). Kaiser matias (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: I should be done. Let me know if there is more. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I saw has been addressed, and I'm happy with the explanations above. Happy to support, well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I've added this to the image and source reviews requests list for same. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass

[edit]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Biblio

Refs

Spotchecks
  • 7 and 8 (a and b) are good
  • 10: a, b, c (I'm assuming Jaroudi is just spelled with a Y here), e, f are good
  • 10: d I find somewhat questionable. I recognize that the essecense of the statement is true but the paper doesn't use words like "efficiently" (although correct me if I'm wrong), maybe tweak to "They praised the Mandatory Palestine team's performance, but noted that the two full..."
  • 15 and 18 are good – I could only check English language sources. Aza24 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [57].

Rastafari

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the world's best-known, if often misunderstood, religious movements - Rastafari. The article has been GA rated since October 2019 and is extensively sourced to high-quality academic publications. Having previously pulled Heathenry (new religious movement) up to FA quality, I'm hoping to do the same with this article, which I believe meets the criteria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Dreadlocked rasta.jpg tagged factual accuracy disputed due to lack of documented connection to Rastafari. This should be resolved. Also, the file is low resolution and better ones might exist
  • I've changed the image caption to "A man with dreadlocked hair, akin to that worn by Rastas", so the factual accuracy situation has been resolved. I'll try and see if we have a better resolution image available, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • At first glance, there appear to be a good deal of duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[58]
  • "Many Rastas nevertheless" I think here you could add "many rastas, adherents of Rastafari", for clarity.
  • Should be mentioned adherents are also called Rastafarians? You now use mainly "Rasta", but in a few places you sue "Rastafarians", which is confusing without explanation.
  • "The term "Ras" means a duke or prince" State in which language.
  • The photo under Definition could be right aligned, as the subjects face to the left, per MOS images.
  • "Rastafari, also known as the Rastafarian Movement" While it may not be discouraged by some, Rastafarianism is also a common term, so shouldn't it be listed too?
Maybe "Rastafarian Movement" can also be added back? There is a stray "the" left in front of Rastafarianism now in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've sorted this now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob Marley isn't linked outside the intro.
  • Links names and other terms in image captions.
I'm thinking more of for example Bob Marley, cannabis, ital, etc., which are not linked in any captions. Duplinks within the article body are separate from those in the captions, so would not count as dulinks.
  • You could link and mention Jamaican Patois somewhere, now you only link the general patois article. I'd expect some discussion of it under "Language and symbolism", but I don't know if that would be supported by the sources.
  • "the anthropologist Stephen D. Glazier" Until this point, you have mentioned many people without presenting their occupation. This could be consistent.
  • "Rastafari are monotheists" Here you even use a third term to refer to adherents. Shouldn't it be Rastas or Rastafarians? Does Rastafari also refer to adherents? it is a bit confusing and could need explanation.
  • "particularly the depiction of him as a white European" Perhaps link to race of Jesus here.
  • "reject the idea that Selassie was the Second Coming, arguing that that event has yet to occur." The second "that" could maybe be "this", to avoid repetition?
  • "Haile Selassie's body had been buried beneath a toilet in his palace, remaining undiscovered there until 1992" His article states "In 1992, Selassie's bones were found under a concrete slab on the palace grounds,[167] though some reports suggest that his remains were discovered beneath a latrine." So do we even need to mention one scenario? All we need to know is his remains were only found in 1992 inside the palace grounds.
  • It's a bit confusing that you have the sections "Afrocentrism, Babylon, and Zion" and "Babylon and Zion" in succession. Especially since the first of the two doesn't mention Babylon and Zion. Perhaps rename it "Afrocentrism and views on race" or similar?
I think title capitalisation like now in "Afrocentrism and Views on Race" is discouraged. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changes the case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Babylon is the Mesopotamian city which conquered and deported the Israelites" Wouldn't that be the state of Babylonia that conquered them, and deported them to the city of Babylon? And should Babylonian exile be linked?
  • "He suggested that this attitude stemmed from the large numbers of young people that were then members of the movement" When?

Many thanks, FunkMonk. I'll try and deal with the other points that you raise at some point in the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing the rest gradually in the coming time too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcus Garvey is not linked at first mention, nor in the image caption he is mentioned in.
  • Ganja could be linked at first mention.
  • Supplication could be linked.
  • "where a prominent early Rasta, Leonard Howell, lived while he was developing many of Rastafari's" When?
  • Link Arab?
  • Perhaps make clear if much of their vocabulary is common to patois, as indicated by the Iyaric article.
  • You are using the Ethiopian flag during Derg rule (which deposed Selassie) to illustrate the flag, I'd assume something like that used before under Selassie would be more appropriate, but you already show that at the beginning of the article. Maybe use this instead, which is basically the same[59], but does not have the Derg connotation in the title? Or show the pan African flag for historical context?
  • You show to photos of Selassie with essentially the same caption. Perhaps the second time show a photo from about the time he visited Jamaica, or when he reclaimed his throne, as described in the adjacent text?
  • Unfortunately I can't find any images of Selassie from 1966, the year he visited Jamaica, at Wikimedia Commons. Nor are there any images of him in 1941 - the image currently used is from 1942, shortly after he had reclaimed his throne. I can make that clearer in the image caption. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new caption is a good solution. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a photo of an actual Rasta with dreadlocks to replace that very low res, tightly cropped photo of someone who may not be a Rasta?
Yeah, it's unfortunate that the dreads are hardly visible. How about this photo (maybe cropped)?[60] The man has very prominent dreadlocks, and though we can't be sure he is a Rasta, he and the man behind him are wearing the Rasta colours. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that image. Hopefully a better image can be found in future, however; one that unambiguously of a Rasta with dreads. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't mention rastacap in the article body, only in captions. Maybe it's what's alluded to here? "while some Rastas tuck their dreads under a tam headdress"
  • "accorded special status to the east African nation of Ethiopia because it was mentioned in various Biblical passages" The fact that it was one of the first Christian countries and wasn't forcibly converted by Europeans must also have played a rile? Does the sources mention this? I think it would be significant to mention.
  • To be honest, I don't recall any of the sources explicitly stating this although I quite agree that this seems like something that would be a plausible reason for why Ethiopia came to be given special status in Rasta belief. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prince Cudjoe of Sudan" Is this a real person that could be linked?
  • "The island's British authorities arrested him and charged him with sedition, resulting in his two-year imprisonment." When?
  • Maybe the photo under the Africa section can be moved to the right, as the man is facing left?
  • "One of the most prominent clashes between Rastas and law enforcement was the Coral Gardens incident of 1963" Could this be very briefly explained, since we should not force readers to chase links, in the words of the MOS?
  • I'm not sure I agree this painting[61] is original enough to be copyrightable, if the image is kept on Commons, I think it could be reinstated.
  • Not much to do about it, but photos of women are quite absent from the article, so it's good that the first photo of people includes a woman.
  • Can Charismatic Christian link to anything?
  • The history section stops in the 1990s. Nothing to say about the current millennium?
  • The main texts on the subject (most of which are written in the 20th century, admittedly) don't really give much attention to 21st century developments. Edmonds' 2012 book makes mention of the 21st century (at page 31) but doesn't really outline any major developments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Mansions of Rastafari, you link the different mansions at second mention instead of first, when they are all listed.
  • the sect was responsible for establishing the Rasta community in Shashamane, Ethiopia" Link Shashamane here at first occurrence?
  • "the sect was responsible for establishing the Rasta community" This is the only time you refer to one of the mansions as a sect. Should you start out the section by saying they are sects, or replace the word?
  • Perhaps a shame that the map of Ethiopia doesn't show the location of Shashamane?
  • We don't talk about Shashamane at that juncture of the article (only much later) so I don't know if it would be particularly useful to the reader; to be honest, I also don't know how I'd make a decent looking map with Shashamane included. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in Israel, primarily among those highlighting similarities between Judaism and Rastafarianism.[505]" Among Ethiopian Jews, or more generally?
  • How do non-black Rastas consolidate themselves with the Babylon concept, since they have not been exiled form Africa?
  • While it may seem like a given, you only state it is an Abrahamic religion in the intro. But isn't that a too general statement, considering it is derived directly from Christianity?
  • Possibly, but there are a great deal of commonalities with Judaism too so I think that "Abrahamic" is perhaps the most appropriate categorisation at this juncture. Calling it "Judeo-Christian" in the lede, for instance, would likely raise more issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Babylon to something in the intro?
  • Perhaps I'm being a bit dense, but I'm not sure that I understand you here. Could you clarify?
Yes, as far as I can see, the term Babylon does not have a wikilink in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand. I don't think the Babylon article itself would be appropriate as a link here, however. Do you think we should link to Iyaric#Other words instead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine. The only other remaining point seems to be the one about the photo of a dreadlocked man that could maybe be used. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One additional point, in one caption you say "A Rastaman", in another you say "A Rastafari man". Not a big deal, but probably best to be consistent.
  • Looks good, and I'm just about to support, I wonder if the now replaced Benjamin Zephaniah image should be moved back to under the Europe section?
Seen this, Midnightblueowl? FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, FunkMonk. Was in the midst of fixing the duplinks situation when you messaged - good timing! I've now added the Zephaniah image back in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time on this one, FunkMonk. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from A. Parrot

[edit]

I also intend to review this and have made a few prose edits (hope you don't mind), but I think I'll review after FunkMonk so we don't collide with each other. A. Parrot (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the literature on Rastafari, so all I can offer is what I call an ignorant layman review. Beyond stylistic critiques, all I can judge is whether the article explains the topic thoroughly and clearly enough that I feel I have a basic understanding of it. And in this case, it does. A couple of my stylistic concerns are significant enough that I'm not supporting just yet, though I'm close to doing so.

Many thanks for giving your time and attention to this, A. Parrot! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through some of your easier posts and respond to the rest of your queries later in the week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larger concerns:

  • I feel like the Definition section could be shortened and simplified. Right now it feels like a bit of a tangle of scholars' names and quotation marks, which reads less welcomingly than is ideal for the first section of an article. In particular, "Rastafari is a decentralised and heterogeneous movement; it is neither monolithic nor homogenous" is redundant.
  • The placement of the History section, in the middle of the article, seems less than ideal. I'm wondering if it might belong after Definition and before everything else. I know that would require some reworking of the text, particularly because some of the explanation of who Haile Selassie was would have to be moved from Beliefs into History, but I think it would give the reader better context for what comes after. Howell seems to have been the closest thing Rastafari had to a founder, and it seems better to mention him first in that context than as simply the author of a book.
  • Tricky one. I think you make a fair point but at the same time I think some would argue that, because we are dealing with a living religion that has many living exponents, there is a need to get its beliefs and practices out there first. In Heathenry (new religious movement), which gained FA rating a few years back, we have the same structure that is employed here. I'd be interested in seeing what other editors think on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk, Aza24, and Lee Vilenski: Any opinions on this point? A. Parrot (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had similar thoughts, but then I looked at other articles about religions and saw they had a similar structure to this. I think because it's such a recent religion, we may have a tendency to see it as more of a historical subject than mainly a religious one (and therefore focus more on historical aspects than the religious traditions themselves). But perhaps that would be to take it less seriously than older, more established religions, which would be unfair. FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't really see this as a super big blocker. Might need a wider consensus on how this should be treated, but it can quite easily be moved. FWIW Beliefs and practices are quite similar in this context, so I don't really see much of an issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you bring this up, since when I was reading through I was actually confused at the beginning of the Beliefs section (I didn't see the section name) because I thought it was the history section. In that respect I think it's more natural for the article to be laid ou with the History section after the definition, but like the others my feelings aren't especially strong here. Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Based on these responses, I strongly recommend putting the History section first, but in the interest of not dragging out the FAC more than necessary, I'm not making that a condition of my support. A. Parrot (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the overall length of the article (well over 12,000 words), I question whether some of the details in the History section, particularly in the first subsection, are all that necessary to include here.

Smaller stylistic stuff:

  • Image placement is a bit strange. Images are often left-aligned when there isn't any real reason for them to be. The only specific reason the MOS gives for aligning left is so that images of people can face inwards, toward the text, but the photos of Haile Selassie and Marcus Garvey are actually aligned the opposite way.
  • I've always tended to try and alternate images in the article, so as to avoid the appearance of everything lining up on the right hand side, which I think can look quite lop-sided and messy. For that (largely aesthetic) reason, I've done the same here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm largely OK with that, but the photo of Garvey and the first of Haile Selassie should look toward the text. A. Parrot (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've realigned the Selassie image and I've replaced the Garvey image with another that looks leftward. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You often refer to Bible verses without quoting them. That's understandable, given how long the article already is, but you could link to those passages with Template:Bibleverse.
  • I question whether "god" should be capitalized when not used as a name (e.g., "a singular God", "the same God"), particularly given that you say "…the white Jesus was a false god."
  • "Millenarianist" sounds odd; the term I usually see is "millenarian", which conserves a syllable.
  • A fair point. I've changed this to "millenarian".
  • "…with Haile Selassie going into exile." It would be more straightforward to say "…and Haile Selassie went into exile."
  • It might be worth briefly explaining what "routinisation" is.

Coordinator note

[edit]

With no active support for promotion after well over a month, I'm afraid this one is bound for archiving soon. I'm going to monitor for a few days since there is active commentary but clearly it's miles off, with no end in sight. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when my last few points are answered, I'm ready to support. And A. Parrot can probably begin reviewing now (was waiting for my review to finish). FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem as long as activity is happening. I'd hate to lose momentum at this point! --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24

[edit]

Very interesting article – I want to take a look soon but am getting increasingly busy. Hopefully I can review the whole thing in the next few days Aza24 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • although small communities can be found... ?
  • "connotations of doctrine and organisation which they wish to avoid" I'm not 100% sure what this is referring to. Would this be the Rastas wanting to avoid connections to other religions?
  • It's more to do with the sense that (in the popular imagination) the term "religion" gets associated with hierarchical churches who tell people what they should believe and how they should practice. A lot of Rastas don't like those associations and thus avoid the term "religion" itself. Do you think there is a better way of rephrasing this in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see what you're saying now. "With doctrine and organisation" to me sounded like referring to something specific, but if it's just the general idea of a religious doctrine/organization then perhaps rephrase to something like "the use of -ism exhibits the religious characteristics which they wish to avoid" ? Not a huge deal, I think it might have just been me that was confused here. Aza24 (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Rastas have a specific time they think the bible was written maybe? If so, this could be inserted after the part about them believing it to be written on stone
    I'm not sure, to be honest. I imagine that there would probably be a diversity of perspectives on the issue within the Rasta community. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps link aphorism? I had to look up what it means
  • King of Kings could be linked, the article has an Ethiopian section
  • Got to practices, more later, since I'm finding so little I'll probably end up doing a source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "Ganja, or cannabis, is often smoked." would be better as "Cannabis, known as Ganja, is often smoked"
  • wondering if "Most groundings contain only men, with women being excluded.[209] Some Rasta women have established their own all-female grounding circles" can be combined/simplified. Maybe "Most groundings contain only men, although Some Rasta women have established their own all-female grounding circles" (otherwise "only men, with women being excluded" is redudent)
  • Assuming "August 1" should be "1 August"?
  • Also the Independence of Jamaica article says the day was 6 August (should probably be linked her too) unless these are different events
  • I wonder if the rejecting of "mainstream scientific medicine" includes vaccines? May be worth including

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This arises due to the template used to link to specific Bible passages over at Wikisource. If there's a way to remove the second appearance of the book name while retaining the template link, I'd be more than happy to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So {{Bibleverse}} (which I think is what you are referring to) says: "Usage of this template inline in the body of an article is discouraged - This template creates an external link. The external links content guideline states that "external links should not normally be used in the body of an article". Place external links to the Bible in parenthetical citations or footnotes." so should probably be within the reference itself, not the body as it is now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than putting the Bible quotes in the "Sources" section as if they were references, which I think could cause confusion, I've created a separate section, titled "Notes", where the Bible quotes now appear. I think that that deals with the problem quite neatly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "settlement of" before "Back-o-Wall". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time and attention here, Lee. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem (I'm steadily working through all the current nominations!), I've replied to one of your points above, which IMO is a MOS issue. There are also some points listed above that I also noticed by other reviewers, so won't re-tread water above; but note any support here is also reliant on the above being addressed satisfactorily. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee; I've dealt with the MOS situation now. I think the resulting change looks much neater. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in image captions are not cited - for example that Forchion founded the Liberty Bell Temple
  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported or cited in the text - for example that Jesus is believed to be a human incarnation of Jah
  • Be consistent in whether references to two adjacent pages use range or comma formatting, and make sure single pages use p. and multiple pp. (eg Fn138)
  • Here, I had tried to use different styles of formatting to indicate how the information is contained on the page. Where I use (for example) "pp. 56, 57" it is because valid information is contained in separate places on both pages; conversely where I use "pp.78–79" it is because the pertinent text stretches over the course of the two pages, running continuously. If you think the result is too much of a mess I can certainly go through and re-format them so that all of the citations all use the range system. (I've also gone through and tried to correct all the examples where it needs to be "pp." not "p.") Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for periodicals
  • FN327 is a broken link
  • FN328 is also broken, and Reuters shouldn't be in the author parameter
  • FN499 is missing author
  • Check alphabetization of General sources (and why is that the section title?)
  • I'm not really sure where "General sources" came from; it used to be just "Sources" (which I have changed it back to). I've also gone through and ensured that they are in alphabetical order; there were a couple of errors (well spotted!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include states for publication locations
  • Why include the journal subtitle in Francis but not the other citations to this title? Ditto NWIG - should be consistent
  • What makes Ifekwe a high-quality reliable source?
  • It is published in the Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, which is archived on JSTOR, so thus appears to have some scholarly merit. Perhaps it isn't as high in quality as some of the journals based in developed countries but I believe it still constitutes a valid source for Wikipedia's purposes. However, if there are serious concerns about this source then it can be removed without causing any real problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your sharp eye on this one, Nikkimaria. There's one point that I have yet to address but I shall try to do so soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now responded to that last point. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [62].

Apollo 14

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an Apollo mission perhaps most famous for featuring the second flight of Alan Shepard, and for Shepard sending two golf balls into flight. Yet much else went on, from a frustrated Stu Roosa trying again and again to dock two spacecraft to Ed Mitchell's ESP experiments. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from hawkeye7

[edit]

Article looks in good shape. For the details about the software patch, I recommend Sunburst and Luminary by Don Eyles.

  • You talk about the CAPCOM and the flight directors, but the article would be improved if you said just a few choice words about what they do
CAPCOM was already in there, I've added language from A13 about the flight directors.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You introduce the abbreviation CSM before you define it
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Command Module and Lunar Module be linked?
Lunar module linked. Command Module just links to a section of Command and Service Module so no great need for one there since I've put in a link per your comment just above.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea who named the spacecraft or why?
Not sure who named the LM (I can guess) but I've added the others. I'll peruse Shepard's and Mitchell's books to see if they say anything as to whose idea it was.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does particle energy really need a link?
Nah.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The S-IVB was impacted into the Moon to calibrate the Apollo 12 seismometers, right?
I think that was done by the A12 ascent stage.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Passive Seismic Experiment (FSE)" should be PSE
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typos: "propellent" should be "propellant"
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • I'm not sure about "EVA" being abbreviated at first mention.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fra Mauro highlands". Should that be an upper case H?
Arguably, so I've been consistent and switched in all cases to Fra Mauro formation, which doesn't.
  • "He served as a CAPCOM". Could you check that link; and consider giving the job title in full and/or moving the later in line explanation to here.
Link altered (nice catch). I've given the title in full, but think it best to leave the job description where it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while flying his T-38 jet at a speed and altitude to simulate the speed at which the lunar surface would pass below the CSM". Suggest →'
  • "while flying his T-38 jet at a speed and altitude simulating the speed at which the lunar surface would pass below the CSM'.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crew movements were limited as much as possible at KSC and nearby areas". Do you mean 'to KSC ...'
I think what I have is more true to the original. The crew was asked to stay in the training areas and the flight line at Patrick AFB. It wasn't a restriction to the Center in so many words. There are instances in which the crew of later missions disregarded this, but this was the plan anyway.
  • "The internal stirring fans, with their unsealed motors, were removed, which meant the oxygen quantity gauge was no longer accurate. This required adding a third tank so that no tank would go below half full. The third tank was placed in Bay 1 of the SM, on the side opposite the other two, and was given a valve that could isolate it in an emergency, and allow it to feed the CM's environmental system only. The quantity probe in each tank was upgraded from aluminum to stainless steel." I am struggling with this. Eg: Why did removing the fans and motors effect the quantity gauge. Why are there two intervening sentences before the gauge is mentioned again? What was the effect of the gauge upgrade? How did adding a third tank prevent any tank from going below half full? How does this relate to the new inaccuracy of the gauge?
This was borrowed from the Apollo 13 article. I've cut some of it that may be too much information for the reader and focused on the essentials.
  • "ALSEP". In full at first mention.
OK.
  • "A similar experiment was successfully deployed, and the mortars launched, on Apollo 16." → 'by Apollo 14'.
No, it was 16. The one on 14 was never launched because they feared that dust would cover the LRRR laser reflector. Apollo 16 didn't deploy one of those, and they had learned from experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, thumb-fingers. What I meant to type was → 'by Apollo 16'?
The mortars were launched by ground control after the astronauts were home so it would be hard to say it was launched "by" A16. I'll rephrase.
  • "as of 2020 the return signal is only about 10 percent of what was expected"> I find this a little unclear. Do you mean 'as of 2020 the return signal has fallen about 10 percent of its original strength'?
I'm basically quoting the source here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, are you saying that you don't understand the source either?
I understand what they are saying but I'm going to look for a better source than CNN on this, that may state it more accurately. I expect what is meant that it was 10 percent of original strength, as you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After examining other sources, I'm going to cut this. The 10 percent is "in some cases", speaking of the five retroreflectors on the Moon. That may be TMI for the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission would take a faster trajectory to the Moon and make up the time in flight; just over two days after launch, the mission timers would be put ahead by 40 minutes and 3 seconds so that later events would take place at the times scheduled in the flight plan." Strongly suggest sentence break after "flight".
OK. I've played with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
  • "though they might have to initiate an abort manually". Maybe something like 'though if an abort became necessary, they would have initiate it manually'?
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of "Lunar surface operations" seems incongruously out of chronological order.
I think it's a good start to the section but I've massaged the rest to make it seem less incongruous.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Well, it's not a deal buster and I entirely understand why you like it.
  • "older than the volcanism observed". I don't think that volcanism was observed! You need to tweak this.
  • "but very rare to find on the Moon". →'but are very rarely found on the Moon'.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "Mobile Quarantine Facility". Why the upper case initial letters?
NASA equipment tends to take capital letters, i.e. Lunar Roving Vehicle.
  • "The oval insignia depicts the Earth and the Moon, and an astronaut pin drawn with a comet trail. → 'The mission insignia are an oval depicting the Earth and the Moon, and an astronaut pin drawn with a comet trail.'?
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I think I've either gotten or responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cracking read. Really good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting, but there are a couple of issues above which it would, IMO, be worth your looking at. I don't know how long it takes you, but your prose is great. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. This is my fourth Apollo mission written about so I'm getting used to the terminology, which helps. I've made further edits as you suggested and will look into that 2020 LRRR situation. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "It was the last of the "H missions," targeted landings with two-day stays on the Moon" What does "targeted" mean here? Weren't all moon landings targeted?
Explained.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liftoff was delayed forty minutes and two seconds, due to launch site weather restrictions, the first such delay for an Apollo mission." I do not think this is important enough for the lead.
Perhaps the mere fact of the delay, so I've cut a lot of it and left the bare fact.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following the abort of Apollo 13". I would take abort to mean cancellation. I think failure would be a better word.
OK. It's an option.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "served as a fighter pilot in the waning days of the Korean War" Are you sure? I think it was after the war ended.
The source says "He then completed his flight training at Hutchinson, Kansas in July 1954, and was shipped out to Okinawa in the waning days of the Korean War, where he flew the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior from aircraft carriers with Patrol Squadron 29, even being shot at on one occasion." Since the date seems a little late, after the armistice, I will rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[Bruce McCandless II|Bruce McCandless, II]]. Why the comma? It looks like a separate person called II.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission would take a faster trajectory to the Moon and make up the time in flight." Faster than what?
The flight plan. Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "9 kg of which are in one rock (sample 14321)" and "In January 2019 research showed that Big Bertha, a 19.837 pound rock" You state in the picture caption that they are the same rock, but not in the text which uses different units in each case. The first phrase is in a quote so you cannot give a conversion, but the second one is the only case I can see where you do not give a conversion to kg.
Good points. I've tried to integrate the text a bit better there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link "plane change".
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for the review and the kind words. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 16:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Experienced FA user so spot checks have not been done.
Biblio

  • For consistency I would repeat the location for Apollo 14 Press kit ref
  • Why is NASA spelled out for ref Summary report but not for the first two? Would pick one way and standardize
  • I see that Summary report has a "(Report)" – would this be appropriate for the Mission Report as well?
  • I'm a little confused about the formatting for Brzostowski, its different than all the others (looks like its not in a template). The media type is unclear as well – is there an identifier that could be used here... ISBN, OCLC, doi, ISSN, url?
We don't seem to use it so I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • location for Arizona university? I assumed at first it wasn't there since the location is obvious but since you include a location for Chicago Review press, one here would make sense
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

  • Ref 24 shouldn't be in all caps even if in original publication, says that somewhere in the MOS...
Another ref substituted.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two astronomy.com refs are formatted differently (refs 79 & 98)
Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thanks for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [63].

Hunky Dory

[edit]
Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! This article is about David Bowie's fourth studio album Hunky Dory. For a while now I've become greatly interested in Bowie and have felt that his lasting impact on popular culture deserves more well-written articles. So, I have brought this one from whatever this was to 2 different copyedits (one successful) to GA and now to FAC. It also went through a very helpful PR as well. I mainly based my expansions on other album FAs such as Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) and Cut the Crap. I'm looking forward to anyone's comments and concerns and hope I can earn my first FA. – zmbro (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder by Ian

[edit]

I reviewed, copyedited and eventually passed this at GAN, knowing its ultimate destination was FAC; I'd be interested to see other perspectives before I recuse coord duties and weigh in here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian! – zmbro (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • Is there a reason the "Life on Mars" single release date is only put in the infobox, and not in the article's prose?
  • Not sure. Fixed
  • For this part, "After Bowie completed his third studio album", I would use David Bowie's full name and link him since this is the first mention in the article.
  • Fixed
  • I believe this is taken care of but please let me know if it's not.
  • Is there a reason why this sentence, "Hunky Dory was released on 17 December 1971 by RCA.", has so many citations? It seems like Wikipedia:Citation overkill.
  • The reason I put so many citations there was that biographers Pegg and Cann both stated the release date as different than 17 December. But then once I found more sources stating it was in fact 17 December, I wanted to make sure that was known even though it seems like I overdid it. Strangely enough, Cann listed the release date as two different things in the same book so that just added to the confusion.
  • In the "Critical reception" section, the reviewer's name is sometimes included in the prose (i.e. Michael Gallucci of Ultimate Classic Rock) and other instances where only the publication name is used (Melody Maker called it). I would recommend being consistent with one way or the other.
  • The reason for this is I mainly found the Melody Maker inside other sources, such as Pegg, where he just stated "Melody Maker called it". I'll see if I can find the original author. – zmbro (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good to me. I hope that my comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HĐ

[edit]

I don't listen to David Bowie that much but I have mad respect for him and really would like to see his articles promoted to GA or FA status. You really did him justice with this article -- an immaculately written and thorougly researched one. I may have missed a few issues while reviewing the article, but I'm sure they are all neglectable ones should they be addressed. Great work with the article, and best of luck with the FAC! HĐ (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by The Ultimate Boss

[edit]

I am a huge David Bowie fan! The article looks amazing and is definitely ready for FA! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07

[edit]

I reviewed this during PR, where I genuinely couldn't find much to complain about prose-wise. It's a brilliantly written article. One thing I neglected to mention then was that Charts sections tend to include the sortable scope=row formatting, but that's not enough to hold up promotion. If you don't know what that is, send me a note and I could do it for you, if you'd like. Happy to support this. Good luck with the nomination Zmbro. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07 Thanks so much for your kind comments! Fixed the tables :-) – zmbro (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
FunkMonk Damn you were right. Thanks for that script! I've removed all the ones it highlighted. – zmbro (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should have double-checked with the tool before providing my support. I did post a comment about the duplinks in my review, but I admittedly did not do the best job with follow-up about it so apologies for that and I take responsibility for it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 They should all be fixed now. I'll also be sure to use the tool in the future. – zmbro (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright, I think this comes up in every other FAC. But there are still some duplinks left, for example Elton John and Velvet Underground, among others. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there were. Not sure how I missed those the first time around. Should be fixed now. – zmbro (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems Lou Reed, Marc Bolan, and Mercury Records are duplinked. Yeah, it's tricky! FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Ok they should all be fixed now! xP Thanks for the comments! Left a few below. – zmbro (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After David Bowie completed his third studio album" I think you can present him here at first mention in the article body as you do in the intro, "English singer-songwriter".
  • Done
  • "as the band did not learn the songs" Had not learned?
  • Done
  • "According to Cann, on the same day, Defries sent a letter to actor and jazz pianist Dudley Moore asking him to play piano during a session." Why when they had Wakeman?
  • I have no idea I thought the same when I was writing it. Defries was a strange individual from what I've read. He was all over the place in terms of being both good and bad for Bowie. Cann doesn't give a reason as to why he did this, I guess he thought Wakeman wasn't good enough.
  • "same diatonic major progression" Some terms to link here?
  • Done
  • "whose identity commentators have debated" Any notable contenders to list?
  • Pegg says it but doesn't specify, I assume he means in general. Should I just mention him?
Not sure if we mean the same thing, but I was talking about what girls do they think it referred to? FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that makes more sense my bad. Some biographers have suggested "the girl with the mousy hair" to be Hermione Farthingale, who was a girlfriend of Bowie's in the 60s and an influence on him during that decade as well; there's even a song dedicated to her on Space Oddity. Pegg writes that there's no real evidence to back this up and Hermione herself as apparently debunked any theories as to her being the girl referenced. So if there was anyone to put it would be her. – zmbro (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps interesting enough for a footnote? FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. – zmbro (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "few days after his son Duncan Zowie Haywood Jones was born" Link him?
  • Done, I believe that was something that was highlighted
  • " The piano-driven arrangement differs to Bowie's live performances of the song" Differs from?
  • Done
  • "He also uses the word "chameleon" in the song" I wonder if chameleon should instead be linked at first mention, " being dubbed the "chameleon of rock""?
  • Yeah you're right, done
  • You are a bit inconsistent in whether you give nationalities for people mentioned or not.
  • Yeah I notice that now. What would you recommend?
Personally I would give nationalities for all if it somehow aided the story, otherwise for none. I think in this case it could be warranted, since there is the "Brit going to the US" angle. So we can see who is who. FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk Yeah I was thinking that too since this album does have American influences. My biggest concern is I feel like mentioning nationalities all over the place would be overkill, especially in the background section when mentioning his managers and band members, although I think the first mention of Marc Bolan would be ok. I'll do some fidgeting. – zmbro (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's tricky too. Maybe mention nationalities for important figures, or where their nationality has some sort of relevance. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Alright so I've done some condensing on nationalities as well as descriptions (like singer, musician, etc.), especially when it doesn't really have particular relevance in the context of the whole article. I realized I hadn't been consistent between some paragraphs and sentences when describing nationalities and whatnot. Does it seem better now? – zmbro (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contained multiple Dietrich prints" You haven't linked or spelled out her name outside the intro.
  • Have no idea how I missed that, fixed
  • "gave the album an extremely positive review" Seems hyperbolic.
  • Done
  • You only give writer's names for retrospective reviews, not contemporary reviews, any reason why?
  • Yeah Aoba mentioned this. I received most of these reviews from the biographers, however most of them did not give an author. I was able to find the author for the original NME and Village Voice reviews but wasn't able to for Melody Maker (there were only a few prominent critics for the publication at the time but I didn't want to make assumptions) nor Billboard (I was able to do some hard digging and found the original issue with the album review in it but it also didn't give an author). I tried finding The New York Times one but again had no luck. Rock magazine doesn't even have its own WP page (it's certainly not this) so I knew there would be no luck there. I also gave authors because there were multiple reviews from RS and Pitchfork and wanted to differentiate. What do you think should be done about this?
I guess you can only add the names when they can be found. It just looked like they had been systematically left out for the newer reviews. Alternatively, you could leave out all reviewer names, but that's probably not necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be alright. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its [sic]" What's the error?
  • Now that I read it back I have no idea. Fixed.

Coord note

[edit]

I've added this to the image and source review requests section. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "was inspired by a Marlene Dietrich photo book that Bowie took to the photoshoot" - the article text says only that Bowie brought the book and gives other sources of inspiration for the cover
  • Very good point. I believe that sentence was there before I ever started the expansion and I just never thought to update it. Added influence of Bacall and Garbo to the sentence.
  • FN45 is a bit of an odd source for what it's supporting - suggest replacing
  • I know Buckley supports it as well as Business Insider so I think that should be sufficient enough
  • FN50: don't need work included in title parameter, and author is missing
  • Fixed
  • Similarly FN86 doesn't need work in title parameter
  • Fixed
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books, and if they are included they should be more specific than "UK"
  • Thought I took care of all of those. Fixed.
  • You've got them throughout Sources, but you've also got some books in References - formatting should match. (Also suggest "New York City" rather than "New York, New York", to match London). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to the liner notes refs (i.e. UK: RCA, etc.), those actually only have countries and not cities as those indicate the countries they were released in. – zmbro (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn123 is missing page. Ditto FN129
  • 1. For NME I couldn't find a page number but I found the original review here on Rock's Backpages so notated that. I noticed a few refs on Cut the Crap (another FA) used this method so I'm hoping that will suffice.
  • 2. Didn't find this one on Rock's Backpages so I had to do a deep dive. Should be good now.
  • FN142: why not cite the original sources directly?
  • I can't seem to find a direct source for FNAC nor the 2 Q lists. I found the Q lists here and here but those were compiled by other cites and not directly from the publications themselves. I'm not sure what to do as I'm certain a site like 909originals and listchallenges wouldn't be considered reliable.
  • FN148: why does this particular ranking warrant inclusion?
  • That one was also noted on Aftermath. I basically modeled the rankings section on that article's same section. I thought some choices used there were odd, including this one, but thought that if it was noted and became an FA I thought I'd do the same. If you don't think it's that important I can remove it.
  • Removed.
  • FN152 and similar: don't need website name in title, should be listed separately as in FN159
  • Those are actually using the template albumchart so I'm not exactly sure how to fix those.
  • I have no clue. When I click on the urls the tab title in my browser actually lists the website name first, then artist, then album so it might just list what that title is. – zmbro (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
Nikkimaria Mostly done with comments above. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Added more replies above. – zmbro (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Following up on this. – zmbro (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book locations issue from above is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria My apologies must have not seen or forgot about the above post. I know for a fact all book refs should be fixed now. – zmbro (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Re-pinging. – zmbro (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only pending issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Sorry didn't know if anything else needed to be done. Thanks again! – zmbro (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by indopug

[edit]
  • While the description of Bowie as singer-songwriter is technically correct, the term usually implies a sort of Woody Guthrie figure, strumming away at his acoustic guitar. I feel "rock musician" would be better; he was after all performing rock music while backed by a rock band.
  • I personally think he qualifies as a "singer-songwriter", in the same way people like Lou Reed, Paul McCartney and Paul Simon are (and for the same reason people like Ringo Starr aren't). But, I'm not gonna fuss about it so changed to just "musician".
  • This is a defining glam-rock album, I'd replace the somewhat vague "pop rock" (a genre that even describes Avril Lavigne lol) with it.
  • I wouldn't consider this album as a "defining glam-rock album", especially compared to Ziggy and Aladdin. Hunky does have some bits of glam in it, notably "Queen Bitch" and you could argue "Oh! You Pretty Things" but those are just two instances. You also can't really make the comparison to Lavigne because pop rock in the 70s was much different than it was in the 2000s. Pop rock is primarily in the infobox because it's sourced. For some reason, biographers like Pegg don't give a definite genre of the album and the only source I could find that mentions glam as part of the while album is this one: "a mix of pop, glam, art and folk". That's mainly why glam rock is not in the infobox.
  • 'It was supported by the singles "Changes" in 1972 and "Life on Mars?" in 1973.' - can an album really be "supported" by a single 19 months after its release? I think "Life on Mars"'s single release was independent of the album.
  • Pegg writes: "'Life On Mars?' was belatedly released as a single at the height of Ziggymania in June 1973." I basically think RCA saw the success Bowie had become following Ziggy after just released it as a single to capitalize. I mean it was released after Aladdin, which is crazy to me. I think the same can be said for "Rock 'n' Roll Suicide", a Ziggy track that was released as a single in '74, two years later. Should I change it to something like: "It was supported by the single "Changes" in 1972; "Life on Mars?" was later released as a single in 1973."?
  • 'Among these were "Moonage Daydream"...' - this sentence seems irrelevant to the topic at hand.
  • You're totally right, plus I added them to the Ziggy article awhile ago. Removed it here.
  • "This was partly due to challenges that his new manager Tony Defries, whom Bowie hired after firing his old manager Kenneth Pitt and leaving music publisher Essex Music, faced" - having "faced" so far away from the rest of the clause seems awkward.
  • I agree. Fixed.
  • "After hearing Bowie's new single . . . three or four years." - these 3 sentences are looong, averaging 46 words each!
  • Yeah you're right :\ I guess I could trim the bit about Wonder, as that's not really that relevant in the context of the whole article. What do you recommend?
  • Some confusion regarding Tony Visconti - "Visconti was replaced as producer by Ken Scott". But there's no mention of Visconti being appointed producer at all? In fact, the previous section had him gone way in August 1970.
  • Visconti was the producer of The Man Who Sold the World. I believe one of the biographers worded it that way (that he was replaced). However, now that you mention it I guess he wouldn't be replaced in this instance if he left voluntarily. I think replaced was used because Visconti had already worked with Bowie for Space Oddity and Man so it made sense when I was writing it. What would you recommend here?

I'm finding way too many occurrences of stilted prose and confused wording in just the first two or three sections to say this article is ready for FA status right now. I'll try to give a detailed review in the coming days.—indopug (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be that big of an issue. It's my first album article so I'm still learning. Ready to do whatever it takes :-) – zmbro (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say, I'm going to start this later today. Mods please dont' close this yet!—indopug (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed review
[edit]
General comments
  • Remember that the subject of this article is the album Hunky Dory. Many times there is a tendency to go on about things that are not directly related to this album. (For example: the Stevie Wonder stuff)
  • This excess detail often gets in the way of a coherent narrative, who is often best told completely chronologically.
  • Words like "Bowie" and "album" are used hundreds of times in the article; try to make sure they don't repeat several times in a single sentence or in adjacent sentences.
Background
  • You should add a couple of sentences on TMWSTW's style, impact (on Bowie) and reception. Specifically, it's not very clear how popular and acclaimed Bowie is in mid-1970.
  • The first paragraph seems very scattershot and honestly I'm struggling to see the narrative here that is relevant to the story of the making of Hunky Dory.
  • What were the challenges Defries faced?
  • One was the Stevie Wonder thing... xP
  • "whom Bowie hired after firing his old manager Kenneth Pitt and leaving music publisher Essex Music" doesn't add anything, IMO.
  • Yeah you're right. Removed.
  • There's a lot of stuff about Visconti (and its not clear he produced MWSTW), Ronson and Woodmansey that, again, seems to have nothing to do with the making of the new album. Keep the focus on Bowie.
  • I mainly added these to give readers an idea of where they (specifically Ronson and Woodmansey) were at when Bowie contacted them later on, especially in regards to the first few sentences of writing and recording. – zmbro (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is much better.
  • Why is Mercury sending him to the US? Is it his US label?
  • This is fixed.
  • Not clear what Haddon is. If it is Haddon Hall, it's not clear Bowie was there?
  • It is Haddon Hall. It's introduced in the first paragraph. After the radio tour he returned there and began writing songs.
  • You should remove that box quote and incorporate what's he said into the narrative. Clearly America played a central role in how he wrote. You've only credited it for writing songs to 3 icons.
  • "As a result..." - as a result of what? Composing on piano in a spacious studio doesn't mean one suddenly becomes prolific.
  • Removed the sentence before it about the bedroom thing; think it's a bit of excess detail. Since this alters the next sentence, I changed "as a result" to "in total". Does that work? – zmbro (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Writing and recording
  • You need to reintroduce Arnold Corns since that sentence was removed.
  • Fixed.
  • "leaving Mercury" - this is abrupt. I see that it's later dealt with extensively in Release; but why not write the whole article completely chronologically? Move para 1 of Release to the end of Background (and rewrite accordingly).
  • Done.
  • "Arnold Corns guitarist Mark Pritchett, Space Oddity drummer Terry Cox, and his former Turquoise colleague Tony Hill" - these guys make no futher appearances in the article. Is it necessary to mention them at all?
  • Removed.
  • "Kemp would instead join Steeleye Span" - not relevant.
  • Removed.
  • "which included album track "Andy Warhol". - just want to note that in the narrative, the album hasn't been made yet, so there can't be an "album track". Just "song" is enough here.
  • Very good point.
  • Woah the second paragraph drops a lot of names and goes into a LOT of detail about a single performance. I'm not sure of the relevance of any of it, except the last sentence. So why not start with that? "Bowie along with his new backing trio, soon to be named TSFM, played for the first time on 3 June on BBC DJ John Peel's show. The set included debut performances of several songs Bowie had recently written such as..."
  • This way a case of I didn't know when enough was enough. Should be better now.
  • Third para goes way too deep into Scott's resume. Also don't think Visconti needs to be mentioned here (and saying he was "replaced" is confusing). All you need is "Ken Scott, who had engineered Bowie's two previous albums, was hired to co-produce alongside Bowie. His debut as a producer, Scott would borrow some of the acoustic sounds of George Harrison's All Things Must Pass (1970), an album he engineered."
  • Done.
  • "the Spiders reconvened" - was there a break for them to have to RE-convene?
  • Not really but I mainly used "reconvene" in this case as before they recorded without Wakeman and after he was hired they continued. Maybe "regrouped" would be better? – zmbro (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struggling to see the importance/relevance of any of the Dudley Moore and Chameleon stuff. Especially the latter, since they don't seem to be a notable band, and the song is not from Hunky dory.—indopug (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indopug Alright so I have done a LOT of tinkering with the background section. I've specified some things, trimmed down excess stuff (including the bits about the Man musicians), as well as add a sentence on his early-1971 single "Holy Holy"; it was a flop but I think it should deserve at least a mention. More importantly I've done some copy-editing and most importantly reorganized the entire section in chronological order. I've also done some trimming with the music and lyrics section, as like you said there's many things that are unrelated to the album in question. Please let me know if you think anything needs to be done. – zmbro (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments about Backing and Writing
  • Let me start off by saying great job! You clearly care about this article and want it to be the best it can. So, thank you for taking my comments in the right spirit and working hard to implement them.
  • Thank you!
  • Why did Defries want to terminate Bowie's Mercury contract?
  • Long story short, Bowie's contract with Mercury was expiring in June 1971 and Defries felt that Mercury had not done Bowie justice financially. Mercury was planning on renewing his contract with better terms but Defries felt another label would be better for Bowie financially. Bowie had A LOT of management problems between '69-'76 and I felt that going into all that in his album articles wouldn't be that necessary unless they directly related to the album at hand (which it did for HD) – zmbro (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see that "duo album" quote box before and honestly it feels weird. First of all, what is a "duo record"? Second, I can't shake the feeling of a guitarist trying to overstate his own contribution (to the level of Bowie's) and underplay the bassist and drummer's. Also, "it was just like the things we did as a duo"—they were a duo previously?
  • Removed it
  • Just to confirm: were the Spider from Mars named as such during the Hunky Dory sessions? I thought it was a Ziggy Stardust thing.
  • No up until the Ziggy era they were called Ronno. I think I should make that clear and then mention the Spiders for the first time at the end
  • I feel you should recast the second paragraph (from the second sentence onwards) as being about BOTH Scott and Bowie being co-producers? Even the latter is making Bowie his debut in the role, but that isn't mentioned. Why did he don that role? What impact did he make? (you do mention "No, wait, listen" and him taking "an active role in the album's sound and arrangements" but you should explicitly tie that in with him being a co-producer) Also feel free to expand on what Scott borrowed from All Things Must Pass, if the info is there.
  • I'll see what I can do. Buckley doesn't really specify about ATMP so I'm not sure there's really much else I can do there.
  • "generally dismissive attitude "—do you mean hands-off attitude? "Dismissive" implies being rude and curt with people.
  • It wasn't that he was "dismissive", it was that he was preoccupied with his new wife and managerial issues at the time that he wasn't as "hands-on" in the recording process. I believe I have added more explanation at the MWStW article if you're interested.
  • That extended sentence about not knowing the "Changes" dates should really be relegated to the Notes. Here all you need is " 'Changes' was recorded around ...".
  • Yeah you're right. Fixed.
  • Gem Productions feature twice in the article. What are they?
  • Pegg writes: "...Defries's colleague Laurence Myers, who had recently formed a management company called Gem Productions (which also took The New Seekers and Gary Glitter onto its books in 1970). Gem would under-write most of the expenses incurred over the next couple of years, until Bowie's success led to the formation in 1972 of MainMan, Defries's business empire." Deals with the management thing. I guess I could remove the references to them, as doing so wouldn't really change anything. – zmbro (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments about Music and lyrics
  • As its title says, this section should be about the music and lyrics found on the album. What is NOT is a collection of summaries of every song. What I mean is, even stuff like "Described by Pegg as one of Bowie's seminal recordings and one of the greatest songs of all time by Rolling Stone,[50][48] the song is also considered a manifesto for Bowie's entire career" is irrelevant here; we are only interested with what the song sounds like and what Bowie is singing about in it.
  • Further, since nearly every song has its own article, even much of the (way too) detailed speculation about what the lyrics refer to and have been inspired by, doesn't always need to be here. For example: 'In a 1973 interview, William Burroughs believed the lyrics to be influenced by T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land, though Bowie denied that he read Eliot.[64] Pegg finds this hard to believe, and also considers the cactus to be similar to the one found in Eliot's "The Hollow Men".'
  • I will continue working tonight and tomorrow on trimming.
  • On the other hand, what definitely should belong here is stuff that cannot be relegated to a song article—what the album as a whole sounds like and what its themes are in general. That initial paragraph takes a good stab at it, but after a couple of sentences it seems to get overwhelmed by quotes (which are often not about the content itself, but whether it is good or bad; not what we're interested with here). I'd like to see it expanded mostly in your own words, of the musical styles (more acoustic; piano-based; poppier than before etc) and lyrical themes (America; "explorations of politics, psychology and occult"; pop culture; the album's "preoccupation with the silver screen")—indopug (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had discussed this with Ian Rose during the GA review. The main problem that aggravates me with this is I haven't been able to find that many online reviews of HD and biographers like Pegg don't even give a general description of the music/lyrics. I originally updated this section to sort of put it into my own words but Ian told me that at that point in the review to leave it be and see what PR or FAC reviewers think about it. I greatly wish I could get two paragraphs on the songs/music/lyrics in general but I haven't found many reliable sources that describe them. I'll see what I can do. Continue to do work yourself if you'd like; I'd greatly appreciate the help. – zmbro (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • Add "Defries felt that Mercury had not done Bowie justice financially" to Background.
  • Done
  • Looks like it is. Don't know how that's been wrong this whole time.
  • Again, Bowie was also co-producer; you need to mention that even he was debuting in the role.
  • In Songs, make sure the first instance of every song is wikilinked.
  • I originally had this but realized a lot of them were duplinks so I removed them.
  • 'the title "Hunky Dory" was announced at the John Peel session' - you should mention this in Writing and recording as well, when the Peel session comes up.
  • Added
  • "Hunky Dory was released on 17 December 1971 by RCA"—why do you need 3 refs for this?
  • Explained this above but Cann & Pegg have both given different release dates so I wanted to make it clear.
  • "RCA did not promote the album much due to a warning that Bowie would be changing his image for his next album, and Hunky Dory's unusual album cover, described by Pegg as a fait accompli." - this sentence is highly unclear. Where did this 'warning' come from? And though I understand what you mean by 'fait accompli' I feel you should elaborate on it to explain it better. The "and Hunky Dory's unusual album cover" construction is also awkward.
  • Changed the sentence to "The album received little promotion from RCA due to its unusual cover image and a warning that Bowie would be changing his image for his next album." I forget where I read that (it was one of the biographers) but I believe the warning was from Defries. I also don't believe it was as much a "warning" as it was a notice, but I can verify that once I find who said it. – zmbro (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "citing Beggars Banquet by the Rolling Stones, Damn the Torpedoes by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, War by U2, and The Bends by Radiohead" - a very long list, and completely unnecessary IMO. The point being made is clear enough without these examples.
  • Now that you mention it I agree. Fixed.
  • The Rankings section might be better presented as a table. The prose is very repetitive here otherwise.
  • Found the lead to be weirdly imbalanced: way too much stuff about the album cover and title, but not enough on the lyrics or the place of HD in his career. I also don't think the names of publications or of some boxset (albums are reissued every five years, who cares) belong in the lead. I took the initiative reorganising it to more closely match the style of the rest of the article.
  • Reference style: when you have archive dates you don't need retrieval dates. Having three dates in a single ref makes it extremely bulky.
  • The retrieval dates in these cases would be access dates, which are required.
  • Add a photograph of Bowie to the article.

Support Minor concerns above notwithstanding, this is a thoroughly researched article and well written too. The nominator's positive response to FAC comments have only made it better.—indopug (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I think the second paragraph of the reception section could be more fluent. There’s enough organization there that I’m not going to oppose — the “Bowie starts to become Bowie” comment is an echo of the previous comment — but the rest of the paragraph is little more than a listing of some opinions. It doesn’t read as though the writer of the paragraph has done more than select some quotes and put them in order; paragraphs in an article should convey a message, using quotes to illustrate the message, rather than simply listing quotes and letting the reader deduce the message. See WP:RECEPTION for more details on what I’m trying to say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see exactly what you mean. I'll see what I can do. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie How does it look now? How to change a few things, including adding one and subtracting another. – zmbro (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s much improved. I won’t support or oppose as I haven’t read the whole article but I think you’ve fixed the issue I pointed out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great article, I've done a little read and here's a few notes I picked up on a first pass:

  • I thought it was odd too but Sandford actually uses the word "sent". Pegg just says "after his promotional tour" but since Sandford is cited I felt it was best to use how he described it.
  • Removed link
  • Fixed
  • Fixed.
  • Very good point. There was originally another para but I moved that to background. Fixed now.
  • I separated the first as I agree it was too long. As for the second, in its current state, I think it's better as is. Even though it's 8 sentences, in terms of flow, I think it reads better as one. I know numerous pubs have listed it as one of his best albums so I've thought about adding more of those (in that case I would make that it's own para) but I've struggled with whether or not that belongs in legacy or critical reception.
  • *sales figures based on certification alone

^shipments figures based on certification alone - do we need both notes when only one is active? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually think both of those are a part of the template itself as I can't seem to change that.


Otherwise, this article is hunky dory. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski Thanks very much for the comments! Everything should be taken care of :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Good job
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) 7 October 2020 [65].

Burnley F.C.

[edit]
Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about English football club Burnley, which competes in the Premier League, the first tier. It's a club from a small town but with a rather interesting and large history. The article was passed as GA at the beginning of the year, and received a peer review (thanks Kosack, Paul W and No Great Shaker) and a copy edit (thank you Twofingered Typist) since. I also want to thank my mentor, Casliber, for making the article better. I look forward to any comments! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by No Great Shaker

[edit]

I haven't taken part in an FAC discussion before, though I have a lot of experience at GAR and, as WA8MTWAYC kindly points out, I've tried to help out at peer review too. Please bear with me while I gain some idea of how FAR works but I will make a few initial comments about the nomination.

The content is well within scope and I think the coverage is both extensive and useful. While there is considerable detail, it is sufficient for the purpose of completing scope. As far as I can tell, the information is accurate and is adequately sourced. Overall, it is an interesting read (however, I concede that as a football supporter myself from a neighbouring town, I would find it interesting, especially as I've visited Turf Moor many times). I believe, based on past reviews, that the images are all acceptable – they are certainly relevant. The narrative is written well enough for GA purposes but I will be interested to see if FA requires a higher standard, though I would hope no one expects something that might contend for the Booker Prize or whatever.

I will see what more experienced FAR contributors say before committing myself but I would think this article is certainly in with a chance of success. Well done, WA8MTWAYC, and good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your very kind words, No Great Shaker! Glad you enjoyed the article. I'll kindly await your eventual follow-up. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading the "Supporters and rivalries" section again and made a few minor amendments to wording and syntax. Still have this on watch and will be back. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading the article again and I think it's there. Really pleased to support now. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lee Vilenski. I'm looking forward to your feedback, and I'll gladly take a look at your work sometime this weekend. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I hope you don't mind I made some amends here regarding readability) Thanks very much for your comments, Lee Vilenski. It's all resolved now and I left comments under your points. If there's anything further I need to change, please let me know. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]

These are some points I picked out, but I'm not seeing a huge amount that would really stop me from supporting. This is a good, thorough piece of work. Kosack (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, Kosack. I've addressed them all and left comments under your points. If there's anything further I need to amend, please let me know. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kosack, have you got anything else for me? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant to get back to this sooner. I don't think there's anything else for me, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I've added this to the image/source reviews requests to get some, and also to the urgents list in order to scare up a review (hopefully) from someone not connected with the sports area. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth Do we only need a source review now? Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Hog Farm

[edit]

I know next to nothing about this subject, but I'll take a crack at this anyway once I get the chance. Will probably be claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 16:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and was one of the 12 founder members" - Should this be "founding members"? In American English, founding members would be correct.
Should be "founder members" in GB. The term "charter members" is sometimes used nowadays but that's related more to business. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Harry Windle was named chairman in 1909, after which the club's finances turned around" - It seems weird to talk about how the finances turned around when there's no mention of them being bad in the first place.
Added the necessary information in the previous sentence. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a then English record" - Personally, I think "then an English record" would read better, but maybe that's just an Americanism.
I would stick with "a then English record" as a common GB idiom. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They travelled to the United States after the season ended to participate in the International Soccer League, the first modern international American football tournament" - How did they do in the tournament?
They finished second in their group (out of six) and were thus eliminated. I've omitted the result as it's in my opinion not relevant. The interesting thing is that Burnley were invited because of their status and took part in that inaugural/pioneering tournament. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that the "Player of the Year" table is really relevant. It's exclusively a fan vote, and it's only for this team. Since it's only a club-level award, it doesn't appear super relevant.
It's the second time I received a comment about this, so decided to remove it from the page (and to maybe later create its own article). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like you should mention winning the Anglo-Scottish Cup in the prose.
Could do but it was a very minor competition. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As No Great Shaker points out, it was a minor honour, so it's not needed to put it in the prose. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the first two paragraphs of the in media section is relevant. It's mostly unrelated trivia about how people wore Burnley gear on various TV shows. We don't have a list of "everytime someone was worn a Yankees cap on TV" at New York Yankees, for the same reasons. The third paragraph of this should then be moved elsewhere in this article.
I think I'll have to concede here. Some of the similar FAs also don't have this section, so I deleted it. I relocated the third paragraph to Lord's own Wiki page, as it had more to do with Lord himself than the club. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm finding here. Willing to discuss any of these. If you'd fancy returning the favor, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Battle of Newtonia/archive1 needs another review. Hog Farm Bacon 22:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, Hog Farm. I hope you enjoyed the article. I've addressed all your points and left some comments here. If there is anything else I need to change, please let me know. I'll take a look at your work in the next days. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
I couldn't find more information, so decided to remove the image from the article. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced of the fair use rationale of File:Burnley F.C. Logo.svg, since there is a free variation of the logo used elsewhere in the article. It therefore seems to fail WP:NFCC#1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (I am not convinced that the difference is significant enough that there is an encyclopedic purpose to keeping the .svg logo). Sorry, my mistake
The similar image (I presume you mean this one) depicts the town's coat of arms. The club's badge is based on that, so they're very similar but not the same. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the image review, Buidhe. I've addressed your points. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the sourcing

[edit]

I've taken a peek at the source usage in the article. A rather large amount of sources are either the website of the club or Simpson 2007 which apparently is an affiliated source - sometimes that bespeaks a certain positive bias in coverage but sometimes it implies that the source is experienced in the topic. Otherwise I see national and local newspapers and websites. I question #135 and #134 - a press release by an involved company doesn't seem to be a very good justification for including the producer of the shirts in the article. What makes #142, #156, #180 and #182 (some other references come from that website) a reliable source? #145 I have to wonder where it gets its information from. Is Tim Quelch a good author to use as a source? As it's quite late here in Switzerland, I won't be doing a spot-check except upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

[edit]
  • "Potts often employed the then unfashionable 4–4–2 formation and he implemented a Total Football playing style" - Checks out
  • "The team avoided relegation to the Football Conference, the highest level of non-league football, on the last day in 1986–87, after they won against Orient and their rivals drew or lost" - Checks out
  • "The team have played their home games at Turf Moor since February 1883, which replaced their original premises at Calder Vale" - Supported by reference
  • "It is possibly the earliest recorded case of match fixing in football" - Okay
  • "Four years later, Willie Irvine became top goal scorer in the first tier, also a unique feat in the club's history." - Supported

I've checked these with no issues, so I'm comfortable with saying that the spot checks are clean. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 18:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 1 October 2020 [66].

1993 Football League First Division play-off Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another classic play-off final. Swindon scored three goals in eleven minutes to go 3–0 up, just for Leicester to score three in twelve to make it three apiece. Then a penalty in the last few minutes decided it. Wonderful. As always, I'll work my rear end off to make sure I address any and all comments, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural

[edit]

Hmm, when I said feel free to open a new nom I wasn't expecting a co-om as well since with your open co-nom for Iwan Roberts that kinda adds up to two noms simultaneously. That said, I can see Roberts is pretty close to finishing so go ahead but let's leave it at these two for a bit... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if things weren't quite so glacial around here it would help. In actuality, the co-noms are simply me helping out the main contributors in each case, it would be very unfair to deny them a run at FAC through bureaucracy. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's best if you delete this nomination if it's going to prevent Kosack co-nominating 2010 Football League Championship play-off Final with me. It's not fair at all on them. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to cancel this on my account TRM, you were here first. I'm happy to wait until you have a free slot for a co-nom. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydokes. Perhaps you could have a look at it?! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, I'll take a look as soon as I can. Kosack (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by WA8MTWAYC

[edit]

Another great article, TRM. I've some points.

  • In the lead, "Premiership" is quickly followed by "Premier League". I would stick to either "Premiership" or to "PL" for consistency.
  • "...four minutes later, with goals from Steve Walsh and Steve Thompson, the..." reads a bit odd. Maybe "and with further goals from..." will do (or whatever you come up with).
  • "...remaining, the referee David Elleray awarded..." I think "the" can be dropped.
  • "...for the first time in their club's 73-year history." Surely the club's 73-year history in the English professional divisions?
  • "...having conceded a record-100 goals." > a record 100 goals.
  • Maybe it's better to link Header (association football) in "...Summerbee was headed past..." instead of "...from a George Lawrence header.".
  • "...which was played over two legs had ended 2–2." some words are missing here.
  • "...for the first time in the 73-year history..." see above.
  • "The Leicester City manager Brian Little was..." I think you mean Hoddle here.
  • "...as of 2019..." Maybe you can update this (if there's a reliable source available).
WA8MTWAYC all addressed except for "the" referee which I use to avoid attributing a false title. Cheers for the review, much appreciated! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TRM, I'll give the article my support. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]
  • There's some inconsistency in the making of the Premiership/Premier League throughout, the opening paragraph of the lead has both for example. I'm not sure it was ever known by both at the same time?
  • "while the teams placed from third to sixth place", a little repetitive with placed/place perhaps? Could simply do away with the second usage.
  • After the first paragraph of the lead, you drop Town for Swindon but maintain City for Leicester. Is there a reason for that?
  • Worth linking Kick-off (association football)?
  • "whose shot was curled past Kevin Poole", is the "was" necessary here?

A couple of minor points I picked out. I've omitted any duplicates that WA8MTWAYC also brought up. A great article. Kosack (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack many thanks, all addressed (hopefully to your satisfaction), cheers for the review, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's it from me, nice work. Happy to support this one. Kosack (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Dweller

[edit]

This is a very good article, FA quality. I see little to critique. The post-match section reads a little choppily, like it's facts stuck together (which it is of course, but could read smoother). You might pull out the reaction to the match so it's not buried in the 'what happened to the teams/managers'. Also, it seems odd for the background section to be larger than the match summary, but perhaps that's nitpicking. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've rejigged the post-match section per your recommendation. I agree that it's unfortunate that match reports are briefer than background, but I honestly can't find anything else anywhere. If you have anything that I could add, I'd be DELIGHTED. Thanks for taking a look dude. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski thanks as always for your comments. I've addressed them all, let me know what you think? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski I can't find anything. The fact that they finished the season tied on points means there wasn't a clear favourite, but I can't find anything to reference. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually managed to dig out a couple of snapshots of people saying Swindon were most likely to win, but nothing more... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there would be something, thanks for adding. Happy now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comment Support from Amakuru

[edit]
  • Obviously a well-written article as ever, TRM, we wouldn't expect anything else. But like Dweller I'd be concerned about the lack of coverage of the major events of the match, other than the goals. And in particular, comparing that coverage to other single-game FAs. Obviously it's much harder to source relevant info for pre-internet-revolution games like this one, but that doesn't mean the information doesn't exist. And FA criterion 1(b) is unforgiving - the article must "neglect no major facts". Possible sources that *might* have info include this book, although unfortunately it doesn't seem to be in the British Library and you probably don't want to spend 18 quid buying it. Copies of the Swindon Advertiser from the date in question might help too... I think they have that on the microfilm at the British Library, and I could take a look the week after next if it's still relevant then. Also another idea, and I don't know if this meets reliable source policy, but could you go through the ITV match footage at [67] and mention things that the commentators and/or Jimmy Greaves (in the half-time analysis) said about it at the time? That might allow things like missed chances and so on to be covered, and if they're what the commentator said. It would be a shame for this one not to go through after quite a long time in the nomination queue so far, but then again we want to make sure it fulfils the criteria. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Amakuru. Thanks for the comments. Of course I'd be very grateful if you could find anything at the BL, now you've made this comment, clearly the FAC won't pass so it's on hold for another three weeks. I'd be interested to hear if actually using a recording of the footage (if hosted reliably) would be a valid addition. I remember when doubt was cast on the reliability of the the "blow-by-blow" as it happened accounts, someone mentioned using the YouTube video of the actual match but it didn't seem to wash, IIRC. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I've ordered the book, I see we have about 12 match articles which feature Swindon, so I'll amortise the cost across those while getting them all featured...!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, that's dedication to the cause! I just hope they selected the play-off final as one of the matches to feature... I have no idea on the legitimacy of the match footage, but in my opinion it really should be valid, given that we accept "watching the movie" as an excuse for leaving Plot sections entirely uncited, e.g. here. I wasn't involved in the questioning of the blow-by-blow accounts though, so I don't know about them. Obvious incidents like shots on goal and yellow cards could not really be construed as original research, while subjective opinions such as a "brilliant tackle" or "superbly-struck shot" could surely be attributed to a commentator from the live footage in the same manner as the minute-by-minute account. Anyway, I will have a look for those newspaper articles when I get a chance. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The book has arrived, it has a sterling two pages on this match, so I will work to incorporate that into the match summary. I'm reluctant to go down the path of the match video at this time, purely from the perspective that it wasn't given much positive reaction in the previous discussion. If others think it's acceptable to provide my own commentary based on the match in the same manner as WP:PLOT allows, I'll do it, but that's something I've never seen before. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, the additional details in the book have been incorporated, and as that was the fifty greatest ever Swindon matches, it'd be fair to assume that's the major components of the match covered now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the video you've linked, that's not hosted by the official Swindon website (looks like it's a fan-hosted site) so it wouldn't be considered RS, even though I know it looks very authentic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And while I'm keen to include as much as I can, even from that YouTube video, do you know what the copyright status of the video is? Has it been legally released by ITV for third parties to host it? I don't believe that to be the case, so we can't reference it at all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed these comments. Probably again a question for the reliable sources noticeboard or similar, but personally I would think that it *might* be OK to cite ITV's coverage directly as a source for the match, and viewing that footage shown on YouTube would be a proxy for that... not that you'd link to it or cite it, just that it seems like a faithful reproduction of the coverage that actually took place. Which you could possibly in theory purchase from ITV themselves if you really had the inclination. Perhaps not though, it's getting into murky waters. There are obviously various videos and suchlike around in the ether too, although perhaps not easily available. I've booked the microfiche for the Swindon Evening Advertiser at the BL next Tuesday, so will let you know if that turns up anything useful. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: What are your thoughts on the timeline of examining and introducing possible new material? I'm not keen on archiving this after all the work that's been done if it's likely to be a short turnaround. But if it will take longer that a couple of weeks, I'd rather archive and have you renominate after the work is done. --Laser brain (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add anything Amakuru can find as soon as he lets me have it. Next Tuesday appears to be the day he plans on visiting the British Library and I anticipate being able to introduce anything pertinent by the end of the following day or so. I don't think archiving this nomination would be in the slightest bit reasonable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, Laser brain, I think I'm done now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all. As I have already mentioned to TRM offline, my trip to the library to view the Swindon Advertiser yielded a few tidbits on the post-match celebrations and Hoddle's departure to Chelsea, but a promised "16-page pullout" with all the details of the match itself failed to make it into the microfilm archives held by the British Library. Maybe it was nabbed by a fan before the paper could be scanned! In the absence of this, and with TRM having gone out of his way to locate other info on the match by buying a book, I'll withdraw my concerns above. What follows are a few minor points I've noted from the prose etc, after which I'll consider this good to promote:

Source review - pass

[edit]

Might be claimed for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Bacon 14:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Locations for Foster and Mattick?
  • Sources all look to meet the high-quality RS requirement of FAC.
  • No formatting issues detected.

Now to the spot checks:

  • My lack of detailed knowledge of association football may be the issue here. So the summary shows Walsh and Hoddle with yellow cards, right? But the source doesn't mention that, and the prose just mentions a Summerbee yellow card, which isn't noted. Am I interpreting the table wrong?
  • "In their following season, Swindon finished bottom of the Premiership and were relegated back to the second tier" - Good
  • "The referee for the match was David Elleray of Harrow on the Hill" - Good
  • "Leicester City ended the season level on points with Swindon but with an inferior goal difference" - Yep
  • "while the return fixture at the County Ground the following April ended in a 1–1 draw." - Good
  • "In 2009, Eurosport listed it as the 94th best association football match of all-time" - Good

All that's a major issue is the yellow card thing, which is probably just me being confused. Fix/explain to me why I'm wrong, and this is a pass. Hog Farm Bacon 14:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm thanks again, I've addressed the mix-up over the yellow cards. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, passing the source review. Hog Farm Bacon 16:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.