Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2018

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2018 [1].

Red-capped parrot

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another bird article. This time alot of help from @Cygnis insignis:, which has been much appreciated. As has the GA review. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Nice to see a bird again. First comments below:

  • The red-capped parrot was first described by German naturalist Heinrich Kuhl as Psittacus spurius in 1820,[3] from an immature specimen collected in Albany – sounds a bit as this would be the only specimen available to him, but he surely must have seen live ones.
not necessarily. many of the bird species of this era were described in Europe from a single skin or drawing and limited information Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but from the next sentence it follows that he must have had at least a second specimen to compare with, as he was comparing juveniles with adults? This is what got me confused. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see your point. Will see what else there is explainng that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A mystery! I was wondering the same from the start of my research, the spurius epithet is comparative. It is possible that Kuhl saw another specimen in England, or there are notes from Baudin's expedition, but no one has stated that. It is worth noting the region had no English settlement, collections and information would be rarer than from the east of Australia (Port Jackson). — cygnis insignis 11:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gould also gave blue parrot as the name given in the new colony. – Wording seems a bit convoluted.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • other vernacular names include: pileated parrot, derived from the old epithet pileatus and formerly used in aviculture; western king parrot, distinguishing it from the Australian king parrot (Alisterus scapularis) occurring in the east; purple-crowned parrot, grey parrot, or hookbill for the distinctive upper mandible. – This is a bit difficult to read, especially the last part, where the separate names are no longer separated by a semicolon.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes, vernacular names are put in quotation marks, and sometimes not. I would find it easier to read if all were put in quotation marks.
ideally all words as names-as-names would be in italics but this would be confusing with scientific names. Have put them in quotation marks now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • English artist Edward Lear illustrated the live specimen in his 1830 work – Is this referring to the specimen mentioned in the previous sentence?
yes, hence the "the" there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably this is just because of my incomplete understanding of English, but was the specimen really a living, captive one, or was it just illustrated in life pose? If the former, I would mention that in the previous sentence already to make it clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recently added 'living specimen', which is surprising though plausible. The full title of Lear's work states they are drawn from life, and this apparent in the realism of the posture and so on, but I needed a secondary reference to support the assertion that the subject was a living bird. cygnis insignis 00:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are sure that this was a living specimen, I would state that already in the previous sentence, otherwise it is confusing as the reader would first assume that the specimen is a dead one. If you are not sure, it might be better to remove this information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Vigors saw living specimens. I can provide a citation that Lear sketched a living bird, in England, and believe that is evident from the illustration. The use of references is in accordance with what I know so far, as I'm not a 'sky is blue' contributor. I feel that I can only improve this when the refs support what I assume, but I am not steering this article and will concede to a different view. — cygnis insignis 12:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • have been recorded at: Perth, Djar-rail-bur-tong and Djarrybarldung; King George Sound, Jul-u-up; Stirling Range, Chelyup; and Southwest, Djalyup – as above, the sentence structure was not immediately obvious to me, reading flow is not optimal here.
Me again, I think the italic helped, but I awkwardly tried to compress this information. No objection to expanding this sentence. cygnis insignis 00:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A recommended orthography and pronunciation list of Nyungar names has proposed daryl [char’rill], djarrailboordang [cha’rail’bore’dang], and djayop [cha’awp]. – Unclear to me: Is this repeating names mentioned previously, with other orthography (if so, what is the other based on)? Is this about how to pronounce the names?
Workers have begun using that list for names, I added this after giving Serventy's note from the mid-20C. The orthography and pronunciation list is generally accepted, but not as widely cited as Serventy and Whittell. I added both, but it is the Captain's choice to subtract or merge. cygnis insignis 00:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Taxonomy section, you write "red-capped parakeet" instead of "red-capped parrot", which is slightly confusing.
I prefaced it with a note on the official name to give it context Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link "crown" in the description part. Also other terms such as "lore", and many others.
ok, I linked a bunch, but do you think bill should be linked or too obvious? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In March and April, the crown feathers and ear coverts of birds with new plumage can have fine black edging. – But they moult in summer and autumn?
Yes, It's the the southern hemisphere - I clarified thusly

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How could I forget about that … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[off-topic comment: hegemony? :–) People in the 'South' always have to convert seasons to months to understand texts, Northerners can presume without context. ] cygnis insignis 01:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • white spots on ten or fewer wing feathers are male – so its the opposite as in adults, where only females have the white spots? Or is this about a different kind of spots? Are they on the upper side or on the underside?
ok, females have white spots on undersides of wings. males don't BUT some immature males do have a few spots. Juveniles have lots of spots, but males have fewer than females.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first para of the description, the iris and bill description is somehow sandwiched between separate parts of the plumage description.
I had it there because it was near the other information about the head, but have moved it to the end now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Upperparts" generally includes wings, but I made it unambiguous just to make sure... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nest site is a tree hollow, on average 9.6 m (31 ft) above the ground and often north or east-facing.[25] A site is selected at an older large tree, marri, jarrah, tuart, flooded gum or paperbark, at a height between 4.5 and 16 metres (15 and 52 ft). – "an older large tree, marri, jarrah, tuart, flooded gum or paperbark", but these are all trees? Maybe reformulate. Also, it might make sence to give the average height after the range, or otherwise combine the to bits.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lower entrance, narrow with a larger hollow, recorded at 3 metres (9.8 ft) was considered exceptional.[40] There are often chew marks at the entrance,[23] which is 70–170 millimetres (2.8–6.7 in) wide. – Perhaps switch these two sentences, as it makes more sense to discuss the typical nests first?
But the outlier (in height) is placed directly after height is discussed in the previous sentence. So it follows on naturally. The next sentence about chew-marks is a different attribute Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The beak of this parrot allows more finesse to obtain seeds from a eucalypt's capsule, the tough case of marri is chewed through by the ringneck parrot or cleaved by the powerful beak of cockatoos (Cacatuidae species). – I don't fully understand why the other birds are mentioned here; is this thought to be a comparison of bill function?
the others are locally occurring psittacines that all eat the same gumnuts...but in different ways, highlighting the specialised adaptation of this parrot's beak. We can remove if too off-topic Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marri is a rich food source, but only for those birds that can efficiently extract them. The red-cap parrot and long-billed cockatoo have cracked this nut, and their population has risen and fallen with the changing distribution of marri. In short, this is about ecology, and I tried to shoehorn that into existing sections. cygnis insignis 01:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fruit of other cultivated introductions are also selected, almond, nectarine, olive, peaches, plums, pomegranates, and white cedar (Melia azedarach). – Maybe add an "including"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grass species, wild oats (Avena fatua), and acacia is grazed for green seed – Which grass species? If this isn't meant to be as specific, why not simply write "grasses"?
Wild oats is a species of grass, so I did this to reduce confusion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information in the first paragraph of the "Feeding" section could be put into a better order. The information on feeding on cultivated fruits and introduced plants is given at different occasions; it might be better to discuss the original food sources first and than discuss feeding on things introduced by Europeans.
Rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • red gum's store of large seeds – What is red gum? Not mentioned previously, maybe add to the list of food plants?
Red gum is a synonym for marri (Corymbia calophylla), fixed now. — cygnis insignis 01:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be because of historically high proportion of wild-caught birds entering aviculture. – But this is only the reason for its reputation for being anxious, and not that it is generally anxious in captivity (as in this case, the link makes less sense to me). Could be a little clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably the former Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley

[edit]

Here are some initial comments:

  • The "and" in the second sentence is a bit odd, but it's ok. I would still prefer that it be changed, possibly to "with".
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be nice to say that "Nesting takes place in tree hollows, generally of older large trees, as just saying "tree hollows" isn't very interesting. It also shows, to the keen eye, for example, how the simple planting of trees won't help. Thus, I think that it'd be a good fact to include in the lead.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it has a bright crimson crown, green-yellow cheeks, and a distinctive long bill. The upperparts, wings and long tail are dark green

"; inconsistent usage of the Oxford comma.

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really applies to the conservation section, but it'd be nice to state why the population is increasing. According to its IUCN account, it is because formerly unsuitable habitats are degrading to become its preferred habitat.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "very different" appears odd in the sentence "The specific epithet spurius is the Latin adjective meaning "illegitimate", and refers to the very different adult and immature plumages (hence appearing unrelated)." Maybe say "notable differences between"?
changedf to "markedly different" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "Vigors' name was generally used until German naturalist Otto Finsch followed Kuhl in calling it Platycercus spurius in 1868", but didn't Kuhl place it in the genus Psittacus? And it seems that Kuhl died a year after describing it.
You are correct, thanks for reminding me. There is a couple of problems that emerged from two editors using different and occasionally erroneous sources. I will try to access HANZAB to untangle the taxonomy, if Cas does not get there first. — cygnis insignis 03:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what I meant was that the species name pileatus was mostly followed (with different generic combinations) until Finsch recognised spurius as taking precedence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could say "The species name pileatus was generally used until German naturalist Otto Finsch followed Kuhl in using the specific name spurius, calling it Platycercus spurius in 1868." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, but I'll leave more comments later. It's interesting so far! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you say "There is no known geographical variation; five birds from Esperance had smaller bills and tarsi, however the sample was too small to draw any conclusions", you do not mention what the birds from Esperance were compared to; previously collected samples in general, or perhaps birds from another specific locality? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit odd to say "The red-capped parrot was known to be related to other broad-tailed parrots, but relationships within the group were unclear", when we do seem to know that it is related to other broad-tailed parrots; perhaps say "The red-capped parrot is known to be related to other broad-tailed parrots, but relationships within the group were unclear before [date]." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first "was" places the whole line in the past tense. Adding another past qualifier such as "before" or "previously" strikes me as tautological in this case. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you shouldn't even have a "was", because it is related. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I did this then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'd agree so rephrased it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, that might have been mine mangling of the sources. I had another go, here, but hope Cas reviews this change. — cygnis insignis 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now, but I think you should have kept "birding guide". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW [pers. com.], this confirms my interviews with W. Aust birdies: King=Red-cap. — cygnis insignis 13:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "The adult male has a crimson forehead and crown, which extends from the gape or base of the lower mandible through the eye, grey-brown lores, and green hindneck and cheeks, with more yellow green ear coverts", "with more yellow green ear coverts" is out of place. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rejigged like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added the missing word Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This phrase is pretty ambiguous: "The bill is pale grey-blue or blue-grey with a dark grey tip". First off, what's the difference between grey-blue and blue-grey? Second, does pale apply to both grey-blue and blue-grey (if there is a difference)? Third, does the "dark grey tip" only appear in bills that are blue-grey (again, if there is a difference between grey-blue and blue-grey)? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
grey-blue is supposedly more blue and blue-grey more grey. however this distinction is probably pretty arbitrary. Just left as blue-grey. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Iris dark brown; orbital rim grey; bill bluish grey or whitish grey with darker tip, upper mandible greatly elongated; legs grey." — Handbook of Western Australian birds [ref 40]
I still haven't seen HANZAB, but the above authority may allow some nuance in the description of the bill. The authors of handbooks and guides have different approaches to colour description, Serventy's Handbook (1948) says, "Iris, dark brown; beak, grey-horn with a bluish tinge, and the upper mandible greatly elongated; legs, light brown." — cygnis insignis 03:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked to remove the issue. I think it is obvous that the next two sentences refer to the female. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good now. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 16:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
singularised as much as I can without sounding awkward Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The adult? My sources only suggest 'more than the greyishness of the adult', but Johnstone (Handbook, 1998) says, "Bill grey with yellow tip." for juv. and imm. Platycercus spurius. The article currently says, "The bill is more orange, but turns the pale blue-grey of adult birds by two to five months of age." As with the rest of the paragraph, the comparison is to the adult. — cygnis insignis 03:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "The juvenile plumage is greenish overall, developing the full colouration of the adult after the first year" and then, later, "Juvenile birds begin their first moult around August, and their subsequent plumage much more closely resembles that of adult birds" seems a bit redundant, and seems to indicate that the "full colouration of the adult" is not completely developed after the first year. Also, it seems to indicate that all birds, no matter if born at the end of the breeding season, moult around August. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I folded the text in like this to reduce redundancy. Source says moulting starts in august - no idea how this relates to birth time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 16:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
linked to specific calls Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
sounded alright to me but google and you say otherwise. changed... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The red-capped parrot occurs in the Southwest Australia ecoregion in dense to open forest and woodland, and heathland in coastal regions" reads pretty odd to me. First off, isn't woodland forest? This also appears in the second paragraph of the section. And second off, the comma before "and heathland" is a bit odd. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See woodland - it has less tree cover. I have linked to it, but then should I link to forest or is that too obvious? The comma is to clarify that the occurrence in heathland is in coastal regions specifically, where as the other two aren't Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes/fixed. the coastline along the bottom of WA is the southern coast. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I switched the two plantation types to avoid the reading 'pine gum': It generally avoids blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) and pine plantations. The species of pine seems irrelevant, but it is notable that they do not, the introduction of blue gum and pine monocultures often replaces marri and other smart and adept birds visit them and tuck into pine cones. — cygnis insignis 04:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix this item, and the next one here —cygnis insignis 05:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cygnis insignis added that and I think has had a go at tweaking it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the 8-9 months is left as numbers as there is a 20 months just after. MOS also says better to be internally consistent here. I have changed some of the dashes, as I agree that "to/or" or some prose alternative works better in some places, but using it everywhere makes the prose look a little laboured to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it is an important concept and so linked....wow I'd never call that a boulevard! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You already mention the kind of trees this parrot needs to nest in, so saying "The nest site is a tree hollow generally in an older large tree, such as a marri, jarrah, tuart, flooded gum (Eucalyptus rudis) or paperbark (Melaleuca spp.)" seems a bit redundant; maybe merge this information and the rest of the sentence with the initial sentence mentioning nesting trees? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I can't see first mention - I list trees that live in the parrot's habitat but that does not necessarily mean it nests in them...(unless I am missing something?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The red-capped parrot needs mature trees large enough to have hollows in the trunk or branches." To me, this seems to clearly refer to nesting trees, as it mentions the possibility of having a hollow. If it doesn't refer to nesting trees, though, clarification is definitely needed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 14:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "was considered exceptional" seems a bit odd in the sentence "A lower entrance, narrow with a larger hollow, recorded at 3 metres (10 ft) was considered exceptional." Isn't it still exceptional? And you should probably mention the author; maybe have the last part say "is considered exceptional by [author]." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link clutch. Also, the sentence "The clutch of eggs is laid on wood dust at the bottom of the hollow, recorded at depths between 190 and 976 mm (7.5 and 38.4 in)" is a tidge ambiguous. Why don't you just mention the height of the hollow overall in a separate sentence; currently, you could interpret it as being measured from the bottom of the entrance. Also, if you included it in a separate sentence, you could mention how large the clutch is when you first mention it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have said that line over a few times in my head with the "it" and it sounds really odd to me..but if there is a consensus I will change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "finesse" in the sentence "The beak of this parrot allows more finesse to obtain seeds from a eucalypt's capsule, the tough case of marri is chewed through by the ringneck parrot or cleaved by the powerful beak of cockatoos (Cacatuidae species)" sounds a bit odd. Also, shouldn't there by an "and" after the comma? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 17:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are several ways to eat oysters, some do it with 'finesse'. The comparison has raised an eyebrow before and been scrutinised several times, I see that as my failure to convey what the sources keep mentioning. — cygnis insignis 05:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think its fine. But just don't use finesse, because (at least where I live) it has been adopted as a slang term. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 14:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the urban dictionary, the definitions are concordant with established usage, and I am at a loss to find a synonym that is certain to not be local slang for some type of mischief. Suggestions or edits to the term are welcome, because I thought it appropriate and am not being persuaded otherwise. — —cygnis insignis 15:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The urban dictionary definition is definitely correct, but what I'm saying is that I feel like there could be a more formal word for what you are describing. Perhaps say "dexterity"? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 16:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Switched for 'precision' - 'dexterity' not the right word. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the start of the sentence "Records of feeding on acacia seed pods include Acacia celastrifolia, A. dentifera, A. oncinophylla and A. restiacea, which occur in its range, and stripping pods for small seed of cultivated Acacia merinthophora", why not just say "Acacia species where feeding by this bird on seed pods occurs include"? In its current state, it seems a bit odd to go into a list of species.
The intention is to list the local species of acacia it is known to feed on, and that one [reliable] record was of individuals harvesting seed from an introduced species. I suppose 'records' is weighting the integrity of the information, perhaps that is not necessary. — cygnis insignis 05:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
rejoined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you just say "The red-capped parrot primarily feeds on the ground" instead of "Feeding is often observed on the ground" in the sentence "Feeding is often observed on the ground, clasping the capsule of eucalypts or cones of sheoak with one foot and extracting the seed with their slender hook"? Also, does "hook" refer to the beak or the other foot? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 17:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the beak, clarifiyed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The dexterity they exhibit using foot and beak to dislodge seeds is also presented by long-billed black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus baudinii), occurring in the same habitat, both are specialists in extracting the marri's store of large seeds" reads a bit odd. First off, shouldn't there by an "its" before "foot and beak"? And, why say "presented"; "shown" is much more simple". Also, there should be a "the" before "long-billed black cockatoo". Next, I personally would phrase the part of the sentence starting "occuring" as "with both occurring in the same [although maybe "similar" should be used here] habitat and being specialists in extracting the marri's store of large seeds." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 17:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
of the upper mandible - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Riley, do you feel your comments have been addressed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so far. I'm planning to finish the review tomorrow (if I have the time, of course). Thanks. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was the organism (not the disease) that was isolated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

1a, lead:

  • "though genetic analysis shows that it lies within the lineage of the Psephotellus parrots and its closest relative is the mulga parrot (Psephotellus varius)."—Adding a second "that" would clarify that the second proposition is also from genetic analysis, not a general statement by the writer. We try to minimise "that", but it seems necessary here.
I did ponder a second "that" for here before....now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the key distinguishing feature being a white stripe on the wing undersurface that is not seen in her counterpart."—I was going to suggest removing "that is", but it doesn't fix the other problem: is it the wing undersurface that's not seen in males, or the white stripe? Probably the latter, but the wording is ambiguous.
Ummm....it is the latter. I thought that would be obvious as males can fly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"… the key distinguishing feature *is* a white stripe on the wing under-surface that is not seen in her counterpart." current version
Slightly better, but how about:
"… the key distinguishing feature, a white stripe on the wing under-surface, is not seen in her counterpart."
I think that may be clearer. — cygnis insignis 03:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Tony (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as flowers and berries, but it may also eat insects"—I'm being fussy: this is ambiguous. We don't know whether it also eats insects, or we know that sometimes this occurs, in some individuals, in some areas? I don't mean to clutter up the wording, but I don't know how to fix it.
My live suggestion is this with a further tweak here. — cygnis insignis 04:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • it its it it: "Although the red-capped parrot has been shot as a pest and it has been affected by land clearing, its population is growing and it is considered to be a least-concern species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It has a reputation of being anxious or difficult to breed in captivity." The first "it" could be removed. The second could be "the"? The third "it" refers to its growing population or the red-capped parrot (perhaps "and the species"?).
all done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "anxious or difficult to breed". I presume it's not B because of A. "and"? Unsure.
clearly related yes, causative? not clear.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks promising. I haven't read any more of it. Tony (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (and questions) from Aa77zz

[edit]

I haven't Higgins and I'm a long way from a suitable library.

  • At what age do red-capped parrots first breed?
pairing at 20 months - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long do red-capped parrots live?
Not sure, the ABBBS database has nothing really useful as their longest interval was under two years.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any notable behaviour involved in establishing the pair-bond?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the pair stay together from one year to the next?
evidence says yes - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does a pair use the same nest site from one year to the next?
HANZAB doesn't specify, but from the way it is written I suspect not. Still, it doesn't spell it out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the pair defend a territory?
they defend the nest site - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many broods does a pair raise in a year?
HANZAB doesn't specify, but from the way it is written I suspect it is one.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the chicks naked when they hatch?
white down - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps add a photo of a marri seed to the article.
Not much available here...could add File:Parc Gonzalez - Corymbia calophylla (fruits).jpg or File:Starr 020203-0005 Corymbia calophylla.jpg I guess - will have a look on flickr Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do the parents transport seeds - in mouth, in crop, under tongue, in cheek?
HANZAB doesn't specify - presumably the crop?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably the parents need to prepare the marri seeds for the nestlings. Do they do this at the nest or do they bring seeds already prepared?
HANZAB doesn't specify... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or cleaved by the powerful beak of cockatoos (Cacatuidae species)." - off topic?
Pondered this already in this FAC - am in two minds - I do think the comparison is helpful as the birds are often hidden but dropped gumnuts are common. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the parents feed insect larvae to the chicks?
HANZAB doesn't specify (though one would think so...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are fed by the female alone for the first two weeks," Does the male bring her food for the nestlings?
HANZAB doesn't specify (though one would think so...). The male feeds the female while she is incubating, but HANZAB does not talk about after babies born. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the young produce faecal sacs or do faeces just accumulate in the nest?
Good question but HANZAB doesn't specify Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This may be because of historically high proportion of wild-caught birds entering aviculture." grammar and I don't follow the argument.
wild-caught birds are generally very anxious and more difficult to breed, unlike birds born in captivity Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More later. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the HBW alive article and realised that very little has been published on this parrot. It may not be possible to answer some of the above.

I added a note from HANZAB on this as a covering note Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For how long does the female incubate the eggs? (HBW has c. 20 days)
HANZAB has 3 sources - Forshaw says 20, the others say 23 and 24....added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there predators of this parrot or its nests?
HANZAB has nothing specific, though one would assume the usual....raptors, goannas etc. Still, not listed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it has adapted to farmland" - I'm uncomfortable with "adapted to" and would prefer "occurs in" or similar - (but may need to jiggle as the next sentence has "occurs").
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all good. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

This was my lunchtime reading on Thursday and Friday. Colour me impressed with some quibbles;

  • Not easily confused with any other parrot species, it has a bright crimson crown, green-yellow cheeks, and a distinctive long bill. Should this be "due to its bright..."
umm...not sure. I mean it's not the colour scheme as such as there are parrots with some elements (eg western rosella has red head and yellow cheeks)... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ceoil (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the uninformed either link or name "upperparts" (lead)
reworded - can't find anything to link upperparts to and actually is only one word to change anyway so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
Butting in here, Glossary_of_bird_terms#U has relevant entries. FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • link eucalypts at first instance
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • has been shot as a pest - is considered a
tricky - I thought the shooting bit was unusual and worth mentioning. Not every pest gets shot... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • anxious or difficult to breed in captivity "anxious and"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the image in the Taxonomy section is ovelapped by the extended infobox, leading to text squash. Maybe move it down to the para beginning with "The red-capped parrot is known to be related"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathews did tentatively describe - Mathews tentatively described
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red-capped parrot is known to be related to other broad-tailed parrots. Then but relationships within the group were previously unclear. I'd loose "is known to be" and rephrase as "Today...is known to be", and "had been unclear"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: "boldly patterned plumage" - boldly?
aaww, what's wrong with "boldly" - captures the bright, clear patches of colour well, I'd have thought.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Source review for reliability/formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all of high quality, the only odd one is a 1820 paper in Latin by Heinrich, but this is used to discuss the first descriptions of the bird, ie its primary, but ok, fine. Not seeing any issues re formatting. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2018 [2].

Antiochus XII Dionysus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History is a witness to countless moments where a leader was so close to victory then lost all due to a miscalculation and perhaps stupid courage which lead him to fight in the front lines, getting killed in the process, leading his army to disband and his enemy to prevail. This is the summary of Antiochus XII's mistake. This king was an energetic ruler who seemed to be on the path of regaining the Seleucid Empire’s long lost prestige. He defeated Judea and came close to defeating the Nabataeans. This article will be interesting for anyone who have a soft spot for the Seleucids. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]
  • Different people take different approaches to lead writing. Checking the history of WP:LEAD will give you a flavor of what the arguments are (although that's impractical for just about everyone). To help you get through FAC, I recommend not listing two very long, nearly identical names before you even get to a verb, so I removed the second one, the transliteration. It would be fine to put it anywhere else ... the start of the first section, some infobox, etc.
  • Consistency is needed in the notation for Seleucid years: "88-87 BC", "85/84", "230", etc.
  • It would be best to create stubs for Alfred Raymond Bellinger and Horvat Uza, rather than linking to the Italian and French Wikipedias.
  • "a certain Philotas": probably just "Philotas", or "a [something] named Philotas", or "Governor Philotas".
  • "Alexander Jannaeus as a retribution for the defeat mentioned by George Syncellus": After the first mention, here and elsewhere, don't use their first names.
  • "6th-century": probably sixth-century. At any rate, consistency is needed (for centuries under 10).
  • "Josephus called Antiochus XII the last Seleucid king, which is echoed by Malalas, according to the translation of Glanville Downey, but Antiochus XIII is generally considered to be the last Seleucid king.": Please clarify.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I corrected everything. If you think anything still needs adjustment, please tell me.
Looks great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note

[edit]

Attar-Aram syria, I must've missed something, when did you obtain leave to open a second solo nomination while Philip I Philadelphus is still running? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian, I actually dont have a leave! I thought you are allowed two nominations at the same time. Now I think Im mixing the rule of copy editors guild with FA. It is fine to close this and I will nominate it again later since in any case it didnt get enough reviews to pass or fail. CHheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well the FAC instructions are pretty clear on that point and I figured you'd been around here enough to recall them... Thing is, when an existing nom seems close to consensus for promotion, and the nominator requests leave to open a new one, the coords generally agree. That was probably the case with Philip at the time you opened this one. Because of that, and the fact that I didn't pick up on the situation until now, when someone had already taken the time to review, I think we may as well leave this open -- but pls keep the instructions in mind for next time! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was also confused by this, which is why I didn't comment yet, but I will return at a later date to review now that it obtained leave. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Ian, will be more carefull in the future

From FunkMonk

[edit]
Hey FunkMonk, sorry for the late response. Im on a vacation and dont have any PC, only my phone and any editor knows what a pain it is to edit through a smart phone. I will work on your review as soon as Im home.
  • One thing I noticed about this and most other articles about Seleucid rylers of Syria, none of them are tagged as part of Wikiproject Syria. Any reason for this?
Not really, I have tagged it
  • Josephus is not linked or presented. Other historians mentioned are not presented either, only Bellinger.
Those old historians are famous, for history students. Somtimes I forget that they are not actually famous. I introduced him and the other non introduced historians
  • This[3] Citebot edit was reverted, but it does have some valuable changes, such as adding dois, correct dashes between numbers, and abbreviations of Google Books links, which should be retained.
I restored the bot's helpfull edits.
  • Everything linked in the intro should also be linked in the article body at first mention.
Done
  • Link Hadad in caption.
Done
  • "Nabataeans' oil industry" What kind of oil?
Petrol, I added this to the article
  • "This is possibly related to Philip I's attack on Damascus, but this supposition has little support" Then why was he portrayed as bearded?
It can relate to the campaign against Jannaeus or the Nabateans
  • "stretched 28 km" Convert.
Done
  • "and it would logical for the king" Be?
fixed
  • "the last Seleucid king was in fact Antiochus XIII" Give date for when his rule ended here?
Done
  • "plain stretching 4 km" Convert.
Done
  • "his Egyptian wife" Only stated in intro.
fixed
  • Is this image of any use?[4]
Used for the last section

Comments from CPA-5

[edit]

Greetings the page looks good still (I think) I can see some issues in the page. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, I can see a mix between American English and Britsh English like the words

"emphasize" (US English), "honour" (UK English), "kilometres" (UK English), "defenses" (US English), "patronised" (UK English) and posible more. Which English should the page use?

All turned to US English. kilometres is not my writing but the result of the convert template and cant be changed. 28 kilometres (17 mi). I dont think its a problem.
  • Second, titles like in this case "the Nabatean king, Aretas III" should be capitalised or in this case "the death of the king" it should be too.
Fixed
  • Third, I also see alot of historians who're not capitalised before their names like
"Byzantine monk and historian John Malalas", "historian Glanville Downey", "eighth-century historian George Syncellus",
"numismatist Oliver D. Hoover" and more. Which is weird because other historians or other scientist titles are capitalised like,
"Archaeologist Nicholas L. Wright", "Historian Uranius of Apamea", "Historian Aryeh Kasher" and more, is there a reason why they are not
capitalised?
This is where Im not sure what to do. In the current version, academic titles are capitalized when they occur in the beginning of a sentence, and thats why some are capitalized and some are not. As for capitalizing all of them, I cant understand what should be done because the policy isnt clear: Do not add academic or professional titles to names, as in Professor Colombo or Sam O'Brien, PhD. An occasional exception is made for clarifying that person's qualifications with regard to a claim attributed in an article. Any thoughts?
  • Fourth, the date Seleucid era (SE for short) is not used in alot of years why not?
Some examples 125 BC, 111 BC, 113 BC, 98 BC and more of those dates were used in the years 88/87 BC as 225 SE, 85/84 BC as 228 SE. Is there
a good reason why they shouldn't be used on those years?
I only add the SE when the source mention it. Sometimes, a scholar does not know when an event happened precisely as he only have a coin as an evidence. This coin will be dated by an SE, meaning two Gregorians, so the scholar will mention the SE and two Gregorians. Some other times, the historian write an exact Gregorian date, and then I use this date.

Coordinator comment: CPA-5, do you have more to add here? This FAC has been open a long time now and I think we need to see something happening soon or we will have to consider archiving, even with two supports. In the meantime, I think we still need a source and image review. Sarastro (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sarastro. What is the minimum number of support votes for an FA ? Now that CPA-5 supported, the article have three.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Three comprehensive supports (meaning not supporting simply on prose, or on sources, but across the FAC criteria) has been the historical minimum but consensus for promotion is not supposed to be about the number per se. In any case, as Sarastro mentions, we need image and source reviews before considering promotion -- you can request them at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
No ALT text in most images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review. I added the alt

CommentsSupport from Constantine

[edit]

The usual thorough work I've come to expect from Attar-Aram syria. I made some copyedits going along, as well as introducing the {{ill}} and {{Reign}} templates. I have a few parts that are not entirely clear:

  • "targeted at the south but not towards expansion within Syria" what exactly was the southern target then?
  • "maintaining a good relationship with the Semitic population of Damascus, who comprised the majority of the inhabitants, in order to avoid tension with Greek settlers." This also leads to some questions: Was there pre-existing tension between the Semitic populace and Greek settlers? Were the Greek settlers the mainstay of Antiochus, and he wanted to appease the Semitic inhabitants? Did Antiochus try broaden his base of support or shift it entirely?
  • "that he alone had a higher command" what exactly does the "he alone" here mean? That Phanias was the sole high official of the kingdom?
  • Currently the first paragraph of the "First Nabataean campaign and the incursions of Philip I" section is a bit unintegrated into the narrative. I strongly recommend moving the "Antiochus' first Nabataean campaign ... writings of Stephanus of Byzantium." part first, then explaining where Stephanus got his info from (the current 1st paragraph), and then modern scholarly views on this account, from Roschinski to Józef Milik.
  • "who betrayed Antiochus XII and opened the gates for Philip I" can be shortened to "who opened the gates to him"; the context is clear.
  • "as evidenced by coins dated to this period" redundant, again, the context of his portrayal on coins is clear.
  • "managed to rally his troops and weathered the attack, although he was killed" is a bit contradictory, I suggest rephrasing to "managed to rally his troops, but was killed..."

Once these are taken care of, I'll be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 14:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Constantine, Sorry for the delay. I did all the suggested edits. As for the Greeks in Damascus, what we know about the history of the city in this period is very scant. Practically nothing but few coins and mentions in Josephus and other later historians. So we dont know what was the case between Greeks and Arameans. Based on the appearance of Semitic gods instead of Zeus on Damascene coins, historian Kay Ehling proposed that this was an act by the side of the king to avoid any possible tension. I made it clear in the article that this is the hypothesis of Ehling. As for Phanias, the tone of the letter, according to those who studied it, indicates that he was the highest official, kind of a prime minister?
Hi Constantine, this seems about ready to close, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian and Attar-Aram syria, yes, my concerns seem to have been addressed. Good to go. Constantine ✍ 16:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The nominator has asked me if I'll do a source review, which I will do over the weekend. More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review: The sources are from a wide range of publications, and appear to a non-expert to be authoritative and relevant. They are presented logically and formatted consistently. Two queries: unless I am missing something (a possibility by no means to be discounted) we have two works listed under Sources that are not referred to in the Citations, above:

  • Knauf, Ernst Axel (2009). "The Nabataean Connection of the Benei Ḥezir" etc.
  • Stern, Menaḥem (1987) [1976]. "The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature" etc.

Otherwise I can see no problems with the sources. – Tim riley talk 11:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review. I deleted Knauf and used Stern. Cheers--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2018 [5].

A Christmas Carol

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmas Carol is a story everyone knows, either in the original, or through one of the many, many adaptations that have been produced since it was published. Its success comes down to numerous factors, including the socio-historical background that the British were re-examining Christmas and exploring new practices that many consider part of a "traditional Christmas". It also comes down to being a relatively short read, packed with superb descriptions, rounded characters and a bad-turns-good ending 150 years before Star Wars did it. I took this to GA about 16 months ago (under a legitimate alternate account), and some minor wrinkles have been ironed and smoothed since. – SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • For this sentence (After their visits Scrooge is transformed into a kinder, gentler man.), add a comma after “visits”.
  • For this part (He was influenced by experiences from his own past,), I think you can make it more concise with the following revision (He was influenced by his own past) as I am not sure “experiences from” is really necessary.
  • Makes sure that all of the images have appropriate ALT text.
  • If you are going to link “Christmas Eve” in the body of the article, I would do so in the lead for consistency.
  • I would add a link for £.
  • These two sentences (In 1824 John was committed to Marshalsea, a debtors' prison in Southwark, London.) and (At the end of December 1842 Dickens began publishing his novel Martin Chuzzlewit as a monthly serial) require commas for the beginning phrases. I notice several instances of this (i.e. beginning phrases, primary those involving dates, lacking a comma); rather than listing everything out, I would recommend looking through the article to correct this.
  • I am not used to preferred structure for a literature article, so apologies if this is really obvious, but wouldn’t it be better to put the “Characters” section right after the “Plot” section. It would make sense, to me at least, to have these two sections placed together as a group. I could be wrong, but I just wanted to throw it out there as a suggestion.
  • I've seen a variety of structures used for literature articles, so I'm not sure there is an entirely "set" way of doing things. I'll mull this over, if I may, particularly if others make the same suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think that the “Themes” section should be moved after the “Reception” section to group all of these more critical/outside opinions together?
  • I don't think this one would be an advantage. The themes are part of the book, lain down deliberately by Dickens - the outside critics are just highlighting something that was there, whereas the reviews are third party opinions - if any of that makes sense! - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if this is obvious, but what is the reason for The Ghost of Christmas Present image in the “Aftermath” section? Same question for the image in the “Legacy” section?
  • There are too many images in the upper sections of the article if we include those up there too. For those sections where we have no free images (or no good excuse for non-free), I've spread what we do have to break the walls of text. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is DuckTales included in the “See also” section? I know there is a character inspired by Scrooge in the cartoon, but what makes DuckTales more special than the other adaptions of the Scrooge character to warrant a mention here?

You have done an excellent job with this article. I would imagine that this must be a difficult article to work on, given how popular the novella is worldwide and across history. This would definitely be a cool article to have featured on the main page on Christmas day. This FAC definitely inspires me to work on a more literature-related article sometime. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Aoba47. I've changed per most of your suggestions, but there are a couple I've demurred on, and one I'll think over at length. Thank you very for your comments, they really have been most useful. I have another review lined up to do first, but will swing by your article after I have finished on that one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Marley's_Ghost_-_A_Christmas_Carol_(1843),_opposite_25_-_BL.jpg: where is the CC0 tag coming from? Don't see it at the source site
  • File:Christmascarol1843_--_184.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:JohnLeechHimself.jpg, File:Christmascarol1843_--_137.jpg
  • File:Francis_Alexander_-_Charles_Dickens_1842.jpeg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Always one of my favourites, though I have sometimes thought the "before" Scrooge much more interesting than the "after" ... but to business.

  • "Most critics reviewed the novella positively." I might say favourably rather than positively.
  • "Dickens took action against the publishers" I would say "legal" before "action"
  • "much longer than Marley's chains." I might say "much heavier than Marley's burden". Marley says "weight and length".
  • Stave 2: It might be worth mentioning that Fred is the deceased Fan's son.
  • "The boyhood scenes portray Scrooge's lonely childhood," I might say "reveal" rather than "portray"
  • "Finally, they visit a now-married Belle with her large, happy family on a recent Christmas Eve." The point is not particularly seeing Belle. It is that Belle is hearing about Scrooge, more or less as he has become, with Marley lying on his deathbed. Seeing and hearing this nearly breaks Scrooge and possibly it is worthy of a bit more detail.
  • "Sobbing, Scrooge pledges to the ghost that he will change his ways to avoid this outcome." I would change the final word to "fate".
  • "He spends the day with Fred's family" Well, the afternoon. He goes to church first.
  • "Marshalsea" more usual with "the" before it?
  • Do your sources say whether Dickens translated the Christmas in Pickwick to A Christmas Carol?
  • I'm not sure you are consistent with whether you put a dot after "Mr" and "Dr".
  • "until 1870 (the year of his death), when it provided the material for his farewell performance.[87]" Hopefully not as Marley. Could this be clarified a bit?
  • Can more be said about how A Christmas Carol has been interpreted by scholars in more modern times?
  • I'll go over the material again. I was surprised by the seeming lack of good critique (outside what we've already got here). There were a couple of others I didn't include as their points were the ones already covered by better sources already used, but I'll comb through once again. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now. I'm still looking for my Dickens references and may have a few more comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

A pleasant surprise to find this article here. I had no idea it was on its way. Happy to support: it is most readable, is comprehensive, well referenced and splendidly illustrated. A few very minor quibbles, which don't affect my support:

  • Links
    • There are a few words and phrases that I shouldn't have blue linked (clerk, ghost, fundraising, English literature) but these things are to some extent a matter of personal judgment, and I don't press the point.
I've left "clerk", as it may not be as common nowadays (particularly outside the UK) than it was, but I've trimmed the rest. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stave two
    • I haven't read the book for about fifty years, so please forgive what may be a silly question: "a lonely childhood" but "his relationship with his beloved sister" – aren't they mutually exclusive?
He had been sent away to school. Fan comes to get him on Christmas Eve, when he is alone at the school, to take him home and promise he will not be sent again.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that he was at boarding school by way of clarification. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characters
    • I really don't think I'd label Carlyle a "Chartist philosopher". I can think of many adjectives for the old buzzard, but Chartist wouldn't be high on my list. His 1840 tract is by no means unambiguously pro-Chartist, containing both radical and reactionary aspects.
  • Publication
    • A tiny MoS point: I'm almost certain the MoS bids us put references outside closing brackets, and not inside.
  • Reception
    • The reviewer from The Illustrated London News – unexpected preposition. "in" would be more likely, I think.
  • Legacy
    • zeitgeist of the age – tautological, perhaps?

That's all from me. I find I haven't actually got a copy of the book on my shelves, and the article inspires me to buy one tomorrow – what higher praise can there be? – Tim riley talk 09:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. All your points addressed as per your suggestions. You really should buy it - it's a great story that is worth re-reading, and although the prose is a little flowery on occasions, it's all in the right spirit. (and sorry for that pun!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

[edit]

Support. Great article. I made a few minor tweaks and I approve those made as a result of comments above. Easily meets the criteria. Well done. --John (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ceoil

[edit]

Mostly concerned about reliance on cliche and in "in universe" phrasing. But impressed overall, and expect to support, eventually. Editing a bit as I go, if that's ok with the nomitator. I can't say in good faith that the page is pitched where I would like a work of fiction to be pre nomination, but its close enough to anticipate support. Ceoil (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-worked some of the changes, as the meaning was altered from the original, and one or two clichés were added(!) that are now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries man, and thanks. To say, the article is a most enjoyable read; very well done. Ceoil (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, and thanks for your changes too. I've left most of them in there - it was only a few small points I've changed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support now that I've read the whole thing. To be clear, my comment re cliché was wrt to the plot section, which given our familiarity with this story would be damn hard to avoid. Most of my tweaks were to this section; the rest of the article is just fine. Ceoil (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

[edit]

The expected high quality prose and content. A few comments for consideration below.

Lead
  • "The treatment of the poor and the ability of a self-interested man redeeming himself by transforming into a more sympathetic character" - two thoughts here. Would "the ability of a self-interested man to redeem himself" flow slightly better? And while "self-interested" is entirely right, would "self-centred", or indeed "selfish" be a little clearer as to meaning?
Plot - Stave 1
  • ""A Christmas Carol" opens on a bleak, cold Christmas Eve in London" - here the title is in quotes, elsewhere italicised. I think I prefer A Christmas Carol.
Plot - Stave 2
  • "his relationship with his beloved sister Fan" - do we need consistency on Fan or Fran? It's the former here, the latter in the para. above. Unless, of course, it's used interchangeably in the novella?
  • "Scrooge's neglected fiancée Belle is show ending their relationship" - "shown".
Plot - Stave 3
  • "a joyous market of people buying the makings of Christmas dinner and celebrations of Christmas in a miner's cottage and in a lighthouse" - suggest "a joyous market with people buying the makings of Christmas dinner and to celebrations of Christmas in a miner's cottage and in a lighthouse".
Background
  • "sales were disappointing and he faced financial difficulties. By this time he was a well-established author, having written six major works". I'm sure Ackroyd is right, but this confused me a little. He's facing financial difficulties but is a well-established author with six major works under his belt. That seems contradictory. No idea what to suggest, however, except maybe to flip the two sentences and add a waiver, e.g. "By the end of 1842 Dickens was a well-established author, having written six major works, as well as several short stories, novellas and other works. In December of that year he began publishing his novel Martin Chuzzlewit as a monthly serial; the novel was his favourite work, but sales were disappointing and he faced temporary financial difficulties."
Characters
  • "For the chained Marley, Dickens drew on him memory of a visit to the Western Penitentiary" - "his".
Themes
  • "a protean figure always in process of reformation" - is "protean" worth a link? The lead of that article does carry an explanation of the meaning.
  • "Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol because of how British social policy treated children at the time and wished to..." - not fond of "because of how". Perhaps, "in response to British social attitudes towards poverty, particularly child poverty, and wished to..."?
Publication
  • Note 11 - "In 1875 Mitton sold the manuscript to the bookseller Francis Harvey – reportedly for £50 (equal to £4,300 in 2018 pounds –" - the equivalence starts with a bracket but ends with a hyphen.
Aftermath
  • "Dickens sued on the cases of copyright infringement and won" - "for copyright infringement"?
  • "these were secular conversion tales which reflected the societal changes of the previous year, and which social problems still needed to be dealt with" - not quite sure what this is trying to say, particularly the latter part. Perhaps something like, "these were secular conversion tales which acknowledged the progressive societal changes of the previous year, and highlighted those social problems which still needed to be addressed"?

Excellent coverage of a much-loved book. The above are, mainly, suggestions only and can be rejected at will. Very happy to Support once you've had a chance to consider them. KJP1 (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I studied Eng Lit and Dickens as minor courses during my first two years at college, so am somewhat familiar with the sources, and have no issues with those used here. Have trawlled through the formatting and not seeing any inconsistencies. SchroCat is a long term and trusted editor, not seeing a need for spot checking. Ceoil (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2018 [6].

Ubinas

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which has had historical eruptions and is currently considered to be the most active volcano there (not sure if it has been supplanted by Sabancaya at any point). Apparently before 2006-2007 the region was ill-prepared for eruptions at Ubinas and the issues were remedied in a very short time frame. It is close to Huaynaputina and geologically related to it as well; these two volcanoes have had large historical eruptions, including Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption that is the largest in South America during historical time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Went through and did some final copyediting. Convinced this is comprehensive and well-written. Great work. ceranthor 18:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In light of its activity, Ubinas is monitored by the Peruvian geological service INGEMMET, which has published a volcano hazard map for Ubinas as well as a regular volcano activity report. - this sentence is unwieldy and should be split or reworded.
...a history of usually small- to moderate-sized explosive eruptions as well as larger eruptions such as in 1667,... - the word "usually" is redundant I think...
also, if you're covering its activilty in para 2, the "active" in the first sentence makes it a little repetitive and could be removed...?
The southern flank is cut by a noticeable notch, which is probably not an eruption vent. - umm, then what is it from?
which on the northern and eastern side of Ubinas is covered by volcanic ash and some lava flows - I am confused here - what does the "which" refer here to?
The summit of the volcano is truncated by a - can't we remove the "truncated by"?
The magmas erupted by all three volcanoes appears to originate... - shouldn't this be "magma"?
I am confused, you mention, a period of dormancy lasting until 25,000–14,700 years ago...but then in the next sentence say 5,000-21,000 years ago volcanic activity restarted....
and persistent smoking - doesn't seem to make sense grammatically

These are the most obvious examples. I think there are more - but will give it another read tomorrow. Also, I made these changes, if you can check. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got these issues done. Regarding that notch it is kind of implied but not explicitly stated in the source(s) that it is a landslide scar - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02599360 says something like "Examination of this features with field glasses and from a study of aerial photographs (but no field studies) suggests to the writer that it is the result of rock avalanches and mud flows rather than an eruptive center. ". I don't think the magmas are exactly identical, hence I preferred the plural form. Your edits look fine to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - need to read and digest....more later... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber Any updates? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ubinas is a volcano in the Moquegua Region of southern Peru, close to Huaynaputina and not far from the city of Arequipa. - "close" and "not far" are vague - put the distances in and let the reader decide
Activity at the volcano commenced in the Pleistocene epoch - put approximate time in MYA

Nothing else is really jumping out at me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​ Did rewrite the lead section. Didn't specify which time in the Pleistocene because it is not known for certain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right then - tentative support, but I would not be hugely surprised if other reviewers found prose issues as I find I don't have the best eye for detail. Still, I can't see anything else and it seems pretty complete....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I wouldn't surprise me either since my prose skills are only so-so. Which is why I always ask someone else to take a look before sending an article of mine to FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if you disagree with anything.

  • Glacial valleys such as the Ubinas and Para valleys, cirques and moraines down to elevations of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) and at the foot of the volcano indicate that glaciers developed on Ubinas during the last glacial maximum. Is this saying that there are two things that indicate glaciers: 1 - Glacial valleys such as the Ubinas and Para valleys, and 2 - cirques and moraines down to elevations of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) and at the foot of the volcano? If so, they should be joined by an "and" before "cirques", and I'd suggest a comma before "indicate" to help the reader parse the sentence.
  • Peruvian volcanoes including Ubinas belong to the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes: all Peruvian volcanoes are in the CVZ? If so I'd put "All" at the front of the sentence.
  • the marginal faults of this graben are the sites of the volcanic vents: why "the" in "the volcanic vents"? It sounds as if you're indicating that these have already been referred to.
  • the average temperature is 11–9 °C (52–48 °F): any reason why you give this with the highest temperature first? There's no requirement not to do this, but it's unusual and I think it would be less jarring if reversed.
  • pajonal which also consists of shrubs and grasses made up by high Andean vegetation: does "made up by" mean "consisting of", or "with additional contributions from"? If the former I'd make it "made up of".
  • Small lakes and waterlogged soil contains wetlands...: suggest "Small lakes and areas of waterlogged soil form wetlands...".
  • Animal species are mainly described for the National Reserve: I think you mean something like "descriptions of animal species in the area mainly give their habitat as the National Reserve, rather than Ubinas specifically". If so I think the phrasing should be clearer.
  • The last activity of Ubinas I generated more than four units of pyroclastic flows, with a total volume of about 1.8 cubic kilometres (0.43 cu mi) and possibly an old caldera before 261,000 ± 10,000 years ago: can we just say "more than four pyroclastic flows", or perhaps "more than four separate pyroclastic flows", or is there some subtlety of meaning that I'm missing? And if the "total volume" is related to the flows, but the old caldera is not, as I think is the case, I'd put a comma before "and possibly".
  • How can a volcanic explosion cause an epidemic?

I've finished copyediting; I'll read through again once the above points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie I think I got them all. "The volcanic vents" is deliberate since the statement refers to the aforementioned vents Ubinas, Ticsani and Huaynaputina. I don't think that we can assume that "one unit of pyroclastic flows"="one pyroclastic flow". Good question on the epidemics especially given PMC 2725828, maybe in this case it's due to ash intoxication of starvation after ashfalls have destroyed crops. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck all but one point above. What does "unit of pyroclastic flow" mean, in that case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stratigraphic unit. Added a link to make it clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points on another read-through.

  • The section on name and mythology gives two similar words in two indigenous languages, but doesn't assert that either is connected to the name of the volcano. Can we be more direct about this?
  • Is there a good reason to mention the 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina? It seems to be a non sequitur. If it's because of the connection with Ubinas it should perhaps be repositioned, as the article doesn't mention the connection till the next paragraph.
  • The external links don't look particularly useful -- have you reviewed them?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit of explanation. Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption is mentioned because it was the largest historical volcanic event in Peru and I do write a bit about context. I've removed the broken external links; I was thinking that the other three sources are stuff that a reader would probably be interested in knowing but don't have a place in the prose for WP:RS reasons (or in case of the Volcano Observatory, being too generic). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving the sentence about Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption to the end of the following paragraph, where it could be combined with the observation that the magma chambers of Ubinas, Huaynaputina and Ticsani are connected, and with the comment about de Espinosa, which is related to that observation? OK on the external links, so I've struck the comment, but the Rivera Porras is really just a book reference, so you might consider moving it to a "Further reading" section instead, and making it a cite book with a link to this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got these changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​ Request's already there and here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seems like someone else will have to do the source review then. And summoning Frank R 1981 to see if they can resolve the image source problem that Nikkimaria highlighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​ Asking around if someone has time for a source review as I don't know which people to ask. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, Tisquesusa, and Mike Christie: It seems like according to the uploader the topographical information comes from the SRTM and would thus be uncopyrighted. Would it be enough to edit File:Peru physical map.svg so that it says "topographical information from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission" to satisfy copyright/source concerns? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • Geography. It would be interesting to know how near the Equator Ubinas is.
  • "a lava flow was emplaced inside the crater" Is there a link which would explain 'emplace'?
  • "Peruvian volcanoes include both stratovolcanoes, which are typically active for less than 500,000 years, long-lived clusters of lava domes[2] and monogenetic volcanic fields. " "both" means two but you list three types.
  • "The formation of their magmas is caused by the dehydration of the down-going slab and the melting of the mantle; the magmas often undergo fractional crystallization and absorb crustal material.[38]" I think this sentence belongs in the first paragraph of 'Geology'.
  • "This collapse took place early in the history of the volcano" As you have not yet discussed the history I think you should indicate the period.
  • "The volcanic rocks define a potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite." What does "define" mean here?
  • "Assimilation of crustal material and fractional crystallization are involved in the genesis of this magma suite." You have said this above.
  • fumarolic-seismic. Fumarole should be linked here, not below.
  • "In addition, the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption was at first localized in Ubinas before its actual vent was identified." I would say "was first thought to be at Ubinas" - "localized in" sounds odd to me.
  • A good article. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure that the equator thing is of common interest? As for "emplace" I think that "to place in" is a clear enough connection. "Both" I think is also used for when there are three rather than two discussion scopes. Regarding "Assimilation of crustal material and fractional crystallization are involved in the genesis of this magma suite" it's explained again because the earlier mention is qualified as "often". Actioned the other things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but I agree with Dudley re "both"; there may be a style guide somewhere that says it's OK to use for three, but it's jarring for many English readers and I think it would be best to change it. "Emplace" is technical jargon; perhaps I've read too many volcano articles now, because I pass right over it, but I recall that this (and "edifice") both sounded odd to me when I first read them. I don't think there's a good link for it, unfortunately, and I do think it's interpretable from the etymology, but it's jargon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whe, no big. I've pulled "both" and "emplaced", fixed a maintenance tag added in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Dudley Miles do you have more to add here? Also, just as a procedural point, Tisquesusa your oppose would not be taken into consideration when considering promotion for this article as it is not actionable by the nominator and is not related to the FA Criteria. However, I would like that issue cleared up before we promote if at all possible. Sarastro (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are almost 1900 pages at Wikipedia using this map. This is a bigger issue than just this FAC. The license simply needs to be changed; topographic maps are not "public domain", we use them all the time in FA and GA articles. The Russian user who uploaded this particular topographic map of Peru has uploaded a lot of diagrams, maps and other files. And apparently that is done more often using the "public domain" license. It shows we should assume good faith that (s)he made this map (clear from the .svg file anyway) him/herself and the license simply needs to be updated. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, which is why the issue does not relate to whether this article meets the FA criteria; it is an issue with the map itself, and the nominator cannot address that. It is not an FA issue, so cannot affect whether the article is promoted or not. Sarastro (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Sorry for the late review. I feel the article is on a good way, but still has some way to go.

  • Title picture: which side of the volcano is shown?
    I dunno, paging Poco a poco. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The historian and geographer Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán relates the name Ubinas to two terms in two different languages. – But what does this mean? Why two terms, are these two separate hypothesis where the name could have originated from, or does he think the name evolved from both names?
    Source does not specify this. I am guessing they know these languages and concluded that either language may be the source of the name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the indigenous language Quechua, uina means "to stuff", "to fill", and uiña is translated as "to grow", "to increase". – Now you are mentioning two words for the first language? There is no explanation, and I'm not sure how to interpret this. Again two alternative possibilities where the name could have originated from?
    I am guessing so, as with before the source does not really detail the thought process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The volcano is also known as Uvillas or Uvinas. – Where are those names used; are these English names or local ones?
  • Do you know the first written account of the volcano? Anything on early research history?
    There is a little info dispersed through the article. The problem with these South American volcanoes is that their history is usually very poorly documented so there is not much info on such details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The southern flank is cut by a noticeable notch, which is probably not an eruption vent. – When reading this, one necessarily will ask "from what is it then?". I now see that the second reviewer asked the same question, but it seems to be still unresolved.
    Specified this a bit. I think that this notch was created by the collapse discussed in the section titled "collapse" but irritatingly none of the source explicitly says so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The upper sector of the volcano has a weathered appearance. – Could you be more specific? I first thought you might mean the rugged appearance of the upper margin of the caldera, but then I noticed that the top layers are partly eroded, is this what you mean?
    Specified this too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ubinas and Para valleys border the volcano[19] in its southeastern sector; the difference in elevation between these and the plateau is about 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) – I thought the volcano stands atop the plateau; how can the valleys border the volcano if they are located two km below the plateau? It would be great if the description of the geography could be improved so that one gets a better idea.
    That's a question that the sources also left a little unclear. Seems like the volcano formed on top of the plateau close to its margin, so that its eastern and southern flanks border the valleys. I did an edit; is it now clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formation of the magma erupted by the volcanoes is caused by the dehydration of the down-going slab and the melting of the mantle – This could be more precise. I don't think that the dehydration itself is forming the magma, it is the increased water content in the continental crust above that causes it. Furthermore, "The formation of magma is caused by the melting of the mantle" seems not to tell much. The causalities have to be made clearer.
Well, it looks like text-source integrity got lost during the editing process; I've rewritten it, does it sound too similar to the source text It has long been accepted that the calc-alkaline magmas of the CVZ result from partial melting of the mantle wedge metasomatized by fluids derived from the dehydration of the subducted oceanic crust. The partial melting is often followed by crustal contamination during the differentiation now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While reading the well-made description of the characteristics of the volcano, I was constantly wondering how it compares to other Peruvian volcanoes. Is it typical? Which features are unique or at least rare?
I don't think that anyone has made an explicit comparison to the other volcanoes; would it help to have some of the other volcanoes explained a little, such as "Ticsani is a cluster of lava domes". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note: While reading, I was somehow disrupted by the references within sentences (often thought I was at the end of the sentence already when I was not). I see the benefits of the precise referencing and I am not demanding to change them, just want to add that there are some disadvantages associated with it.
    Oh, how I would love if the references could become a little smaller. Or if we didn't need page numbers... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ubinas, Ticsani and Huaynaputina[35] form a group of volcanoes that extend in north-south direction[1] behind the main volcanic arc – What is the "main volcanic arc"? Not mentioned anywhere else, and not linked. Should be introduced first. Also: does "behind" mean "east of"? So, in conclusion, it means these volcanoes are not part of the main arc?
    That's rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • a common geochemical and tectonic signature, the latter of which is reflected by the existence of a graben – An extremely convoluted, highly abstract and difficult to understand wording, and even after thinking about it I'm not sure what this wants to tell me. I would try to formulate as simple as possible. From my understanding, would't it be the crustal thinning due to extension forces which locally lowered pressures, allowing for the formation of the magma chamber? And these faults extending from the graben, wouldn't those be the pathways the magma would take to reach the surface?
    Wow. No idea how I left that sentence in. I've rewritten it a bit, is it now clearer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably owing to a change in the magma supply regime from steady before 25,000 years ago to more irregular after that time[54] with a generally higher magma supply – Had to read several times before I was able to make sense of it. Does it mean that the magma supply used to be steady but low, but not is irregular but more voluminous?
    Rewritten; better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was later cut on its southern side by a debris avalanche[47] that probably occurred over 376,000 years ago – there is one debris avalance mentioned before that occured 360,000 years ago; are these two the same? How many separate avalanches are mentioned in the article? I'm a bit confused about this.
    I think it is; problem is that apparently none of the sources calls the "Notch" the "collapse scar". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But if it is, you have two slightly different dates for one and the same collapse in separate parts of the article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the first date mention as it was imprecise anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2006–2007 eruption – in the list above this mention you give "2006–2009" as time frame.
    Mostly because that was the key episode
  • Despite its record of activity, Ubinas was essentially unmonitored before the 2006 event – Is this the reason why only the events since 2006 are described in detail, and not the older ones?
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are frequently mentioning villages. and other towns in the area include Anascapa, Escacha, Huarina, Huatahua, Sacuaya, San Miguel and Tonohaya.[30] In total about 5,000 people live within 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) from the volcano.[12] – This sounds like if the mentioned towns are located within the 12 kilometers from the volcano. But if they only total 5,000 people, are they really towns or are they villages?
    I've reformatted your comment. The source in Spanish says poblados which indeed translates as "village", so changed. Rectified some town/village confusion while remedying the problem below. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You frequently mention villages without giving their names. I often wondered if the described village was the same mentioned previously, or a different one. I would give the names of the villages.
    Now they have names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Animal species have been described mainly in the context of the National Reserve; they include various birds and camelids. – "Various camelids" is a bit too much, it can be at most three different species (those that exist in South America). Rather, I would mention some characteristic species of high ecological value or something more helpful.
    I've written out the four species (it's only so many). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vegetation descriptions seems a bit poor. You name different vegetation zones, but each time only states that they "consist of shrubs and grasses". Maybe name the dominant species.
    Gave this an expansion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks anyway; this FAC isn't exactly overflowing with comments. I'll see to get these issues addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox contains two times the word "Etymology" without giving an etymology, and the link is not working. I would just remove.
    Agreed, it's gone.
  • I am also wondering if the structure is optimal. I didn't had the feeling that there was a good common threat; instead, information appears to be somewhat dispersed and at places where I would not have expected it. Details below:
  • I'm not sure why "collapses" are within the geology section but the Fumarolic and geothermal system is not.
    This is a structure I use for volcano articles since "fumaroles" are more like ongoing eruptive activity. I can see why this header might fit under "Geology" better as I did on Lascar (volcano); what do other people think? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not sure if the "Eruptive history" section is the right place for discussing the two phases in which the volcano formed; I would have expected this in the geology section.
    I think that the geology section is for what the volcano is, while the history one is about how did it form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsections in "Eruptive history" seem not optimal. They start from "Historical" (the only section which I imho really fits under this heading), but then are followed by "other patterns of activities", which are not about the eruptions at all.
    I've split one of them off; as for the "other patterns of activities" would it work when merged into the "historical" section without being a subsection? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't understand why fumaroles have to be discussed in two separate sections "Other patterns of activities", "Fumarolic and geothermal systems". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jens Lallensack I think I got most issues, commented on others, need additional comments on a few. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick fixes, I will have a second read tomorrow! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mentioned that sources are too scarce to address some obvious questions. I don't have a good overview, but I feel that a bit of more rigorous literature research would have brought up the one or other additional fact. For example, this paper on the Volcano, which is not cited yet in the article, seems to contain some information about geography you were unsure about. Also, in case you didn't already, I would recommend looking for some encyclopedia-style overview books on the topic; if there is more on names and research history, for example, I would expect it in such sources. In a brief search I hit for example "Volcanoes of the central Andes" from Shanaka L. DeSilva, Peter W. Francis (1991), which seems promising. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I did come across that first paper when writing the article. It seemed to me though that all information was already in the article, and those which wasn't were little technical details that are not necessarily necessary for the article. As for the book source, I distinctly remember reading it in a library and not seeing much information on etymology and research history; but I'll ask again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just found it in our bib (check you Email), does not contain anything in addition, and after some searching I have to agree with you about the sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: The seismic information (mentioned in the aforementioned email). I think I came across it when writing the article and I think I decided that it was probably too technical to be worth including. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the geography section is too quick in describing the geographic location of the volcano, and after one sentence directly goes into geomorphology. I would already mention the neighboring volcanoes, and which group it belongs to. I know this info is given in "shared magma chamber", but that is not the place one would look for it.
  • While reading, I didn't get the idea that the geology section would only describe how the volcano is today. I'm not sure if this makes sense, as what you see today is the result of history. In the "collapses" section (which is somewhat awkwardly placed in the geology) you also talk about things that happened in the past. I would find it much more logical if the genesis of the volcano would directly follow the regional setting and magma chamber sections. Furthermore, does it really make sense to discuss the composition before the formation of the volcano? I am sure these two phases would show very different compositions, so wouldn't it make sense to be able to mention them in the composition section?
  • I think that the given information about the formation of the volcano is quite short. This is of central importance, and well-described by Thouret et al. 2005.
  • The structure of the "Eruptive history" still is not very logic. It only contains two subsections: "Historical" and "Other patterns of activity". What is the "other" referring to? The "Eruptive history", one would assume. But when it does not belong to the "Eruptive history", it should not be in that section. Just to illustrate the logical problem that I see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In order:
    • I am inclined to disagree; "geography" here really is little more than "the volcano is there" so that section will always be short. Would adding a sentence about Huaynaputina and Ticsani being close by make sense?
      I agree perhaps on the collapses section, the minor issue I have is that it would need to be split into two fairly short paragraphs if it were to be moved down to "eruption history". "Composition" is part of "geology" in my opinion. For what it's worth, the sectioning here and on other articles I wrote is based off two other featured articles, Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chile volcano).
      I think that stratigraphy details (which is what much of Thouret et al. 2005 is) are a bit too detailed for a Wikipedia article.
      I've yanked that section.
    Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two phases in which the volcano formed have to be discussed within or prior to the composition section, otherwise it is just contradictory imo. I'm not sure about the optimal structure, but I think something has to be done, currently it is just not optimal. The other featured articles you mention do a somewhat better job in my opinion regarding the structure. The section headings are more general, information is in the spot you would search for it (e.g., the geography part always first describes to which volcanic arc and so on the thing belongs), and I have the feeling that there is a logical built-up of information, and the arrangement of the section is more logical and less convoluted. In my opinion, these issues are critical. While I understand that you might think otherwise, I cannot support this nomination. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under the assumption that the explanation of the volcanic arc is better suited to geography. I've moved it up to match it with Calabozos. That leaves the "collapses" section as the only problem child. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​​​​​​​Pinging a few users who previously commented to see if you have comments on Jens Lallensack's comments and my replies to them. And to see if someone can do a source review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jens, I'm not seeing the sequencing problem you describe. I've just read through the article again. The geography section covers the appearance of the volcano, the geology section covers the general geological processes in the area, with specific attention to the local setting, and the eruptive history is the detailed history of exactly what has been discovered about Ubinas's eruptions. If I follow your logic, you're suggesting that since the eruptive history contributes to the physical appearance, it is out of sequence. I don't think so: the eruptive history section should be last, because it's the most detailed and the reader benefits from having the geological and geographical context when they read it. It does make reference to the physical appearance of Ubinas but that's unavoidable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I should have been clearer. My concern is not about the eruptions sections in its entirety, but on the part on the formation of the volcano as we see it today: The volcano developed in two phases, Ubinas I and Ubinas II. In my opinion, this information is coming far too late (there is not even a mention in the lead), but is of fundamental importance. In fact, I argue that you need this information to comprehend both the topography and the composition of the volcano. For example, because of these two phases, the lower part (Ubinas I) has a flat slope and the upper part (Ubinas II) a steep slope. The article does not make this link between the topography and these two phases; this important information is not given. Same for the composition: Rocks on Ubinas have compositions ranging from basaltic andesite to rhyolite, with andesite and dacite being the dominant components of the volcano. – This should be discussed in the context of the two phases, because each phase leads to a different compositions. "Andesite to Rhyolite" covers much of the spectrum that is expected for volcanic rocks, this is like saying "The volcano contains all kinds of volcanic rocks". The information content would be much higher if we would point out which parts of the volcano show which composition. For example, why not mention that the summit cone (part of Ubinas II) is composed of andesite and dacite flows? If I would climb this volcano, I would be very interested in this kind of information. Same for the dome in the center. Currently, the reader of the "composition" section gets the impression that the composition would be quite homogenous or gradually shifting towards the top, which I think is quite misleading. Furthermore, I was asking for a bit more content on these phases, there is plenty of interesting stuff here that can be interesting for lay readers as well; I have the impression the article is not as comprehensive as it should be on these things. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the more I think of it, I consider these issues important enough to oppose for the time being (although I may be quick to change to support if this would be addressed in some way). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack Ah, the Ubinas I and Ubinas II thing. Didn't realize that it was mentioned too late. Added a bit about this and some more info also from 10.1007/s00445-004-0396-0. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, as the most active volcano of Peru, I think the regional setting needs a bit more expansion and maybe a link to a {{main|Article about regional volcanism of the Central Volcanic Zone}} article/chapter within a bigger one. Also the subchapters for "basement", "composition" and "collapses" are too short to be in separate subchapters, I would combine them into 1, maximum 2. Tisquesusa (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged some of these subsections. I've been looking for material to write a bit of a chronology with (similar to the "Through K-Ar dating, geologist Robert Edward Drake " in Calabozos) but my brain is jacking up. I'll try this tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a summary of volcanic history of southern Peru. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, much better, I give my support now. But I would recommend that you, in the lead and the geography section, clearly state that Ubinas I and II are not only different parts of the volcano, but represent different stages of development, just to increase comprehensibility (without this info, I fear that readers might be irritated). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it would irritate a lay reader, but it certainly would help clarify and would not be redundant in a relatively complex topic. I have not formally commented but have been keeping tabs on your comments, and wanted to thank you, Jens Lallensack, for being so timely with your responses to Jo-Jo. And Jo-Jo Eumerus, you should also be commended for your perseverance through such a long FAC process. ceranthor 14:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor Thanks. Although to be fair, I generally don't review other people's work much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]

Not planning on doing a full review, but you may want to use the trans-title field for the non-English sources. Kees08 (Talk) 14:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got that one as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]
  • "Activity at the volcano began in the Pleistocene epoch, and led, in two phases, to the growth of the current mountain."—possibly this, but do I understand it correctly? "Activity at the volcano began in the Pleistocene epoch, and led to the growth of the current mountain in two phases."
  • "Among the recent eruptions is the 2006–2007 event, which produced eruption columns and led to ash fall in the region, resulting in health issues and evacuations. During the most recent activity, from 2013 to 2017, a lava flow was erupted inside the crater, and further ash falls led to renewed evacuations of surrounding towns." "is", then "produced"? I'd use past tense. It might be ok, as you do later, to use present in reporting publication findings. "Was erupted"—no.
  • "which has published a volcano hazard map for Ubinas and also publishes regular volcano activity reports"—why not trim? "which has published a volcano hazard map for Ubinas and regular volcano activity reports".
  • Caption: "Ubinas caldera seen from above, with the crater and the notch in the southern rim clearly visible". Remove one word (contextually redundant).
  • "down to elevations of 4,000 metres"—do you need "elevations of"?
  • Simplify the grammar? "There are other volcanic cones in the region, all heavily eroded by past glaciations." -> "Tther volcanic cones in the region have all been heavily eroded by past glaciations." ... or all show heavy erosiong by.
  • " A couple of lava domes crop out around the volcano"—two, please, in formal text.
  • Why not declutter by inverting? "with a 400-metre (1,300 ft) wide and 300-metre (980 ft) deep, triangle-shaped crater" -> "with a triangle-shaped crater 400 metres (1,300 ft) wide and 300 metres (980 ft) deep."
  • "Lake Piscococha is located on the western foot of the volcano" – simpler somehow, with contextual redundancy dumpted? "Lake Piscococha is on the volcano's western foot"
  • "within". Won't "in" do?
  • This is a bombsite: "from the Toquepala arc 91-c. 45 million years ago over the Andahuaylas-Anta c. 45-30 million years ago, the Huaylillas 24-10 million years ago, the two Barroso arcs 10-1 million years ago to the recent arc in the last one million years". MOS breaches aplenty. I would dump the typography from the range with the cluttered "c.": from 91 million to c. 45 million ...". Is it 10 to 1 million? No. Elseewhere, DO ushttps://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dashboard?hl=en&siteUrl=http://xyzcollectibles.com/e typography, but NOT a hyphen: "7 to 9 centimetres per year (2.8 to 3.5 in/year)". Look up WP:MOSDASH.
  • "A depression, whose margin is cut by landslide scars, cuts into the basement southeast of Ubinas and is occupied by the Ubinas valley." People or human activity "occupies". Not natural features.
  • "especially" – comma before.
  • No, hyphenated "thick" needed too. But invert, and use en dashes. "20-to-40-metre (66 to 131 ft) thick lava flows". Fix all ranges.
  • Consistent tense, please: "has been dated to have started between 25,000 and 14,700 years ago and led"
  • "Farther up between 4,200 to 4,700 metres (13,800 to 15,400 ft) lies a vegetation form called pajonal which consists of creeping plants, grasses and shrubs made up of high Andean vegetation"—dashes. Nest the "between ... )" within commas. Comma before "which". The plants, grasses etc ARE the vegetation, no?
  • "Small lakes and areas of waterlogged soil form wetlands called bofedales in which aquatic plants and rosette-forming plants grow; both the bofedales and the pajonal also feature cushion plants." Comma? Got links to bof. and paj.? Remove both of the "the"s.

Why has this been here for more than nine weeks? And why have these matters not been cleaned up already? Should have been withdrawn and fixed early on, but now, once cleaned up, the prose might be ok for FA, I suppose. I haven't scrutinised the bottom much. Tony (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did get these fixes in. I think the nine weeks is because of the image and source review issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The summit of the volcano is a 1.4-kilometre (0.87 mi) wide and 150-metre (490 ft) deep elliptical caldera[1] formed by collapses of the summit and explosive eruptions." Simplify? "The summit of the volcano is an elliptical caldera 1.4 kilometres (0.87 mi) wide and 150 metres (490 ft) deep, formed by ...".
  • "91–c. 45 million years ago"—two things wrong. MOS says million twice, so it doesn't refer to the year 1927. Probably a spaced dash is better here, givent he speces within the component(s).
    Did the latter, but I am not sure what MOS says million twice, so it doesn't refer to the year 1927. is supposed to say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • north-south direction". Wrong typography.
  • "Rocks on Ubinas have compositions ranging from basaltic andesite to rhyolite, with andesite and dacite being the dominant components of the volcano." This is ungainly. "Andesite and dacite are the dominant components of the volcano, though its rocks have compositions ranging from basaltic andesite to rhyolite." ... but even that's not good: andesite is mentioned twice. Not logical.
    Basaltic andesite does not have the same meaning as andesite and there is no good synonym, so I don't think that can be fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove "being", then. Tony (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Already gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanically-induced"—see MOSHYPHEN.
  • "Subsequently volcanic activity decreased again until late 2009[72] and consisted of degassing and of Vulcanian eruptions." I'm still not happy with the way you sometimes join propositions into sentences. "And" is overused for this purpose. And do you need both subsequently and again? "Volcanic activity—degassing and Vulcanian eruptions—decreased until late 2009[72]." Unsure, but it needs to be clearer.
  • "1,000,000 United States dollars" ... "US1M"?
    I'd prefer to have this spelled out as we cannot assume that readers in this non-US centric article will know the meaning of "US1M", I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At least use "US", then. Tony (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was pending as of 2010"—that's eight years ago. Do we know yet?
  • "at lower elevations temperatures can exceed 18 °C (64 °F) during daytime but night frosts are still possible." Probably a comma.
  • Human use: it's a very slender section. No big deal, I suppose.

It's not wonderful writing, but it's a pass from me at this late stage. You might consider doing a few of my tutorials before your next nomination. Tony (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: I got these issues, minus a few remarked upon above. And yeah, I'll see these tutorials, probably today or tomorrow, before sending anything more here (next article would be Wōdejebato for what it's worth). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Mike Christie

[edit]

Sources all look to be high quality. I have already checked a couple of sources against the text in my earlier review, and I don't think it's necessary to do more spotchecks. External links are all fine. I'm having trouble finding much to comment on:

  • The PDF by Cruz et al. seems to be a bulletin that could be cited to the dead tree version: "Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica del Perú, v.103 (2009), p.265-281." appears on that page. Not a requirement to change this, but you could switch to that and keep the link you have.
  • Similarly for the Parodi.
  • The further reading link looks a little odd, with the repetition of the University name. The last parameter is "series" but you have more than one kind of data there; what's intended?

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​ Got these issues; "series" was intended to explain what the book is (a thesis) I think it does now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2018 [7].

U-1-class submarine (Austria-Hungary)

[edit]
Nominator(s): White Shadows Let’s Talk 18:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back to work on submarines. This time, I've taken an old gem that @Bellhalla: wrote many years ago, added every exhaustible source I own and have come across, and doubled the size of the article over the course of my work. Bellhalla deserves a heck of a lot of credit for helping to get this article to A-class as well. I wish he were still active on Wikipedia to see it finally make it to FAC. NOTE: Despite his apparent retirement from Wikipedia, if this article passes this FAC, I would like Bellhalla to be given co-credit.

Now, about the article itself. The U-1 class was Austria-Hungary's first attempt at acquiring submarines for their navy. Built by an American naval architect, the ships had several interesting design mechanics that you don't often see on many other submarines, such as a diving chamber to enter and exit the submarine while it was underwater, as well as wheels (yes, wheels) to travel along the seafloor. As an experimental design, not all of the components of the U-1 class worked out in the end (the wheels proved to be entirely useless), and it was widely lambasted as a failure (in particular, the engines of both ships were a major issue, nearly killing their crews with poison gas before they were replaced).

That said, the ships were never really intended to do more than simply give Austro-Hugnarian naval officers a ship to study, and new sailors a submarine to train with. In that regard, the ships had a long (if not boring) career. Used mostly for training purposes, the ships were occasionally assigned with recon missions out of Trieste and Pola during World War I, but neither ship sank any enemy vessels during the war. Declared obsolete in January 1918, the ships were again relegated to training missions before being put up at Pola right before the end of the war. After a brief period of political chaos regarding who owned the vessels following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the ships were first seized by, and later granted to, Italy in 1920. The Italians decided to immediately scrap the ships in Pola that same year.White Shadows Let’s Talk 18:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford

[edit]

This is one of the most fascinating submarine articles I've ever read. In addition, it's impressively illustrated. I have a few minor nitpicks, none of which would rise to the level of impeding my support.

  • An experimental design, the submarines included unique designs such as a diving chamber and wheels for traveling along the seabed. - I don't know if the second "design" can be replaced with "features" or some other word so it doesn't read quite so redundantly. Maybe not, though.
  • While the U-1 class submarines were already outdated by 1915, their relocation to the port helped to dissuade Italian plans to bombard the port, as Italian military intelligence suggested the submarines were on regular patrol in the waters off Trieste. - Similarly to the above, I wonder if the second use of the word "port" could be replaced with "it" or anything else?
  • In addition, U-2 underwent an additional refit in Pola and had a new conning tower installed on 4 June 1915. - As above, I wonder if "an additional" could be replaced with "a further" or a similar word?
  • The ships would prove to be a disappointment however. - I believe there should be a comma separating "disappointment" and "however".
  • submarines were initended - I think it could be this is intended to be intended?

Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support! I believe I have made all these changes in the article now. If I’m missing anything please let me know because I like the suggestions you gave. Word repetition in a sentence is one of my pet peeves.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 19:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:SM_U-1_(Austria-Hungary).jpg needs a stronger FUR if it is to be included, and what steps have been taken to try to ascertain copyright status?
  • I've actually got another photo I can put in place of the lead image. Bellhalla put in place the copyright notice just to be careful but it’s almost certain that the photo is PD by now. Regardless, I can just replace it if need be.
  • Replaced with another photo from the article body.
  • File:Lake-class.png: how do we know this image is accurate?
  • Shipbucket explains how their artists go about drawing ships, and when you compare their stated scale to the dimensions of these submarines in question it checks out, but I have no independent way to confirm this unfortunately. I’m not even sure how to do such a thing to be honest.
  • I've removed the photo just to be on the safe side, though I wish there was a way to verify the accuracy as having a cross section of the ship would be a great idea.
  • File:Simon.Lake.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • I don’t have an answer to that ATM as it came from Lake’s own Wikipedia article, but I can certainly look that up and get you an answer.
  • Ok, so I wasn't able to ascertain the date of the photo of Mr. Lake, but the fact that a copy of that exact photo can be found here tells me that it is most certainly in the public domain. I can swap out the images and sources for them if you'd like, just so we have a more ironclad link to a site that proves the photo is in the PD.

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I've done a cheeky c/e, feel free to revert anywhere you don't think I've improved the prose of changed meaning.

  • suggest adding in a bit to the lead about the conclusions drawn about the boats per the U-1 Milhist ACR comment
  • done
  • suggest adding info about the range of the deck gun and range and speed of the torpedoes, per U-1 Milhist ACR comment
  • If I can get this info via the ACR on U-1 I'll certainly add it in.
  • link sea trials
  • done
  • I expected to see the power plant details in the body
  • done

Just check the U-1 Milhist ACR to make sure I haven't missed something from there that is relevant here. Otherwise, this is looking good from my perspective. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD

[edit]

Support. Nice article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • WP:INFOBOXCITE discourages cites in infoboxes. I strongly suggest that you rework your general characteristics section to cover all of the info in the infobox with the appropriate cites and links. There are plenty of GA class submarine articles that you can use as a model.
  • I've removed most of the citations which cover info already explained in detail in the article body. The remaining citations will be removed once I've added that info to the article. There's I think two or three pieces of info that still need to be added.
  • Done
  • The first part of the 3rd para of the lede is a bit too detailed. I'd delete the second and third sentences.
  • Done
  • 12 battleships, 4 armored cruisers, 8 scout cruisers, 18 destroyers, 36 high seas torpedo craft link all of these terms
  • Done
  • The design also placed the diving tanks above the waterline of the cylindrical hull, which necessitated a heavy ballast keel for vertical stability. The location of the diving tanks also necessitated flooding to be done by pumps. Combine these sentences and use required rather than necessitated.
  • Done
  • Each submarine was also armed with a 37-millimeter (1.5 in) deck gun. These guns were installed on both submarines in 1917, then removed in January 1918 when the ships resumed training duties. Awkward. Combine these and say that the subs were not initially armed with deck guns.
  • Reworded the sentence. Let me know if you'd like further changes there.
  • Flooding the diving tanks, which was necessary to submerge both submarines, had to be flooded by pumps Redundant.
  • Fixed. Let me know if you'd like further changes.
  • Not fixed. You already told the reader that pumps were required to flood the diving (more properly ballast) tanks. What you want to do is to add the first clause of this sentence to the next sentence, deleting the next two clauses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-read this a few times now and I can't quite get what's wrong...We've currently got Flooding the diving tanks, which was necessary to submerge both submarines, had to be done by pumps. I could cut out much of this and merge it with the next sentence to say "Flooding the diving tanks took over 14 minutes and 37 seconds in early tests, but was later reduced to 8 minutes." if that helps, but I'm starting to get confused/lost here as to what exactly the issue is...
  • Sorry for being not clear. You already told the reader that the subs need pumps to fill the ballast tanks, so that part is redundant. And why are you now saying "both submarines" There wasn't much to distinguish between them, so why make the distinction now? So yes, "Flooding the diving tank..." is exactly what I wanted you to say because those two sentences were essentially about the diving time. Everything else was redundant or pointless and that's what I was trying to convey to you without actually saying it. It's always better if you can figure out what the issue is yourself, IMO, without it just being handed to you. And there's always the possibility that you might think of a better way of wording it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, just poor choice of words when I wrote "both submarines". I've changed that to say "the submarines". I've now got the sentence to read Flooding the diving tanks, which was necessary to submerge the submarines, had to be done by pumps. This took over 14 minutes and 37 seconds in early tests, but which was later reduced to 8 minutes. Personally, I think this is pretty good...I would be open to changing it to say Flooding the diving tanks of the submarines had to be done by pumps. This process took over 14 minutes and 37 seconds in early tests, but was later reduced to 8 minutes. I'm personally fine with either line. If there's a consensus for one or the other, I'll happily go over and make the needed changes.
  • How about Flooding the diving tanks, which was necessary to submerge the submarines, took over 14 minutes and 37 seconds in early tests. This was later reduced to 8 minutes.
That would be great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the speeds attained to the general characteristics with a link to knots
  • Done
  • Link sea trials, Aegean Sea, bhp, shp, knots, nmi, torpedo tubes, South Slav in the infobox and main body.
  • Done
  • Added "armored" in-front of "cruiser Sankt Georg.
  • I've cleaned up the infobox, removing many redundant links in conversions, gotta watch that. I also removed your specified output of km from the conversions for knots and nautical miles. That conversion automatically outputs into statute miles and kilometers so you needn't specify the output at all. I left those conversions and excess links in the main body for you. Running the duplicate links checker will highlight those for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DUPLINK says: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. So generally you can link in the lede and once in the mainbody.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Parsecboy

[edit]
  • I don't think "Lake class" should be italicized, since the name is from the designer, not the name of one of the vessels.
  • Removed the italics
  • "Kaiserliche und Königliche" should be lowercase.
  • Good catch. Fixed
  • "Safety and efficient" -> efficiency.
  • Fixed
  • This may be a USNism, but submarines are generally boats, not ships, in my experience.
  • I've changed every relevant reference of "ship" or "ships" when describing the U-1 class to "boat" or "boats".
  • "Indeed, the U-1 class submarines were intended to spend most of their time on the surface..." - this is true of all submarines up to the Type XXI
  • That is indeed true, but I think the point here was that the submarines were supposed to spend a very, very limited amount of time underwater...as in, far less than the usual submarine of the period.
  • I don't know that that's accurate, though - even most WWII-era boats only submerged to attack or evade. It wasn't a doctrinal idea (which is what the article seemingly presents it as), it was a simple technological constraint. Batteries only hold so much power, and diesels can't generally be run underwater. Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the sentence in question. I'm sure there's a better way to word things but you made a good counter-point.
  • "navy yard (German:Seearsenal)" - I wonder if this is a useful translation
  • Does it hurt to have the German translation for what was an official government institution? The Pola Navy Yard was owned and operated by the Austro-Hungarian Navy. If it's pointless to have the translation in there I can definitely take it out, I just don't see the harm in keeping it in.
  • Good point. That has been fixed.

Up through the Construction section so far, will read the rest later tonight. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "overran the Ottoman Empire's last remaining European possessions" - not strictly true, as the Ottomans held out at the Çatalca Line, and they retained a sizeable chunk of East Thrace under the Treaty of London.
  • Re-written to say "most of the Ottoman Empire's remaining European possessions"
  • Done
  • Done.

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Source for Ships section?
  • Added citations
  • The ISBN given for Baumgartner & Sieche appears to be for volume 1, while the website given specifies volume 2
  • Good catch! That has been corrected.
  • Check alphabetization of References
  • Fixed
  • Mitchell ref appears malformatted
  • Fixed
  • What makes Novak a high-quality reliable source?
  • I'm glad you asked! Novak's work makes great use of info provided to him by the West Bohemia Museum and the Skoda Museum (as he acknowledges and thanks in the opening of his book). Perhaps most importantly, Novak also acknowledges at the beginning of his book that he consulted with René Greger for much of the technical data of Austria-Hungary's U-boats and their armament, which is a huge plus for reliability in my opinion as Greger is largely considered to be one of the experts in Austro-Hungarian Naval history. You will not find a single article about any ship in the K.u.K. Kriegsmarine that does not cite Greger (and if you do, please let me know so I can fix that immediately). Other scholars Novak cites include Sokol, Bilzer, and Sieche (all three of which are considered experts on the subject of the Austro-Hungarian Navy). Included in his bibliography are no less than 40 German, Hungarian, and Czech-language articles, manuscripts, and books about the Austro-Hungarian Navy and Austria-Hungary's U-boat fleet. The copy I have is an English translation of Novak's original work, which itself was written in Czech. It's a relatively new book (at least the English translation...the Czech copy was first published in 2001), so I haven't seen it cited in other books yet (most works I have are dated back to the 1970s-1990s, and some are contemporary with the era (1890s-1910s), but everything I've seen tells me this is a serious scholarly work.

Coord note

[edit]

This one seems close but I think we could do with at least one more review -- Parsecboy or Sturmvogel 66, could one of you pls have look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look too. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Parsecboy and Sturmvogel 66, just following up with this.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2018 [8].

Sandringham House

[edit]
Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likened to a "golf-hotel at St Andrews or a station-hotel at Strathpeffer", Sandringham House has had a poor architectural press. But it holds some interest, as the private home of all the 20th century British monarchs, and the scene of the deaths of two of them. A Grade II* listed building, Sandringham is a modern rarity, a fully-functioning Victorian country house and estate surviving into the early 21st century. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a few comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Excellent piece, but in rereading the article I have spotted a few minor points that I ought to have raised at the peer review. (The heat and senility, you know.) Apologies for missing them earlier.

  • Info-box
    • "Built for Edward VII" – but you say it was built before he became king, so it was in fact built for the Prince of Wales, or, at pinch, Edward VII when Prince of Wales.
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • Edward VII
    • Palmerston is linked again here, having been linked in the previous para.
  • Green tickY - Undone.
    • First para: still some inconsistency over "the Prince" or "the prince"
  • Green tickY - Done, I hope.
    • "The resulting red-brick house was complete by late 1870, the only element…" – stronger stop than a comma required.
  • Green tickY - Done, with a semi-colon.
  • George V
    • At PR I suggested restraint in capitalising, but you really can't deny Christmas its capital.
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • George VI
    • "at 10.30p.m. He was discovered at 7.30 a.m." – inconsistent spacing.
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • Elizabeth II
    • Why link George VI here?
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • Appreciation
    • "Royal family" or "Royal Family"? We have both here.
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • Gardens
    • If you're going to give Dighton Probyn his "Sir", you might do the same for Eric Savill, who got his K in 1955, so was Sir Eric at the time you mention him.
  • Green tickY - Done.
  • Alt text – lacking throughout.
  • Green tickY - Now done.

That's all from me, I think. Happy to support. I'll do a source review if nobody else is forthcoming. – Tim riley talk 20:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - Tim, it is, as ever, much appreciated. And no apologies are necessary. I'm sure your usual laser-like focus wandered as you slogged through yet another bloody, boring house! Particularly one as architecturally disappointing as this. I shall attend to all of the comments asap, particularly the alt text which I'm ashamed I omitted. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley - Tim, first off, apologies for the delay in responding. Second, many thanks for the PR, which I should have acknowledged at the outset. Lastly, hope I've actioned all the above satisfactorily, except for the alt text which I'll get on to now. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Sandringham_eetkamer.JPG is quite blurry, any better-quality images available?

Also suggest some serious work on citation formatting before someone gets around to reviewing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria - Nikki, many thanks for the review. You're quite right, the dining room photo is of poor quality. Unfortunately, it is literally the only interior image I could find, either or here or on Geograph. I'm not actually at all sure I should even be using that one, as I think it was probably taken in contravention of the "No photos inside" rule that pertains at Sandringham House. And which accounts for the unavailability of any other images. If you think it would be better, I'll take it out. It's just a pity not to have any internal shots in an architecture article.
Re. the citation formatting, could you give me a hint. I've used my usual sfn and the citation bot isn't showing any obvious errors to me. Apologies if I'm being slow. KJP1 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a lot of issues with consistency in the full citations - accessdates of varying formats, variations in which parameters are used and which not even for sources from the same site, newspapers presented as publishers, random CS2 cite where most are CS1, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Shall see what I can do with these. KJP1 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley, Nikkimaria - I'm hoping I've now made the formatting of the online sources consistent, but it's highly likely I've missed something. Very happy to address any outstanding issues during the Source review and thanks again for the pick-up. KJP1 (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'll pick up the source review, but in view of Nikkimaria's comments, above, I'll leave it a day or two, to give KJP time to address those points before I start. Tim riley talk 08:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

The sources cited appear reliable. Only one dodgy one: the link for ref 133 takes one to a wholly unrelated page.

Green tickY - odd. Replaced.

Otherwise, I note that ref 94 points to a self-published work, but the statement it covers is minor and uncontentious, and I don't propose to challenge it.

Indeed it is, but having bought it, I think it's reliable. He's a Rev. after all! KJP1 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor points of formatting etc:

  • Views differ on whether one should add access dates as well as publication dates (where the latter are known), but I think you should be consistent whichever you go for:
  • "Appleton House". The Norwegian Royal Household. 5 March 2011" (ref 134)
but
  • "Home Office Circular 018/2007 (Trespass on protected sites)". GOV.UK. Home Office. 22 May 2007. Retrieved 8 August 2017 (ref 122).
The only other instance of publishing and retrieval dates both given is at ref 124.
Green tickY - Done by removal in both cases to make consistent throughout.
  • Two slightly different references to the same site, viz: "The History of Sandringham". The Sandringham Estate. Retrieved 29 July 2018 and The History of Sandringham". The Sandringham Estate. Retrieved 2017-11-26 (refs 4 and 88). (The latter is also the only incidence of a yyyy-mm-dd date; all the other dates are consistently dd-mm-yyyy.)
Green tickY - consolidated and made consistent thereby.
  • Ref 123 – I think the year is probably wrong. All other references to Mackworth-Young & Ransom give it as 1993.
Green tickY - Oops. Now sorted.
  • Staff writers: I don't think I have ever seen the words "Staff writers" appearing in the Sources of any other article. Isn't it usual to comment them out for articles with no by-line? I don't say it's wrong to include them, but they look a bit strange. (Refs 67, 71, 79, 106, 121 and 137–140)
Green tickY - I've never done this before, but noticed the option was there so used it! Can never resist pressing a shiny new button. Now removed.
  • Titles of authors: Not sure why Roy Strong gets his K in the References, but Alan Lascelles, Harold Nicolson and Nikolaus Pevsner don't in the Sources.
Green tickY - de-gonged Roy for consistency.
  • The royal author is "Duke of Windsor" in the References (124), but "Windsor, the Duke of" in the Sources.
Green tickY - Hope I've got your meaning here?
  • Sources: "Cassell and Company" – two minor points: everywhere else in your sources – e.g. Chatto & Windus – you use an ampersand rather than "and"; and elsewhere you shorten Company to Co.
Green tickY - Done and done.
  • Publishers – links: not sure it's necessary or particularly helpful to readers to link the names of publishing houses, but if you are going to do so you might add one for Thames & Hudson.
Green tickY - but perhaps not in the way you'd prefer!
  • American publishers: New Haven USA but Connecticut US. I understand the latter is preferred.
Green tickY - Done.

That's all I can find. – Tim riley talk 20:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - Tim, many thanks and only sorry I left more than I would have liked undone. Shall set to tomorrow. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley - Many thanks for catching these and I hope/think I've addressed them all. Now I just need to try to drum up a little more interest in the grim old house! Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signing off source review. All is now right as far as I can see. Tim riley talk 20:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Giano

[edit]

This seems a well written and informative article and worthy of FA status. Perhaps the early 20th century statement: "Sandringham had not a single good picture, piece of furniture or other work of art" could be updated, as the house possesses quite a few good works of art, many collected by the late Queen Mother, not to mention Queen Alexandra's large collection of Fabergé. Otherwise, it all seems good to me. Giano (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giano - Very much appreciated and thanks for looking in. And a very good point re. the art. I'd forgotten about the QM's collection of 20th century English works. I'll find a couple of references and alter accordingly. With thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Giano - I hope the additional text and the footnotes address your very legitimate concern. KJP1 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Casliber

[edit]

Taking a look now... (well, I started earlier today but got interrupted IRL) - will jot any queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Early history section, the word "estate" appears in the first 3 sentences. Maybe change the second to something like ".... the pavements of a Roman villa, have been discovered within its borders/on the grounds" or somesuch...
there are no depictions of the original hall around?
There's one here, which must be out of copyright by now. Giano (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber - Very much appreciate the interest. Will address the comments as they come through if that's ok. An image of the earlier Hall would be nice, and I see Giano's found one, but my clipping skills are inadequate. I'll have a look around. I'd also love some interior shots, but they're not actually allowed and the one of the dining room is dodgy in a number of ways. KJP1 (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a nice one here, second down [9] but it says it's copyrighted, even though it must be 150 odd years old as it shows Edward and Alexandra at the old hall so will have been taken between their buying in 1862, and the rebuilding circa 1865. KJP1 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with finding something as I feel it will help the article. Also, I was surprised to find Sandringham Estate is a redirect. I did ponder about things such as the seven villages mentioned as being on the estate and more on the gardens, but thought to myself that these would be covered in an article on the estate as this is on the house....but that article is lacking. Ultimately I feel that there is enough context if this article is about the house alone but if it is meant to be on the estate that is another whole kettle of fish....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a very nice read, with some warmth that makes it engageing, yet concise as well. I think we are there WRT FA-hood but just want to clarify the scope as mentioned above. I figure you'll either find an appropriately licenced image of the old house or not, so if there is none then it is not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber - Glad you liked it. I completely agree that an article on the estate, as opposed to the house, would have a broader scope. It's a big place, encompassing a number of villages/churches/parishes etc., and would need a broader canvas. Perhaps somebody will write it, but I don't think it will be me. Thanks again for your interest. KJP1 (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the Support and I'll continue to search for a usable image of the old hall. You're quite right, a before and after set would be of benefit to the article. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility: comments and support from RexxS

[edit]
Images
The images all have well-crafted alt text and are sized reasonably well, if a little on the small side to my eyes. However, they don't respect registered users' preferences for thumbnail sizing because they all use a fixed pixel size. That could be improved by using the |upright= parameter, for example, changing 200px to upright=0.9. I understand the desire to keep a balance between images and text, but I always feel architectural articles benefit by making their images as large as can be accommodated without ruining the balance. Our default width for thumbnails is 220px and most of the images here are less than that.
Text
All of the text is at least 90% of the page's base font size, easily meeting our standards set at MOS:FONTSIZE.
Colours
There is little use of colour made beyond our standard foreground and background colours, which makes its accessibility as good as we can get it. The only exception is the Template:Royal palaces in the United Kingdom, where the blue title bar has insufficient colour difference from the blue link and fails WCAG 2 AAA standards. That, of course, is no reflection on this article as the template does not allow a change from the default {{Navbox}} colours.
Navigation
All of the elements on the page are navigable without use of a mouse, and all are accessible by anyone using a screen reader. No elements are collapsed by default.

The article has good accessibility overall, leaving little room for improvement. I'd be happy to support the article's promotion. --RexxS (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS - That is extremely kind, and I very much appreciate both the interest, and the carefully-considered suggestions. I absolutely agree that architecture articles are hugely enhanced by images - which is incidentally why I'm slowly working my way through photographing the remainder of Monmouthshire's 250-odd Grade II* listed buildings! - and I'll see what I can do to improve them. Do feel free to have a bash yourself, as I suspect you'll have a much better idea than I what you're doing. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS - I tried 0.9 upright, but it looked even smaller than 220px. I've plagiarised from Ceoil's Black Hours, Morgan MS 493 at 1.3. Is that ok? KJP1 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was hoping you would play with the sizes to find what looked best. The default is that 220px is equivalent to upright=1.0. The image you experimented with was already 250px wide, so you needed something bigger than upright=1.0. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, playing around and they are looking better. Just need to jig around the text, and maybe flip a few left/rights. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They already look so much nicer to my old and tired eyes. I have two windows open side-by-side right now on my 4K monitor showing the article before and after your resizing. I think it is a clear improvement. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does doesn't it! Many thanks for the suggestions. KJP1 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Freikorp

[edit]
  • 'after the Norman invasion' - should Norman invasion be wikilinked? Also 'Norman era' in the previous section redirects to England in the High Middle Ages. Would it be better off linking to a sub-section at that article or even House of Normandy?
Green tickY - done and done.
  • 'His mode of living to date had been disappointing' ... 'fast living set' - this all seems a bit vague, can you clarify this at all? I.e. What was disappointing and define fast living set?
Green tickY - done, I hope. I've linked to the Tranby Croft affair, which is the redirect for Marlborough House set. It's not absolutely on point, as Tranby Croft was many years later. Basically, the Marlborough House set were a bunch of wealthy aristos and arrivistes that encouraged Edward in his pursuit of wine, women and song, not that he needed much encouragement, and the idea was to wean him anyway from this crowd by sticking him in the depths of Norfolk where he could live the quieter life of a country gent. It didn't work. Have also put in a note about the Marlborough House set. Is it any clearer? KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'by the estate's recent historian' - consider replacing 'recent' as per WP:REALTIME
Green tickY - done.
  • 'This house was built by Albert Edward Prince of Wales and Alexandra his wife' - should Alexandra be wikilinked here as it is the first mention in the body, rather than two sentences later?
Green tickY - done.
  • 'Following a fire during preparations for the Prince of Wales's 50th birthday' - it would be of interest to readers to know how the fire started, if such information is available.
Green tickY - done, I hope.
  • 'on an alley at "Rumpelheim" (sic)' - So what exactly is the error here? Is it spelt wrong? Is it necessary to clarify this spelling error to the reader? At the moment I think it just raises more questions. Can we wikilink it to the correct spelling?
Green tickY - done, hopefully. This is a bit confusing. Martin spells the place Rumpelheim. He means Offenbach-Rumpenheim, for which the best link is the German Wiki. Should I link that, or this, Offenbach am Main which is the closest we've got on the English Wiki? Or should I just remove the "sic"? Or both? For now I've give the English Wiki link and taken out the sic. KJP1 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'water being supplied from the Appleton water tower' - this strikes me as odd to mention. Is there anything significant about this water tower? Where exactly is the tower?
Green tickY - hope I've clarified. It's one of the more significant buildings on the estate and I think warrants a mention.
  • Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but perhaps clarify in the prose that 'Persimmon and Diamond Jubilee' are race horses. Stud farms do not exclusively breed horses.
Green tickY - done.
  • 'are listed Grade II' - would it be worth mentioning what this actually means? What makes a building grade II, as opposed to grade I or grade III?
Green tickY - done.
  • Should dates have commas after them? I.e. In 1886, In 2007,
Green tickY - hope I've caught them all.

That's all I found. Looks really good overall. Freikorp (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp - Many thanks indeed for the review and for the very helpful comments. Shall get on to them soonest. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Freikorp - Hope I've dealt with everything satisfactorily and thanks again for taking the time and the trouble. It's definitely improved it. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over everything and happy to support this now. Good luck with the nomination. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated and thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from DBaK

[edit]

I'm so sorry that I am late to the party. Apologies all round. Here are some poorly-organized and partial comments which I hope might nevertheless be some small help. I might try to add some more or I might have been deported to Bad Editor Island before I get round to it.

  • Everywhere: does Royal as a passing adjective need a capital? I think not, you obviously think it does. Choose your weapon!
Red XN - Going to need to check these through.
  • Lead, paragraph 1: Occupied from Elizabethan times, the first major house on the site was a Georgian mansion, constructed in 1771. This is an uncomfortable read for me, as it feels like an almost-dangling participle. It was the site, not the first major house, that was occupied from Elizabethan times - can we disentangle these two please?
Green tickY - Done.
  • History > Early history, paragraph 1: ... even older remains, including the pavements of a Roman villa, have been discovered in the area. Which area? If it is the house site or grounds or just round the corner then fine, but it it's within say a 15-mile radius, not OK. Can we nail down the area a bit more, please?
Green tickY - Done, as far as I can. Messent says only "on the Estate".
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 2: The resulting red-brick house was complete by late 1870; the only element of the original house that was retained ... - "original house" is a hostage to imprecision here - the only bit of which house, do we mean?? We should say.
Green tickY - Done.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 2, the next sentence: The resulting building was entered through a large porte-cochère, straight into the main living room, the saloon, an arrangement that was subsequently found to be inconvenient, and provided living and sleeping accommodation over three storeys, with attics and a basement. This is too long and sets too many different hares running to comfortably resolve them by the full stop. Please fillet out the different ideas (what it provided, what was found inconvenient, an ting) and tell us them in a new one, separately but still somehow interrelated. Also bzzzzzzzt repetition on "resulting".
Green tickY - Hope this is clarified.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: Despite rebuilding the house ... this is like one of those optical illusions where sometimes it's an old lady smoking a pipe and the other way up it's a bearded man playing the sousaphone (YMMV). It makes me go "Despite rebuilding the house, who did what? Oh hang on ..." Please reword to remove the ambiguity. Or maybe just a comma. Anything that stops the terrible terrible sousaphone.
Green tickY - and similarly this.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: ... in 1883 a new extension, the bachelors' wing, ... is a bachelors' wing just a thing that we can casually mention (like: my house has one) or is it more of a proper name for this particular thing, so it is the Bachelors' Wing? I sort of think the latter and am worried you have been shouted at by anticapitalists too much (see above).
Green tickY - No idea as to the extent of your own domain, but I think it's a rare case where I should be capitalising.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: Damage caused by a serious fire that broke out when maids lit the fires in the second floor bedrooms[25] during preparations for the Prince of Wales's 50th birthday in 1891,[26] led Edis to undertake further building and extensions. Aaargh! Another very long sentence that is giving me hallucinations and fainting fits. The thing that led Edis is a very long thing and reads awkwardly. I feel that at the very least a comma after the first word, Damage, would be more correct and read less painfully; the Rolls Royce version would be to rewrite or restructure a little.
Green tickY - Clarified, I hope.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: ... water being supplied from a water tower constructed by Edward at neighboring (sic, fixed) Appleton - can we please here, or somewhere, mention that this is the Landmark Trust's very fine Appleton Water Tower?
Good Lord - I had no idea we had a link for that. Well-spotted indeed! KJP1 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY - Now noted and footnoted.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 4: Edward worked to create one of the best sporting estates ... I am shouting "well did he or didn't he?" at my screen. There's something oddly ambiguous about this choice of words - it's too weak to say he DID, and it's too wishy washy to say that he intended or wished to ... I think either perhaps he should just do it, or he should strive to do it, or something, but "worked" does not blow my horn nor ring my bell. Sorry.
Green tickY - I think we can comfortably say he did.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 5: Neither his son, nor his grandsons evinced such interest in horses, although ... at the very least that first comma is wrong and should come out. It might be worse than that; I'm not sure.
Green tickY - Hope this reads better.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 5: Sandringham was the scene for a considerable number of Royal births and deaths ... "was the scene for" is awkward. Maybe turn it round and say that a considerable number etc happened at Sandringham?
Green tickY - This, a hangover from the original version, never sat well. Hope it's better now.
  • History > George V, paragraph 1: The lack of space did, however, enable George to limit the entertaining ... which sounds like it was a good thing for George, but I am not sure that we explain it properly ... without that, it might have forced him to do so, etc.
Green tickY - He did not. Dinner a deux with Queen Mary at home was paradise for him. Hope it's now clear.
  • History > George V, paragraph 3: Queen Alexandra died at Sandringham on 20 November 1925 which finally allowed the King and his family to move to the main house. Well yes but it sounds a bit directly consequential and even opportunist. Can we not somehow say, please, that she died, and that one result of her death was that they moved in ... I'm not explaining this well. I don't want an essay on it, just less A>B in the apparent logic.
Green tickY - Done, I hope.
  • History > George V, paragraph 3: Two days later, George's body was transported by train from Wolferton to London, and a lying in state at Westminster Hall. - reads oddly for me. Might something like this work? "... by train from Wolferton to London, and to its lying in state at Westminster Hall." I think what is bugging me is that Wolferton and London are places but a L-I-S is a thing? Or something. I just think that even the repetition of "to" would help.
Green tickY - Amended as per your suggestion.

That's all I have for now. It was that length of train journey! At the risk of stating the obvious, I do support the promotion of this excellent article. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBaK - Many thanks. The comments are very helpful and not remotely tardy. I shall crack on with them asap. KJP1 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and I am glad to help. Happy editing DBaK (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum – a few more comments from DBaK
[edit]

Just nipping back briefly to Edward VII and then on ...

  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: That at Sandringham was modelled on an alley at Rumpelheim, Germany. I feel this is in danger of losing the sense a little - could we maybe swap things about a bit to help the reader with something like this? "The bowling alley at Sandringham was modelled on one at Rumpelheim, Germany."
Green tickY - Hopes this runs more smoothly.
  • History > George V, paragraph 2: A memorial to the dead was raised on the estate, to which the names of those killed in the Second World War were added subsequently. ... "Estate to which" is awkward. To avoid this I would replace the comma with a semicolon and remove "to which" so you would get: "A memorial to the dead was raised on the estate; the names of those killed in the Second World War were added subsequently."
Green tickY - Amended as suggested.
  • History > Elizabeth II, paragraph 3: In January 1957 the Queen received the resignation of the then Prime Minister Anthony Eden - could we please lose the "then"? Sometimes they help, but this one does not: it's restating the absolutely obvious and inevitable.
Green tickY - Done, by deletion.
  • Architecture and description > Saloon: why does Edis need to be a colonel here? If it makes sense to give him the rank as a courtesy earlier, then fair enough, but it seems unlikely to be relevant here; I would just use his surname here.
Green tickY - Done, by demotion.
  • Architecture and description > Appreciation: Notable exceptions came to include some of the collection of, mainly 20th century English, art ... I don't think that the commas help or are right - I would simply omit them: "Notable exceptions came to include some of the collection of mainly 20th century English art ..." or reword to avoid this issue.
Green tickY - Done, as per your suggestion.
  • Gardens: a gift to Queen Alexandra from the comptroller of her household, General Sir Dighton Probyn in 1913 is going to need a comma after "Probyn" if it is not reworded ... the date could be moved earlier to avoid this.
Green tickY - Done.
  • Wider estate > Park House: it is now an hotel - I believe that this should read "it is now a hotel". Queensberry Rules?
Green tickY - Done.
  • Wider estate > York Cottage: York Cottage, originally known as Bachelors' Cottage, was built by the Prince of Wales soon after ... unless you've been following closely from the start you might lose track of which Prince fo Wales we mean here, so much further down the article. Is there a neat, easy way to remind the reader?
Green tickY - Done, but does it work any better?
  • Wider estate > York Cottage: Some press reports have suggested that the Queen has given it as a wedding present to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, although other commentators dismiss the claim as "utter nonsense" - reads slightly oddly. I think I might get the doubt in earlier with something like: "Although some press reports have suggested that the Queen has given it as a wedding present to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, other commentators dismiss the claim as "utter nonsense"" then you can sense which way this quite long sentence is heading while you are reading it.
Green tickY - Done as suggested.

And that really is me done and shushing now! Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBaK - Really appreciate the input, which has greatly improved the article. I shall make a point of inviting you to the PR next time! I hope I'd addressed the issues to your satisfaction but let me know if I've not. I know I need to go through and make my Royals consistent. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much KJP1 for your kind comments. It has been nice to be involved with this interesting article. And I am sorry to bring up one last twinge, but please see below. Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appleton Water Tower – from DBaK

  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 4, where we say: ... and water being supplied from a water tower constructed by Edward at neighbouring Appleton. Two tiny queries. Thank you for connecting it all up to the Water Tower article. At the moment "water tower" is piped (hohoho) to Appleton Water Tower as is right and proper but I cannot help feeling that many readers could easily miss the fact that there is an interesting link there, to a specific thing in the locality when it perhaps looks like a somewhat more routine link to just water tower in a non-locally-specific way. Can we please have a link that somehow shows that there's something more exciting to read about there, before you click it? Next, if they do click the link and go off and read the rather short and sad little article article there, they may be confused, as I was, to read that the tower was built by Prince George, the future George V. Meanwhile back in the Sandringham article it is still being built by Edward VII. Look, I shall demonstrate it for you: <click> George; <click> Edward; <click> George; <click> Edward – did they do it together in George's school hols as a little project? I think not, and have a strong suspicion that this article is right and the tower one is wrong, but am too lazo-stupid to understand then fix it myself so I hope some other nice person will do so, thanks, so there is no weird surprise waiting to ambush the unwary reader who has strayed from this article. No pressure (sorry). Very best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all and I've had a go. I hope it addresses the issue. I've also removed the unsourced bit in the main Tower article. Given what the LT site says about junior members of the family laying the foundation stones, my guess would be that GV, then PoW, laid the first of these and that's been reinterpreted as his being the driving force for its construction. Certainly neither the Walch, nor the Pevsner, nor the Messent, say this, although they do have the, odd, ffolkes/Rawlinson disagreement as to who designed it. KJP1 (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, thank you very much for the excellent improvements in both places. The link from here is great now. You're right about the AWT article, and thanks for removing the dubious bit. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Just a few comments,

  • "to a Norman knight, Robert Fitz-Corbun after the Norman invasion.[2]" possibly diminish or spread out the Normans?
Green tickY - Done.
  • "and in 1771 Cornish Henley cleared the site to build Sandringham Hall.[4] The house was subsequently modified in the early 19th century by Charles Spencer Cowper," what need for "subsequently" when you've dated the events?
Green tickY - Done.
  • Is anything known about the use of the house at the time it was bought for Edward? Were the owners already seeking to sell it?
Green tickY - Done. I've expanded the "Early" section a bit to give more detail. It was indeed rather sparse.
  • "which was finalised in the October of that year.[10]" I would slice the "the", personally.
Green tickY - Done.
  • "The Norfolk countryside surrounding the house particularly appealed to Alexandra, as it reminded her of the countryside of her native Denmark.[24]" I would cut "of the countryside" to leave "... as it reminded her of her native Denmark".
Green tickY - Done.
  • If Edward VIII was left nothing but the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, how is it that he owned Sandringham House?
Green tickY - Done. Hope I've clarified this. He got Sandringham, and Balmoral, simply by being the eldest son, although GV could have left them to somebody else, had he chosen. The point I was failing to make was that George V, who had already lost all faith in Ed8's suitability for kingship; "I pray to God that my eldest son will never marry and have children, and that nothing will come between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne"; starved him of cash.
  • Can anything more be said about who is presently managing the estate? It does not sound like it is the Duke of Edinburgh, and yet he is implied as still running it."
Red XN - Unfortunately not. I am sure you're right and that, given his age, the Duke doesn't actually run the estate now, even though he does spend much/most of his time there. They will certainly have an estate manager. But their own website, here, [10] sheds no light on it. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Spanish tapestries, a gift from Alfonso XII of Spain.[108]" it is revealed in a footnote to the next paragraph that these are by Goya. I would say that is significant enough to bring forward, perhaps by adding "by Goya" after "tapestries"
Green tickY - Done. Actually, they're not all Goya, so I've caveated. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "art assembled by the Queen Mother," This is the first time you mention her; should there be a link? I noe you never link Queen Mary. I note later, "for the King and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother after the Second World War.[120][121] " which is a bit problematical, time wise, with "was purchased by the Queen Mother and installed in 1951.[122] [p] " even more so.
Green tickY - Done. I hope. And QMary's link. It does become very tricky when one's writing of what X did before they were called X. I got into a similar tangle with EdVII. I hope it is clearer now. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " James Pope-Hennessy, the official biography of Queen Mary, was even less impressed," some issue or other.
Green tickY - Done.
Green tickY - Done. Have added a, fairly brief, section on Wood Farm in the Wider estate section.
Wehwalt - Very much appreciate the interest and the comments. Shall get on to them soonest. KJP1 (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt - Very much hope I've addressed the issues satisfactorily. Thank you again for your review. Very helpful and much appreciated. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support all looks good now. Enjoyable to learn more about this famous place.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD

[edit]

It's not a bad article. I don't think it can have material sourced to tabloid journalism, quite apart from FAC. I removed some gossipy material sourced to the Daily Express. Otherwise it looks pretty reasonable. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarchOrDie - I appreciate your interest but I'd rather you didn't remove properly sourced material, particularly in the middle of an FAC. While you may not personally like the content or the sources, there's no prohibition on the sources used. Can I ask you revert the removals. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is a prohibition: WP:BLPSOURCES applies to two of the removals. The 1910 one seems like trivia. I would certainly oppose over the inclusion of this material. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then put it back and oppose. KJP1 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I won't, as anyone knowingly restoring material removed under BLP is liable for a block. As I say, it way outweighs the concerns of this FAC, but the article certainly can't pass with it in place. Without it, it probably has a decent chance. Why would anyone want to restore it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. I shall restore it. You can then oppose articulating your concerns and I can seek to address them. KJP1 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I've removed them again. Meantime I'll note my oppose. An article that is the subject of an edit-war to restore non-compliant BLP material cannot be an FA. Shame. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 - I'd be most grateful if one of the coordinators could provide some advice on this issue. The editor is concerned at what they perceive as BLP contraventions. I've asked them to set out these concerns, and I would then try to address them, as I have done with all of the comments/issues raised by the previous seven commentators above. Rather than do this, they seek to provoke an edit war on the article itself and then cite this as their reason for opposing. I'm completely stumped as to how I address this odd approach to FAC, which isn't one I've encountered previously. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually really simple. The sourcing and the gossipy nature of the material drives a coach and horses through criteria 1c and 1d of the criteria we are working to, hence the oppose. They go further and also break WP:BLP, which it's possible you could be blocked for if you keep restoring the material, and are also covered by WP:NEWBLPBAN, which needn't be discussed here. But the article certainly cannot be promoted with this material in it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1:, MarchOrDie has a good point. If the material is true, there will be other sources that support material out there. If there are indeed none at all, then it does raise concerns over its veracity really. I'd be leaning on removing based on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing remotely controversial about the content. One says that the Queen and the DoE use Wood Farm, which they do. The other says that there have been press reports saying that the Queen intends to give York Cottage to the Sussexs, and that there have been other reports refuting this, which there have. But I don't intend to continue this pointless debate - the coordinators will take a view. KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, Even if the material is acceptable, the daily express is not really a reliable source, and definitely not for statements on BLPs, or for an FA. I don't see either that the express source supports the statement "since his retirement from official duties in 2017, it has been occupied by the Prince"; the source says "it is believed he has spent a lot of time at Wood Farm in Sandringham since." - even the Express does not state it fully as fact and puts it as speculation/attributes it to sources; and it should be excluded per WP:BLPGOSSIP, and also because I can only find other tabloids when trying to find another source for this statement.
Same for the other statement MarchOrDie removed - appears to be only tabloid speculation, which thus should be excluded, per WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the article was saying is that there has been press speculation over whether or not The Queen has gifted York Cottage to the D&D of Sussex. In support of that, you can take your pick of Vogue[11], Good Housekeeping [12], Harpers Bazaar [13], Country Living [14], the Eastern Daily Press [15], Fox [16], Elle [17], or plenty of others if you don't like the Express and the Metro. As to the DoE at Wood Farm, you can try the Independent [18], Hello [19], the Telegraph [20], the Eastern Daily Press [21], News Australia [22] amongst others, if the current sources are not to your liking. If however, the consensus is not to have the mentions - for that is all they are - at all, then they are easily detachable as MoD has shown. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: @KJP1 and MarchOrDie: Sorry for the belated reply. This would be a valid oppose based on the source, and this issue has arisen several times at FAC, and one or two times on the main page when it hasn't been picked up in review. I think I would follow Casliber's advice and find a better source or remove it. There is no danger of this being archived at the moment, so it is worth taking our time getting this right and getting some sort of consensus. Sarastro (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 - Many thanks, and no apology needed. While I think I can find acceptable sources; The Independent and The Times (11 November 2017, unfortunately paywalled) for Prince Philip at Wood Farm, and Harpers Bazaar and Vogue, amongst others, for D&D of Sussex and York Cottage; for the purposes of this FAC, it's probably simpler to leave them out. The objections appear to be as much as to the "gossipy" content as the sources, and although I'd disagree, certainly regarding the DoE living at Wood Farm, neither's essential to a history of the house. As MoD has already removed the material, I don't think there's anything more I need do? KJP1 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. As I said, the only major faults were the inclusion of the three tabloidy gossip factoids. I made a few minor copyedits and standardised the image sizes. I think it's fine now. Support. MarchOrDie (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firebrace

[edit]
  • Perhaps more could be said about the Sandringham Estate. For instance, the future George VI took an "almost personal management of the Sandringham estate" and he "made all sorts of improvements, including draining and recovering 1400 acres from the sea" during the reign of his brother Edward VIII (Kevin Cahill (2001), Who Owns Britain). I also find how the estate is used interesting. In 1980 it was divided into 11,890 acres let to tenant farmers, 3,200 acres farmed by the Queen, 1,950 acres of woodland, 1,780 of country park, and so on... (Ralph Witlock (1980), Royal Farmers)
Red XN - The issue here is that the article mainly focuses on the house, rather than the estate, (see Casliber discussion above). If I widened it to properly cover the later, it could become a very big article, covering the seven villages, thirteen parishes, dozen churches etc. etc. If there's a specific point you'd like referenced, however, I'd be pleased to add it in. KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also mention that even though Sandringham is a private house, the Queen paid no inheritance tax in 1952 at a time when it was crippling other country estates and forcing them to be demolished or handed over to the National Trust. (Cahill says the next owner will have to pay inheritance tax because of the 1993 tax agreement.)
Green tickY - You're entirely right that The Queen didn't pay inheritance tax on Sandringham in 1952, and indeed, contrary to Cahill, it won't be payable again, provided that the estate passes from her to the next monarch, [23] (see para. 1.10, which specifically references Sandringham). I'd happily put something in to this effect, but haven't a source at present. Do you have a reference from the Cahill that I could use? KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And have now found it myself. Shall put it in. KJP1 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was my inference from Cahill that the next owner would pay inheritance tax; thanks for correcting me. Firebrace (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandringham is known as the "big house" under George V but this changes to "Big House" under Edward VIII.
Green tickY Done, by un-capitalising the second reference.

Firebrace (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firebrace - I am grateful for your interest and will address your comments as soon as possible. KJP1 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firebrace - Many thanks indeed for the suggestions. I hope you're ok with my rationale on the first point. Re. the second, I'll certainly mention this, if you've a source I could use (and now done). And thanks for the photo, a definite improvement! KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before > beforehand
[edit]
  • I hate to ask but are we absolutely, utterly, totally, fully, indisputably and completely (like, 102%, man) sure that this is correct? It changes ... ending a tradition of Sandringham Time begun by his grandfather over 50 years before. into ... ending a tradition of Sandringham Time begun by his grandfather over 50 years beforehand. I am inclined to think that it must be correct because Firebrace is clearly a brilliant editor and knows more of that, like, grammer-wordthings-stuff than what I do. (Most people do, in fact. But hey.) And yet, and yet – it just reads a bit more awkwardly to me as "beforehand" and seemed happier, ermmm, earlier. (See what I did there?) I make no claims – well not positive ones anyway – about my own knowledge; it could also be some question of the particular or peculiar dialect of English that I use, or of more formal vs. less formal writing, or I could try and blame my parents, an ting. I'd be happier, though, if a couple of people were to just look at this one more time and reassure me that I am wrong and should just stfu as I understand the Young People charmingly put it. Yes, I am operating at a dangerous level of uncertainty here. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: The point Firebrace was making is that 'before' is principally considered a preposition, and so "feels" wrong at the end of a sentence. However, 'before' is also used as an adverb and so is grammatically correct in the phrase ... begun over 50 years before. Of course 'beforehand' is an adverb with the same meaning, as is 'earlier', when used in the same phrase. In that phrase, some folks will read 'beforehand' as somewhat stilted, while others will read 'before' as too informal. No matter what, you won't please everybody, and the best word to use is going to be a fine judgement call. Compare with I've never done this before. In that sentence, I would find 'beforehand' to be the wrong word, although grammatically and semantically, it is fine; and 'earlier' simply wouldn't work at all. In the present case, I wouldn't worry about it either way. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS - "No matter what, you won't please everybody". You can say that again! KJP1 (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DBaK, as RexxS says, there are times when 'before' works at the end of a sentence and others when it seems as if 'beforehand' has been shortened to 'before' out of laziness (to my semi-traditional eyes, this is acceptable in speech, but a no-no in writing). I will save us all time and change it to 'earlier'. Firebrace (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, all, for the brilliant and kind responses, and for the painless solution – which I do think, pace RexxS, works fine. I will sleep easy tonight knowing that this conflict is gorn. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

Looking at the lead:

  • "In 1862 Sandringham and 8,000 acres of land were purchased for Albert Edward," - the size of the estate at this date, 8,000 acres, in not mentioned in the body of the article.
Green tickY - Done, by addition in the body, actually 7,700 acres.
  • "who also owned property at Beachamwell in Norfolk and in Surrey." - Beachamwell is not mentioned in the body of the article.
Green tickY - Done, by removal.
  • "the estate was mortgaged for £89,000" - the body has "nearly £90,000" - perhaps put the exact figure in the body and use "nearly £90,000" in the lead.
Green tickY - Done, as suggested.
  • "spent most of their time in Paris" - the body has the less specific "on the Continent" - perhaps put the less specific term in the lead.
Green tickY - Done, as suggested.
  • "Hoste-Henleys" has a hyphen in the lead but not elsewhere.
Green tickY - Done, hyphen was my error.
  • The article would be enhanced by a simple plan of the house as it would help the reader to understand the description of the room layout. Do any of references include a plan that can be used as a basis for a simple sketch? Looking at Google satellite images I was surprised to find the front of the house faced ESE rather than south as I had expected.
Red XN - I absolutely agree but unfortunately it's beyond my powers. Architecture articles are much improved by a plan, as at The Tower House and Chartwell, but unfortunately the editor who kindly produced those is no longer a regular contributor. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz - Many thanks indeed for the interest and for the helpful comments, all of which I've actioned with the exception of the plan. I'd love one but just don't know how to do it. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: If possible, I'd like to wrap this up, so I'd like an update here. Aa77zz, do you have anything to add? And Firebrace were your concerns addressed? Finally, MarchOrDie, as it stands, I'm taking your oppose as actioned and would disregard it in closing unless you have further concerns related to the FA criteria. Sarastro (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support the FA nomination. Firebrace (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MOD

[edit]

MarchOrDie, RexxS, Sarastro1 - While noting, and appreciating, the Support, I'm still finding your approach to FAC rather problematic. Setting aside whether one can really describe the death of Edward VII as a "gossip factoid", your latest set of unilateral changes has reverted all the images to thumbs. I deliberately expanded them in response to RexxS's Accessibility review. So where do your actions leave me, in relation to RexxS's Support? It may be that he doesn't mind, but, speaking frankly, I find the more usual approach to FAC, of editors and nominator engaging in discussion on the Review Page, to be the more productive. KJP1 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a accessibility issue, but I find those changes to images sizes make the article worse, not better, so I've restored the previous image sizes – as I believe they were carefully considered. MOS:IMGSIZE states "When specifying upright= values greater than 1, take care to balance the need to reveal detail against the danger of overwhelming surrounding article text ... upright=1.8 should usually be the largest value for images floated beside text." As the largest scale factor used in the article is 1.3, the image sizes chosen are well within the guidance provided by MOS. I can see no reason in terms of policy or functionality to restrict all images in an article to a uniform size, especially in an architectural article where images are a key element in the presentation. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence is there that they were "carefully considered"? The nominator completely misunderstood your comment. What "detail" is being revealed in File:Wolferton_signalbox_Geograph-1895286-by-Evelyn-Simak.jpg? I won't oppose over this but this revert seems churlish. And as you say, it certainly isn't an accessibility issue. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MarchOrDie: Read MOS:INDENTGAP. The evidence is in the 29 diffs in this list, and in the dialogue at the end of #Accessibility: comments and support from RexxS, where it is clear that the nominator did understand my comment through trying out different sizes and placements. So, tell me, what consideration did you put into your wholescale removal of the image sizing? You removed at a stroke what had taken KJP1 over half an hour's solid work. The fact is that all of the detail is 20% larger in [[File:Wolferton signalbox Geograph-1895286-by-Evelyn-Simak.jpg|upright=1.2|thumb]] than in your preferred version: [[File:Wolferton signalbox Geograph-1895286-by-Evelyn-Simak.jpg|thumb]]. There's really no justification for making that image smaller: if anything it would benefit from being even larger, but I'm not so churlish as to force my preferences over those of the nominator. --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does MOS:INDENTGAP have to do with it? Or the fact that KJP1 took a long time to settle on the current half-assed formatting? There is no detail worth magnifying in that image and magnifying is best used sparingly, not on every single image. It isn't an accessibility issue but a matter of taste. In the current version the images are so big that they slightly dominate the text. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LISTGAP is a reminder to you not to leave gaps in indented commentary here, as you did in your previous contribution. The nominator took time to decide on the current carefully considered image sizes and placements, and despite your rude dismissal of their efforts, made a much better job of it than your thoughtless return to dreary uniformity. There is plenty of detail worth magnifying in that image, and magnifying is best used liberally in articles where the detail of images adds significantly to the topic. This will be almost invariably true in articles on architecture and the fine arts, where I would expect to see images larger than in the average article. This is indeed a matter of taste and functionality, not accessibility, and I find the present balance between text and images pleasing. In future, I recommend that you bring matters of your taste in image sizing to the nomination page for discussion and consensus, rather than directly forcing your personal preferences into an ongoing FAC. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that your "churlish" was the first use of PA in this discussion. I'm sorry you weren't previously able to parse my opening sentence in this thread, but at least you've now grasped what I meant by "This isn't a accessibility issue". Perhaps you'll also eventually come to understand what I mean by "functionality" as well. --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

[edit]

This has been much chewed over, & is pretty much there, so I won't say much except that:

  • Many paras seem too long to me, and could easily be split. In particular those beginning "Within a decade, the house was again found to be too small...", "Sandringham House has not been admired by critics...." and the one para "Wider estate" section.
Green tickY - Done, Done and Done.
  • Some of the notes might be worked into the text to advantage. Especially the current m,n,s and t.
Green tickY - All Done.
  • The current photo settings seems fine to me, though there are obvious gaps.
I'm guessing you mean interior shots and you're quite right. The problem is that photography isn't permitted inside the house, so there's almost nothing that isn't copyright. I agree it's a pity, for an architecture/building article, but I don't think it can be rectified. KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little on the arrangements for summer (?) public openings should be added.
Green tickY - Done.
  • Some more on the shooting would be good - it was the raison d'etre for the place.
Green tickY - I've added a little more in the Queen Elizabeth section. Is that, together with the Edward VII discussion, and the mention in the Wider Estate, sufficient, or do you think it needs more? KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1960s, plans were initiated to demolish the house and replace it with a modern residence by David Roberts" - intriguing. Do we know who initiated this?
Red XN - This is a bit tricky. The Pevsner says: "In the 1960s a proposal to demolish and replace the whole house by a design by David Roberts was resisted". No hint as to who did the proposing and who the resisting. My guess, but that's all it is, would be the Duke of Edinburgh. He was, after all, quite a "white heat technologist" in his day. This would seem to be supported by this, [24] and by the Google snippet for this, [25], but I'm not sure that's enough to definitively state it. You'll see above, that we're already had lengthy discussions on whether the DoE spends time at Wood Farm and whether there has been press speculation over the future of York Cottage, and I'd be very reluctant to reignite a similar debate at this stage. Let me know what you think? KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather too much in the lead is immediately repeated in the "early history".
Green tickY - Done by Firebrace.

Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod - Many thanks indeed. The comments are very helpful and much appreciated, although you're not wrong in thinking this FAC has turned into something of a marathon! It'll be tomorrow before I can get to them, I'm afraid. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod - John, mostly done, but with a couple of queries. Can you let me know your thoughts. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind and most grateful for the input. If I find more on the 1960s plans, I shall put it in. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat

[edit]

I see I am late to the very extensive review here. No qualms on the text (although "death hastened by injections of morphine and cocaine, to maintain the King's dignity" is about the only time a speedball has been used to maintain dignity!). Support on prose - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - Much appreciate the Support. I've taken the liberty of giving your comment a heading, to aid editing, which I hope is ok. KJP1 (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done?

[edit]

Sarastro1 - I've no wish to hasten this FAC to a premature close!, but I think we're now at 12 Supports, completed Source and Image reviews, and no actionable concerns outstanding. I appreciate Aa77zz hasn't confirmed their support, but I don't think that there's anything that amounts to Opposition in their comments. Are we done? KJP1 (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can put this one to bed. Note that there are some duplinks you should review -- let me know if you need me to point you to a checking script; won't hold up promotion over it though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose - Ian. Much appreciated. And the script would be helpful. Hope Sarastro is keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Some of the dups might be justified in an article this size, but worth a look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2018 [26].

Head over Heels (U.S. TV series)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about an American television sitcom created by Jeff Franklin which aired on United Paramount Network (UPN) from August 26 to October 28, 1997. The series revolves around two brothers (played by Peter Dobson and Mitchell Whitfield, respectively), who own the Head Over Heels video dating agency based in Miami Beach, Florida. The episodes include their employees, played by Eva LaRue, Patrick Bristow, and Cindy Ambuehl.

Initially cast as the main characters' mother, Connie Stevens was removed from Head Over Heels after its pilot episode was retooled. With its inclusion of the bisexual Ian, Head Over Heels was one of 30 programs to feature a gay, lesbian or bisexual character that season. Response to the series was primarily negative, with its humor and characters criticized. It was the lowest-performing series tracked by Nielsen Holdings for the 1997–1998 television season. It could be said that neither critics nor audiences were head over heels about this television program.

This is my eighth FAC on a television show article, following the successful promotion of seven other ones. I think I have a firm grasp on the FA expectations for this type of article, though I will greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions. This is what the article looked life before I worked on it. This is yet another one of my projects on an obscure series from UPN. One of these days I am going to work on a television show that people actually remember lol. Thank you in advance, and have a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheJoebro64

[edit]
  • "the series was noted for not having a black main character"—noted by whom?
  • "...she identifies as a feminist. the bisexual..."—the "T" in "the" should be capitalized
  • In the second paragraph of Premise and characters, I don't think "guest-starred" needs a hyphen
  • Same goes for "executive-produced" in the first paragraph of Production

Those are the only things that stood out to me. Otherwise, I think this is a great little article that would look great with a bronze star. Nice work JOEBRO64 12:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind response! Since you addressed my comments, I'll support promotion. JOEBRO64 17:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

Lead prose (1a):

  • "critics noted that the series does not a black main character." – ?
  • "With its inclusion of the heterosexual Ian," – well, I'm being sarcastic. But your wording ("With its inclusion of the bisexual Ian,") really does mark anyone outside a hetero-norm like an animal in a zoo. Why not just: "With its inclusion of Ian, Head Over Heels was one of 30 programs to feature a gay, lesbian or bisexual character that season.
  • Another with, and a conjunction that might be used only in desperation: "Response to the series was primarily negative, with its humor and characters criticized." Consider this suggestion: "Response to the series criticized its humor and characters, and was mostly negative."

Spot-checks of prose (1a):

  • "The series revolves around" again, so soon after?
  • "Jack is a ladies' man who dates clients" – it's ok, but something in me bristles about the gendered expression, which has always been perniciously ironic. Consider: "Jack dates female clients"? It's sharp enough a proposition.
  • Does "receptionist" need to be linked?
  • "Created and executive produced by" – I've never seen that verb. Can the text be reworded?

Doesn't American neoliberal capitalism turn out some garbage. Yuck. I dislike the topic so much I recuse myself from any judgment. But the prose doesn't thrill me for an FAC. Tony (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tony1: Thank you for the comments. I have addressed them. I would greatly appreciate it if you could point out other areas where the prose needs work, but I understand if you would prefer not to do so. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Summary, I guess: watch for word/phrase reps (search box is useful in Word and on this site). Print out a draft and red-pen it away from your normal work area. All I can say at the moment. Tony (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AmericanAir88

[edit]
  • "Response to the series was primarily negative; commentators criticized its humor and characters.": Needs a rework. Perhaps ("The response to the series was primarily negative with commentators criticizing its humor and characters)
  • "With its inclusion of Ian, Head Over Heels was one of 30 programs that season to feature a gay, lesbian or bisexual character." Could use better clarification and this sentence appears in the lead and broadcast history making it repetitive. Mix it up in the BH section AmericanAir88(talk) 02:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They run the business with the goal of “help[ing] people find love and mak[ing] a reasonable profit”.": Confusing sentence that could be expanded and reworked.
  • "While working as a "romance engineer" for the dating service,[7] Carmen is completing her PhD in human behavior and sexuality;[3] she identifies as a feminist.": The ending is awkward and could be better clarified.
  • "Television critics noted Head Over Heels' frequent sex comedy,[1][5][12] including The Washington Post's Tom Shales calling it a "smutcom".": Needs a rework. Perhaps ("Television critics such as The Washington Post's Tom Shales noted the the shows frequent sex comedy, calling it a "smutcom".
  • " Despite the casting changes, a Turner Classic Movies contributor described Head Over Heels as "resurrect[ing] the acting career of Connie Stevens".": Very confusing sentence. Which contributor? Also could use some clarification.
  • Can you find US viewers for any other episodes? If not thats ok but please try as it looks awkward with only one show having viewers.
  • Opinion: Should "Broadcast history" be changed to "Production"?
  • No. The information in that section strictly deals with information about its broadcast. There is already a "Production" section that deals with the production of the show. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contains duplinks with many being names. Do you best to remove the ones where links are not necceszrry.
  • I am not sure what you mean by this as I have linked everything once in the lead and once in the body of the article. Could you point to any links that are used more than once? Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well written and good effort article. Good luck. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Excellent work, giving my Support AmericanAir88(talk) 12:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07

[edit]

Sorry it took me so long to get around to this, Aoba47. I'd read the article last week when you first contacted me about it, but ended up completely forgetting. Apologies. I have to say though, if I'd responded last week, I would've ended up writing something very similar to what @Tony1: said above. Certain aspects of the prose were a bit... lacking. Thankfully, AmericanAir88's review above seems to have addressed all of the most glaring examples I spotted. After re-reading, I'm happy with the prose on the body. The only suggestion I'd make is to tighten up the lead a bit further: "The series revolves around brothers Jack and Warren Baldwin (played by Peter Dobson and Mitchell Whitfield, respectively), who own the Head Over Heels video dating agency based in Miami Beach, Florida. The episodes include their employees, played by Eva LaRue, Patrick Bristow, and Cindy Ambuehl. The series frequently employs sex comedy. Andrew Gottlieb ...".

  • "The episodes include their employees," doesn't sound right, and "The series frequently employs sex comedy." seems to come out of nowhere; is it related to the next sentence—Is Andrew Gottlieb known for sex comedy sitcoms?

I'd re-write this to something like: "The series is set in the eponymous video dating agency based in Miami Beach, Florida, which is run by brothers Jack and Warren Baldwin (played by Peter Dobson and Mitchell Whitfield, respectively). The remainder of the cast consists of their employees, played by Eva LaRue, Patrick Bristow, and Cindy Ambuehl." I'd then continue the casting theme by including the sentence about Connie Stevens being removed after the pilot episode here, followed by the sentence about the producers. Then I'd incorporate the 'sex comedy' bit into the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph, about the critical reception: "The series received a negative response from commentators, who criticized its characters and broad sex comedy humor."

Aside from those fairly minor points, I can't see any other prose issues. Would be happy to support once the lead gets a makeover. Homeostasis07 (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bilorv

[edit]
Resolved comments from — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor prose issues:
  • "Portrayed as opposites of one another, Warren is more involved in managing the agency than Jack." – It seems odd to call them opposites and then only mention one of their behaviours. Is Jack lazy? Irresponsible?
  • The following sentence includes further information on their contrasting behavior (i.e. Jack is a womanizer and Warren is not). The sentence cited actually mentions both of their behavior patterns (.e. Warren cares about running the agency while Jack is not as active). Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the celebrities guest star as themselves? If so, mention this. If not, mention their characters. (And this might be a good opportunity to avoid the sea of blue issue with "Jim Lange guest starred".)
  • "leading to The Washington Post's Tom Shales describing it" – I think this sounds better as "lead The Washington Post's Tom Shales to describe it".
  • "A writer for Turner Classic Movies wrote" – Replace either "writer" or "wrote" with a synonym.
  • "following "a creative change"" – Where is the quote from? The network? (Change to "following what it described as "a creative change"") Stevens, years later? (Change to "following what she later described as "a creative change"".) etc.
  • "was removed from the show" – Maybe "never appeared in the show" would be a bit clearer.
  • "one of 30 programs that season" – ... in the U.S.? The scope is important context.
  • In the third paragraph of Broadcast history, two consecutive sentences use semicolons – replace one of them with a comma and a connective.

Other issues:

  • Is there a good reason why the plot summaries are so short? MOS:TVPLOT says "plot summaries no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table", and granted there's no lower limit but it gives you an idea of the norm, and even among FAs it looks like there's a minimum of 50 words per episode. I suppose my issue here is that the article has a problem with due weight when so little of it is about the actual show itself.
  • Full episodes of the series are not available to the best of my knowledge so I can only rely on what other publications say the episodes are about. It would be ideal to add more information, but I am not sure where I can find it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the five episodes that were ordered but didn't air ever produced / what stage were they at when the show was cancelled? Were the episodes that aired the first eight that were produced, or did they skip some episodes in the middle? (If you could find production codes, that would give it away.) Do we have any titles of or details about unbroadcast episodes? And was the pilot ever released/broadcast? If these questions are unanswerable, fine, but I'm just checking that you've considered them.
  • I cannot find any reliable sources that cover this information when writing the article and during its GAN. Since it is a rather obscure show from 1990s, I am doubtful if any exist. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the sitcom Cuts" – Looking at the source, this should be Hitz.
  • "cited Valentina and the Baldwins' mother as examples of the series' poor representation of women" – This needs explanation of what about the characters is poor. Looking at the review, the critic's issues seem to be the sexualisation of Valentina, and the fact that the Baldwins' mother is defined in relation to her boyfriend.

While I was here, I made this tiny edit unrelated to the FA criteria. Overall, very good job digging up these sources – even getting viewing figures for just one episode must have been difficult – and I love seeing edits like this (from 5kB to 28kB!), but there's a few issues at present. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review, and apologies for some of these silly mistakes ><. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if I forgot anything or if anything else needs improvement. I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I don't think there's anything that can be done about the episode table's plot descriptions, but a couple of the sources do have a few more details for the article. Maybe a fuller description of the first episode can be added to the last paragraph of "Premise and characters" from this:

  • Episode 1 features a fashion show: "The show manages to squeeze a tacky bikini beachwear exhibition into its first episode." (San Francisco Chronicle review) / "parades a bunch of skimpily clad, leggy babes down a fashion-show runway" (LATimes review)
  • "The move is tested when Warren takes up with Nikki (Heidi Mark), the agency's newest — and presumably most desirable — client. Naturally, the policy is abandoned when Jack catches Warren and Nikki in a post-coital afterglow while sitting on the floor of Warren's office." (Variety review)

Also, the Entertainment Weekly source gives overall viewing figures of 2.7 million, which should be mentioned. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final point: "Storylines include a policy which bans agency employees from dating their clients" – Move this bit to the next sentence so that all the description of the pilot is together. Just "storylines include" and two examples works fine. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After one small edit, I'm happy to support promotion to FA. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tintor2

[edit]

There is not much that other editors but shouldn't the episode summary be expanded a bit. Also, has there been a mention of homemedia releases?Tintor2 (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
ALT text is OKish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise

[edit]

Hi Aoba, how are you? I’m on the road right now and may or may not have time to give a full review, but I wanted to mention at least a few things that jumped out at me:

  • In the reception section from “Rocky Mountain News's Dusty Saunders” onwards, the sentence structure gets a little repetitive, with most sentences sticking pretty close to “So-and-so said this... so-and-so said this...” I recommend seeing if you can add more variety to the structure.
  • “Adam Sandler of Variety praised the series' opening titles as similar to those for the crime drama Silk Stalkings“: There’s not enough context given to make it clear how this is praise. Moisejp (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed both of them. I am doing well, and I hope that you are having a good time on the road. Aoba47 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your edits above are good, thank you. Sorry for being late to get back to this, and again that I didn't have time to give a full review. My real-life busy periods come and go, so I'll be sure to look for an opportunity to review another of your articles in the not-too-distant future. Moisejp (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

All sources seems to pass WP:Reliable source and everything is well-archived. It passes the source review.Tintor2 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2018 [27].

The Cloisters

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Museum in New York City specialising in European medieval architecture, sculpture and decorative arts, especially on the Romanesque and Gothic periods. The Cloisters building and early collection was funded by John D. Rockefeller, and is today governed by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. There was a very useful and rewarding peer review a few months ago, which can be found here. Note the Metropolitan's engagement with Wikipedia has been exemplary, and they were kind enough to release all their image content last year. Lingzhi was very helpful in sorting out all the refs, no small job. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I participated in the peer review. My comments were addressed, but on re-reading, I'd add the following:

  • "and relocated in New York." I would say "to" for "in".
  • "he had amassed enough quality artifacts to open a gallery in Manhattan, New York.[8]" Generally, Manhattan does not take a New York, unless you were saying "Manhattan, New York City" which would be unusual. I think the name "Manhattan" is enough by itself.
  • " Its most well known" probably "Its best known" is better.
  • "about one million US dollars" since this is a US article, the "US" is probably unneeded.
  • "The collections' pot-metal works (that is containing colorants from the High Gothic period highlight the effects of light,[34] especially the transitions between darkness, shadow and illumination.[35] " You open a parens and do not close it.
    "Each of these book are of exceptional quality," should book be books?
  • "the consensus was that the Cloisters should focus on architectural elements and sculpture and decorative arts to enhance the environmental quality of the institution, " and ... and
  • "with the intention that it was donated to the Metropolitan.[45]" Whose intent?
  • "Thus it had been rarely studied or widely appreciated, and was until that point also attributed to Jean Pucelle. " I might say "misattributed" for "attributed also". In any event, I'd at least get rid of the "also"
  • "until rediscovered by Barnard who organized for the entrances' transfer to New York. " I would say "arranged" for "organized".
  • "and are baldly damaged; most have been decapitated." should "baldly" be "badly"? (although decapitaton is the ultimate baldness, I suppose.
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these, and for edits also. All corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help and final support.Ceoil (talk)

Image review

[edit]
  • File:John_D._Rockefeller_Jr..jpg: when/where was this first published?
Swapped out, with a PD. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Hunt_of_the_Unicorn_Tapestry_4.jpg: source link is dead
Replaced file. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the US doesn't have freedom of panorama for sculptural works, these will need explicit tags for the original works
Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've also got some harverrors in your references that will need fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated the references. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of style and prose

[edit]

As an acquaintance I will "recuse" (which I suppose means this technically carries no weight without a stick!), but can you look at these:

  • The infobox says the collection size is "1854" (very specific!) while the text says "approximately five thousand individual pieces". I'm going to guess the box is wrong, but is there a reference you can add here.
  • Just noticed the journal citations don't include page numbers. I'm not sure if this is an "allowable" citation variation or an oversight.
  • Capitalization: "Cuxa Cloisters" vs "Saint-Guilhem cloisters", etc. Do the texts capitalize the latter word here. In any event those four sections should be consistent in this regard.
    • Repeat the above with respect to the chapels: "Gothic Chapel [heading]: The Gothic chapel...".
  • I'm afraid I have to ask the same of pluralization of "Cloister(s)". Should individual cloisters be termed "cloister" in headings and elsewhere? I wonder how the sources refer to them. I bring this up because the text has "Cuxa Cloisters" and "Cuxa Cloister" currently, for example.
  • While I don't know what MOS:ELLIPSIS says until I look, you have spaced and unspaced: " ... " and "...".
  • You have "compromising of", where you mean "comprising of", where you mean "comprised of", where you could probably do away with the word altogether: "through a doorway compromising of a of large, elaborate French Gothic stone entrance" perhaps? Doorway and entrance redundant.
  • Not a sentence: "The current chairman of the board, when the businessman and art collector Daniel Brodsky was elected in 2011,[133] having previously served on its Real Estate Council (1984), as a trustee of the museum and Vice Chairman of the Buildings Committee."
  • The article has "art work", "artwork" and "art-work" or plurals of same. I believe "wikt:artwork" is best.
  • Two "reflect"s in one sentence: "With secular pieces, it typically favors those that reflect the range of artistic production in the medieval period, and according to art historian Timothy Husband, "reflect ..."
  • The names of two plays at the end should be in italics.
  • Three captions in "Illuminated manuscripts" have italicized names for particular images within the manuscripts, while putting the manuscript name in quotes. I would argue for the opposite treatment, as the manuscript articles use italics for their titles; e.g. "The Arrest of Christ" and "The Annunciation to Mary" [two pages, two images]. Jean Pucelle, Hours of Jeanne d'Evreux
No, I think Ceoil is right here. MS names like "Hours of Jeanne d'Evreux" are the names of objects, not the titles of works. With the miniatures it is the opposite. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'm used to seeing them italicized here. Outriggr (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the paragraph about film locations would go well with the very short final section, where the building is noted as an interesting location for plays.
  • Not clear about acquisition date mentioned in this sentence, if she began in 1969: "Jane Hayward, a curator at the museum from 1969 ...... She bought c. 1500 heraldic windows from the Rhineland, now in the Campin room with the Mérode Altarpiece, acquired in 1950."

— Outriggr (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outriggr, as we are long term collaborators, yes fine, of course, on you not voting either way. Working through your helpful suggestions, and txs. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

[edit]

I remember that the peer review was a pleasure, with many suggestions taken. Looking again, only minor concerns:

Lead

  • I could imagine a few lines about today, instead of ending in 1938.

Infobox

  • Do we have a parameter to mention Metropolitain Museum of Art?

Headers

  • Today, I see an empty section as #1, two sections called collection on different levels, - that could be improved.
  • I wonder why it's Langon Chapel but Romanesque hall, instead of Romanesque Hall, etc.

Images

  • I understand the wish to illustrate the extraordinary treasures, but feel that in some sections, less might be more. How about a few galleries, instead of text squeezed between images right and left? I prefer to start with an image "right" in a new section, and no overlap of sections, but that may just be me.

References

  • Deuchler is defined twice, both 1971, - probably one should be 1974, probably the second, but I am not sure enough to just change it.
  • Both are 1971, but sorted.
  • Three refs look unused, and if intentionally, should go to further reading.

I plan to read the article again, but not tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working through these. Am inclined to agree with re images, but don't have a solution just yet. A few were cut today. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being snippy earlier. I'm redrafting and expanding the "objects" section to make the images less intrusive - plus have found a bunch of sources: happy days :) Ceoil (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have significantly changed the TOC so that the article will be more summary style, mentioning individual major pieces but in the context of their acquisition and weight within the collection overall. However to get to this shift, the page looks now disjointed, will report back by tomorrow night. Ceoil (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, thank you for the changes, Ceoil. Sorry for not saying that sooner. I was busy and will be away (reheasing Brahms) until Monday. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerda, these suggestions were most useful. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

[edit]

I remember seeing this at peer review. There are a few comments that I have, which I'll post here later, but I generally do think it is up to quality. epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, going from the beginning to end of the article:

  • It holds approximately five thousand works of art and architecture, all European and mostly dating from the 12th to 15th centuries—that is, from the Byzantine to the early Renaissance periods. - I would personally avoid using the m-dash in this way because it awkwardly interrupts a thought. I would consider rewording this sentence so that the m-dash isn't needed. Something similar to this: "It holds approximately five thousand works of art and architecture, all European and mostly dating from the Byzantine to the early Renaissance periods, namely during the 12th through 15th centuries." Just a suggestion though.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening in 1938 is mentioned only in the lead, but not in the body. I think this is a pretty major omission for the "History" section. Not that much needs to be done; adding even a sentence or two about the opening in the body would be sufficient.
    Will do Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and who in the last 20m years of his life acquiring artworks - is "20m" a typo?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • spending some $900 million (inflation adjusted) in total. - What is the year it's being adjusted to? I suppose you can use {{inflation}} for this; it would be useful also to know the original value.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • acquired by Rockefeller in 1925 who then purchased, and in 1931 donated - there should be a comma after "donated", to match the comma after "purchased"
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two important series of prints are kept on microfilm; the "Index photographique de l'art en France" and the German "Marburg Picture Index". - should that be a colon instead of a semicolon?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • having previously served on its Real Estate Council (1984) as a trustee of the museum - This parenthetical insertion has an unusual grammar structure that makes it confusing. Does this mean he served as a trustee in 1984? Or is there another meaning that I'm missing?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2011 it purchased the then recently discovered The Falcon's Bath - I'd put a hyphen in "then-recently discovered" because "then" modifies "recently"*
Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section title, "Exhibitions and programs", doesn't describe the section well. The first paragraph is about musical performances and exhibitions, while the second is about popular culture appearances. I'd suggest "Exhibitions and media appearances" or something similar.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will have more comments later. Overall, this is pretty comprehensive and I don't see as many issues here as in other featured article candidates. epicgenius (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, very useful. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll look at this article again on Monday. epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sorry, I totally forgot about this. I don't see any other major issues. epicgenius (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for review and support. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lewismaster

[edit]

Congratulations for a great article on a magical place very dear to me. Lewismaster (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have only minor remarks regarding references and Bibliography. Using the program User:Ucucha/HarvErrors a few errors appear as follows:

  • Citations No. 31, 32 and 34 refer to a text by James Rorimer of 1948, which is not listed in the Bibliography.
  • The book by Timothy Husband of 1979 doesn't point to any citation.
  • The book by Charles Little of 2006 doesn't point to any citation.
  • The article by Helmut Nickel, Jeffrey Hoffeld and Florens Deuchler of 1971 doesn't point to any citation.
  • The book by Elizabeth Parker of 1992 doesn't point to any citation.

If those texts are not used for reference in the article, they could be eliminated. Or, if you want to keep them in the Bibliography for completeness, you could erease the |ref=harv voice. Lewismaster (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Will get to these shortly. Ceoil (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the last four. I seem to be confused in my editions of the Rorimer book. Looking. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the text by Husband of 1979 is still in the Bibliography. Also the Rorimer references need to be corrected. Lewismaster (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of fixing the remaining references. I hope that my changes were right. The article has now my full Support. Lewismaster (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Lewis. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

@Lewismaster, Epicgenius, and Gerda Arendt: do you have anything further to add to the review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks all; Ceoil, I think we still need a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, yes, will ask around. Ceoil (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, since the bot hasn't gone through as yet, I'll just mention here that there's a couple of paras (in Formation and Illuminated manuscripts) that don't finish with citations. Wasn't earth-shattering info so was never going to hold up promotion over them but you might add for completeness... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ok Ian, will do, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

[edit]
  • "They became part of the Metropolitan Museum's collection when acquired by financier and philanthropist John D. Rockefeller, Jr." - sounds like this conflates two sets of actions: Rockefeller buys, Rockefeller donates. Needs rewording either way - They were acquired for the museum by..." if this was the case.
  • "The museum has an extensive collection of medieval European frescoes, porcelain statuettes," - really?? There are no medieval European porcelain statuettes. Ivory ones?
  • The main illuminated manuscripts are given little bits, except for the "Hours of Jeanne d'Evreux", which I'd think most people would regard as the most important of the lot.

More later. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, have made these changes and added a brief section on the Jeanne d'Evreux hours. Thanks for edits also. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Support from KJP1

[edit]

Ceoil - Happy to pick up the Source review and will do it today. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sound KJP1. Ceoil (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right - there are a lot so this will have to come in batches, I'm afraid.
Sources
Locations - most, but not all, of the books have publisher locations. My understanding is that they aren't a requirement, but I think they are preferred and the approach should be consistent. As an aside, the journals don't have locations, but they are consistent. Thus, I'd suggest the following need locations/location expansions:
  • Ellis, Lisa; Suda, Alexandra (2016). Small Wonders: Gothic Boxwood Miniatures. Ontario, Canada for consistency?
  • Freeman, Margaret; Rorimer, James (1960). The Nine Heroes Tapestries at the Cloisters. - "New York, NY:" as Barnett/Wu. And does this need an OCLC? It's 937275929.
  • Hayward, Jane; Shepard, Mary; Clark, Cynthia (October 2012). English and French Medieval Stained Glass in the Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art - New Haven, CT.
  • Husband, Timothy (2008). The Art of Illumination: The Limbourg Brothers and the Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry - New York, NY for consistency?
  • Nickel, Helmut; Hoffeld, Jeffrey; Deuchler, Florens (1971). The Cloisters Apocalypse: An Early Fourteenth-Century Manuscript in Facsimile. - "New York, NY:" as Barnett/Wu. And does this need an ISBN or OCLC? It's 978-0-87099-110-3 or 905628180.
  • Reynolds Brown, Katharine (1992). "Six Gothic Brooches at The Cloisters". In Parker, Elizabeth. The Cloisters: Studies in Honor of the Fiftieth Anniversary - You give New York, NY elsewhere when citing essays from this volume. Also, this is the only instance where you don't credit Mary B Shepard.
  • Ridderbos, Bernhard; Van Veen, Henk Th.; Van Buren, Anne (2005). Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Research. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, for consistency?
  • Rorimer, James; Serrell, Katherine (1972). Medieval Monuments at the Cloisters as They Were and as They Are - New York, NY for consistency. And does this need an OCLC? It's 16972649.
  • Rorimer, James (1951). The Cloisters: The Building and the Collection of Mediaeval Art in Fort Tryon Park. New York, NY for consistency. And does this need an OCLC? The 1946 publication is 222157219 but I can't find a 1951 print on Worldcat.
Titles
  • Stoddard, Whitney (1972). Art and Architecture In Medieval France: Medieval Architecture, Sculpture, Stained Glass, Manuscripts: The Art Of The Church Treasuries - The second colon, after Manuscripts, looks odd. Should it be another comma? Everything I can find online seems to suggest The Art Of The Church Treasuries is a continuance of the list. An alternative would be use the short title of just Art and Architecture In Medieval France.
Dates
  • The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin - the dates here vary somewhat, but this might be in part due to a change of style by the Bulletin. Nevertheless; Deuchler, Florens (March 1971), Freeman, Margaret (December 1956), Husband, Timothy (Fall 2016), Husband, Timothy (Spring 2013), Husband, Timothy (2001), Rorimer, James (May 1948), Rorimer, James (Summer 1942), Rorimer, James (1938), Strouse, Jean (Winter 2000), Tomkins, Calvin (March 1970), Wixom, William (Winter 1988). So, some have months, some have quarters (seasons), and two have neither, just the year. Can they be made consistent, as far as the magazine style allows?
Citations
Online - shall only list any I find issues with.
  • 16, "The Cloisters Museum and Gardens". The Metropolitan Museum of Art. - this is taking me to an intro page, rather than a page specifically about the construction of the Cloisters. Does the link need resetting?
  • 102, "The Bonnefont Cloister Herb Garden" - this is giving me a Page Not Found error.
  • 113, "Press Gardens at The Met Cloisters" - the "Press" is a cut-and-paste error and shouldn't be there. It's just Gardens at The Met Cloisters.
  • 149, "The Cloisters". New York Magazine - being uber-picky but the article only talks of "a complete deck of cards" rather than multiple decks. Perhaps reword to "and a deck of 15th-century playing cards"?
  • 154, "NYU Alumni: Daniel Brodsky". New York University - this takes me to an article about a transplant surgeon, not Mr Brodsky. Suspect it needs resetting.
  • 159, "Annual Report for the Year 2016–17 Exhibitions and Installations" - again, being very picky, the source says that the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam also participated in this exhibition.
Offline - again, only the ones with issues.
  • 3 - The Opening of the Cloisters". The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin - any reason why this isn't listed in the sources? I can find it, and it gives Rorimer as the author, but Worldcat dates it from 1938, [28].
  • 130 - "Monumental Moving Job". New York: Life Magazine, October 20, 1961 - we've no author here. Is there one?
Overall
I don't have the benefit of access to any of the offline Sources, but given that almost all of the online check out (see above for the few queries) and given the nominator's enviable track record, I'm very confident that they will support the text. The online all check out, with just a few queries/link issues that I've detailed. On that basis, and having participated in the Peer Review, I'm very pleased to Support. It's a fabulous article on an amazing museum and deserving of FA status. KJP1 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate you going to all this trouble; these are most helpful and working through. Ceoil (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure - it's a wonderful article and I long to visit, although whether I ever will is another matter. Sorry to spoil your run, but I've gone back and added a second Rorimer query to the Sources - Locations section. KJP1 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being one of Wiki's true gentlemen as always, will update when done. Ceoil (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2018 [29].

Missouri Centennial half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the early commemorative coin issues, which was intended as a major fundraiser and as usual that didn't work too well. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Moise

[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you're well. I'm reading through the article, and here are some comments:

Preparation:

  • "The hired sculptor could, Moore suggested, choose among these, as to which could be used to best effect, with Montgomery's approval and that of the Fine Arts Commission." I found this sentence a little confusing. I think I know what it is supposed to mean, but could you possibly rewrite it to be a little more straightforward? Moisejp (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, well enough, hope you are too. I have made the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was apparently not communicated to the Missouri commission as on May 17, James Earle Fraser, a member of the Fine Arts Commission, told Moore that he had heard that someone associated with the Missouri Centennial had made inquiries with the Medallic Art Company of New York, aimed at hiring a sculptor." I also found this a little confusing, and it seems to be more of a side note than part of the main narrative (if I've understood it correctly?). Could this sentence be removed to keep the flow of main narrative tighter?
  • "The Missouri committee was informed that I would work along these lines, though I was given full latitude for any change I might advise." Is it clear enough what "these lines" refers to, or would it be better to replace it with something like "[the guidelines set by...]"? It seems like the context of "these lines" would have been explained earlier in the letter but that this context is not included in the quotation. Moisejp (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design:

  • "apparently dramatizing Montgomery's desire to show the white man supplanting the Indian in Missouri "as though this was something to brag about"." Earlier in the article I assumed Montgomery was sympathetic of the Native Americans' plight in having been supplanted, but from this sentence I can't tell whether Montgomery was criticizing other people's arrogant attitude, or whether Swiatek and Breen are saying that Montgomery had the arrogant attitude (i.e., he was not sympathetic towards the Native Americans)—but I think it seems to be the latter scenario? Moisejp (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just randomly looked at the Eisenhower commemorative dollar article and it appears his likeness appears twice on the obverse, and his home is on the reverse. So it doesn't seem exactly true that it's a case of "the same individual depicted on both sides". Moisejp (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I've seen your changes and they make the article clearer. The article is well written and engaging. I'm happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Sorry bout the Eisenhower, I even think I have one somewhere, but that is what the source said.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Thanks, FunkMonk. I can't do a PD-old because Aitken hasn't been dead 70 years. The PD-US is sufficient because everything was published before 1923, in the US.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that might be a problem on Commons, where images have to be free worldwide. So ideally, the images should instead be uploaded locally on English Wikipedia, which only goes by US copyright. Might need confirmation of this, so pinging Nikkimaria. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Commons requires images be free in both the US and their country of origin - but in this case it appears that country of origin is the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, in that case it seems we are safe. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Only a few from me:

  • Preparation: Might be nice to give Benton's first name in the bracketed bit; his first name is probably more unknown than Daniel Boone's anyway.
  • Design: Typo in "Been stated..."., as the author's name is Breen (seen that one before in these articles).
  • "The Missouri Centennial half-dollar, in having Boone on both sides, it is one of the few...". For this to work grammatically, "it" needs to be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All done, thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Giants2008 do you have more to add here? For some reason, this is struggling for review a little. If nothing happens in the next few days, we may have to consider archiving. I wonder if there is anyone we could ask to take a look? Sarastro (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would hate to see it archived, it already has one support and if Giants2008 is on board ... I can probably find someone else without too much trouble and request a source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to re-review within the next couple of days. It's unlikely that I'll find anything else to comment on, but not impossible. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

A quick glance through shows two very minor points:

  • A little duplication of links in the Design section: Daniel Boone and SEDALIA are both linked above
  • I'm not sure FN25 is right: Bowers, pp. 165–155 may need a tweak!

I'll be back tomorrow with a closer look. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a link to Sedalia in the design section, Boone I link because the earlier link was only to the last name and it's a gap between them. Thank you for looking at the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on Boone. Sedalia is in the second para - "The name SEDALIA, the site of the centennial exposition, appears in exergue" - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I think they're also far enough I'd let them stand. I have a theory that people may go directly to the design section and so I'm a bit free with links.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll finish my review of the Parliament of 1327 article in a day or so, and if no-one has picked up on the sources, I'll do those too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at that one too when I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)re[reply]
Much obliged, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to come Support from KJP1

[edit]

Just as a marker, I'll certainly review but I'm afraid work commitments mean it will be tomorrow rather than today before I can do so. KJP1 (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox
  • "The U.S. state of Missouri wanted a commemorative coin to sell at the centennial celebration" - I was a little confused as to what centennial was being celebrated, perhaps "The U.S. state of Missouri wanted a commemorative coin to sell at its centennial celebration"?
Fixed.
  • The infobox says 50,028 were minted and 29,600 were subsequently melted. The lead says "almost 40 percent of the coins were returned to the Philadelphia Mint for melting". Maths was never my strong point but isn't this closer to 60%, 59.166 recurring?
Oops. Fixed.
  • I got confused by the labelling of the two coin images in the infobox. The first (front) image is called Missouri Centennial half dollar obverse.jpg, and its description calls it Obverse of the Missouri Centennial half dollar. This is surely right. But the second (back) image is called Missouri Centennial half dollar reverse.jpg while its description says Obverse of the Missouri Centennial half dollar. Shouldn't this be Reverse of the Missouri Centennial half dollar? This may be more of a Commons issue than an issue for this article.
  • My fault; I cut and pasted the info template. Fixed.
Legislation
  • The legislation reduced the permissible number of coins to be minted from 500,000 to 250,000, but in fact only 50,028 were minted. Do we need an explanation as to why the number was reduced?
They had to front the money. Probably more would have been ordered, but a lot of Mint correspondence of that era is missing, destroyed in the 1970s. Probably best to leave as is.
Preparation
  • "Members had made a number of suggested changes; these were implemented, and on June 9, the Fine Arts Commission approved the design" - With the preceding sentence referencing the senator, I wasn't sure whether "members" referred to members of the Senate or members of the Fine Art Commission? I'm guessing the latter, so perhaps something like, "Commission members had made...and on 9 June, the full Commission approved the design"?
  • Not sure it's needed but done.
Design
  • "Other individuals so honored on commemoratives include ... and the frontiersman on the 1936 Elgin, Illinois, Centennial half dollar." Two quibbles. As Boone is the subject of this coin, can he be an "Other individual"? And is the frontiersman actually an individual, as opposed to a representative figure? The relevant article describes him as "an idealized head of a pioneer man". I'm afraid I'm at a loss to suggest a rewording.
Reworded. The frontiersman was from the designer's model of a statue to be built, and it is the same guy as on the statue.
Production, distribution, and collecting
  • "All of the 2★4 coins were sold, and when sales slowed of the plain variety, 29,600 were returned to the mint for melting, likely all plain". I'm afraid I'm back in what I accept is the murky world of the numbers. Surely, if "All" the 2★4 coins were sold, then those that were melted must have been all plain, no "likely" about it?
For some reason I thought wiggle room was needed, but not on the question of melting, on consulting the sources. Done.
All minor issues for your consideration, and quite possibly rejection! Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your most useful comments and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Another in a reliably excellent series. Happy to support. A few minor comments and suggestions, none of which affect my support. All relate to the "Legislation" section:

  • "admitted to the Union" - might be worth linking, as "the Union" does not immediately suggest the USA to all non-Americans.
  • "introduced in the Senate" - again, might be worth a link for the benefit of foreigners. Likewise the lower house, later.
  • "presiding officer over the Senate, Vice President Thomas R. Marshall" - this reads rather oddly to the outsider. Would it be inaccurate to simplify it as "Vice President Thomas R. Marshall, presiding over the Senate"?

That's my meagre harvest of quibbles. Otherwise the article seems to me to meet the standards of FA and of this impressive series. Tim riley talk 16:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got those, much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Support. Very fine work as usual. A few nitpicks;

  • Lead:
  • Combine the 1st and 2nd paras
  • sought a commemorative coin, rather than 'wanted', which is too informal/vernacular for the voice of a U.S. state
  • 'centennial celebration'; alliteration, maybe just 'centennial'
  • Increase rather than 'boost' sales
  • the coins did not sell as well as hoped, and almost 60 percent of the coins; drop "of the coins"
  • Legislation
  • Legislation for a Missouri Centennial half dollar was introduced; drop Missouri as already extablished
  • Idaho Senator William E. Borah, a Republican; for benefit of flow: "The Republican Idaho Senator William E. Borah"
  • stated he would object to the bill; "to the bill" is implied; "if there was to be discussion of it" - "debate" rather than discussion
  • and on February 24, the Coinage Committee recommended; I wouldn't place a comma there
  • Ohio's Warren Gard had asked a number of questions about previous coin bills when they passed through the House.[7] Gard asked Vestal whether - asked x 2; replace one with enquired or something
  • Preparation
  • The opening paragraph is very long and technical. Maybe break in two
  • explaining his view that the best course of action ; "arguing that"
  • helping to pay the sculptor's fee and the cost of the die, a total of $1,750. - "estimated at $1,750" rather 'a total'
  • Production, distribution, and collecting
  • the excess over the round number - I don't know what this means, unless its been explained above. Is this off-cuts and waste?
  • The first coins minted "minted" is redundant
    There had been little advance publicity of the coins - "of the coins" is implied. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
Formatting

One tiny formatting tweak made by me, and one suggestion:

  • Swiatek, Anthony (2012) should probably have Chicago, IL; (I know we don't bother with New York, NY, but I thought all others were supposed to have it?)
Spot checks

A little difficult as I don't have access to the ProQuest sources, so these not checked, nor the book sources that are not available online. Two web refs checked: FN29 is OK:

  • FN28: The only sale for $70500 was in 2015, not 2014

I do not have enough background knowledge of the availability of any other sources, but as Wehwalt is something of an expert in the field, I take his selection of sources in good faith. The sources used all seem appropriate and are reliable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that must have been a typo I did not catch. Thank you for your work on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2018 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2018 [30].

Æthelbald, King of Wessex

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelbald was the first of four brothers who were successively Kings of Wessex, the youngest of whom was Alfred the Great. This is a short article as very little is known about Æthelbald, but still the fullest account of him anywhere so far as I know. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

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

  • There's some repetitious phrasing at the end of the first paragraph of the lead: we have "kept Wessex", "kept Kent", and "keeping the west" five times in two sentences.
  • Are the sources unambiguous in taking Æthelbald's genealogical connection to Cerdic at face value? I know Cerdic is generally thought to be real, and not a legendary figure, but I'm sure I recall discussions in Yorke or Kirby about how kings of Wessex might have manufactured connections to Cerdic.
  • After Æthelwulf's death, you say Æthelbald then became the king of Wessex, which is confusing because Æthelbald was already king of Wessex -- "Most historians state that Æthelbald kept Wessex" is a couple of sentences above. I think some qualification is needed.
  • Æthelwulf left a bequest to Æthelbald, Æthelred and Alfred, with the provision that whoever lived the longest was to inherit the whole: I think this could be expanded with more of the details that Keynes and Lapidge give in their long footnote on p. 314 -- the mention of Æthelwulf's bookland, and his probable desire that the land be undivided. I see from "it may have been intended to provide for the younger sons" that this is not undisputed, but the details are interesting and relate directly to Æthelbald.
  • With two reliable sources noting suspicions of S 1274, it might be worth adding a parenthetical "(possibly forged)" or something similar, despite Keynes.
  • I am doubtful. Looking at the comments on charters listed in Sawyer there are plenty that are agreed to be fakes but very few which are agreed by all reliable sources to be genuine. The comments by Nelson and Dumville were passing remarks which pre-date Keynes's detailed study of a set of mid 9C charters, including the two of Æthelbald, arguing that they were products of a royal writing office. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles by Lawrence on the forged coins, cited in Grierson and Blackburn, are available on Google Books; it might be worth adding a citation directly to those sources, since Lawrence goes into more detail than G&B do.
  • Done. (I could not find the first in Google books but I found it in Jstor.)
  • if so Æthelbald's early death allowed Æthelberht reverse the intention: looks like a word has been omitted?

Looks good; just the minor issues above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Mike. I have run the script and added the missing locations. I am getting error messages because ODNB sources do not have page numbers. Do you know how I fix this? Also I have run the script for fixing hyphens but I am still getting errors messages for hyphens in pg ranges. If you do not know the answers to these queries I can raise them with Lingzhi. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Lingzhi has retired, or at least is not currently active. As far as I'm aware the script will still show errors in some cases that probably don't apply, so it's a bit annoying; I leave it enabled all the time since I just ignore the errors once I've looked at them, but you could also comment the script out once you've used it. The dashes script is also not working for me; I don't know who maintains that. I've been having problems with the nominations viewer too so I thought it was just me but perhaps it's actually broken at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Just a few things.

  • "three kindreds" I'm not sure what this means. Families? Clans?
  • It means something a bit wider than family and much narrower than clan - maybe extended family and its ancestors or branch of Cerdic's descendants. I cannot think of a good word to replace kindred - unless kin group is better?
Maybe link to an appropriate article, or Wiktionary definition?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no suitable article on Wikipedia. I could link to the Wiktionary definition, although it is a bit vague and I do not know how to do that.
  • "to the family of royal and princely allies which Charles was creating.[19]" consider something like "coalition" for "family".
  • Coalition is too strong as they never acted together. I have changed to "network".
  • "S 1274 is the first surviving West Saxon charter to require a contribution to fortification work, " I might say "oldest" for "first".
  • Changed to "earliest".
Support Very interesting. Seems up to standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

[edit]

This is a nice article, and well out of my comfort zone, with is fun. I made a couple of (what seemed to be) obvious tweakes, but feel free, of course, to revert. I'll probably come back again, but just quickly—do you not think that the 3X filius regis is slightly repetitive? Just a thought. Best of luck with this! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the second one to "with the same designation".
Thanks for the comment and edits. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Fantastic topic - I'm thrilled to see this here.

  • I get twitchy when I see a quote without a citation, as currently appears in the lead! There are a few instances further down the article, as well.
  • The quote in the lead is repeated and cited in the main text. I cannot see any uncited quotes below - can you advise where you see problems? I have followed what I understand to be usual practice in not giving cites in the lead, although I think there is a case for giving duplicate cites for quotes only. Ian do you have any advice/views on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: I support the idea of duplicate citations for quotes. I also support following quotes (or sentences containing quotes) with a citation, even if the sentence is "captured" by a citation later. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, although citations in the lead are generally discouraged on the assumption that everything in the lead will be supported by cited statements in the main body, my understanding is that quotes in the lead are an exception and should be cited no matter what. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ian. I have added a cite to the quote in the lead and also put cites next to quotes, except for one case where it was too complicated and the source of the quote is obvious in the citation. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wikilink to Viking would be helpful. I assume that these are Danes? Or am I being imprecise if I say that? (A wikilink when you mention "Cornishmen" would probably also be useful.)
  • "However, as Æthelstan was old enough to be appointed king ten years before Alfred was born in 849 and Æthelbald took part in battle in 851; some historians argue that it is more likely that the elder children were born to an unrecorded earlier wife." I'm not a fan of the semi-colon when you're starting the previous clause with "as". How about: "However, as Æthelstan was old enough to be appointed king ten years before Alfred was born in 849 and Æthelbald took part in battle in 851, some historians argue that it is more likely that the elder children were born to an unrecorded earlier wife." or "However, Æthelstan was old enough to be appointed king ten years before Alfred was born in 849 and Æthelbald took part in battle in 851; consequently, some historians argue that it is more likely that the elder children were born to an unrecorded earlier wife."
  • I find the phrase "went on pilgrimage" a little elliptical; is it standard in the literature?
  • I am not clear what your point is. I think "went on pilgrimage" has a standard meaning and it gets 119,000 hits on google.
  • "Shortly after Æthelwulf's death in 858, Æthelbald forced Swithun to lease him an episcopal estate at Farnham. Ecgberht was buried in Winchester and Æthelwulf at Steyning in Sussex,[c] perhaps because Æthelbald was unwilling to have him buried in Wessex, while Æthelbald and Æthelberht were buried at Sherborne" I think the significance of all this could be more clearly spelt out.
    This is a tricky one. Barbara Yorke pointed out the relevance of the split between Sherborne and Winchester in 1984, but her comments have been largely ignored by other historians, perhaps because she published in an obscure journal. I think I am in danger of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, so I have cut down my comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think the significance of "Carolingian prestige" could also be explained.
  • Expanded as "Another factor was that Judith was a great-granddaughter of Charlemagne, and union with her gave Æthelwulf a share in Carolingian prestige." OK?
  • " and since Kent had only been conquered thirty years previously, it was hardly part of a previously united kingdom, [25]" Has something been lost, here?
  • Expanded as "and since Kent had only been conquered thirty years previously, it did not make sense to speak of it as having always been a less important part of the kingdom." OK?

Having to stop there, sorry: only able to review in snatched moments, I'm afraid! Very interesting so far; please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final pointer:

  • Could we have a slightly more explicit description of what the charters concerned?

Interesting read. I think it's a little tricky to follow in places, but that may be unavoidable. We also have slightly different comma philosophies, but I've tried not to let that influence my edits/recommendations! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay.

  • "At the beginning of the ninth century, England was almost wholly under the control of the Anglo-Saxons, and the Midland kingdom of Mercia dominated southern England; but in 825 Ecgberht decisively defeated the Mercians at the Battle of Ellendun, ending Mercian supremacy." I don't really like that semi-colon. Can I suggest splitting this into two sentences?
  • "Client kingdom" is a technical term; could we have a wikilink? We currently seem to have a redirect to satellite state. Is that accurate?
  • "as "a charismatic sanctification which enhanced her status, blessed her womb and conferred additional throne-worthiness on her male offspring." These" Can I recommend including a citation right after the quote? Also, per MOS:LQ, we should generally "Keep [periods] inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence", so the period should probably be outside of the quotemarks here.
  • "To her father's fury, soon afterwards she eloped with Baldwin, Count of Flanders, and their son Baldwin II married Alfred's daughter Ælfthryth." No complaint, just saying that I love this fact. Not so much a family tree as a family web.
  • These marriages were unusual. Marriages between English and Continental royalty were very rare except in the 910s and 920s when English prestige was at its height due to the defeat of the Vikings. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his thegn, Osmund" Was Osmund his only thegn? If not, it should probably read "his thegn Osmund" or "one of his thegns, Osmund". A wikilink would also be helpful.
  • Linked. On "his thegn" this is a difficult one. It is the wording in the charter, but the king was the lord of the thegns and they were all his thegns. All the wordings, including mine, could be wrongly taken to imply that there were thegns who were not the king's men. I could change it to "a thegn called Osmund" or I could add a note explaining. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern I have is simply grammatical; his thegn, Osmund only really works if Osmund is his only thegn. You could just remove the comma, or you could perhaps switch things around to something like "Osmund, one of the king's thegns". Josh Milburn (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • overlord is also a technical term without a wikilink
  • "Only the year of his death is known, but as his father died in January 858 and he ruled for two and a half years thereafter, he probably died in about July 860. He was buried at Sherborne in Dorset and he is not known to have had any children." Maybe it'd be nice to note here what happened to Judith. (I know it's mentioned above. Maybe I'm wrong.)
  • I do not think it needs repeating.
  • "as "two and a half lawless years"; adding" again, I really don't like that semi-colon. I think it should probably be a comma, but it may be more readable if you split the sentence.
  • I wonder if the Electronic Sawyer source could be better formatted?

Again, I think this is a really great article on a tricky subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is basically where it needs to be for FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

The date field of the PD images should state when the original image was first published, not when it was uploaded or scanned. The rest looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks FunkMonk. Images are
  • Scan of illustration in 14C manuscript. I have changed the date to c. 1350.
  • Plaque in Sherborne Abbey. I do not know the date but I assume the correct date is when it was photographed.
  • Scan of coins from book. I have changed the date to 1893 when the book was published.
  • Are these OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine now! FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Only three very minor quibbles:

  • Division of the kingdom
    • "had a stronger claim to the throne than him" – because I'm old and pedantic I should prefer this to read "had a stronger claim to the throne than he had".
  • Reputation
    • "Bishop Asser" – first time we've had his job title mentioned: perhaps that would be more appropriate at first mention in the main text?
  • Sources
    • I'm not sure of your rationale for adding authorlinks. For instance, David Dumville is linked twice out of three mentions of him, and Janet Nelson (with and without a middle L) is linked for half her six mentions, but Pauline Stafford is linked from all three of hers.
  • My rationale is that it is best to shove links in whenever I think of it and check that only the first source is linked before going to FAC. Unfortunately I forgot the last part. Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, other than to add my support for an enjoyable, highly readable article: well and widely sourced, as fully illustrated (I assume) as available resources permit, and even-handed in presentation of conflicting accounts and interpretations. – Tim riley talk 11:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The sources have already had something of a piecemeal review, above, from several editors including me, but if the coordinators would like a formal review I'll gladly do one. Tim riley talk 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, the coordinators would be most grateful if you could conduct a formal SR...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right ho. Here it is:

  • All the sources cited are evidently of high quality and relevance. The books used come from a representative spread of dates, most of them being from recent decades.
  • Presentation of sources is uniform. ISBNs: from a sample cross-check (ISBN 0-19-822261-0 and ISBN 0-521-56350-X) I think the MoS stipulations on 10-v-13-digit forms have been met. One of the ISBNs has gaps instead of hyphens, but what the Hell. The only two formatting quibbles I could come up with were one missing "UK" in a location and a few hyphens in date ranges which should have been en-dashes, all of which I have taken it on myself to tweak to save time detailing them here.
  • So, following the excellent guideline for reviewers to the best of my ability, I declare this source review fine and dandy. Tim riley talk 19:49, 31 August 2018 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2018 [31].

Muhammad I of Granada

[edit]
Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Muhammad I (1195–1273), the founder of the Emirate of Granada, the last Muslim state in Spain. I've been working on it, relying on multiple scholarly sources. I nominated it for GA successfully, and then put it for a peer review and addressed all the feedback. Would appreciate an FA review on this. HaEr48 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- hi, per FAC instructions, any open peer review should be closed before nominating here; pls close the peer review if you're going to proceed with this nom. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Ian Rose: Thanks, I closed it just now. The peer review has been inactive for a while, I forgot it hadn't been formally closed. HaEr48 (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Serial Number 54129

  • I might come back to this later, but a couple of brief remarks for now—a couple of things just stand out on a first read.
  • It's thorough, no doubt, and extremely interesting. The main thing regarding content is his death, including the end of his life. Do we have any more on this? And there's a little repetition ("He was succeeded by his son and designated successor Muhammad II", cf. "By the time of his death, Muhammad I had already secured the succession for his son, also named Muhammad").
  • I checked the sources and unfortunately I can't find more information about the end of his life. Re the repetition, is it that both sentence name his successor and the fact that it's secured before his death? IMO, in this case the duplicated information is not that much and it's reiterating important info in a new section, so I don't think it's necessarily bad. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition in the lede too: "the last independent Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula" / "during this period was to be Spain's last Muslim state".

Comment from RetiredDuke - I've only skimmed through since it's so early into the nomination, but can you choose one of Málaga/Malaga and Almería/Almeria and commit to it? It's distracting to read. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: Sure. I have only a couple of (very) minor points:
  • Maybe link suzerainty? I think it is an uncommon enough word to warrant linking.
  • " Contemporary sources disagree about the cause of this hostility: The Christian..." - any reason for the uppercase "the"?
  • In the "rise to power" section, link the first mention of Ramadan to Ramadan? I know I seem to be focusing on linking too much, but I think these couple could be useful to readers who are not that familiar with medieval/Islamic practices. Overall, the article reads very well and seems comprehensive to a layperson like me. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Why include the same image twice?
  • The first one is a cropped image, as a lead image for illustrating how the person was depicted, the second one is the non-cropped image to illustrate the Mudejar revolt (which is discussed in that section). Is this not appropriate? HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]
  • "he became known for his charisma": Not at FAC, please. It's true that even reliable sources say from time to time that a person was loved by everyone, but by itself, the statement means nothing, and is often suspect. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ibn al-Ahmar, and had the kunya Abu Abdullah": Ibn al-Ahmar or Abu Abdullah (father of Abdullah)
  • "In the north of the peninsula there were several Christian kingdoms: Castile, León (in a union with Castile since 1231)": First question: what's the time frame of the narrative at this point, before or after 1231?
  • As stated in the beginning of the section, this section lays out the political situation in the early 13th century. Leon's union with Castile happened in the middle of this timeframe, that's why I noted the union. HaEr48 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to just "declared"
  • "Alfonso was more interested other in enterprises": ?
  • "of to": of
  • "was succeeded by his son and designated successor": One or the other can go.

From FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Looks interesting, will review soon. At first glance, I wonder if the full image[32] will look more appealing in the infobox? It seems a shame to crop artwork that is really not that much bigger in its full version.
Looked fine to me when I tested, as long as you increase the size and make it clear he is on the left with the red shield, but no big deal. In any case, you use redundant parameters "| image = File:" File is not needed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some duplinking, try this script to highlight them:[33]
  • You should link al-Andalus at first mention outside the intro, and reiterate it refers to Islamic Iberia. Perhaps even state when the Islamic invasion occurred for context.
  • Linked at reiterated the meaning of al-Andalus in the Background section. Not sure about the Islamic invasion, it happened 5 centuries before the subject of the article. It's like talking about the European colonization of America in a bio of Donald Trump. 06:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
You could argue that the Islamic invasion of Iberia is much less familiar to most readers, and more relevant to the subject than European colonisation is to Donald Trump specifically, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have Reconquista as see also in the section, but don't link or mention it in the background section, which seems like an oversight.
  • Mentioned and link reconquista in the section. HaEr48 (talk)
  • What is the significance/relevance of a photo showing an apparently random building in Arjona? If anything, show something left over from the period.
  • Speaking of Arjona images, this photo in the town's Commons category[34] shows a bust depicting a person in Islamic garb, wonder if it has anything to do with this article's subject. This article seems to confirm it:[35] If you remove the photo of the random building and move the maps up, you could move the Alhambra photo up to the "Settling in Granada" section, and show the bust under legacy instead.
  • "The assembly elected Muhammad, who was known for his piety and his martial reputation in previous conflicts against the Christians, as the town's leader." Any details about these previous conflicts? Seems odd that these are not explained earlier, considering this is his biography.
  • There is no detail in the sources. If I were to guess, I'd say, given the political context in the background section, there must be occasional (or even regular) conflicts in the frontiers with the Christians, and Arjona was close to the frontiers, so he might be involved in those. Arjona was a small town, Muhammad I was not yet a big figure, and probably they were only small scale conflicts, so it's quite normal that it's not really noted by historians. HaEr48 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the support of his clan, the Banu Nasr (also known as the Banu al-Ahmar)" his clan should already be mentioned in the origin section.
  • "after being taken by the Nasrids" You have not explained or linked these earlier in the article body.
  • Clarified that this refers to Muhammad's takeover of those cities, mentioned in the preceding sentences.
  • "helped Ferdinand III of Castile take Córdoba and end centuries of Muslim rule in the city" What was his motivation for helping Muslims lose control?
  • Added that he's doing this while allying himself with the Castilians. Presumably he's also interested in weakening his overlord/rival, Ibn Hud. 06:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "captured Muhammad's homeland of Arjona" Homeland seems a bit strong.
  • The painting showing him kissing the hand of the king seems possibly revisionist (glorifying the reconquistadors), how do the sources state this happened? If none of them state it happened this way, perhaps a note could be added to the caption.
  • It seems clear that he did kiss Ferdinand's hand, but it seems that Christian and Muslim sources seemed to disagree whether Ferdinand III-Muhammad I relation is a lord-vassal one in the feudal sense or just a mutual agreement between equals. Added several sentences to the "Initial conflict with Castile". HaEr48 (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice with this increased detail. FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems there are a lot of names to choose from, how do most of the sources refer to him? You first refer to him as just Muhammad, but by the "Revolt of the Mudéjars" section, you say Muhammad I. EIther one should be picked, or there needs to be some logic to when it changes.
  • I explained the reasoning for choosing "Muhammad I" here. You can click the link for details, but basically it's slightly more common in the sources, plus it is more "systematic" and consistent with how the subsequent Sultans of Granada are named, so that's a plus. I'll try to do something about Muhammad I vs just Muhammad. 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I replaced many "Muhammad I" with just "Muhammad". I am being careful a little bit, because it's such a common name that many other figures mentioned in the articles are also so named, e.g. Muhammad II of Granada, Muhammad I al-Mustansir and Muhammad ibn Hud, so sometimes I need to disambiguate. Also some sentences, randomly mentioning "Muhammad" can be ambiguous given that it's such a common name, e.g. "Banu Ashqilula started a rebellion against Muhammad". HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, be consistent with Alfonso X/Alfonso.
  • Same with Banu Ashqilula/the Ashqilula.
  • Fixed this to always say the Banu Ashqilula. 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "according to professor of Spanish history L. P. Harvey" You don't present other historians mentioned, be consistent.
  • "as well to switch alliances" As well as?
  • "is rule didn't" Contractions are discouraged.
  • Nowhere does the article state he was a sultan, but he is categorised as such. The fact that he ruled an emirate indicates he was an emir, but this isn't stated either. Maybe he was both at different times. So could be clearer, and the category should reflect the outcome.
  • I added a note in the infobox that for him, the title of sultan, emir (and king) is used interchangeably (in historical documents as well as by modern writers). For some reason when I started editing I found Wikipedia mostly using "Emirate" for Granada and "Sultan" for the individual monarchs, and I did not have any good reason to change that so I just follow the convention. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was still unresolved in 1273 when Muhammad died after falling off his horse." The intro could state that Granada survived for several centuries after.
  • The intro could also mention Alhambra.
@FunkMonk: Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I've responded to some of them and feel free to check. I'll still work on the rest in the coming days. 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good so far. FunkMonk (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All that seems to be left is the Muhammad/Muhammad I and Alfonso X/Alfonso issues. 08:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Done. Please take another look and let me know if you have more feedback. 04:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire

[edit]

Looks good to me. Support. As a few purely optional thoughts, largely since I'm not sure how at variance Harvey (the one source I've read) is from other sources:

  • I realize that historians of the era didn't consider it very important, but do we truly know nothing of his family and personal life? How many wives did he have, when did he marry, did he have kids other than the future Muhammad II, etc.?
  • Yeah it's a big pity that the sources I come across don't explain about his family life. But from the passing mention (e.g. in Harvey p. 33) we know he has another son, Yusuf, and more than one daughter. In most Nasrid family tree we also see he has a brother named Ismail who seemed not very notable by himself but his descendants became Sultans of Granada after Muhammad I's male-line descendants died out. Should I put these information? Maybe between succession and legacy? HaEr48 (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Succession seems like the right place, since we know so little of their individual lives aside from royal claims. "Muhammad also left a brother, Ismail, another son Yusuf, and several daughters whose names aren't known" or the like. Could even add a {{seealso}} header for Nasrid dynasty, even though it was technically linked already. SnowFire (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link the first occurrence of maravedies rather than the second? Also, it might possibly be worth a footnote (since the linked article is kinda useless anyway) about just how substantial these tribute sizes were for the era? Obviously impossible to express in modern terms, but a brief explanation of "this is a lot" vs. "this is a trifle" might be useful. While we're at it, do we know if these tributes were actually paid, and for roughly how long? I see a lot of "promised to pay", ""agreed to pay", and so on, which seems to have the article suggest these might have been just empty words; is that what the sources also think? (We can surely presume that this was broken off when he switched vassalages, but maybe it happened even before then?)
  • I fixed the maravedies linking. Also explained that the initial 150,000 was the Ferdinand's most important income at the time, hopefully this nicely illustrates how big it was. I also added a text that says that he did pay his tributes every year (except of course during wartime etc.). HaEr48 (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harvey seems suspicious that the 1246 agreement was actually a twenty year peace, and thinks this is just the historian-of-the-era writing in how long the peace actually lasted. Is that just Harvey having his own eccentric opinion, or is it worth qualifying this statement in the article a little?
  • You're right. I just re-read p.25 and realized that Harvey was actually not sure about whether 20 years was part of the agreement as Ibn Idhari says. I quickly checked Doubleday, O'Callaghan, and Latham & Fernandez-Puertas (aka EI2), none of them seem to say twenty years, so I just removed it from the article. HaEr48 (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth adding an intensifier for "enforced the doctrines of Islamic orthodoxy", e.g. "strictly", judging by Harvey - not needed if he's a minority opinion, though.
  • This might be too much work, but an update or English version of File:Reino_de_Granada.svg would be nice, maybe one focused on the 1200-1300 or so (since that map shows losses from 1300 - shortly before the Granada War). Could also cut out a lot of the less important cities, and only have the relevant ones for this story: Granada, Arjona, Jaén, Seville, etc. It was apparently based off of File:Iberian Peninsula base map.svg, which might be a useful start point. (I might even be up for taking a hack at it myself, but not any time soon, unfortunately.)
  • Good idea & I could try to do it, but my SVG-editing skill isn't that good - I struggled just to add Arjona which wasn't there when I found it in Commons. So maybe this will take some time too. HaEr48 (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal slant: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd shamelessly convert to a png, crop, and work on that with all the zillion normal image editing software out there. Doesn't even have to have fancy borders, simply color-coding city names by "Christian-held in 1200, Muslim-held in 1200 but Christian held in 1300, and Muslim-held throughout" would give a good sense of the change in borders. SnowFire (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, all these suggestions are optional - just thoughts / possibilities. SnowFire (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image legends

[edit]

Unless these are complete sentences (i.e. contain a finite verb) should not end in a period. Graham Beards (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: Done. Thanks. HaEr48 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review progress

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Seems to be this nomination is quite close to consensus, may I get leave to start a new nomination? HaEr48 (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. --Laser brain (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Right, it is yet to have a source review. It's already listed at the top of WT:FAC but no takers so far... HaEr48 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm back. I'll try and give this a source review later today... SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • In general, the sources are high-quality and include names I'm familiar with, so good coverage. I'm sure it's not EVERYTHING related to early Granadan history, but that's fine. I'd say that the Encyclopedia of Islam is a bit of a weak source, but whatever, it's just being used for basic biographical details here so is fine. Unfortunately I don't have access to a high quality library at the moment for some of the offline references, but it seems the SR doesn't require that, so sure, WP:AGF.
  • Early biographical details / birth date / alternate names check out with the references (e.g. Vidal Castro).
  • "According to Castilian sources, he came from a humble background and initially had 'no other occupation than following the oxen and the plough'" - this might be a tad misleading. Yes, the quote is from Castilian sources, but Harvey's passage immediately adds that Islamic sources also agreed his family came from an "agricultural background". Maybe this statement is over-qualified at the moment?
  • The Harvey references later check out, and many of the non-Harvey references are for things that are uncontroversial or that I'd be shocked to discover were "wrong". Everything else seems plausible and not eye-raising enough to want to go double-check.
  • Reference formatting seems fine to me.

Basically aside from the one nitpick I discovered above, looks good to me. SnowFire (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: We have a fairly clear consensus to promote here, with some good reviews and an implied support from RetiredDuke. The source review from someone familiar with the topic and the literature was doubly helpful. Sarastro (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2018 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2018 [36].

Cetiosauriscus

[edit]
Nominator(s): IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This dinosaur is relatively obscure among non-specialists, which seems to be my forté, but does have a significant number of publications about it due to its extended and complicated history. One of, if not the, most complete dinosaur from England, this would become the first Featured Article of a more basal sauropod, and the second for a British dinosaur, following Baryonyx from earlier this year. I believe this article, which should now be stable after a recent overhaul, is as comprehensive as it can be while remaining focused on the topic at hand. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

[edit]
Thanks for taking this up, I expect it will be a slower FA review because of its low relevance
  • You could mention current genus affiliations in the captions of images that show formerly assigned species. Otherwise it is a bit misleading.
I think it should be good now
  • The image layout under classification seems a bit messy. The Mamenchisaurus photo creates white space on the left side of the cladogram. Also, I'm not sure if the wretched image of the hips add anything to that section (what's the poinjt when you don't even show the hips of Cetiosauriscus itself for comparison?), maybe just move the Mamenchisaurus photo to that spot and prevent some clutter.
Rearranged
  • I think maybe the life restoration could be moved to the top of the classification section, it seems a bit "hidden" out of the way in its current position. Then the Mamenchisaurus image could be moved to its current spot.
Rearranged
  • "Cetiosauriscus was a generic herbivorous sauropod" This seems like an overstatement, which source says it is "generic", and how do you define "generic" here? How can we even know if such a fragmentary animal was just "generic? Also, it is only stated it was herbivorous in the intro.
Paul's description of "cetiosaurs" was "generalized sauropods", removed from lead and put into description instead.
  • I wonder if all of the points brought up during Jens Lallensack's GA review have been implemented since? At least I can see his last two suggested sources aren't in the current article.
I tried to do the ones I thought were reasonable. Checking the newer Glut supplements he doesn't actually discuss C. stewarti at all, only C. greppini, and Schwartz, which I couldn't re-find, is also on C. greppini so I replaced all citations of the conference abstract with a later published paper with equivalent information. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the original Glut (1997) and there was some information on Cetioauriscus. However, plenty of it was incorrect (most likely accidentally using the wrong specimen numbers), so I went to the primary source for the only currently unincluded content, Romers synonymy with Cetiosaurus. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first sentence of the history section should state the location before formation and age. I guess that's what most readers would want to know first in the discovery section. Many of the details, like the zone etc., are more relevant under palaeoecology, and could be moved there.
Changed and moved
  • The description of to the infobox pghoto says: "Note the similarity of this photograph to the drawing of the skeleton in Woodward (1905)" Perhaps add this diagram to the article? There is white space room under classification, for example.
  • You don't present the people mentioned under discovery, could at least give their occupations.
Done
  • Words like manus, caudal, chevrons, incertae sedis, could be glossed. Many others too.
Sadly I cannot link to the dino glossary until its out of jens' sandbox, I tried earlier and was reverted because you cannot link from an article to a sandbox
Oh, I just mean explain in brackets here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright I'll get on that. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Still some needed, like incertae sedis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A whiplash tail" That is a pretty strange term to use out of nowhere. Tail tip?
Changed
  • "but a different individual" But belonging to.
Added
  • "thought by Alan Charig" When and why?
Added
  • "This assignment has not been accepted in alternate studies by Huene, Paul Upchurch and Darren Naish" When? And spell out Huene's name. How could Huene nopt "accept" a conclusion made after he had died?
Huenes full name (removed full name from later mention). Huene in 1927 IIRC rejected the referral of the tail to (then) Cetiosauriscus leedsi. Wording changed to make this easier to understand
  • "(BMNH, now abbreviated as NHMUK)", "(now named the Natural History Museum and abbreviated as NHMUK)". I think this could be consolidated somehow, otherwise repetitive.
Removed second mention, kept first as is
  • "was put up" Seems an odd way to put it. Constructed? Erected?
Changed to "was put on display"
  • There is some overlinking, try this script to highlight them:[37]
Done all that aren't duplicated between the lead and text, not sure if theres a policy but from what I remember links are allowed to be repeated between lead and text. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BMNH R3078 was referred in 1905 by Arthur Smith Woodward to the species he newly recombined as Cetiosaurus leedsi" This sentence seems too convoluted, and would be hard to understand for most readers. I don't think "newly combined" adds much, just give a date.
Removed
  • "John Arthur Phillips (1871)" you mostly state years in a sentence, not in brackets, better to be consistent.
Changed
  • After you mention a full name, you don't need to sell it out afterwards, as you do with for example Charig.
Done except for Henry Woodward, because theres also Arthur Woodward who is mentioned later and a bit of name confusion is possible
  • "cetiosaur". I think stating this in the description only adds more confusion, it isn't a descriptive term. Better to keep it under classification.
Removed
  • "As a cetiosaur it would have had a head with a shorter and rounded snout" Isn't this just a GSP hand wave statement, though? I don't think you cna state any of this as faqct, especially since the classifcation section indicates its classification is in flux. Same with the "generalized" part.
Removed most points, tail and arm length are known in Cetiosauriscus so I left them
  • "To the genus he referred the specimens NHMUK R1984–R1988 and NHMUK R3078" Weren't they still BMNH at the time? I think either you should stick to one abbreviation, or use them in a way that makes chronological sense.
Changed all to NHMUK except the first mention of NHMUK R3078.
  • Not sure if the long descriptions of dubious species should perhaps be moved to the description or classification sections instead? The descriptions seem way too detailed in any case (especially for describing features that ar enot even diagnostic), could be simplified to only state how they differ from the type species.
Simplified
  • In any case, since there is only one definite species, it would probably be better to have a section only for formerly assigned species, and keep the history of the one valid species in the "Discovery and naming", otherwise you give the impression that they are all equally valid.
Theres a major issue here because of how the type, and valid, species was once a dubious species. I can't move the info of C. stewarti without also moving the C. leedsi information. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mix UK and US spelling, ise and ize, should stick to UK.
Done
  • Still a lot of people needing presentations. Greg Paul also needs full name and link.
Done?
  • "the whiplash tail NHMUK R1967" Could also be changed to tail tip or similar.
Done
  • "Huene based his new name off" Based on?
Done
  • "whale lizard like" Needing hyphen?
Done
  • "reassigned the species "Ornithopsis" greppini... into the genus Cetiosauriscus." To.
Done
  • You should also state where the assigned species were found. Now you only mention their formations for all, cities for some, and countries for others.
added
  • "by sauropod paleontologist John Stanton McIntosh" When? Generally give dates for all revisions.
Done
  • "Material named for the species" This makes no sense. Assigned to the species? Material the species is based on?
Done
  • "As it lacks any diagnostic features of Cetiosauriscus, Cetiosaurus longus is the senior objective synonym of Cetiosauriscus longus" I don't think most readers would get this. You should explain that it defaults to its original name.
Done
  • ""Cetiosaurus" glymptonensis is considered to be Eusauropoda incertae sedis" By who and when?
Done
  • "C. greppini is now considered to be Eusauropoda incertae sedis." By who?
Done
  • "Cetiosaurus longus is the senior objective synonym of Cetiosauriscus longus" Concluded by who?
Explained
  • " and close relatives like" If we don't know that these are actually close relatives or not, you need to say "possibly close relatives".
Done
  • " being the name for the specimen Huene had originally named the taxon for" You need to specify that "taxon" here is the genus, just to be clear.
Done
  • "London Brick Company hat owned" That, I assume.
Fixed
  • "Ecology" Why not palaeoecology, as in all other dinosaur FAs?
Its already in the "Paleobiology" section, extra redundancy isn't needed
But these are two separate terms. Whether you place the section within or outside the palaeobiology section, it is still paleoecology rather than just ecology. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it would be more useful to show the pelvis than the forelimb bones at the beginning of the species section, since it was presumably the only overlapping element between the species and is discussed in the adjacent text. So you could maybe swap the position of the photo at the end and the diagram at the top? Also looks nice for the beginning of the article.
Done
  • Why was NHMUK R3078 referred to C. leedsi in the first place?
Added
  • "The possibly referrable series of distal caudal vertebrae" Specify that they were referred to Cetiosauriscus.
Done
  • "Distal caudal of ?Cetiosauriscus" Is this one of the pathological caudals? if so, could be stated.
No its not
  • "It has been found only in" Since only one specimen is known, that should go without saying. So you could instead say "the single known specimen is from" or such.
Done
  • Perhaps do a section break before "Hundreds of invertebrates" under ecology, as the paragraph is very long, and it will fill up some of the white space some of us see between the last paragraph and the references.
Done, but left the {{clear}}
  • Anything on the environment, flora, and climate? Anything on the geology (what kinds of sediments it is from, etc.)?
Added
  • "and the flying pterosaur" Flying should be redundant.
Removed
  • Any of the see also links that could be used as sources in the article? otherwise, why are they needed?
I'm leaving them for now because they aren't really relevant for any new information, would simply duplicate content. But they also contain information on Cetiosauriscus and other taxa that could be considered mildly relevant.
I'm not sure if this complies with Wikipedia:Further reading, seems you could prune a lot of it out. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the skeleton isn't mounted anymore, so how is it stored now? The photo indicates it has been disassembled, could be an interesting detail to add.
Looking at the Dinosaur of the British Isles book I've seen, the skeleton is still mounted. But I'm not sure and no references I have can verify this. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why we need a long list of supposedly diagnostic features of an invalid family (cardiodotnidae) under classification? All we need to know here is that they were grouped together because one author seemingly saw some very general similarities.
Its about as necessary as for the other character lists, gives a general knowledge of the groups features and changes in discrete-ness over time
But it seems misleading to group this with much later observations by modern scientists. You at least have to state that none of these features are considered relevant today, if that can even be sourced. If not, it will only seem misleading, like it is an equally plausible alternative to the much later hypotheses. Best would be to shorten it and say something like "some of the features used by X in Y to group the cetiosauridae were for example xxx, but today these features are not considered diagnostic." FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a disclaimer
  • "In 2004 this placement was followed without comment." Meaningless if you don't state by who.
Added
  • "based upon the two most inclusive matrices of the time, those of Jeffrey A. Wilson (2002[24]) and Upchurch (1995[25])" Not sure why we need this detail. What does it say about the subject of the article?
Added relevance
  • "using equal weighting, following implied weights instead found it as non-neosauropod" Explain in text what any of this means, if it even needs to be here. You could just simplify to say they used to methods of analysis.
Simplified
  • "The results of the pruned implied weights" Again, do we need all this detail?
Simplified. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a strong anterior articular ball (opisthocoelous)" this makes it seem like the ball is what opisthocoelous refers to, you should say something like "an opisthocoelous condition".
Added
  • "On the lateral surfaces" Gloss as "side" or similar.
Added
  • Link air sacs, laminae, etc.
Lamina is already, addes for air sacs
  • "here is no ventral" Likewise, if you are going to use anatomical terms, explain them at first mention.
Done
  • Explain sacrum, transverse processes, hyposphene, scapula, foramen , coracoid, centrum, etc.. In general, a lot of anatomical technical terms are not linked or explained here, you could look throughout for these.
Gone through the whole description
  • "Four sacrum neural spines" Should be sacral.
Reworded
  • "Next preserved" Next what preserved?
Removed
  • "Woodward (1905[6])" Elsewhere you say "in date".
Removed
  • "The shape of the humerus is similar to the shortness of Titanosaurus" For this you are quoting a paper form 1923, I very much doubt the Titanosaurus mentioned here is what it is today. Perhaps there are other such issues in the description, I fear some of it might be outdated.
Neuquensaurus apparently
  • "and the later Titanosauridae" Again, what does this actually refer to?
Added quotes, the family is still valid just unsure content
  • "with serial position" Simplify/explain jargon.
Removed
  • making them as long as hindlimbs." As its?
Added
  • marine ichthyosaurs" Redundant?
Removed
  • "being similar proportions to" Similar in.
Added
  • "was considered the fourth caudal in serial position by Woodward (1905[6])" Is this in line with current thinking?
Removed entire sentence
  • Nothing about its lifestyle, just something general true for its group?
I could add some generic arm-waving from Paul? It would be the simplest and easiest source to get the general information from. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might be problematic if it is about "cetiosaurs". Maybe its current classification is too broad to say anything specific. FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only see a couple of unanswered points above, then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point, the intro should probably mention that other species have historically been assigned to the genus as well. And no other FAs say "extinct dinosaur", should be redundant in the context.
All querries should now be completed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this looks as good as it can be to me now, would be good with a layman review too to see if it is comprehensible enough. I have a final question, you say the two editions of Paul's book give different weight estimates based on classification, do they also give different length estimates? FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope both say 15m ... IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good deal of text reshuffling was done since my review, so I have some further comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1980, Charig described a new specimen from the Early Cretaceous of England" Which specimen is that, has it been mentioned earlier in the text? Is it still assigned to Cetiosauriscus? What's its specimen number?
  • The last image under Further species is horizontal, so does it need the upright parameter?
  • You should link the other taxa mentioned in the image captions.
All the above have been done. The text has certainly changed much, for the better I think. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, hope it's not too late for a layman review! But sure you mean intermediate and not indeterminate diplodocid? FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
Ah yeah added the references, not any paper but the mount photographs and drawing. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link a bit and added a brief explanation. I'm hoping the dinosaur glossary can be put into use soon it will be helpful. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say I'm reading through the Description section and I'm very lost. Why is cetiosaur in quotes? If you're referring to Cetiosauridae, shouldn't it be cetiosaurid? When you say the snout was snorter, was that a typo? Why are pluerocoels important and what do they do? I'm reading this like a very complicated scientific report with many words that don't mean anything to me than a read in the English language   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the use of cetiosaur in quotes, its informal
Snorter was a typo
I explained what pleurocoels are but their physiological importance is never discussed in the context of Cetiosauriscus
I can try and go through the description but as far as dinosaur articles go it is rather tame so I don't think I will end up changing much. If there are specific terms that need explanation I can add that in. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried commas. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Typo
Removed
Can't link yet but reworded to make more sense
Linked
Fixed
Fixed
I'm pretty sure it is
Fixed now
Reworded
Added brief explanation, he needs an article
Done
Changed
Linked
Done
Done I think
Fixes
Done I think
Fixed
Fixed earlier mention of a different name (zygosphene)
Yes, reworded
Done in that case
Done
done
done
done
Fixed
Done
I will remove some duplicate links in a subsequent edit, just making sure I have everything linked before I remove them. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All above changes should be completed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
I reworded, its been found to be both mamenchisaur and non-mamenchisaur but closer to mamenchisaurs than a diplodocid
I don’t understand. You’re saying it’s closer to, but not a part of, the family Memenchisauridae than to Diplodocidae?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded
Metriacanthosaurus is of unknown provenance, might be from the same age as Cetiosauriscus, and the other two are the only large predators so I think general readers would find it relevant
Added
Removed
Done
Just keeping it how it was written in the published paper, back in those days species were capitalized
The two editions share nothing but the general organization and title, they are drastically different in every way.
I'm gonna keep the reference as its published title is. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 06:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I google it, it reads "Studies in paleopathology; general consideration of the evidence of pathological conditions found among fossil animals"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the link in the reference itself, page 15 shows it exactly as it is written here, and page 374 does not have the initial period, but is also formatted differently "Studies in paleopathology[line break]I. general consideration of the evidence of pathological conditions found among fossil animals". I'm inclined to follow the ToC format with the additional period to represent the line break, but if you wish I can remove the first period making it "Studies in paleopathology I. general consideration of the evidence of pathological conditions found among fossil animals". IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brief relevance explanation
Linked Humerus, caudals are linked earlier
No I mean all complex terms in all captions regardless of location (so wikilink also radius and ulna, etc.)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed unecessary description but added more in about implications. There is no more information about Cetiosauriscus specifically besides what is there.
Doesn't happen for me possibly browser size difference. Added anyways
Yes. I think thats a more generic term so wouldn't need linking.
Added in and modified reference
Added link to relevant article. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added explanation
Linked, the explanation should be sufficient (two convex ends). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the description seems to me to be unimportant, like with, "only noticeable laminae present are the spinopostzygapophyseal laminae running down the rear corners of the spine to the postzygapophyses," how many types of vertebral laminae are there? If there're multiple, is the difference so important? How is a, "tall and narrow hyposphene," not trivial? Why's, "a robust crest for the deltoid muscle along the upper half of the bone," significant? Isn't the crest supposed to be there? Why is, "...but the two sides [of the ilium] supplement each other to give a reasonable idea of the shape of the complete bone," here but not the shape of the bone? The fact that the two sides compliment each other should be implied if you give the shape of the ilium and say it's fragmentary. Is, "...making comparisons difficult," necessary if you can just not compare them?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need to mention NHMUK R1984 and NHMUK R3078 in the Vertebrae section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spinoprezygs are important because most diplodocoids have *many* more laminae. Hyposphene is important because it is an extra articular surface. Deltoid crest is important because its the attachment for the deltoid muscle. Comparison with C. leedsi is important. I've basically added all the relevance of the above information into the article now, because none of it is insignificant enough to remove. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77, did you want to comment further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is “vertebrae between the pelves“ a typo? Is it really necessary to say Woodward felt “ ‘great pleasure’ “?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pelves is the plural of pelvis, and I can't really reword the quote unless it gives some undue weight and questionable NPOV by changing out the "great pleasure" to a synonym. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hemiauchenia

[edit]

"Cetiosauriscus had a—for sauropod standards—moderately long neck and tail, a rounded skull, and forelimbs as long as hindlimbs" Not sure what this section adds to the article to be honest and also I am not aware that any skull material has been found for Cetiosauriscus so I'm not sure why that's mentioned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the grammar and removed the skull mention. It's mildly relevant and about as generalist a way as you can describe the anatomy. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately long seems meaningless, if we don't even know if it was a mamenchisaur or "cetiosaur"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the neck mention, the tail length is pretty much certain unless it had the diplodocid whip, so I left that. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Few general comments first.

  • I think the article would be more easy to read with a bit of additional background information. For example, I would include a sentence introducing Alfred Leeds, as he seems to have been quite central.
Added a blurb
But it is not well integrated, not sure if it is ideal to start the paragraph (and main article) with a side note. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also would add something introducing Cetiosaurus. If possible, I would try to introduce as much as possible, otherwise the reader gets bombarded by names but cannot make much sense of them.
Added a blurb and reordered
  • In 1980, Charig re-examined the holotype of Cetiosauriscus leedsii while describing a new specimen from the Early Cretaceous of England. In this he confirmed that the ilium of the species, NHMUK R1988 – I am confused. Why is R1988 a new specimen, when it was already described by Huene (as stated earlier)? I'm also wondering how many specimens of C. stewarti there are, I didn't get that; certainly something to clarify, and to add to the lead as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added
  • After excavation, the sauropod specimen was collected and taken by farmer Alfred Nicholson Leeds to Eyebury – I would remove the "was collected", as it means quite the same as "excavated".
Removed
  • The mount of Cetiosauriscus was put on display just prior to the cast skeleton of Diplodocus – If you mention the Diplodocus cast, you should also introduce it to explain its relevance.
Added
  • and was displayed with the dorsal vertebrae NHMUK R1984 and some isolated teeth from a camarasaurid.[4] – And what is the relevance of the teeth? Are they from the same quarry? Martill 1988 ("A review of the terrestrial vertebrate fossils of the Oxford Clay (Callovian-Oxfordian) of England") mentions some teeth which were thought to possibly belong to the Cetiosauriscus specimen, maybe it is worth to elaborate on them.
Martill 1991 mentions them, but there's no specimen in either publication so I'm not sure if adding the disclaimer in the first part of the lead is OR or not. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This species was originally named Ornithopsis leedsii in 1887 by John Hulke for a pelvis, vertebrae and ribs collected by Leeds which showed similarities to Cetiosaurus. – similarities to Cetiosaurus oxoniensis?
Yes and added
  • The first paragraph in the Species section is confusing. For example, you state that suggesting that the Wealden Group material belonged to Ornithopsis and the Jurassic remains to Cetiosaurus, but it was not mentioned before that Ornithopsis comes from the Wealden.
Reworded
  • Maybe it is better to have the Species section in strict chronological order to improve readability.
I have it chronologically with regards to when things are referred to Cetiosauriscus
  • However, naturalist Richard Lydekker disagreed with Seeley – when? For each study, the year is given, but not here. It makes it very difficult to understand since the stuff is not in chronological order.
No date stated but added to the sentence
  • Cetiosauriscus greppini differs from Cetiosauriscus stewarti by having – again confusing, as C. stewarti was not introduced in the article yet (apart from the lead), and it implies that this is a different species than Cetiosauriscus leedsii, which was used in the preceding sentences. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed
Jens Lallensack All comments are now done I believe. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 1898 a sauropod fossil was discovered in the area around – but who discovered it? One would guess it was Leeds itself as the previous sentence was about him …
Added "clay workers"
  • collected numerous collections – not ideal wording
Changed words
  • These pits are part of the Oxford Clay Formation – somehow repetitive now.
Merged with first sentence
  • (possibly referred to Cetiosauriscus[11]) – referable?
Fixed
  • Cetiosaurus is one of the first sauropods to be named – as with Leeds; I think the reader will have difficulties following if paragraphs start with information that do not seem connected to the topic at first sight. I would suggest something like "The name Cetiosauriscus was historically closely associated with the older name Cetiosaurus, one of the first sauropods to be named …". Something like this would improve the common thread.
Added note of "all English sauropod" referral
I can't really in this case because C. oxoniensis wasn't named in 1842 so isn't the topic of the sentence
  • where it was noted Ornithopsis hulkei, Cetiosaurus oxoniensis and Ornithopsis leedsii were all likely in the same genus, Ornithopsis having priority. – not sure why Ornithopsis had priority, wasn't Cetiosaurus named first?
Not sure changed, think it might say ornithopsis in the source
  • and the Jurassic remains (including O. leedsii) to Cetiosaurus. – confusing not to mention "O. oxoniensis" here, as it does not become very clear that C. leedsii is not the only Cetiosaurus species.
Added
  • was referred in 1905 by palaeontologist Arthur Smith Woodward to the species Cetiosaurus leedsi – somehow confusing, as the previous sentence was talking about Pelorosaurus leedsi. So that referral to Pelorosaurus was not accepted? Should be mentioned then.
Added
  • However, naturalist Richard Lydekker discussed with Seeley, before the publication of Seeley's 1889 paper, that Cetiosaurus and Ornithopsis were the same taxon. – I thought I did not consider them the same taxon. Maybe shorten and merge with the following sentence for clarity?
Forgot to write "not"
  • as it was from the same geologic formation and location as other specimens of that taxon – I would remove "location", not sure what is meant (I guess it does not mean "from the same clay pit").
Removed
  • Sometimes the genus name is abbreviated, sometimes not; I would do it consequently after first mention or (maybe better) write them out always.
Done
  • All in all, I still have my problems with the first three paragraphs, and especially the third; as they are very difficult to read and to follow, I would suggest a careful copy edit here. Rest seems ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the best way to fix this? The first paragraph is ordered chronologically now, second is inbetween first and third in state, and the third was heavily cut from suggestions above to remove any anatomical details. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Made an attempt to better integrate the sentence about Leeds, but please revert if you don't like it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, the first paragraph of the species section needs to be reorganized in my opinion. Most of it does not directly relate to the Cetiosauriscus specimen. It starts with taxonomic complications without giving the reader a hint how all of this relates to Cetiosauriscus until the very end. I'm not sure what would be the best solution, but I can offer an idea: You could move the "pre-history" (the taxonomic history before the description of the Cetiosauriscus skeleton) to a background paragraph giving an overview about the early sauropod discoveries in England, focussing on Cetiosaurus and Cetiosauriscus. This would be the first paragraph of the "Discovery and naming" section, making the whole thing following chronology. In the species section, you can then contunue with "NHMUK R3078 was referred in 1905 by palaeontologist Arthur Smith Woodward to the species C. leedsii", directly continuing with the story outlined in the previous two paragraphs.
  • I'm also not sure why the fist paragraph of the "species" section is inside this section? Its not really about Cetiosauriscus species. If you move the majority of it into a background section, as suggested above, you could attach the remainder to a new subsection "Discovery and naming", resolving this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the above changes an attempt. By adding a Cetiosaurus blurb I've also been able to introduce C. longus and C. glymptonensis earlier and more chronologically. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I think more subheadings in the discovery section would really be helpful. I was asked to do the same during the Ceratosaurus nomination was was skeptical at first, but it really made a difference. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe: 1) Historical background; 2) Discovery and naming of Cetiosauriscus; 3) Additional species? Anyways it should be close now, I will have another read through the section soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went with Background (to reduce repetition of "Histor-" in two adjacent headings, Discovery and naming, and Further species. I also separated the background content on Cetiosaurus and Ornithopsis intwo two separate paragraphs, and moved the paragraph about the referral of NHMUK R3078 to leedsi into the "Discovery and naming" section. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your help on this was greatly appreciated. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]
A phylogenetic analysis of Cetiosauriscus conducted in 2003 by Julia Heathcote and Upchurch, based upon the two most inclusive matrices of the time, those of Jeffrey A. Wilson (2002[28]) and Upchurch (1995[29]), neither of which had included the taxon in the past. - surely this should be, "A phylogenetic analysis of Cetiosauriscus was conducted in 2003 by Julia Heathcote and Upchurch, based upon the two most inclusive matrices of the time, those of Jeffrey A. Wilson (2002[28]) and Upchurch (1995[29]), neither of which had included the taxon in the past."
Think I got it :) IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking on track for FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I will be promoting this shortly. Just a few little points that don't need to hold up promotion but I would be grateful if someone could take a look at them. Sarastro (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Osteology of the reptiles" book ISBN is for a book published in 1997. I think there is a way in the template to give a year of first publication and then any reprint year.
  • The duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Sarastro (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN is fixed and all duplicate links that aren't duplication between the lead and content (the tool notoriously doesn't account for that) have been removed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No source or image review needed? FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Sarastro1. I know we are not supposed to comment on closed FACs, but this one seems to have been closed prematurely. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops!! This is what comes of having multiple windows open. I've reopened it, and will fix the mess I made! Thanks FunkMonk Sarastro (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reopened this now. To clarify, we still need source and image reviews which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do the image review, but since 5 of the images were uploaded by me, I feel I might not be "neutral" enough... FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources are reliable
  • There is a mix of sentence case and title case for journal article titles.
Case should be done for all journal articles. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting otherwise consistent
  • FN 3 cited once, material faithful to source
  • FN 22 cited once, material faithful to source
  • FN 23 cited three time, material largely faithful to source. Calculations/assumptions used to derive length not in source though...?
I assume here you meant the "based on", reworded it. I'll get on the title case IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More later, gotta run. Largely ok, one query...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Given the sheer number, I shall only comment on these images which seem to have problems:

  • File:Cetiosauriscus composite.jpg: Not really an issue here since enWikipedia cares only about US copyright, but how did we ascertain that the image was anonymously published?
The way it is worded in Noe et al 2010 suggests that the composite image (which is shown in Martill 2008 like mentioned) was also shown in an anonymous publication earlier. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cetiosaurus fossils.jpg: I take that after the image was uploaded here, the Flickr user has changed its license? Because the current Flickr license is noncommercial and we don't allow these.
Yes, I uploaded this image, found through a search specifically for free licences. As you can see on the file page, the upload bot confirmed that it had the given licence as the time. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link under permission. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ALT text on all images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't butcher the alt text too badly, I'm not really the greatest at it. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment (2nd attempt): Right, I'm going to try again! All we were waiting for was the image and source reviews and we seem to be clear on those. I'm assuming that Dunkleosteus77 has no major concerns that would prevent promotion, and I think it's time to wrap this one up as it's had some fairly heavyweight review. Any other issues can be taken up on the article talk page. FunkMonk, if I've messed it up this time, I'm never touching another dinosaur article in my life! Sarastro (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2018 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2018 [38].

Nihonium

[edit]
Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about is the first element recognised to have been discovered in Asia, and we can hope that there will be more in our march to the end of the periodic table, wherever that happens to be. ^_^ It's just finished going through a peer review and I believe it's ready for FA now! Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by R8R

[edit]

Support. My comments have been addressed. Note: I actively participated in the pre-FAC peer review and a majority of my comments was dealt with then.--R8R (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments:

  • Preliminary experiments in 2017 have shown -- looks like "showed" would be better;
  • targets, and significantly increasing -- looks like the comma doesn't belong here;
  • the yields from cold fusion reactions -- I'd not use the article here;
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory -- interestingly, this laboratory is referred to by Livermore rather than its acronym LLNL throughout the article unlike, say, GSI or JINR. Is there a reason for that?
  • JINR–Livermore collaboration published its results -- I notice that the collaboration is referred to as a singular noun, but some time ago the GSI team was referred to as a plural one: The GSI team attempted to similarly synthesise element 113 via cold fusion in 1998 and 2003, bombarding bismuth-209 with zinc-70, but were unsuccessful both times. Consistency would be great;
  • In June 2004 and again in December 2005, the JINR–Livermore collaboration strengthened their claim for the discovery of nihonium -- it would be best not to use the name "nihonium" here as it will only be established as official in 2016. I suggest element 113;
  • Further experiments at the JINR in 2005 fully confirmed -- as is, this is seemingly too bold a claim as the JWP did not recognize that;
    • Actually, the JWP did recognise that the data was consistent: they write in their report "The first two events in each chain showed excellent mutual agreement for both decay energies and lifetimes" (on the 2007 studies), and "The 2013 Oganessian collaboration [21] and the 2013 Rudolph collaboration provide redundancy to the three 284113 chains observed in 2004 with the alpha energies being in excellent agreement among most of the events. ... Much of the minor discrepancies in energy are accommodated when sums are considered." What they did not recognise was that this data was from elements 115 and 113, because they considered that Z had not been convincingly established. I've changed it to "experiments at the JINR in 2005 confirmed the observed decay data", to avoid mentioning Z. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • halogens (the group containing fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine) -- it is important to note when talking about the superheavy elements that halogens are not necessarily a group as element 117 may not be a halogen. Perhaps you could use set of elements or the like.

Other than that, the article seems great.--R8R (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing I'd love to see is the three-level location introduction for LLNL (all other places have that so this would match the current writing style) and then I'll be ready to support.--R8R (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added. Double sharp (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DePiep

[edit]

Comments Support by XOR'easter

[edit]

Looks pretty good!

  • In the intro, it says Nihonium is expected to be within the "island of stability" — perhaps this should be At least one isotope of nihonium is expected to be within the "island of stability". As written, it's a slightly confusing bit of backtracking.
  • I have the feeling that many readers will be more familiar with a different meaning of the term "cold fusion". (In the disambiguation page, the sense of fusion reactions "where the product nuclei have a relatively low excitation energy" comes fourth of four.) Perhaps a brief note should be added to clarify this, particularly since the term occurs early enough that fairly casual readers are apt to bump into it.
  • It looks like a couple words are missing just after footnote 47, perhaps "to reference" or "to honor".

XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm happy to support the nomination now. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: You're welcome! I still plan on addressing your well-founded criticism of our quick introduction of the term cold fusion, and have in fact been thinking about what to do about that. I'm currently leaning towards just adding an explanatory footnote at its first occurrence, since it has to be introduced very early and explaining it then means that we're already going slightly off-topic before the reader has even gotten a clear sense of what the topic actually is. Of course, I'll be most grateful if you have a better suggestion than that. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An explanatory footnote at the first occurrence sounds good to me; I can't think of anything better. XOR'easter (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: I've added an explanatory footnote, reusing text from the unbinilium article. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments Tentative support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Had a read-through. The lead strikes me as needing some sort of covering sentence, "Very little is known about nihonium as it has only been made in very small amounts." or something sort of like this. The lower paragraph just segues into predicted properties. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it's a bit dry but then again that goes with the subject matter really...

I've added an expanded version of your sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph of the lede: "Very little is known about nihonium, as it has only been made in very small amounts that decay away within seconds." Double sharp (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is definitely comprehensive, and nothing specific is jumping out at me prose-wise so I think we're there...but my eye for detail ain't great so someone else might pick up a few things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

[edit]

*What spelling variant is the article supposed to be in? At the moment it seems to have both.

There were problems with prose, Engvar, and MOSCAP. This represents a first pass. Please inspect. --John (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second pass. --John (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you so much for this! I looked through your copyedit and only changed a few things. Most of these are small things; I changed a few things back to the originals (because a decay chain doesn't undergo fission, a nuclide does; and because I wanted to make it clear that the new thing the JWP noted was the confirmation of consistency of the decay energy sums). In particular, I feel the detail that IUPAC alone (rather than with IUPAC) decided on the early release is important, because tensions between IUPAC and IUPAP are later mentioned. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is the "2n channel"? --John (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is the merit of saying (for example) The syntheses of elements 107 to 112 ...? I understand the need to avoid anachronism where the names were not yet assigned to these elements but the degree to which this is done may work against clarity, and WP:EGG seems to be in doubt here. --John (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's an "Easter egg link" if we link the "107" in "element 107" to bohrium, because element 107 is exactly bohrium and so you're getting the article you would expect (even if you might not know its name before you click on it). And I think it might be less clear to give all the names when what is important here is the atomic numbers; connecting each name to its atomic number may work against clarity for readers who haven't memorised all the transactinides. That being said, if the names are generally felt to be helpful, I'm not opposed to a construction like "elements 107 to 112 (bohrium to copernicium)". Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's the sort of solution I was thinking of. It's an interesting problem. --John (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • John, I think we're pretty close to consensus to promote here -- do you have outstanding concerns, or want more time to review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think my concerns rise to the level of withholding support from this fine article. It meets the standard, though it isn't perfect. --John (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • @John: Thank you! I've thought about the problem you've mentioned, but I still think that it would be difficult to include the names consistently. Later a lot of atomic numbers are mentioned, with the element names often anachronistic and not the main point, and I don't want to clutter up the article by saying "In 2001, his team confirmed the GSI's discoveries of elements 108, 110, 111, and 112 (hassium, darmstadtium, roentgenium, and copernicium)" or something like that later. (Even though element 108 had already been named in 1997, and hence it wouldn't be anachronistic to name only that one, it's still peripheral and just a lead-up to the main topic of Riken going for element 113.) Double sharp (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

It looks like we still need a source reivew for reliability and formatting -- you can list at the top of WT:FAC unless one of the reviewers above would like to take it on... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford

[edit]

Any possible issue seem to have been addressed above. After combing through this, the only minor problem I could dig up is that source 58 is a bare URL, though this might be the result of editing during the FA candidacy. I've taken the liberty of updating it but the nom may want to double-check it to make sure I did so accurately. Chetsford (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: We're nearly there, but I'm not quite sure if the review by Chetsford has fully covered the formatting of sources. For example, ref 1 gives the publisher location but the other book sources do not. Also, ref 74 is missing a publication date. So I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at that. This is a good shortcut for spotting some errors when the references are a little overwhelming to the naked eye. Also, the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Sarastro (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sarastro - I just noticed I put my support in an unusual place. It was meant as a general support, not a source review, which I'm completely unqualified to conduct. (It just happened that, in this case, my only comment had to do with a source which may also have contributed to the confusion.) I regret the lack of clarity on my part. Chetsford (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • FN22 and 36 should also include details of original source - this is a general issue throughout, check for others
  • Generally speaking press releases are not ideal sources - independent references are preferable, except in cases where you're reporting what a press release said

Oppose pending resolution of some of the above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have enough time to resolve these over the weekend; my apologies for the delay. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately real life got in the way over the weekend; I will try to settle things as quickly as possible (if I can't, R8R may be able to; I'll ask him). Double sharp (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try my best to find some spare time and help on Tuesday or Wednesday.--R8R (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it took a long time to get the source review under way (no reflection whatsoever on Nikki, to whom I'm very grateful for finding the time for this among all the other work she does round here) but we really need to get this done ASAP guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're both working on it! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: would you please have another look?--R8R (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you're going to include a base URL as website alongside publisher this should be done consistently, but it's not necessary to do at all

Closing comment: I think we're finally there. This has been open an unusually long time but mainly because we needed a source review. Thanks to Nikki for stepping in there. One final point is that I mentioned duplinks some time ago, and I see that we still have a few. Someone will need to take a look at that, but there is no need to hold this up any further. Sarastro (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2018 [39].

Political Animals and Animal Politics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political Animals and Animal Politics is a 2014 book about animals in political theory. According to one of the leading names in the subdiscipline, it was the first ever edited collection on the topic (at least two others have been published since), and the first book-length effort to map the shape of the field. Whether it is successful in that regard or not, it's going to retain a place in the bibliographies of scholars of "animal politics" (myself included!) for its trailblazing nature. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PlanespotterA320

[edit]

While certainly a topic worthy of a featured article, there are some areas in need of improvement. For example, the sections ""Slaughter and Animal Welfarism in Sweden 1900–1944", Per-Anders Svärd" and ""The Rights of Nature: Theory and Practice", Mihnea Tanasescu" ought to be re-written to reduce bias among other areas.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look; could you expand on the bias that you're seeing? I'm of course keen to make sure that the article is written from the NPOV, but I'm not sure I understand the concern! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]

Great work, Josh; glad to see that you've brought this to FAC.

Many thanks for your comment so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see. Happy to support this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Casliber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

It was the first edited collection to be published on the topic, and the first book-length attempt to explore the "contours" of the literature. - agree with preceding reviewer that (a) slightly repetitive, but (b) can't think of a way around without repeating.... - also, I think we can use a word for "contours" without quotation marks - "limits/boundaries" for contours, or alternately "explore breadth and boundaries" of literature - or somesuch.
It was the first edited collection on the topic (there had previously been monographs!) but it was the first book to explore the literature as a whole. This might be a technical distinction, but it's an important one, as it identifies two ways in which this was "the first" - and it's as "the first" that this book is, I think, most significant. I like "breadth and boundaries", though, so I've gone with that. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
between 10–15 April 2012 hmm, can have "over 10–15 April 2012" or " between 10 and 15 April 2012" or "from/to" etc.
Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Production and release section needs some more context (or a background section) - you mention the occupations of the two editors in the lead but not in the body (unless I am missing something?). I don't get a sense of why/how these people are important/instrumental in this - it needs something about their backgrounds (not much but a bit) at the beginning of the section.
This is tricky. The reality is that the editors are really outsiders to the literature; that's something that Garner points towards in his review (and I put his comments front-and-centre in the academic reception section). I tried to include a little background by talking about what the political turn is all about, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - in an ideal world, we'd have some more to shoehorn at the front, but as is, it'd be odd to move Garner's comments up to background. So this looks the best way at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These aims are the analysis of three key "innovations" that the editors identify in the book's introduction. - can we come up with another way of saying without quotes?
Done, but I have added "putative" to retain a NPOV. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that edit got saved...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... human/nonhuman relationships are appropriately grounded upon the ideas of human exceptionalism and human domination.... - "appropriately" suggests that the human primacy is correct and...ummm...undermines his position...?
"Arias-Maldonado argues that [x] and that, instead, human/nonhuman relationships are appropriately grounded upon the ideas of human exceptionalism and human domination." I'm just reporting what he says! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is good overall. No other obvious fixes I can see. In reading it, it is only with the chapter summaries (which are a fair way through the article) that we get any idea of specific bits in the book (as there are none in the lead at all). I wonder if some notable segments from the book in the lead might give a better impression (e.g. the polar bear advocacy comments come to mind). I just wonder if there needs to be a bit more concrete stuff for a lay reader to get more of a picture about what it's all about....
Yes, that's a good thought. I have added a sentence to the lead, based on the things that Bendik-Keymer says in his review, and detailed what the three sections concern. Hopefully that'll be a nice way to show what the book actually contains. I'm reluctant to pick out the contents of particular chapters in the lead, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cas, for taking the time to look at this. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem -an intriguing area Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I reviewed this article for GAN, and was impressed. On rereading it, I am reimpressed. A few minor points on drafting:

  • Lead
  • Production and release
  • Academic reception
    • "Milburn felt" – I imagine – correct me if I am wrong – that Milburn's conclusion was based on something more intellectually rigorous than mere feeling? I'm sure he thought, or considered or even took the view that.
      • Here's the quote: "These chapters, along with the introduction, establish the volume well." I've gone with "thought". (A related aside: I rather dislike the way that "asserted" is often used on Wikipedia. To claim that someone asserted y, to me, is something of a snub, as it suggests that it is claimed without support.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
    • Note 5 – perhaps unnecessarily convoluted? Instead of "At the time of the reviews' respective publications…", possibly just "When their reviews were published…"? But I don't press the point.

Those are my only quibbles. The article is very readable, even by the layest of laymen (i.e. me). I commend the sensible and helpful structure of the article; the sourcing appears to be as wide as possible; and the highly technical nature of the topic is explained with as many plain words and as little jargon as possible. A few terms that seem to me everyday ones have been blue-linked, but JM and I have had this discussion before, and having mentioned the point again I leave it at that. Happy to add my support for the promotion of this fine article to FA. – Tim riley talk 10:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your kind words and support. For anyone following the conversation: I bluelink some relatively common words because they are technical terms in the parlance of political philosophy, though I'm certainly happy to explore changes if they are suggested. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, would you be able to source review the article? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Tim riley talk 17:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now done: see below. Tim riley talk 20:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

Prose check, lead and a few random checks further down:

  • Pity "edited" and sibling forms appear so densely at the top. I can't see how to avoid it. You've no doubt thought about it too.
  • "The work addresses the emergence of academic animal ethics informed by political philosophy, as opposed to moral philosophy." The comma introduces an ambiguity: the unwanted meaning of "as opposed to the emergence of moral philosophy" is a possibility.
    • I've removed the comma. I don't really like the flow of it without one, but agree with you that it removes the ambiguity. Josh Milburn (talk)/~
  • ", respectively concerning institutional change for animals; the relationship between animal ethics and ecologism; and real-world laws made for the benefit of animals." My eyes balked at the semicolons. There are no internal commas in the listed items, so why not just commas?
  • "In part" ... "Parts ...".
  • "Reviewers identified the contributions from ...". I first thought it meant "Peer-reviewers ...". But no, it's published reviews identified ... .
  • Not sure you need "also". And can you check the other appearance of that urchin?
  • " ... of, the ...". Can you get away without that comma? I don't use it myself, to avoid the bump bump. Up to you.
    • I don't think it can be removed, as "or sufficiently engage with the work of" is a parenthetical clause. Maybe our spoken English is a little different, but I'd definitely have a "bump bump" (as you put it!) if I said the sentence aloud. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as Robert Garner, Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, Alasdair Cochrane, Kimberly Smith or Siobhan O'Sullivan." This list seems a bit messy. You're linking Donaldson and Kymlicka as co-authors, I guess. But why no serial comma before the final "or"? And why not "and" instead, in English? Are we being asked to consider these authors as either/or? Or is it just an unmarked list on a level field?
  • "Wissenburg's chapter was identified as the one which engaged most directly with this literature; his approach, however, was a negative one." To avoid the wa wa, why not "the one that", rather than "the one which"? Many styleguides, including Chicago (with good explicit reasoning), recommend "that" be used where possible. The "however" logic: engaging and being negative are abnormal? And I'm not a fan of "however-comma" where it can be a good old plain "but. Here, though, you might join up the propositions more smoothly, perhaps without the semi.
    • Definitely agree with that instead of which. (An aside: This is something I've become much more aware of in my writing since this article was first written.) Happy enough with but. (And I do think engaging but being negative are unusual; the thought is approaching, without quite reaching, something like: "Only one actually engages with the thing the book's meant to be about, but that's a critical approach!") Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the workshop's second day" – do you need "workshop's"?
  • "The film premiered on 28 October 2012, during a gathering to celebrate the party's 10th anniversary, and has since been made available in numerous languages." Kill the first comma, to make the second one more effective and the sentence less bumpy?
  • "Political Animals and Animal Politics was published in 2014 by Palgrave Macmillan; it is part of the Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series, which is edited by Andrew Linzey and Priscilla Cohn." Why not: "Political Animals and Animal Politics was published in 2014 as part of the Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series, edited by Andrew Linzey and Priscilla Cohn."
  • MOS breach: no hyphen after an -ly adverb.
  • posit ... English can be ugly, can't it. Finding enough projection verbs is often a problem I face too. "suggest"? Maybe not strong enough for your purpose, though.
  • "For the purposes of his contribution, Wissenburg takes many standard contentions in animal ethics for granted. However, he challenges mainstream animal ethicists' tendency to adopt the language of liberalism, which he suggests misconstrues nonhuman animals as individuals and posits false dichotomies about their status." What about dumping the opening phrase, and starting with: "Wissenburg takes many standard contentions in animal ethics for granted; but he challenges mainstream animal ethicists' tendency to adopt the language of liberalism, which he suggests misconstrues nonhuman animals as individuals and assumes false dichotomies about their status."
    • I'm reluctant, because, as far as I know, Wissenburg doesn't take these things for granted; as I recall, he explicitly plays a "Let's assume for the sake of argument that..." move, which is very common in philosophical writing. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the rest. This is an excellent, FA-standard nomination! Thank you. Tony (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking a look and for your kind words. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Following the precepts of the helpful guide for source reviewers, I have checked the online sources and looked at the available material about the printed sources. All seem to me authoritative, relevant and reliable. The presentation is consistent, as far as I can see, but for the single exception that three sources have been "accessed on" and three "retrieved". but with that one pettifogging reservation I give the sources the thumbs-up.

PS: I think I ought to have been warned that doing this source review would turn me into Mad Margaret in Ruddigore, fixated on the word "Basingstoke": it occurs 14 times in the sources, but I digress. – Tim riley talk 20:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the retrieved/accessed issue- well-spotted! As for Basingstoke: It's one I've typed out more than I ever imagined I would. Lanham, MD is another! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2018 [41].

Tower Hill Memorial

[edit]
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I bring you (just for a change!) another war memorial. This one is dedicated to merchant seamen in both world wars who lost their lives as a result of enemy action and have "no grave but the sea". It is one of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's memorials to the missing, and the CWGC's only monument in London. Anyone following my project will have already guessed that this is another work of Sir Edwin Lutyens (who was far from happy that his first design was rejected!). I learnt a lot while researching this and I hope you find it an interesting read worthy of FA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks a great article, and I'll doubtless come back to this soon. In the meantime, something that jumped out at a skim was the "Plaques bearing the names of the dead from the RMS Lusitania, the largest single loss of life commemorated on the Mercantile Marine Memorial"—it took a re-read to get the precise meaning. Could it be clarified slightly? (Perhaps something like, "Plaques bearing the names of the dead from the RMS Lusitania, the largest single loss of life to be commemorated on the Mercantile Marine Memorial", or something like that? Although of course up to you.) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A thorough and most readable article: rather moving, indeed. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Support - Pleased to pick up the source review for this one. It'll take me until later in the week due to work commitments. KJP1 (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography
  • Geurst - Worldcat, and the Google Books link, give Rotterdam rather than Amsterdam, as the publication location. Apart, from this, super-picky, point, the bibliography looks absolutely fine.
  • I'll check the address on the copyright page when I have the book in front of me.
Citations - online
  • Source 49 - Should we note that The Times is paywalled? Although the snippet gives enough to support the content.
  • Apart from the above quibble, all the online sources check out and support the content.
Citations - offline
  • Fortunately, I've enough of these to allow the necessary spot-checking, so this may be done more quickly than I thought. To follow.
And now done spot checks on the ones I have. All fine, as I knew they would be. So pleased to sign off on the Source Review and add my Support, as a fine addition to the canon. KJP1 (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim , one comment

[edit]

Happy to support, I just wondered whether the queen's first use of the medium should have a capital, since it refers to a specific named queen? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Jim! My understanding is that it wouldn't be incorrect to use Queen as a proper noun but I tend not to. Cf. "commissioners" elsewhere in the article and probably other examples; also I think we'd frown on "the Admiral" for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • On "queen" above I agree that it should be capitalised when it refers to a specific individual, but I think it would be better to change "the queen's" to "her".
Green tickY - Done, as suggested.
  • You say at the beginning that it consists of two memorials and then refer to a third. This seems to imply that the third is not part of the memorial but it is not clear.
Green tickY - flipped the lead a bit which hopefully makes this clearer.
  • "thousands of war memorials were built across Britain and other countries affected" No change needed, but it seems unjust that Austro-Hungarian casualties got no memorials - so I have been told - because the country ceased to exist.
I didn't know that. Certainly sad if true, but I'd be surprised if they don't have any.
  • "with the loss of over 17,000 lives" I think this should be in the lead - and why is the number of ships lost in brackets there? It is not a subsidiary point.
Green tickY - Done and Done.
  • How many were listed on the memorial? (I see that you give a total for WW2 and both wars, but I think you should for WW1 (unless I have missed it).
Green tickY - Done, the HE site says 12,000 named casualties. I've put it after the Lusitania, where it seemed to fit.
Green tickY - Done and Done.
  • "The unveiling ceremony was broadcast live on the radio in the queen's first use of the medium. Despite taking place in torrential rain, the unveiling ceremony was attended by a large crowd, who cheered the queen as she was driven away." Two more "queens" which should be capitalised in my opinion but I know there are different views on this.
Red XN - If it were mine, I'd have done it too, but I think Harry's view is clear from the discussion with Jim above and, as far as I understand it, it's a preference issue. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A service was planned for 17 October 2017, organised by several maritime organisations and due to be attended by 400 people, including foreign diplomats and Anne, Princess Royal, to mark 100 years since the introduction of the convoy system. The service was cancelled at short notice as the organisers were unable to obtain permission for a road closure which was required for the event." This is a bit strange. It surely would have been a major scandal with headlines in every newspaper and questions in Parliament yet the only reference to it I can find is the Times report saying it was cancelled because the City of London refused the organisers' demand that a road be closed because Princess Anne was attending. I would delete unless you can find other sources.
  • A first class article. A few niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: I agree it is strange that the only report on the cancellation comes from The Times. I suspect (a bit speculatively) that this is because there is a degree of WWI centenary 'fatigue' evident in some quarters. It is sad that the event was cancelled, but clearly it wasn't a major scandal (the UK parliament was in recess from 14 September 2017 to 9 October 2017 for the party conference season, hence no questions in parliament). It was a minor scandal that President Macron did not attend the recent commemorative event in Amiens Cathedral (for example), and this did receive coverage in much British and French media, but maybe not as much as you might expect. It will be interesting to see how the end of the centenary range of commemorations (in November 2018) play out in the world's media compared to the coverage at the start of these four years (in August 2014). Looking at the bigger picture, there are lots of war memorials and lots of commemoration events. In my experience, whenever there is some other news story that week or day that is judged 'more' newsworthy, then the coverage of that can swamp coverage of commemoration news. (At the time of the cancellation story in The Times, the newspapers were mostly covering stories relating to the Conservative Party annual conference.) It would have been more of a story if Prince William, Prince Charles or the Queen had been attending, but then the council likely would have granted permission in such circumstances. The fact that the event was to be attended by Princess Anne shows that this memorial is, in the larger scheme of things, considered a relatively minor memorial. It is only because I try and look for such events for each memorial that has an article that I even found this article about the cancellation (and suggested that the news be included). I would, however, suggest that leaving this out is censoring the historical record. It is precisely in places like this article that aspects like this can be noted and not forgotten. The article in The Times states that: "The 400 invited guests due at the event on October 17 included 30 ambassadors and high commissioners of countries whose seafarers are among the 36,102 names on the memorial." That is an indication that plans were far advanced for this event. If it had taken place, it would have received coverage. But cancellations, for obvious reasons, don't always get the same amount of coverage, as seen here. If you think having it in the main body of the text is undue weight, than maybe make it a footnote. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC) The only additional coverage I could find was one of the organisers speaking on BBC Radio Sussex about the cancellation, see here. Can someone listen to what is said there and see if that might give pointers to more sources, or even if that can be used as a source? Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles - No, I can't find any other mentions either, so have put it as a footnote, as suggested. Harry can, of course, move it back in, if preferred. I do hope the amendments address your concerns. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Dudley Miles do you have anything further to add? Sarastro (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, Carcharoth, HJ Mitchell - I'd guess Harry's busy off-wiki. I'd be pleased to have a stab at addressing Dudley Miles' queries if that would help. KJP1 (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now done, in ways that I hope will meet with Harry's approval. KJP1 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2018 [42].

Banksia blechnifolia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another banksia (like the other 32 FAs). Still, as a body of work I wanted to get them all featured. Anyway, short and sweet. It's comprehensive (I scoured the sources) and should read okay. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor
  • "Banksia blechnifolia is a species of flowering plant in the plant genus Banksia native to Western Australia" - are both the species and the genus native to Western Australia? bit unclear to me
if I do this, does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fur on older stems turns grey with age. The leathery herringbone leaves rise vertically from the stems on thick 5–18 cm (2–7 in) long petioles, which have two narrow ribs on the undersurface. The leaves themselves are 25–45 cm (10–17 1⁄2 in) long, with 8–22 deep lobes on each leaf edge. These lobes are narrowly triangular to roughly linear in shape and 2–5 cm (3⁄4–2 in) long. They are either oppositely or alternately arranged along the leaf midline, and arise at 60–80 degrees. The leaf blade narrows for the top third of its length to a pointed apex" - lots of "the", "they"... perhaps a bit more varied sentence structure?
Man, that's quite hard - I did this to liven it up... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The individual flowers are reddish pink with a cream base. The perianth is 2.8–3.2 cm (1 1⁄8–1 1⁄4 in) long, includes a 3.5–5 mm limb and is covered in fine fur. The old flowers fade to light brown and then grey, and remain on the spike, obscuring the developing seed pods known as follicles." - same as above
I tried this. Hard going... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Von Mueller wrote of it again in 1869 as a variety of B. repens, giving it the name Banksia pinnatisecta.[5] The species was then mostly forgotten until 1931, when it was collected again by William Blackall and Charles Gardner near Middle Mt Barren" - Middle Mt Barren, which is what? is there a relevant link? if not, a brief description would be useful since it's meaningless to a lay reader like myself
It lies in Fitzgerald River National Park - both West and East Mount Barren have pages but the middle one appears less notable...sigh. So linked to parent article/location Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • References look good.

Happy to support once my minor concerns are addressed. ceranthor 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, I think the changes look fine. Feel free to change anything back to a previous version if you feel uncomfortable with any of the changes you've made. ceranthor 23:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
your changes are fine. @Ceranthor: I got everything, right? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. ceranthor 14:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll do the layman review.
  • Shouldn't the infobox caption begin with a capital letter?
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all people mentioned are presented.
got 'em all now (I think...). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this detail worth showing?[43] What is it?
a growing stem and leaves - yes/added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With respect to B. blechnifolia, Mast's results have some semblance to George and Thiele's, as B. repens, B. chamaephyton and B. blechnifolia form a closely knit group within this group, and the overall inferred phylogeny is very different from George's arrangement." But/though?
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found that it diverged from a" Last name you mentioned was the genus name, so perhaos spell out the specific name instead of just "it".
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from material collected in 1861 by G. Maxwell" Is it known where it was collected?
I think I would have added it if known - but will check again. it was only recorded as "southwestern Australia", so not strictly unknown but not helpful either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and take 14 to 49 days to germinate.[18] B. blechnifolia takes 4–5 years to flower from seed." If this is true to the species in general, doesn't it belong elsewhere in the article? Seems to be about the life cycle rather than just cultivation.
have tweaked it - that is how long it takes to flower in cultivation. Not sure how long it takes in nature (probably the same) but is not specified thus in the source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and no subspecies are recognised" Only stated in the intro.
added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Banksia blechnifolia is a species of flowering plant in the plant genus Banksia that is native to Western Australia." This is ambiguous whether it is the species or the genus which is native to Western Australia.
removed as distribution described elsewhere in lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are finely covered in rusty-brown fur, which turns grey with age." I am not sure what this means. Covered in fine fur?
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banksia blechnifolia is a prostrate shrub that grows to about 50 cm (19 1⁄2 in) high and spreads to 2–4 m (6 1⁄2–13 ft) across." I assumed at first the lead image was of the whole plant, but I see that it is of an inflorescence. This should be made clear in the label.
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no image of the whole plant available? The inflorescences in bud and grey are very similar and I do not think both are needed.
replaced that image with one of whole plant. Plant is usually flatter than that in the picture but at least we have one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Archive/accessdate format should be consistent throughout
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9 link is dead so |deadurl= should be set to yes
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn13: series title is generally not included as part of the title
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include state for Melbourne but not Port Melbourne?
laziness, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2018 [44].

V. Gordon Childe

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prominent and important archaeologists of the 20th century. Childe oversaw a number of important excavations, created important interpretative frameworks, and was a pioneer in using Marxist ideas to understand the archaeological record. It has been a GA for a number of years and underwent an FAC earlier this year, but fell by the wayside due to lack of contributors. Second time lucky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Sorry I missed the first FAC. I recommend letting previous reviewers know about the renomination, if you haven't already.

  • Worth a category for being an academic in Sydney, given that he taught there? (Probably not...) London School of Economics?
  • Are there categories for translators? Political assistants/secretaries? Librarians?
  • Could you provide a link for T.J. Smith? I think we're OK with redlinks on people's names now if we don't have an article (which we should)
  • I don't mind redlinks although a lot of editors seem to so I nowadays I'm often loath to add them. I've done some Google searching and I cannot actually find any reference to an Australian leftist politician known as T. J. Smith, but I wonder if it actually a reference to Tom Smith (Australian politician), whose initials were T. J. and who seems to have been active in this period? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schipenitz is presumably also worth a link
  • You introduce How Labour Governs twice. I also really don't link like the in-line external link!
  • "it reflect Childe's disillusionment" Tense
  • "W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J.G. Callender, Walter Grant" Any worth linking?
  • I think that Lindsay Scott is probably sufficiently known within certain archaeological circles to warrant a link. Actually, I'm just going to link them all, and people can remove the redlinks if they see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Involving them in experimental archaeology, of which he was an early proponent," Worth mentioning in the lead? (Also, you use that same "opening subordinate clause" sentence structure a few times in quick succession. I think some readers will find that irritating.)
  • Was Piggott really a "comrade"?
  • Earn's Hugh, Larriban, Knocksoghey, Wallace Thorneycroft, Finavon, Rahoy, Walter Grant... Worth links?
  • You claim in "London and early books", concerning The Dawn of European Civilisation, that "Its importance was also due to the fact that it introduced the concept of the archaeological culture into Britain from continental scholarship". You later say about The Danube in Prehistory that "The book introduced the concept of an archaeological culture to Britain from Germany, revolutionising the theoretical approach of British archaeology". This doesn't feel consistent!
  • You're right, it isn't, so I've checked the sources and made some changes to the prose. While Childe first used the culture-historical approach in The Dawn of European Civilisation, it was only in The Danube in Prehistory that he actually set forward a definition of "culture", which is what proved so influential. I've amended the prose to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there for now. Great read so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

  • Perhaps not the most helpful comment, but I found the paragraph beginning "In 1949 he and O.G.S. Crawford" a little tricky to follow.
  • I've made some alterations to the opening sentence, which now reads "In 1949 he and O.G.S. Crawford resigned as fellows of the Society of Antiquaries. They did so to protest the selection of James Mann—keeper of the Tower of London's armouries—as the society's new president, believing that Wheeler, a professional archaeologist, would have been a better choice". Was this sentence the problem or do you think that I should take the pruning shears to other parts of the paragraph too? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History (1947) continued his belief that prehistory and literate history" Continued to defend his belief? Or something like that?
  • Anthropology is mentioned several times before it is first linked.
  • The section on Marxist archaeology is a bit quotefarm-y; I think most readers will be more interested in hearing what Marxist archaeology is and what Childe's contribution to it was, rather than what lots of people they may not have heard of said about Childe's relationship to Marxism.
  • I've gone back to this section, overseen a bit of a restructuring, and added in several further sentences about Marxist archaeology. This is an issue that Maunus also picked up on (below), and I hope that my edits have sufficiently improved the section. If it still needs more work, let me know and I'll see what I can do to make it clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was slightly surprised by how much there was a challenge to the idea that he was a Marxist archaeologist. I wonder if there is a way to get these kinds of debates into the lead?
  • I think that this is a reflection of the sectarianism that seems quite endemic in social groups (like Marxism, but also many religious formations) where people get very invested in being the "true disciple". I'm open to the idea of putting something about this in the lede, although I'm just not quite sure how to go about it. I don't really want to lengthen the lede any more. Perhaps something brief in the fourth paragraph? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Childe's concept of "revolutions" were not universally adopted" Do you perhaps mean "Childe's conceptualisations of these "revolutions" were not universally adopted" or "Childe's concept of "revolution" was not universally adopted"? I'm a little puzzled by the current phrasing.
  • By "particularist", do you mean "an adherent of historical particularism"? If so, a link would be good. If archaeological particularism is a distinct ideology, a redlink would be good!
  • "probably the best known and most cited archaeologist of the twentieth century" This belongs in the lead (if it isn't already there)!
  • "Many of the conclusions about Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe that Childe produced have since been found to be incorrect" This probably does, too!
  • "Various archaeologists have debated and disagreed over the importance of various different parts of Childe's work." Could I recommend dropping this? I don't think it tells us anything of consequence!
  • "who did the more to develop Childe's "most innovative ideas" after the latter's death than anyone else" A bit wordy
  • "in which Boasian particularism had been hegemonic within the discipline" Jargony
  • "Following his death, various articles were published that examined Childe's work from a historical perspective." Again, this is super vague.
  • "Childe is referenced in the American blockbuster film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). Directed by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, the motion picture was the fourth film in the Indiana Jones series that dealt with the eponymous fictional archaeologist and university professor. In the film, Jones is heard advising one of his students that to understand the concept of diffusion he must read the works of Childe." I'm leaning towards suggesting that this is dropped. I don't think it warrants a whole section!
  • I'm not sure about it either. I don't think that I was the one who originally added it, but I could be wrong. Certainly, I've never been totally comfortable with it. What I'll do is delete the section and move a brief mention of the film to an earlier point in the "Legacy and influence" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really great read; I learnt a lot. That said, when reading the section on his theoretical contributions, I realised I'd come across this kind of thing before; presumably I was seeing Childe's influence without realising it. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh, I really appreciate you taking the time with this one. Sorry it took a while to get through all of your comments; as always, I've been distracted with other articles. Let me know if there is anything else that you'd like me to work on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a very well put-together article on an important figure. To my (admittedly amateur) eyes, this looks very much worthy of support. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carabinieri

[edit]

Hi, very interesting article. I've changed a few things. Here are my first comments, but will probably be adding more:

  • Was Childe's father originally from Australia? Or did he first move there in 1878? In the former case, I'd suggest "They moved back to Australia in 1878". In the latter case "a middle-class couple of English descent" seems a little misleading.
  • Childe's father was born in London and he only moved to Australia in adulthood; Childe's mother also appears to have been born in London, but she emigrated to Australia as a baby and grew up there. This being the case, I'll change "middle-class couple of English descent" to "middle-class English couple". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Schipenitz referred to in the article is today's Shypyntsi, now Ukraine (Schipenitz was its German name). I've added a link. However, in 1922 it was part of Romania and named Şipeniţi. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to change it in the article.
  • Childe referred to the settlement as "Schipenitz" in his publication, so I was following his lead here. I don't think it matters a great deal which term is used, although given Childe's example "Schipenitz" perhaps has the strongest case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm generally not a big fan of inline external links, but won't insist on anything.
  • "This job meant that he came into contact with many of Britain's archaeologists, of whom there were relatively few during the 1920s" This is a little awkward (many vs few), maybe "most of Britain's archaeologists"?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

  • "He nevertheless made friends in Edinburgh, including W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J. G. Callender, Walter Grant, and Charles Galton Darwin, becoming godfather to the latter's youngest son" That long list seemed a little excessive to me, since most people won't know who those people are. Maybe it would make sense to shorten the list a little and explain who the remaining people are?
  • "he organised the BSc degree course so that it began studying..." would that be the degree in archaeology or prehistory?
  • I've checked the source and it seems to suggest that it was archaeology (I'm not aware of any courses on prehistory per se being taught in the UK, at least in recent decades, but I could be wrong about that). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " he was particularly interested in the role of Soviet archaeology" Archaeology's role in what? In society?
  • I've never seen Harvard University referred to as the "University of Harvard"
  • "something he believed pivotal in providing knowledge for "the masses"" the quotation marks feel a bit like editorializing, as if you're using the left-wing terminology mockingly. I would suggest omitting the quotation marks and maybe changing it to "for a mass audience". Or was this the way Childe phrased it himself? In that case, I would say so explicitly.
  • "he had kept silent over his disapproval of government policies" This left me wondering what policies, especially since Childe's political views feature fairly prominently in the article. Are the sources any more explicit about this?
  • Unfortunately, they're not. I've looked at Green's biography of Childe, and it simple says "he felt obliged to keep silent over his disapproval of Government policies in case he prejudiced his chances of the job." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "called towns by their Slavonic rather than Germanic names" this confused me a little. Would this be something like saying Praha instead of Prague or Gdansk instead of Danzig? Saying that Prague is a Germanic name doesn't seem quite right, since Prague and Praha clearly have the same origin (a Slavic origin according to our article). They're just slightly different ways of spelling and pronouncing the same name. Also the name is different in other Germanic languages: Prag in German, Praag in Dutch, etc.
  • Yes, the source gives the examples of "Praha" for Prague, "Plzni" for Pilsa, and "Wroclaw" for Breslau. I've changed the prose to the following: "He further confused his students by consistently referring to the socialist states of eastern Europe by their full official titles, and by referring to towns by their Slavonic names rather than the names with which they were better known in English." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might it be worth mentioning that Lewis H. Morgan heavily influenced Marx?
  • Hmm. I certainly have no great opposition to the idea, but I'm not sure how much this fact would really contribute to the article at this juncture, nor how it could be added to the pre-existing sentence without looking quite clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to revert any of my copyediting you disagree with. There's one thing I was curious about: I added an "it" to "Childe's theoretical work had been largely ignored in his lifetime,[206] and remained forgotten in the decades after his death, although would see..." because it sounded wrong to me. But I think there were several instances where the pronoun was omitted after an "although", so I was wondering if this is a normal expression in British English.
  • I'm no expert on grammar and punctuation and that sort of thing, but I think having no "it" after "although" is fairly standard, at least in British English. Then again, there's nothing at all wrong with having the "it" there either, so I'm more than happy with that addition of yours. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have two more issues, which I guess are more about personal taste. First, I feel like there are a lot of excessive footnotes in the article. I understand that there's a trend towards using an increasing number of footnotes, particularly in FAs. I think this is starting to get a little out of hand and I've never seen this kind of density of footnotes with nothing but source references outside of Wikipedia. I do think that every claim in an article needs a source, but references can be combined and they certainly don't need to be repeated. Since this is in keeping with what is becoming established use on Wikipedia, I'm certainly not going to insist on this, but I'll edit one or two paragraphs to condense the references and you can decide whether to revert my changes or not.

The second issue concerns the weight given to various aspects in the article. I felt like the "Archaeological theory" section could do with a little more context. It starts by mentioning diffusionism, functionalism, and evolutionary archaeology without explaining those terms and, as someone who knows nothing about archaeology, I immediately felt a little lost. The same thing goes for processualism and post-processualism. Maybe those things are too complicated to briefly explain to a lay reader, but if not I think a little more explanation might be useful. I also felt like some of the biographical details were excessive (including those on Childe's personal life), while I would have been much more interested to learn more about his views on archaeology and the results of his research (and maybe a little more about his politics). But, this is probably just a question of personal taste. In any case, despite not knowing anything about archaeology I thought it was an interesting article.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Carabinieri, your comments and time are appreciated. I disagree about the footnotes issue; I'm a heavy footnoter, that is certainly true, but I find that putting in a citation after virtually every statement and sentence saves time later when other editors come in and slap "citation needed" tags onto any sentences lacking them. Better to put the citations in now then have to rummage around for the original sources later. As for the issue of respective weight, I agree that it would be nice to have more about Childe's politics, but to be honest I've been constrained by what the Reliable Sources actually discuss, and none have really gone into great detail on this issue (bear in mind that he didn't actually write and publish on political issues much). Perhaps future publications on the subject will allow the article to be fleshed out more in these directions. As for a greater discussion of diffusionism, functionalism, processualism etc I again think your point is valid. I'm going to have a go at adding a brief explanation of processualism and post-processualism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Gordon_Childe.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • I can't find any evidence that it has been published (at least in print). From what I can gather at the National Library of Australia website, it was taken in the 1930s and no specific first publication is provided. It may well be that the photograph was taken, never published, and placed in the National Library archive until being featured in their online archive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Orkney_Skara_Brae.jpg: what was the question asked of the author to get that response?
  • I cannot locate an appropriate tag, but have added additional information on the original work to the image and an additional tag making clear why the sculpture is covered by freedom of panorama laws in the UK. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maunus

[edit]

I am copypasting my comments from the previous FA which were never responded to before the review was closed. Please let me know if you have already addressed any of my suggestions: A very pleasant and interesting read. The article is clearly well-researched and thorough - I see no POV problems or major omissions. I tweaked some wordings that I found a little too quaint, and made other minor copyedits. The only issue sthat I thought I would want to change is that I think it could be a little clearer in explaining earlier on the difference between culture historical theory (which is diffusionist and particularist in Childe's version) and Marxist theory (which is evolutionist). I think these perspectives ought to be explained in simple language when they are first mentioned. I also think that the article does not allow the reader a clear understanding of how archeology can be Marxist - and what that means. Many might think of Marxism as primarily a political commitment, but Marxism is of course different from most political ideologies in that it also includes scientific theory of history: namely Historical materialism (which probably should be mentioned and linked somewhere in the article). So a descrption of how Marxism and archeology fits together would make the article more helpful for the reader who does not immediately see the connection (namely that Marxism explains historical processes as material and technological evolution that prompts social evolution, and that archeology studies material and technological developments, and therefore can use Marxism to infer social developments from the material developments they observe). This would be my only query: to be more explicit in describing his theoretical views and contributions in plain language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:J Milburn raised similar concerns about the Marxist archaeology section. I'll get onto it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've restructured the section on Marxist archaeology and added a few extra sentences about Marxist archaeology to it. Do you think that those changes are sufficient or do you think more needs to be done? Regarding the discussion of Marxist archaeology in the lede, I'm a little more hesitant to make changes. The lede currently states: "Remaining a committed socialist, he embraced Marxism, and—rejecting culture-historical approaches—used Marxist ideas as an interpretative framework for archaeological data." While it might be possible to add a sentence or so on what Marxist archaeologically actually entails, I think that the lede is reasonably at the maximum length as it is (if I added another sentence it would, for instance, become longer than the FA-rated articles on Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin) and so do not think we could really expand it without cutting something else out. As for the issue of Childe's diffusionism and Marxism's evolutionary focus, the issue is (fairly briefly) dealt with in the "Marxist archaeology" section, where we supply a Childe quote presenting his argument that diffusionism should not be seen as contrary to Marxism. I'm not really sure how to expand on this, because I don't recall any reliable sources going into any depth on this particular issue, although if you had any suggestions I'd be happy to look them up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about either linking "Marxist ideas" to historical materialism or else writing "using the Marxist concept of historical materialism" (or similar). That would help the reader get more out of the lead I think?. I will go on to read your changes to the Marxist archeology section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll add a link to historical materialism, that might help some readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the changes to the Marxist archeology section, and am happy with the link to Historical materialism in the lead. I am happy to support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maunus, should we be bolding your "support" immediately above, or changing your "Comments" heading (either is enough to make clear that you're happy to see the article promoted). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Johnbod

[edit]
  • We have Minyan ware, which is pretty obscure, so I would link it, even in the title of a paper.
  • Oxford University Fabian Society - some sort of branch of the student wing of the main Fabian Society, which should probably be linked. Their history suggests that 1915 was far from "at the height of its power and membership" - they say "the OUFS membership was solid, standing at around one hundred every year throughout the 1900s and early 1910s" but "it’s a terrible shame to see OUFS membership collapse at the outbreak of war in 1914, when clearly its membership were needed for the front. The minutes for 1915 indicate that the OUFS was then merged into the Oxford University Socialist Society." Hmmm.
Ok thanks - I literally hadn't read to the end of the sentence!
  • "the government-imposed conscription" - I added the hyphen, but what sort of conscription isn't imposed by the govt?
  • "served mostly as a centre of radical labourers within existing unions" - isn't "labourers" a bit over-specific? "workers"?
  • "Fuller thought Childe's job unnecessary," maybe, but surely the job was a political appointment one would expect to change when the ruling party does?
  • Perhaps. I'm not sure that such a scenario would conflict with the present wording, though. If there is something here that you think is specifically incorrect then I'm happy to change it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was released when the few archaeologists across Europe were amateur and focused purely on studying their locality" - is this really true for 1925? I don't know, but it seems rather sweeping. If no one else, the museums employed professionals, and the big ones no doubt looked beyond their "locality".
  • I've gone back to Green, which states the following: "... it is necessary to realize that in 1925 archaeology was still widely regarded as an amateur pastime. There was only one Chair of Archaeology in Britain, at Cambridge, and correspondingly few people trained in the methods and literature of archaeology. Nor were museums, other than the British Museum in London, concerned with wider themes than their own localities. The only notably attempt to summarize archaeological research in Europe which pre-dates Childe's was Dechelette's Manuel d'Archeologie, the prehistoric part of which was published in 1908." Given this, I'll make some tweaks to the text in the article to more closely mirror Green's wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the theory that civilisation diffused northward and westward into Europe from the Near East via an Indo-European linguistic group known as the Aryans" - a plethora of possible links here - Indo-European migrations, Corded Ware culture or Yamna culture. Though WP never uses the "A-word" if it can avoid it, versions of the theory are far from dead.
  • "established by deed poll in the bequest of the prehistorian Lord John Abercromby" - no doubt it was, and deed poll explains why this might be so (though one would think a deed poll would need to be done before death) but I'm not sure this rather abstruse point is needed. Strictly he's not "Lord John Abercromby" is he? John, 5th Baron Abercromby maybe, or Lord Abercromby.
  • "Looking into Australian prehistory, he found it a lucrative field for research" - there was money in it? "Profitable" allows a wider meaning.
  • "In the 1950s, Childe was comparing the role culture-historical archaeology among prehistorians to the place of the traditional politico-military approach among historians" - missing word - "had"?

More later Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do use the A-word for the Aryans of ancient India and Iran, who speak Indo-Aryan languages. But yes, we should probably note that the early 20th century use of the word was more similar to Proto-Indo-European than to indo-Aryan.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming - a few links added, ok I hope. No more points, except that ideally it would be good to have more specifics on which of Childe's ideas and interpretations have and have not remained part of current thinking. Tricky, I know, but at present this aspect is nearly all at a high conceptual level. Otherwise, very nice job. All previous points addressed ok. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

I am reading this with great interest, but without expertise so my comments are likely to be superficial. This rather stark sentence in the lead rather pulled me up: "Upon retirement, he returned to Australia's Blue Mountains, where he committed suicide." The main text gives a fuller explanation, but the lead-reader is left somewhat under-informed. You could add slightly with: "...where, apparently in fear of senilty and increasing physical incapacity, he committed suicide." Just a suggestion – I'll have a few more points which I'll post later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • " continued his research into European prehistory " You have only said before that he studied classical archeology.
  • "through various journeys across the continent" Doing what in these journeys? Also it should be Continent when referring to continental Europe. (You could add as below "in order to study prehistoric artefacts").
  • I'm not sure about switching "the continent" to "the Continent"; I know that the latter is sometimes employed in reference to continental Europe, but Childe also spent time traveling in Britain, which is obviously not part of the continental mainland. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the present wording ("pursued his research into European prehistory through various journeys across the continent,") should suffice because we make clear that we are talking about "European prehistory" only shortly before we mention "the conference". We could add "Europe" in there twice but I think that that would probably look clunky and repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reverend Stephen Henry " I think you should give his full name here.
  • "a second-generation Anglican priest" I assume this means that he was the son of a priest, and I think it would be clearer to say so.
  • "strange appearance " What strange appearance?
  • I've changed this to "physical appearance". If you see photographs of Childe, I think it fairly obvious that he doesn't quite fit with conventional beauty standards; indeed, many would probably think him ugly. I'm cautious about actually calling him "ugly" in the main article—beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all—but I think that this point needs to be acknowledged. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Childe worked as a translator " I think you should have details in his early life about his philological training and what languages he knew.
  • I've looked at Green and it doesn't say which languages he was actually translating for Kegan Paul, although the text notes that he independently translated works from French, Italian, and German. As for his basis in philology, it seems that his university theses used philological data but beyond that he did not have any firm training in philology, as far as I can see. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he performed experiments to understand the vitrification process that had occurred at several Iron Age forts " You should link to Vitrified fort rather than glass making.
  • "Regularly travelling to London to visit friends, one notable colleague was Stuart Piggott," This is not grammatical.
  • "he made the decision to commit suicide should the Nazis conquer Britain" This is a bit too strong. I would say he said that he would commit suicide as he might have decided to flee Britain instead.
  • I've double-checked Green's biography. It seems that at this juncture Childe considered suicide specifically to avoid being executed by the Nazis. I'll make some tweaks to the article to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " titular Bronze Age" Why not just "Bronze Age"?
  • "Childe's pessimism surrounding the war's outcome led" I would say "about" rather than "surrounding".
  • The Isokon building is famous and architecturally important. It should be called that not Lawn Road Flats.
  • "the latter being intolerant of the shortcomings of others, something Childe made an effort never to be." I see what you mean, but it could be more clearly expressed.
  • I've gone back to Green and used it to flesh out this sentence as follows: "Childe's relationship with the conservative Wheeler was strained, for their personalities were very different; Wheeler was an extrovert who pursued the limelight, was an efficient administrator, and was intolerant of others' shortcomings, while Childe lacked administrative skill, and was tolerant of others." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1952 a group of British Marxist historians began publishing the periodical Past & Present, with Childe joining the editorial board" This is not quite right. It was launched by Marxist historians, but explicitly involved non-Marxists from the start. See 'Past and Present. Origins and Early Years', P&P 1983.
  • I've changed this sentence to "Childe joined the editorial board of the periodical Past & Present, founded by a group of Marxist historians in 1952." Do you think that that does the trick? I think it important to state that it was a Marxist-started publication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry this somehow disappeared off my watch list. I will return to it shortly but a couple of points first. 1. No reply to my reply on capitalisation of continent. 2. I am not clear that it is justified to call him a philologist. The subject is several times mentioned, but not any contribution he made so far as I can see. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • In his DNB article he is described as a "prehistorian and labour theorist". I am not sure about "labour theorist", but "archaeological theorist and prehistorian" seems more accurate than "archaeologist and philologist".
  • I would agree about "labour theorist"; he only wrote one book on the subject and it wasn't a big part of his wider career. However, I think that calling him an "archaeological theorist" undermines the fact that the did a great deal more than just theory, including various excavations. I don't mind removing "philologist" as it seems his philological studies were restricted to his student career. "Prehistorian", I feel, doesn't really add much given that the lede sentence already states "who specialized in the study of European prehistory." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was barred from entering the country due to his socialist beliefs" I think "due to his support for the Soviet Union" would be more accurate, though this may not reflect the source.
  • "A coroner ruled his death as accidental, although in the 1980s the Grimes letter saw publication, allowing for recognition of his suicide." A bit awkward. Maybe "A coroner ruled his death as accidental, but his death was recognsed as suicide when his letter to Grimes was published in the 1960s."
  • "The prominent processual archaeologist Colin Renfrew described him" I think it should be "described Childe"

Coord notes

[edit]

Midnightblueowl, you planning to respond to Dudley's last comments? Also it looks like you'll need to seek a source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose Oops, yes I'd missed those. Thanks for the heads up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone out there interested in doing a source review? Unfortunately I cannot recall (nor find) the page where one can put out a request for such reviews. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

Hi, it's been here for two and half months. Midnightblueowl, any idea why it's taking so long, second time round, too? I think the question should be resolved soon, don't you? The prose is ok in the lead. But spot checks later reveal that improvements could be made in many places. The main thing to focus on in your writing is economy. Simplify the grammar, trim back redundancies. Continually ask yourself: can I get rid of that, of that, of that? Soon it will become automatised. But it will take time. If this had just been nominated, I'd definitely be saying withdraw, rework, resubmit. A good copy-editor might save this; I'm not going to sift through the whole thing. At this late stage, I'm leaning toward opposing, partly out of disbelief that the writing is STILL not sparkling and clear.

  • "Realising he would be barred from an academic career by the right-wing university authorities". It's very marked, to call authorities rightwing, when at that stage, historically, they were ... well ... authorities, and likely to feel nervous about Marxism. Why not just "by the university authorities"? Comma before "then in opposition to".
  • "Storey became state premier in 1920 when Labor achieved an electoral victory there".
  • "in order to keep the British press updated"—which two words should go? Those urchins appear elsewhere, too.
  • "In May 1923 he visited continental Europe, journeying to the museums in Lausanne, Bern, and Zürich to study their prehistoric artefact collections". So we have "visited" and we have "journeying", within two seconds. Really? Not sure we need the Europe bit: ""In May 1923 he visited museums in ...".
    Agreed and trimmed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • O. G. S. Crawford ... awful spaces. Could you pipe it to O.G.S. Crawford?
  • "and most museums focused purely on studying their locality"—which word could go, without any loss of meaning?
  • "At Edinburgh University, Childe focused on research, and although reportedly very kind towards his students, had difficulty speaking to large audiences; he organised the BSc degree course in archaeology so that it began studying the Iron Age, progressing chronologically backward to the Palaeolithic, confusing many students." Confused. Needs trimming. "though kin to his students, had difficulty ...". But do these two propositions belong in the same sentence? Rather different, aren't they? Do we need a point or a semicolon? What is "it", this thing that was studying? Why did it confuse? All rather opaque.
    I've rewritten this section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I feel for the work you've done. You will get there ... maybe not yet though. Tony (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article has four statements of support; all it's waiting on is a source check and then it should pass without issue. In this situation, it would not be appropriate to terminate the FAC. I think the delay here is that it is a fairly lengthy article on a fairly niche subject matter, and comparatively few editors have the time or inclination to go through it. Perhaps the prose could be trimmed back a little in places, as you suggest, but often meaning and nuance is lost in the process of doing so. In many cases, the use of wording simply appears to be personal taste; some like their text spartan, others favour a little more detail. I'll give the article a read through, however, and act on the specific issues that you raise, where I think that they are appropriate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very poor response. To start with, please don't play reviewers off against each other: bad form, never works. Second, your statement "Perhaps the prose could be trimmed back a little in places, as you suggest, but often meaning and nuance is lost in the process of doing so." shows how much you have to learn about writing. But the fixes you've made are good (I wonder why, then, it's taken until now to identify the glitches—you show you can do it).

"Often attending conferences across Europe, Childe became fluent in several languages ...". – Can you concentrate on identifying illogical wording? Does one gain fluency in a foreign language by attending conferences? That's a weird proposition. And you know he attended (rather than presented papers) from the sources, right?

Please avoid bunched links: If you must, link "Vienna", but not "Austria" too.

"From 1927 through to 1946 he worked as the Abercromby Professor of Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh, and then from 1947 to 1957 as the director of the Institute of Archaeology, London."—please not "through"; and why do you need a sequence tag ("then")? Again, fluff does your writing no good, and when you're poked, you're good at it. I can assure you no "nuances" are lost by removing words that dilute the reading experience (and deflate the impression of the writing).

"Throughout, he published prolifically". Throughout refers to what? You refer to three temporal ranges in the previous sentences.

"He also became a noted sympathiser with the Soviet Union"—does "also" add anything here? No. And "prominent" would be better than "noted" (who did the noting?).

Now I could continue to go through the long text nit-picking to improve it. WP:FAC expects nominators to do that when given the cue by reviewers (especially when you do so well at the rewording). I won't formally oppose, but I'd like to see evidence of a self-driving keyboard in the coming days. Tony (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my reply came across as too blunt; I've had a splitting headache today which has not helped. However, some of your comments ("I think the question should be resolved soon, don't you?", "shows how much you have to learn about writing" etc) are, frankly, more than a little patronising. I'm not claiming to be the world's greatest writer, but with over 25 Features Articles under my belt here at Wikipedia, it is rather insulting to have someone make these sort of claims. I'm not some blundering amateur. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry about the headache, and I hope it recedes. Yes, your reply was blunt. And my comments weren't patronising: they were critical (and contained praise, too). You're taking it personally. "There's no need to get into personal disagreements"—you make it sound as though I am partly to blame. I'm not. Your attitude needs adjustment (other reviewers have supported, I've got a zillion FAs already) ... please drop it. If you put up your work for public comment, you can't complain. Glad you've rethought the kneejerk on "extraneous verbiage". My best. Tony (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, let's leave that by the wayside. There's no need to get into personal disagreements; neither of us benefit from them. I've been through every section of the article and given it a good copy-edit; I think that quite a lot of extraneous verbiage has been removed. In a few instances, I disagree with your specific points; as far as I understand it, the standard practice when writing out the initials of an individual's name is to leave spaces between each initial, for example (i.e. "O. G. S. Crawford", not "O.G.S. Crawford"). However, I think that most of your specific points are very valid and have actioned them. Thank you for taking the time to look at the article and offer your thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get a sense of where we're at now? Midnightblueowl, do you have more editing to do? Tony1, do you want to add further comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for your message. I think that I'm all done here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian and Midnight, I'm ok with the prose. Excellent fixes by the nominator. Sorry to lag in getting back here. Tony (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: As this seems to be holding everything up, I'm recusing as coordinator to do the source review. Just a few nitpicks on formatting. Sarastro (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference 12 should be "Trigger 1980, pp. 9, 32" rather than "p. 9, 32"
  • We're missing a publisher for Hobsbawm
  • For consistency, we need a publisher location for Johnson

Formatting otherwise looks fine. All sources seem reliable, from reputable publishers etc (and seem to be heavily stocked in university libraries, which is always a good sign!) I haven't carried out any spot-checks. Sarastro (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking a look at this, Sarastro! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note: Spotted several duplinks, some of them perhaps justified owing to the length of the article but pls review and rationalise as appropriate; won't hold up promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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