Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2024

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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2024 [1].

Mario Party: The Top 100

[edit]
Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Party: The Top 100 is a 2017 party video game developed by NDcube and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS; it is the fifth handheld game in the Mario Party series, as well as the third and final Mario Party game for the Nintendo 3DS family of systems. I previously successfully nominated this article for GA status just over a week ago for initial suggestions. I tried to model this article after FA Mario Party DS, and although it isn't as long as that for MPDS, I feel that it is well-written and covers all necessary information about the subject. As always, I am willing to hear any feedback and implement it as needed. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
I have added alt text for the infobox image and revised the other file's justification to the best of my ability. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

As the GA reviewer, I believe that some improvement can be made to fit the FA criteria. I will leave comments during this week and perform spotchecks. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The genre in the infobox is already sourced in the prose, and no one disputes this, so I'd recommend removing the reference from the infobox. The same goes for release dates.
  • "Mario Party: The Top 100 is a party video game that mainly serves as a compilation of 100 minigames that were introduced in earlier games in the Mario Party series, namely the home console entries" → "Mario Party: The Top 100 is a party video game that is a compilation of 100 minigames that were introduced in the first ten home console Mario Party games." The reference mentions that the minigames are from the first ten numbered games.
  • The first paragraph already begins with "Mario Party: The Top 100", so you could change the second paragraph to begin with "The game".
  • Link "game modes" to game modes.
  • Ref 9 also mentions that Toad and Toadette guide the player in minigames. This is a primary reference, so try finding a non-primary one. Also not everything in the sentence is backed up by the reference (there are no mentions of rules and the "most of which" part). I'd recommend changing the whole sentence to just "The game offers several game modes, in most of which Toad or Toadette guide the player." if you find a better source. In the other case, cut the sentence to just "The game also features game modes, in which Toad or Toadette guide the player".
  • "In Minigame Match" → "In the Minigame Match game mode"
  • Ref 1 (Nintendo World Report) calls Minigame Match the game's "biggest disappointment". You could possibly add this to the reception.
  • "hold the most coins and Stars" → "collect the most coins and Stars".
  • Specify the last sentence in the second paragraph occurs within the Minigame Match game mode.
  • I don't see "four worlds" being mentioned in Ref 5 (Nintendo Life).
  • "Playing through Minigame Island is required to unlock 45 of the game's 100 minigames" Fails verification.
  • "Championship Battles involves playing three or five minigames from a selected pack, with the player(s) winning the most minigames being declared the winner(s)" Fails verification, though the game mode itself is mentioned in the ref.
  • "Decathlon consists of playing five or ten minigames to earn the most points" Only mentions "number of minigames", not "five or "ten". Please look through other sources and see whether they back up any of these three bullet points.
  • Are four sources really needed for the multiplayer sentence, Ref 1 (Nintendo World Report) and Ref 6 (Destructoid) back this up. Cut the other three refs.
  • What can the user do with the Amiibo compatibility?
  • I've spotchecked the gameplay section. I've listed parts that I could not verify above, but besides that, the majority of the section can be verified.
  • Again, why have 5 references for a simple announcement? Are there any other details from the Nintendo Direct, besides a simple announcement?
  • Were there any reactions on the game's trailer?
  • Primary Ref 4 is not needed, the release date is already backed up by Ref 1.
  • The development and release section is fully verifiable. It's up to you to rename the section to just "Release" because the section, for now, only mentions the announcement, trailer, and release dates. Very little info on the actual game development. If its possible, expand this section pls.
  • Do we need two people agreeing that the game has elements of nostalgia? The Polygon ref itself does not mention the word directly, Destructoid does.
  • Jordan Biordi of Computer Games Magazine is already described in the third paragraph. Change his mention in the fifth paragraph to just Biordi.
Vacant0, I have looked at all of your suggestions, and I believe that I was able to implement all of them. Although I was unable to find a significant amount of information pertaining to the game's development, I was able to find several additional references, including one that verifies the information about the game modes that was previously unsupported by the Hardcore Gamer citation. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at the article in a few days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still FIVE references for a simple sentence: "The game was first announced in September 2017 during a Nintendo Direct". One is enough for the announcement. I do not see any other issues with the article. All of my comments have been addressed (besides the one I just mentioned), so I'll support. Issues with verifiability have also been addressed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As always, thank you for your feedback and support. I have also condensed the five citations to one. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The article has definitely been improved. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse

[edit]

Source review coming in a few days. lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, LunaEclipse. I have taken all of Vacant0's suggestions into account, including finding a source that verifies the previously unsupported information about the game modes. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyshifter

[edit]
  • The first thing I've noticed is that many of the paragraphs in the lead, "Gameplay" and "Development" are very short and could be merged.
  • "in November 2017, and was released in PAL regions and in Japan in December 2017." — why not include the exact date, or the Japanese release date?
  • "However," — why "However"?
  • In "Gameplay" it is not mentioned that the game is a compilation. The first sentence of that section should also mention that it is a party game.
  • "visually and audibly updated" is strange, could be more direct with "received upgraded graphics and audio"?
  • Include "(AI)" after "artificial intelligence", as you use the acronym AI later in the article
  • "most of which are hosted by..." — what does hosting mean?
  • "NPC" should be explained.
  • Link "multiplayer"
  • "3DS download play" should be a proper noun? ("3DS Download Play")
  • "supports Amiibo compatibility" is redundant; should be either "has Amiibo compatibility" or "supports Amiibo".
  • "Development" should be renamed to "Development and release"
  • "in which it was revealed" through the end of the paragraph just repeats what already was in Gameplay, so it should be removed, except that "An overview trailer [was] released the following month".
  • "Less than two months after it was announced" — I don't think this is relevant
  • "The game succeeded Mario Party: Star Rush..." seems unnecessary
  • "Like all Mario Party games from Mario Party 9 onwards" seems unnecessary
  • "Mario Party: The Top 100 was developed by NDcube and published by Nintendo" should be the first sentence of that section, chronologically
  • "(as well as five game boards)" seems unnecessary
  • "though Matt West of Nintendo World Report suggested that the control schemes..." this is not related to "graphical and audio enhancements" and shouldn't be placed here
  • "Even" doesn't seem like a neutral word to use here
  • "As with most entries in the Mario Party series" — is this confirmed by the sources, or relevant?
  • You went with two quotes for the last paragraph of "Critical response"; why give so much emphasis to these? Is it possible to merge them in other paragraphs or paraphrase?
  • The Common Sense Media review should be used if it's in the article.

Skyshiftertalk 18:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions for improving the article. I have implemented most of them and will do my best to explain the rest here:
  • The game was released in PAL regions and in Japan in the same month (December), but not on the same date (December 22 and 28, respectively). "November 2017" is used for the time of release in North America instead of "November 10, 2017" for consistency.
  • "However" is intended to note the difference between the game being a minigame compilation and most games in the series being oriented on board game play. If it would suffice, "Mario Party: The Top 100 is primarily a compilation of 100 minigames from across the series, specifically ones from the home console installments." could be changed to "Mario Party: The Top 100 deviates from the classic Mario Party format in that it primarily serves as a compilation of 100 minigames from across the series, specifically ones from the home console installments." or something to that effect.
  • Two months is a very short period of time between a Mario game's announcement and its release, and to my knowledge, it is one of the shortest spans for a game in the entire franchise, so I feel that this is worth including.
  • Computer Games Magazine's Jordan Biordi does allude to frustration with games throughout the series relying on luck, stating: "It is pointlessly roundabout and in keeping with the series' progress, more reliant on dumb luck than anything you actually did." Additionally, Polygon's Allegra Frank writes: "Mario Party gets a bad rap. Yes, Nintendo's virtual board game can be aggravating — much of it is left up to chance, after all, and it's hard not to feel personally slighted by the random algorithm."
The two quotes at the end of the "Critical response" section are intended to summarize both the game and its impact on the future of the Mario Party series as a whole.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, Skyshifter, are there any other ways in which I could further improve the article, or any suggestions you still want to see implemented? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skyshifter, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I forgot to state my Support. Skyshiftertalk 11:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bowser

[edit]

Concise and to the point, which seems appropriate for a less prominent installment of a long-running series. There are a few instances where I'd like for the text to be just a lil' bit longer to get the relevant points across.

  • Second paragraph of the lead: as a reader I experience a sort of reversal from getting told that it's about the compilation of a 100 minigames, and only then being told that it uses traditional board gameplay. Perhaps it's not even about the reversal but rather that the ensemble of other game modes is not mentioned? With this short of an article lead length is probably a balancing act, but at 172 words I think a few more would be fine.
  • The player earns one Star for every ten coins collected - but how are coins collected/awarded?
  • or a player pops a Minigame Balloon - where/how does the player encounter these?

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the second paragraph of the lead slightly to focus more on the game modes, mentioning that one of them features traditional gameplay from the series. I also specified that coins are earned from playing minigames in the "Gameplay" section. Minigame Balloons are simply encountered on the game board players navigate in Minigame Match, though none of the sources I've come across appear to specify this, unfortunately. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 6 of the game's manual does state that "Landing on different spaces will trigger different minigames or events", so the sentence could be revised to communicate this. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, I'll leave that up to you. No more concerns from me. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2024 (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) 29 September 2024 [2].

Act of Accord

[edit]
Nominator(s): SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most. Accord... it didn't.
Let me know what you think! Many thanks! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What's the benefit of the footers on the multi-images? They seem to duplicate captions
Thanks Nikkimaria, I've linked to the original publication, all PD by now. I have also removed the duplicate footers. They was, as you say, not achieving much. SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

"One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most: sounds like a slightly stretched metaphor for the Tories at the time of Brexit. Have a couple of other things on my plate at the moment, but will be along to look over this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, great analogy! With the rest of the country all looking at em and wondering how much more they can completely balls things up! SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • There are seven uses of "however" in the text, which is probably at least six too many! I've skipped the lead for now, but will finish off with it
Only one 'however' left, in a footnote.
Background
  • Note one seems a bit out of place here. It starts off talking about 'The labels "York and Lancaster"' , when neither of the terms have yet been used in the body.
Indeed. Moved to 2nd para; now note 2.
  • "when a York had won": again, the York-Lancs division hasn't been raised in the body yet, and the reader needs to pre-understand the situation before getting to this. I think a sentence or two explaining why the politics was "partisan and factional" and who was involved in the "intermittent rises in violence and local disorder". It's a background section, so you're allowed to give a bit of potted history for people to understand rest.
Expanded the recent history; always clearly of getting carried away on the old hobbyhorse.
  • "Salisbury marched": A fleeting image of a whole town (houses and all), marching cross country popped into my mind here! Maybe full title and link (plus identification of what side he's on)
Clarified in discussion of Yorkists.
  • "York went into exile": ditto
Ditto.
  • "Warwick and Edward of March": Ditto
Ditto
  • "in Calais": probably best to add that this is in France – not everyone will know it's in a different country to the rest of the action
Done.
  • "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile": I know the tense sits well with the subsequent quote, but the grammar is a little off. "In the nine months following the Yorkists' exile" would be more in line with expectations
Thanks, adjusted.
  • "The Calais lords returned to England in May 1459": Just checking on the date: they returned before they were attainted by the Parliament of Devils?
H'mm Ludlow castle a time machine? Bigger on the inside that on the out?! but changed, just in case it wasn't  :)

More to follow - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

York's claim
  • There's a bit of a mismatch between the text and the tree which jars a bit. The text refers to John of Gaunt who isn't named as such in the tree, but as John, Duke of Lancaster. It took a long moment for me to dredge that up from my memory, and others—particularly who haven't been through the British education system—won't be able to make the connection at all. Same problem for Richard of Conisburgh of the text, who is the tree's Richard, Earl of Cambridge.
Adjusted their titles; added ordinal numbers for York, Lancaster and March, added death dates. Mass complicated table tab
  • " Anne's grandmother, Philippa of Clarence, was the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp": Do we need to know this? I can't see the relevance
No, removed.
  • "argues Brondarbit": who he?
New York comedian and PhD Winchester. Nice bloke. Knows what to do with cold canapes and warm wine.
  • "when he landed": who is the 'he' here? I'm a bit lost in this bit with a plethora of names and a lot of 'he's being used – may need just a bit of a brush up for clarity
Hopefully, some names have been clarified? Replacing 'he'.
  • "says Ross": who?
Linked.
  • "but having been unable to do so": grammar ever so slightly off here. Maybe "but had been unable to do so"?
  • Excellent, thanks.

Next sections and more to come. I can only echo Tim's words that I think this would possibly have done better with a PR first to iron out some of the wrinkles. – SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommencing with some minor tweaks and a support. Once comment, however: you need to decide whether you use King or king, as you have, for example, "The King was weak-willed" and "the king's efforts at reconciliation" running throughout. Consistency would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat, and I appreciate the edits. Well caught! On K/kings, my personal preference—I think an increasingly popular one today—is king for a no name, but King when named. So, e.g., 'the king said', 'the king went', etc, but 'King Henry said' and 'King Henry went'. but do the MOS:HEADS preclude such simplicity in favour of something more esoteric that allows them all to argue for 5,000 words at a time?  ;) I'm not absolutely pro or con any style, just whatever either a) makes it easier for me, or b) what we can all agree on! But I totally agree about consistency. SerialNumber54129 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think user:UndercoverClassicist gave a most succinct and helpful summary of how to turn the precepts of MOS:CAPS into practice, in a comment at another recent FAC: "... if the title stands in for someone's name (so "I met the Pope last Thursday" -> "I met Francis last Thursday"), it's capitalised, so most cases like "the Prime Minister did such-and-such" should be". Tim riley talk 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Tim riley

[edit]

This article is not yet of FA standard: there are too many things wrong with the prose. It would, in my view, have been helpful if the article had been taken to peer review before coming here.

  • "he and Henry were both direct descendents of Edward III"–"descendants" (OED and Chambers recommended spelling).
Absolutely.
  • "York possessed two claims, through both the male and female lines"– but later we say "Unlike the Lancastrian claim, the Yorkist claim on the throne was based upon the female line of descent" – I can't make these two statements square with each other
I've recast that whole paragraph, which hopefully clears things up but also simplifies the explanation?
Much clearer now. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "broke out into open battle, when a York had won a skirmish"– can one have "a York" tout court?
Not that one would want to, certainly!
  • "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile, "the political situation in England had again been transformed" – needs an attribution inline.
Check.
  • "And coming there he walked straight on ..." –unclear why this big quote is given in modern English but the other one – "At which parlement the commones of the reame..." – is in medieval English.
Fair point: it's literally the sources. One transliterated, the other... don't, I'm afraid. I could do it, but at some point, it stops being merely mechanical and starts being original work.
Fair enough. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "York's claim and right to the throne had long been recognised by the Royal council and in law, although it was theoretical until Edward of Westminster had also died childless." –I find this impenetrable. We need either a family tree or a clearer exposition of where the likes of Edward of Westminster fit in to the scheme of things.
Family tree, check.
Excellent! Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Nevilles knew of York's plan prior to his arrival" –"before"?
Done.
  • "Warwick's keenness to disassociate himself with York's plan" – "dissociate" and "from"?
Yes. Odd one that dis/as/sociate, I probably use them synonymously.
  • "the Lords requested that the royal justices examine the matter ...The lords next turned the matter over " – capital or lower case for Lords/lords?
UC for House of, lc for people.
  • "the king's god-given " – the OED prescribes a capital for "God-given".
Done.
  • "Having to achieve popular acclamation, York had to push his case on a strictly legal basis" – Is there a word, such as "failed", missing here?
Quite an important word!
  • "the prince of Wales own patrimony" – possessive apostrophe required
Done.
  • Caption: "Richard of York, a descendent of Edward III's" – spelling ;of "descendant" and do we need the apostrophe-ess?
Check x2.
  • "removal by forceable means"– "forcible" (OED and Chambers)
done.
  • "Having sworn to protect the king's life, York presumably expected the king to do likewise" – doesn't say what I think you mean: not that the king would swear to protect the king's own life, but that he would swear to protect York's.
Changed to "expected the king to reciprocate".
Fine. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Queen Margaret into York's implacable enemy ... became more implacable in their resistance to the Yorkist government" – two implacables in one paragraph? Perhaps "resolute" or some such the second time?
Good choice.
  • "it could also have driven Yorkist loyalists away" – either a different stop before "it" or a capital letter needed.
Semi-c'd.
  • "Margaret could not accept the disinheritance of her son and perhaps encouraged her and her supporters to see York's death as now the only chance of returning Edward" – seems to be a missing word such as "this" after the first "and". And is "could" rather than "would" the correct word?
Both good.
  • "stymied " – jarringly inappropriate word, suitable for 20th-century golf but not for medieval history
Glad to say I've never set foot on a golf course in either century... except in anger perhaps. Changed to 'prevented', although it doesn't convey quite the sense of 'stalled in her tracks'...
"thwarted" perhaps? Just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thwarted is just right.
  • "Henry's supporters who were behind this malcontent" – in modern English "malcontent" means a disgruntled person; the state of being discontented is "discontent".
Thanks.
  • "Rutland was probably probably knifed by Lord Clifford on Wakefield Bridge" – very probably.
Check.
  • "while Salisbury was captured and later executed at Pontefract Castle." – does "while" mean "simultaneously" or just "and"? Needs clarification.
How bout "and Salisbury was captured after the battle, to be later executed"?
Absolutely fine, though just "and" would be fine too, I think. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wakefield was a decisive blow for the Yorkists" – "for"? "to", surely? And as they eventually won, in what sense can it be called "decisive"?
True, it wasn't. Rm 'decisive'. For the other, I went with 'a hard blow to the Yorkists...', but I'm not sure that sounds right either!
If it were my prose, which of course it isn't, I'd say "a severe blow", but as always it's just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Severe, also good thanks.
  • "The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how made them responsible" – missing a word, by the look of it; perhaps "it" after "how".
Indeed.
  • "He was both inept as a ruler – presumably "he" is Henry, but this needs to be clear.
Named Henry.
  • "Refectory.[31]" – I cannot work out the point, if any, of this footnote.
I admit, that was completely bizarre. going back to the source, I realise it was to clarify that the room they were in was their refectory!

That's all for now. Tim riley talk 10:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Tim riley and SchroCat, I have spent much of the last decade carefully fashioning a circle of enemies, rather than friends.
    What happened here was that I forgot about the final—basic, if fundamental—stage of my approach: leave it overnight and do a final copyedit with fresh eyes. Sometimes, the last c/e might be light—typos, dup links, etc.—and sometimes heavy, such as moving stuff around and rewriting for clarity. This had a little of both. Still, Mutandis Mutatis is the cry around the hillside, and both your (much appreciated) comments above, often acting as a springboard to further development, have improved the article on how you would have found it had I not forgotten the final stage. What a palaver, though. Thanks again! SerialNumber54129 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Order, order! I'm not an enemy and nor is our mutual friend Schrocat. We are on your side, but must do our duty as reviewers. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Thanks for your word suggestions, just the ticket. Re the above. Apologies: I don't see you as enemies at all, I was just putting myself down so as to save anyone else the trouble  :) as you say, the duty of the reviewer is sacrosanct. Thanks for your help. SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'll look in again for another read-through soon. Tim riley talk 17:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second batch of comments from TR.

Coming on nicely. Nearly there, I think. A few odds and ends:

  • Lead
  • "They, in turn, were defeated three months later" – "They" presumably being the Lancastrians, but you could make that clear, I think.
  • Done.
  • Background
  • "that it impacted national politics ... Less impactful nationally" – two impacts in close proximity: perhaps change one or the other?
  • "began interfering in government business"?
  • "By 1459 ... despite the king's efforts at reconciliation" – but earlier you tell us that the King had become mentally incapacitated, comatose and unable to recognise his companions. Had he recovered somewhat? If so is there a source for that?
  • Right. Opened the 3rd para of the section explaining that the king recovered his health, and sacked York.
  • York's claim to the throne
  • "the fourth surviving son of Edward Gaunt's younger brother" – I wondered for a moment who Edward Gaunt was, but I think a comma will make your meaning clear.
  • Good spot!
  • "Warwick had met with York in Dublin" – I generally maintain that in BrE (unlike AmE) one meets with things – fate, success, trouble etc, but just meets people, but here I can see that the profusion of geographical labels might be a touch dizzying. I wonder if "Warwick and York had met while they were both in exile in Dublin" might be smoother, but I don't press the point.
  • OK...thanks, firstly for a clear way of remembering that difference. The only thing here that makes me pause is that, while they were both in their exiles, they were exiled to different places—Warwick to Calais, York to Dublin. Thoughts?
Good point (ahem!). Your original wording will suffice, but I wonder if it is necessary to mention the location at all? ""Warwick and York had met while they were in exile..."? I leave the ball in your court. Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Negotiations and the act of Parliament
  • "he bore the Langley arms ... he had never worn the Langley arms" – if he had never worn them in what sense did he bear them? Does this just mean he claimed entitlement to them?

That's my lot, I think. I'll look in again shortly. Tim riley talk 08:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim; all of your suggestions adopted; just the matter of their exiles that's tripping me up a little. SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the recent improvements to the article it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I am happy to add my support. But peer review first next time, perhaps? (Speaking of which—hint). Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Forthcoming within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat - my comments are made with fairly minimal knowledge of the entire War of the Roses, so if I ask something particularly stupid, forgive me (but feel free to say so)

Lead
  • Why was the king absent?
  • No idea; in Berkhampstead, IIRC, bt he'd only opened the blooming parliament three days earlier, and since it seemed a bit of extraneous detail, all mention of his or York's absence is now... absent.
  • "The queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son, although her husband had publicly supported the act." I might swap the clauses here so we flow from king's support to queen's refusal to the next sentence's opener of "she was joined"
  • Thanks, reads much better.
  • I've never heard of Margaret before but I think I love her already.
She was more King than her husband could ever hope to be!
  • What was Henry doing while his wife was raising hell? Might be worth mentioning in the lead
Well, he's still in London; he was still king, but York and the Nevilles were running the government. He was a catspaw.
  • "was crowned King Edward IV" - when? Right then, or later?
Dated.
Background
  • I recognize that the situation is complicated, but this article is ~3500 words and the background is ~1100. The section about York's claiming of the throne is another 500. That's just shy of half the article all together just to set the scene, before the Act even comes up. Is it possible to condense any of these details?
Aaghh :) would it be OK, and the comradely act of a fellow editor, to throw SchroCat under the bus at this point ("Miss! It was his fault! He made me do it!")... I may have taken his suggestion of expanding the background too literally. I guess some words probably can be cut; can I take a deeper look into this point.
We'll have to cut his catnip rations for sure. No worries though, I realize I'm kind of being a hypocrite here, complaining about the length and then asking for several clarifying points :P
  • "heir to the throne until 1453" - what changed?
Hh and the queen did their duty  :)
It is embarrassing to admit that "queen had a baby" genuinely didn't come to mind.
  • "the maintenance of God's Peace" is "God's Peace" a specific notion distinct from just "peace", or would "peace" suffice?
Of course, absolutely.
  • Henry was utterly incapacitated in 1453, but in 1455, he's able to raise a great council. When did he recover?
I think my clarification to Tim above (his 2nd trance, 2nd point under 'Background') might cover this; he asked something similar. Can you see if it's satisfactory to you too?
Looks good to me
  • "King Henry was captured by the Yorkists after the battle" later he's taken prisoner again. when did he get let go?
Clarified that it was only for a couple of months.
  • Both pairs of images are so tiny, I think you could safely make them bigger
Done. Yes, much better.
  • "Henry Bolingbroke" who
Glossed him in that sentence.
York claims the throne
  • The lead mentions that the king is absent when York makes the claim, but the body doesn't establish this (was the king still a captive at this time?)
see above, re. absenting.
I can see it being removed in the lead, but in the body of the article, not addressing where the king was during this moment really begs the question of why he didn't object to someone else strolling up and calling dibs on his chair
  • This whole second paragraph is giving me just the worst secondhand embarrassment for York, it's like a Blackadder bit
Totally. Thought of the theme song at the time! "His great grandfather was a king / if only for 30 seconds" :D
  • "York appears to have had Henry removed from his lodgings" - was the king still a prisoner or how did he do this?
Not really, they were the royal apartments, which York threw henry out of so he could live there. Nice attitude!
Negotiations
  • Double checked Ross and Ross says he never bore the Clarence arms, so I've corrected that
Thanks again.
  • "The resulting compromise was modelled on the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, which it mirrored;" "modelled on" feels redundant to "mirrored", I think we could pick just one
"The resulting compromise mirrored the 1420..."
  • "York's political opponents could now legally be classed as traitors" this is likely a question from ignorance, but how did the Act give him this power?
Not at all. Clarified, hopefully, that it had always been treason to attack the heir to the throne, and now that was York, it applied to him.
  • "The Act of Accord neither stopped the civil war..." - the second half of this sentence feels redundant to the first (mainly "nor resolved anything"). I see what you're doing, stylistically, but I don't see what it adds to the reader's understanding
Duly cut.
  • "If she had been looking" - this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself
Yes, verbose. Have tweaked.
Aftermath
  • Same question as in the lead - where is Henry while Margaret is raising hell?
Still in London 'supporting' York's government...
  • "Henry was accused of breaching the act long before that date" - in what way?
point. Have clarified what Henry was now accused of in breach of the act (and, I imagine, his coronation oath).

Okay, that's what I've got on first read-through. Again, I apologize for any questions that arise out of ignorance of English history, although I hope an outsider's perspective is helpful in terms of spotting things that may feel obvious to a more knowledgeable person. No rush on responses, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: That's a great review, really helpful. To be honest, an outsider's review can be the most useful because that's 99% of the readership, I guess. Also, you hit (annoyingly!) on broad themes along with prose. I think I've addressed your points—all improvements—except where I'm sharpening a penknife! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good to me, there's just the background section and the question of the king's status during York's throne-touching incident that remains. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the few days' grace, Premeditated Chaos. I had another look and reduced the backgound section by 25%. I've also added a couple of sentences on what Henry was (not!!!) doing or thinking while this was going on. It's very vague, unfortunately. With no thought at all for the 21st-century historian, contempories didn't seem interested in what people weren't doing, only in what they were doing  :) but this should help clarify things a bit. Thoughts? SerialNumber54129 13:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick re-read and I think all of my concerns have been addressed. The top half of the background I think is much better in terms of setting the stage for someone with minimal knowledge. Happy to support this one! (Unbelievably rude of people to not have been thinking of Wikipedia editors when they were writing stuff down in the 1400s, we should put in a complaint)
By the by, unrelated to my support, I have another McQueen collection at FAC. I found your commentary on The Hunger very helpful; if you have the time and interest to have a look at this one, I'd be very grateful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the review and support, PMC; I enjoy your McQueen articles and will be happy to look in! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

Lead

What does this sentence mean?

Following much discussion—in which the king's serjeants-at-law and justices claimed that under the act, Henry was to retain the crown for life, but York and his heirs were to succeed him.

Background

In Late Medieval England, strong kings were seen as essential to sound governance and the maintenance of God's Peace.[5] Likewise, weak government was perceived as encouraging the collapse of law and order, and contemporaries saw this as happening in the last years of Henry's reign.

"Likewise" isn't right here. I'd just make a longer sentence and use "and".
Done.

York's claim to the throne

Warwick had met with York in Dublin while in their respective exiles.

Would "...while they were both in exile" be better?
Done.

York claims the throne

"When York entered London, he had his sword, and the Arms of England, born aloft before him, rather than the traditional Mortimer quarterings, emblazoned on his trumpeters' banners, in the manner of a king." I'm lost by the end of that sentence. What does it mean?

It was rather turgid! I've turned it into a couple of shorter sentences now?

Parliament

"Forty years later, the Act of Accord similarly decreed that Henry would retain the throne for his life, but that on his death, instead of descending to his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, it would do to York or York's heirs." "Do to" sounds awkward. I would reword this.

Done.

Aftermath

"Elsewhere in the country, events necessitated urgent government intervention. In Scotland, James II had captured Roxburgh Castle and was poised to march on Berwick." Scotland and England are different countries and were all the more so in the 15th century.

Blush!

"The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how it made them responsible for the civil war, became a mantra of Yorkist propaganda until the end of the dynasty in 1485." A mantra is something else. Would "theme" be a better word here?

Absolutely.

John (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking in, John, and for the suggestions. I've actioned them all—with a guilt trip for doing to Scotland in a couple of keystrokes what Edward I couldn't do in 30 years... SerialNumber54129 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. Any objections if I just take a general hack at the prose? As others have pointed out, it isn't quite there yet. John (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia anyone can hack at, John  :) SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I'm owed that for spotting the England/Scotland thing. Still smarting from the Euros... John (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and please carefully inspect my edits to ensure I have not inadvertently changed any meaning. There may be one or two other bits and pieces, but those were the issues that were jumping out at me. John (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No John, that all looks good to me and reads nicely. Can't believe I never even mentioned the Wars of the Roses! The Homer Simpson of FAC, after all... SerialNumber54129 17:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, not at all, it's an excellent and well-written article, it just needed a little polish. Still ok? John (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks John, appreciated. SerialNumber54129 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: you should not ask; it is an impossibility. John can neither support nor oppose and to ask is infamia. The important thing is, the article underwent solid improvements and, as a result, the project wins. Thanks to all who took part on this page. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 20:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The page range of #21 seems pretty large. Is Boardman, A. and Boardman, A.W. the same author? Is there a logic behind some sources having an ISBN and others an OCLC? Regarding "The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community." there seems to be a 1987 and a 2002 edition, or is that just Google Scholar acting up? A similar question about "Historical Writing in England: c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century". "Shadow King: The Life and Death of Henry VI" seems to be seldom cited in the wider world. Does "The House of Lords in the Middle Ages: A History of the English House of Lords to 1540" have a publisher? Seems like we are using major publishers, although I can't speak much about completeness or the authors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JJE, taking your queries in turn:
  1. Ha! Especially as the book is <200 pages long in total. A couple of other numbers fell in there; now corrected.
  2. Boardman: yes. I tend to go by what's on the actual book I'm using, so sometimes just Andrew, sometimes A. W. Consistency is good though, so changed to the latter.
  3. ISBNs: Well, since they've only been in common use since the late 70s, WorldCat ascribes an OCLC number to works predating this, a form of digital object identifier for books and journals I guess, available from Worldcat (I pass no comment on the fact that Worldcat is owned by, err, OCLC inc; no COI there, then, even though Wikipedia treats Worldcat as gospel!). In this case, you'll see that only the pre-70s books (Armstrong, Bellamy, Brie) use OCLCs, the rest are journals.
    I'm sure this is pretty much standard practice at FAC these days, isn't it, using OCLCs to predate ISBN? Apologies @FAC coordinators: if I've been doing it wrong all this time.
    • Strictly speaking I'm answering from FA editing experience as opposed to FAC coord knowledge but I think in this case it amounts to the same thing. I’ve long employed OCLC for books that have no ISBN, and it's always met with everyone's approval. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good reason, but when I see inconsistencies, I generally query them unless the reason for the inconsistency is obvious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given-Wilson: Indeed, acc. Worldcat it's been reprinted several times, although not necessarily revised; I used the 1987 edition because it's the one that I bought when it came out, and I'm still lugging the tatty thing around since :)
  5. Gransden vol. II: Pretty much ditto; although, per WorldCat again, there have been several printings between 1982 and the present day. I use the 1996 printing of vol. II.
  6. Sacked Johnson; not sure what I was thinking of. There's a Winter King] by the highly reputable RS Thomas Penn, on Henry VII; could've been that. Anyway, I replaced it and tweaked the language accordingly.
  7. Enoch: yes, both publisher and location now filled. It's odd that the script didn't highlight it for me, though.
Thanks for looking it over, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Hopefully, all your points are clarified/addressed. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 17:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus is this a pass for you now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shushugah

[edit]

Hello Serial_Number_54129, a delightful article on a topic I know very little about. And a very accessible rewad, despite all the number of people.

  • Although her husband had publicly supported the act, the queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son. In this, she was joined by the majority of the English nobility, who also opposed York. -> explicitly state who her Husband is and change to their son unless there's a good reason.
    Agree with both—done.
  • Wiki link Yorkist government with House_of_York
    Done.
  • Wiki link the queen with Margaret of Anjou
    Done (sort of); I thought it was unfair that all the men were first-named (Henry, Richard etc) but she was just a noun! So linked her directly.
  • Include pages where it's part of a larger book, e.g Horrox SFN
    I'm guessing this is her ODNB article (and so also Pollard and Watts). It has something to do with the template; even though the version used is online, it presents it like a book. So it appears to need a page range but actually doesn't have one. And I got bored some years ago—as I think others did!—of fighting the bot that would randomly come along and regularly change it  :)
  • The diagram is incredibly helpful and I wish more articles had them. Relying on colors is not super accessible (for both screen-reader users and non users). That said, I still noticed color mismatches. I would replace the color maps {{Cyan|Light blue}} with {{color|#0eacf8}} and {{blue|Dark blue}} with {{color|#047cb6}}. See the corresponding color coded examples for matching dark blue light blue?. The red/black are matching as is. I need to think more what is best way to make them accessible. Perhaps also corresponding border styles (dotted, dashed, thickness) etc...
    Thanks for the kind words! the table was kind of fun but also a complete PITA considering I haven't got a technical bone in my body. I've replaced the light blue with Purple as a possibly temporary measure; but if you have any further suggestions along the lines you propose I'd appreciate hearing them! ACCESS hasn't, I'm afraid, embedded itself in the general FAC mindset yet.
  • Is York Protector, Lord Protector and Protector all referring to same title? If so, use full name the first time instead of third time
    Done.
  • Change Further readings to External links per MOS:LAYOUT
    The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away  :)
  • Thanks very much for looking in, Shushugah, a very pleasant surprise. Thank you, too, for your comments, which are appreciated. I've actioned them, except where I've explained otherwise. And I'm interested in your suggestions re. the chart. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 12:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 giving this a final round of reviews. I always find a few days in between helps me catch stuff I missed the first time round.

  • Replace This began systematically destroying York's and the Nevilles' Yorkshire estates with This began the systematic destruction of York's and the Nevilles' Yorkshire estates
    Done.
  • Lede can be shortened from son Edward, Earl of March, who was crowned King Edward IV on 28 June 1461 to son was crowned King Edward IV on 28 June 1461. We don't need his original title in the lede.
    Done.
  • Either italicize The Brut Chronicle in the quote, or remove The here
    Adjusted (although per the actual page name, not what I had previously guessed it to be).
  • suggest replacing had not attended and so argued that they did not consent to the act and nor were they bound by it with had not been in attendance, and thus had not consented to the act, nor were they bound by it
    This is slightly more tricky: "nor were they bound by it" sounds a definitive statement being given in wikivoice, whereas the source is more ambiguous: "...and could not be regarded as bound by [the act]". Perhaps a direct quote would better represent the opinion of a single historian.
  • I made accessibility adjustments to the graph. Still not exactly screen-reader accessible. Am thinking of ideas there
    Open to any improvements, of course.
  • What is the sort logic for orders of certain pairs? e.g (Philippa/Edmund Mortimer), (Henry Bolingbroke/Earl of Derby) and (Henry VI/Margaret of Anjou)
    Could you clarify, please? Basically, the first listed is the the relevant descendant. So, regarding Philippa and Edmund, she was the daughter, he merely her husband; Henry VI likewise the son of his father and Margaret, his wife; and to be honest, I can't see how Henry IV (an only (surviving) son) is a pair at all unless you mean his titles?
  • Haigh, P. A. and Haigh, P. not consistent in Works Cited
    Done.
  • Lewis, K. J is out of order ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well spotted, she got lost amid the Laynesmiths.
  • Thanks Shushugah, and no worries about waiting. If I were in a rush, I would have given up years ago  :) Thanks for these suggestions, I've got a couple of queries but nothing drastic. Thanks again, SerialNumber54129 20:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this nomination, even though there is no deadline 🎉 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much Shushugah, I appreciate your comments and edits, especially around MOS:ACCESS. If you've got any suggestions for my replies above, I'd like to implement them, but it's up to you, of course. Cheers! 🍻 SerialNumber54129 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

SN, can you add sourcing for the family tree? If everything was also in the text and sourced there I wouldn't ask but not every member/relationship is, e.g. Philippa of Hainault. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Rose, is this what you were thinking, or a footnote? (Apologies for miscapitalising your name there.) Thanks for the suggestion! SerialNumber54129 13:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, tks. FTR, this was part of my coord-y pre-promotion checks, which I'll continue later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing... Most quotes are attributed, and some that aren't seem fine as is, but:

  • "take the full part" with York -- perhaps just paraphrase?
  • "find ... all such things as might be objected and laid against the claim" -- is this actually Henry, or the source?
  • "through the sinister labours of persons intending the king's destruction" -- said who?
  • "unrest, inward war and trouble, unrightwiseness, shedding and effusion of innocent blood, abusion of the laws, partiality, riot, extortion, murder, rape and vicious living" -- said who?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2024 [3].

You Only Live Twice (novel)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bond novel You Only Live Twice was written when Fleming was at a low point in his life - court cases, health issues and ongoing unhappiness in his marriage - and he was running out of energy and enthusiasm for writing more stories. The novel itself is largely taken up with travelogue descriptions of Japan and its culture, and the main element within it – Bond v Blofeld – only takes up around 30 pages at the end. This has been through a re-write recently and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • It was the last novel published Fleming in his lifetime
  • Eon Productions James Bond film series - Can a way be found to avoid the sea of blue?
    It's only two together, and avoiding it would mean either a lot of pointless words or semantic twisting; both would leave it reading awkwardly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In note b): On Her Majesty's Secret Service continues the story from On Her Majesty's Secret Service
  • Bond exacts revenge on Blofeld in a duel, Blofeld armed with a sword and Bond with a wooden staff - Can "the former" and "the latter" be used to avoid repeating the names?
  • Why does Books and Bookmen link to Hansom Books if there's an article for it?
    When I first wrote this article, there wasn't a page for B&B - thanks for spotting the page. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fleming wrote to his friend, Richard Hughes, the Far Eastern correspondent of The Sunday Times - I feel the first comma is not needed.
  • Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker, considers the novel - No need for that comma either.
  • Charmian was the forename of Fleming's cousin who married his brother Richard - If there are more cousins, maybe "the Fleming's cousin who married his brother Richard"; if that was the only one, then "Fleming's cousin, who married his brother Richard", with the comma.
    I think this is probably okay as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blofeld's name is taken from comes from Tom Blofeld
  • So much of the book is taken up with the description that the literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek describes the work as a "semi-exotic travelogue" - Given that we have "description" already there, can a verb different to "describes" be used? Deems, maybe?
  • Fleming's two companions on his trip, Richard Hughes and Tiger Saito became - A comma is missing.
    All done down to here, except where I've commented otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things:

  • The theme of Britain's declining position in the world is also dealt with in conversations between Bond and Tanaka, Tanaka voices Fleming's own concerns about the state of Britain in the 1950s and early 60s - I feel there's something missing after the comma. Maybe an "in which"?
  • Duval Smith believed that "the background is excellent ... Mr. Fleming has caught the exact 'feel' of Japan", - It should end with a full stop rather than with a comma.
  • Maggie Ross, in The Listener, was also a little dissatisfied - That reads a bit weirdly, given that the previous critic was not dissatisfied.
  • I think it's a bit odd how Maurice Richardson's opinion is cut in half by another paragraph.
    There are a few people who have their reviews in more than one place - I've tried to deal with the reviews more or less by themes, rather than grouping by individual reviewer. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Alavense. All done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses. It was a nice read and I think the article meets the criteria. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:You_Only_Live_Twice-Ian_Fleming.jpg: source link is dead
Thanks Nikkimaria; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I commented at some length at the peer review, with, on the whole, minor quibbles. All my comments were thoroughly attended to, and after another read-through now I have no further comments, and am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 14:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Incoming! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It feels strange to describe the book as the "concluding chapter of the "Blofeld Trilogy"" before we establish who Blofeld is, all the way at the end of the paragraph
  • "critics were more muted in their reactions, generally delivering mixed reviews of the novel" feels somewhat redundant
  • I really do treasure the names in Bond novels, they just don't make 'em like that anymore
  • "You Only Live Twice giving Bond" - I think a comma between Twice and giving
  • "Fleming based his novel in Japan..." the sentence has "visit" twice. The last clause is a little redundant - you could safely open with "after a three-day visit to Japan in 1959" or something similar
    • Alternately, you could leave the first two clauses alone and split the third into a new sentence where you also introduce the journalists earlier: "He was accompanied on his three-day trip by two journalists: Hughes and Torao "Tiger" Saito"".
  • not sure you need both "accompanied and guided" either way
  • "The Anglicist Christoph Lindner notes that Fleming, through Bond, parallels Blofeld with Caligula, Nero and Hitler" - how does he do this through Bond?
  • "hat this exemplifies Blofeld's actions as being on "a titanic scale", as was much of the criminal action throughout the Bond series.[42] Lindner continues that the crimes perpetrated are not against individuals per se, but entire nations or continents." - this might flow better if it were together, since the "titanic scale" is the fact that his crimes are against entire nations. I might split the sentence after "Hitler" and then combine the titanic scale bit with this bit
  • "and only meets threat when" - could be tightened to "except when...", which also loses the second use of "threat" in one sentence
  • "western viewpoint" but "Western tropes"? capitalisation should be consistent. MOS says you're allowed to make minor typographical fixes to quotes, so you should be safe to de-cap it here
  • "on episodes, that are" lose the comma here
  • Did anyone comment on the fact that Howard asked for en "epicanthic eye" - presumably an Asian person's eye - and got a toad instead?
    Not in the sources, if they did. (The Man with the Golden Typewriter has much of his correspondence, but the change is not mentioned in there, for example). - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels odd to mention the page count under "Style" but not under "Publication history"
    Slightly odd, but I think we need to show how much of the book is taken up with travelogue. I would have put the figure in the Publication history (as I have with the US printing), but it seems redundant to repeat the information. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done down to here with these edits. Happy to hear if you have any more. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, is it 260 pages or 212? Iles and the infobox say 260, but Style section says 212
    I think that's the edition he was using at the time. The first edition was 256 pages (I've corrected the IB), and as it's different to the Style number, I've now added it to the Publication section too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the link to The Bookman (London) is correct - it says it ceased publication in 1943, but this book came out in the 60s
    Tweaked - it was Bookman (the journal of the Book Society), rather than The Bookman, the standalone magazine. - SchroCat (talk)

Actually, that's all I have for the rest of it. The other changes look solid to me. I'm a support, the remaining two comments are minor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PMC: I've made some tweaks for the last couple of points too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll try to review this over the next few days. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • " but also managed to fit in a trip to a geisha house" - why "also", since this seems to have been part of his original plans?
  • Blofeld's actions—like many of the criminal activities in the Bond series—were on "a titanic scale.[42] - missing a closing quotation mark
  • There's the above statement and also " Lindner continues that the crimes perpetrated are not against individuals per se, but entire nations or continents", but this doesn't seem to square with Blofeld's primary nefarious activity in this novel being running an assisted suicide operation
    I've tweaked this slightly to remove one of the quotes, but it's the 'mass market' death I think he is getting at here, although it's not spelled out in a nice bite-size, ready-to-use quote that can be dropped in. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first 112 pages—in a book of 212 pages—" - the book is elsewhere stated to be 256 pages long. I wonder if this would be better presented as a rough proportion, given the variation in book length with editions
    I've reworded to stress it was an edition held by that source. Does that work? (I think it's better than saying 'over half', but I'm happy to go with that if you prefer). - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping for now; will resume with the Themes section. Hog Farm Talk 23:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "co-operative relationship between Bond and Leiter in the earlier books" - who is Leiter?
  • "as at 2024, has never been out of print." - I'm unconvinceed that the cited source of Worldcat search results really supports this

I think that's all my comments. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. All dealt with in these edits. Happy to go over anything you disagree with, or anything new you have to comment on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not a huge fan of the handling of the "never been out of print", but I'm not going to quibble over something that minor very much. I'll go ahead and support. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]

Let's have a looksie.

  • He based his book in Japan after a stay in 1959 as part of a trip around the world; his experience was published as Thrilling Cities. - Is Thrilling Cities important enough for the lede mention?
    I think so. It's only a brief reference and omitting it seems a bit wrong, somehow. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • critics were more muted in their reactions, with many critical - any chance of using a synonym for "critical", given critic is only a few words ahead of it?
  • Instead, Tanaka asks Bond to kill Dr. Guntram Shatterhand, who operates a politically embarrassing "Garden of Death" of poisonous plants in a rebuilt ancient castle on the island of Kyushu; people visit the grounds to commit suicide - Feels a bit awkward. What about "Instead, Tanaka asks Bond to kill Dr. Guntram Shatterhand, who operates a politically embarrassing "Garden of Death" in a rebuilt ancient castle on the island of Kyushu; people visit the grounds, replete with poisonous plants, to commit suicide."
  • the matter was complicated by the presence of the royal arms - Worth having a footnote as to why?
  • It was written in January and February 1963 in Jamaica at Fleming's Goldeneye estate. - You detailed his time in Goldeneye two paragraphs previously. Is it worth moving the pertinent information up there?
  • The original manuscript was 170 pages long and of all Fleming's works, it was the one that had least revisions prior to publication. - This feels like it might be more at home in paragraph immediately preceding.
  • Who was Monique Panchaud de Bottens?
    It's covered in the first para of the Inspirations section - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hughes was also the model for "Old Craw" in John le Carré's The Honourable Schoolboy. - Would this be better in a footnote?
  • They managed to undertake all the events, except the sumo match, but they managed to fit in a trip to a geisha house, where Fleming's attendant geisha, Masami, served as the inspiration for Trembling Leaf, a geisha in the novel. - This is a preponderance of subclauses. Perhaps split the sentence a bit?
  • In writing from his western viewpoint for a western audience, Hatcher considers that the novel "is a comprehensive anthology of western tropes and stereotypes about Japan". - Perhaps "Being written from a western viewpoint ..."? "In writing" might be read as Hatcher taking the western viewpoint. Or maybe even "He considers the novel, having been written from a western viewpoint for a western audience, to be "comprehensive anthology of western tropes and stereotypes about Japan".
  • Benson sees an increased use of imagery to reinforce this approach, to give an effect which is "horrific, dreamlike and surrealistic". - Does he provide any specific examples?
    Unfortunately not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning that Irma Bunt escapes?
    She doesn't (or at least her death is left unsaid). Bond knocks her out in the castle, which subsequently explodes. She is a sort of 'Schrodinger's villain' at that point, as she could potentially both have escaped, or died - the latter being more likely in Fleming's world, but not in the mind of a continuation writer. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aki hasn't been introduced at the time of her first mention; was she created for the film?
    Yes - now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • seeking revenge on the person who killed his partner by strangling him and defeating the main villain of the story and destroying his "garden of death" on a private island between Russia and Japan - This feels a bit like a run-on sentence. Is it possible to rework the summary a bit? For example, this implies that the person who killed his partner and the main villain are different; that may be worth making more explicit.

Overall, your usual splendid work.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, great to see your name pop up on my watchlist again. I've covered all these (except where commented on) in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

Support from HAL

[edit]

All of my comments surround superifical prose nitpicks, most of which you can take as non-crucial suggestions:

  • Maybe change "ten books of the Bond series" to the more concise "ten Bond series books" or "ten Bond books"
    It’s slightly wordier, but I think the current version is the stronger one. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The original manuscript was 170 pages long" - "long" is redundant
  • Could the circuitous "undertook some further work on" be replaced with something like "further revised" or "further polished"?
  • I am not sure if it can be improved but the sentence starting "Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker..." is very choppy, being separated by five commas.
  • Maybe revise "Fleming took the elements... and added them to" to the more concise ""Fleming added the elements... to"
  • If it's not too ungainly, could you specify when Thrilling Cities was written or published?
  • For clarity, could you specify that Boodle's is a gentleman's club?
  • Maybe wikilink Ginza
  • Should "Sybilline" be lowercase?
    I don’t think so, as it relates to a connection to one of the Sibyls. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like either way is correct. I'll yield. ~ HAL333 12:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of using present tense to describe the analysis of deceased critics/historians, as with "Umberto Eco considers the character...". It's especially inconsistent as you use the past tense for critics later on (e.g. In The Guardian, Francis Iles wrote).
  • "The critic for The Spectator" — why not mention his/her name?
    Like the review in The Times, the name of the reviewer isn’t given. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 19:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

You know, I am pretty sure I've seen these sources in a different source review. Jon Gilbert can probably be linked in some of the sources. Is "Macintyre, Ben (2008). For Your Eyes Only" the title of the book or of a review or something? Because some of the stuff sourced to it is analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. I would probably specify what The Times we are talking about. Save for using ISBN and OCLC alternatively, it seems like the source formatting is consistent and the sources used reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jo-Jo. I'll go over the other articles and link Gilbert. Macintyre is a book (it's in the book section and has an ISBN). There is only one The Times of any note, so I think we're safe as is. The ISBNs are used when the book is published with one (post-1967(ish) publications); anything older that wasn't published with an ISBN has an OCLC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to the sourcing (I spot-checked a few quotes too), I kinda wonder if the "critical reception" section is a bit too reliant on quotes. I've seen other "reception" sections in other FACses that led to the nominations failing for not meeting prose requirements and the nominator being pointed to Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, but I don't normally review reception sections so I wouldn't know if this one has problems. Mike Christie, I recall you noting such problems on other FAC nominations; what say you? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through the reception section and I see what you mean. SchroCat, would it be possible to extract some summarizing statements for each paragraph and use that to reduce the direct quotes a bit? From eyeballing it I think it's over fifty percent quotes at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will trim some of them slightly, but as they all say different things, or focus on slightly different aspects in different ways, I don't want to remove too much or rely solely on one or two per para - that starts putting too much emphasis on my personal choice of what I think is a 'nice' quote, and not enough on what the reviewers themselves have said. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few that I think could be easily combined via some variation of "several reviewers said" -- the first three quotes in the last para are all positive, for example. But it sounds like we have different ideas of what a reception section should do -- I think it should function as a summary of the reception, so that the reader comes away with a general idea such as "most critics didn't like it and several thought it was one of the weakest Bond novels, with criticism focusing on the implausible threats and ... Those who did like it commented on ...". The reception section as you have it does give a reader the information, but the reader has to assemble the overall picture themselves. I think we provide the reader better service if we do that work and use quotes as illustration of those points. I also think that doing it that way pushes the paragraphs towards a more thematic organization, which I think is beneficial -- for example the third paragraph starts with positives but finishes with negatives again. That makes for a less coherent reading experience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already (broadly) thematically organised and it already functions as a summary of the reception. I don't have an issue with having a paragraph which contains both positive and negative reactions and I disagree that it's not a coherent reading experience: this work divided critics and the reviews show that. I'm not going to group paragraphs by whether a review is positive or negative on a specific point, but cover all the views on a particular aspect. I've already said that I'm going to do some trimming, and will do so shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention this is done. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had to think about this for a bit before responding. I've opposed in the past over reception sections that have this many quotes, but I'm not going to oppose here, for a couple of reasons. One is that other than the quotes, I think this is a well-written section; we disagree about the right way to structure these sections but I can't say your way is badly written. In addition, I trust your writing judgement; you're one of the nominators at FAC whose judgement of prose is good enough to give me pause when we disagree. (And I can't support because I haven't read the whole article.)
When I wrote WP:RECEPTION, I asked at FAC if it would be fair for me to oppose an article, citing it. What I think I'll do now is wait till this FAC is over (to avoid unfairly targetting it) and then post a note at WT:FAC asking others to comment on RECEPTION's recommendation to cut down quotes, and cite this article as a possible counter-example. I don't think a general principle is likely to emerge from such a discussion, but I'd like to hear other opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MSincccc

[edit]

Support from Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, I'm glad I finally found a bit of time to check the article on my fave Bond novel. If it's in large part a travelogue, so be it, it was the first work that made me long to visit Japan, and I wasn't disappointed. Plus Bond's humour and cynicism make it easily his best characterisation IMO. Anyway, to the main stuff:

  • Copyedited a bit but most of the heavy lifting has been done, let me know any concerns.
  • I note the above comments re. the reception section but evidently some trimming has occurred because I didn't find it terribly overburdened with quotes, those remaining generally seem useful enough to justify their presence.
    To be fair, I did cut some of the quotes out to reduce it down to what there is there now, but I’m heartened to hear you say I’ve stopped at about the right point. - SchroCat (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing I thought you might alter is to merge the Times reviews, which occur at the top of the section and towards the end. I assume we're talking about the same review after all?

Well done as usual, looking forward to TMWTGG. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2024 (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) 27 September 2024 [4].

Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh was a BBC radio comedy starring Kenneth Horne and Richard Murdoch; it was one of the shows that built up Horne's reputation prior to his great successes with Beyond Our Ken and Round the Horne. This has been through a re-write in 2022 and a recent brush-up and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk - 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Much-Binding-Sketch-1948-small.jpg: the unique historic images tag is generally only used where the image itself, rather than what is being depicted, is the subject of commentary.
It seems entirely pukka to me: DBaK has transcribed a tune into the Western musical stave. I had a go earlier, but DBak as a professional musician has polished my attempt into proper musical notation. Tim riley talk 14:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the points all addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A transcription would at the least be a derivative work - it's copying a creative work that already existed, rather than creating something entirely novel. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions for tag invited. Tim riley talk 16:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do we know about the circumstances of composition? Would it have been considered a work for hire? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn’t have been considered as such by the writers or the BBC, as WFH is an American concept, not a British one. - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I'm a bit stumped on what to do about this one: any suggestions? - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, you'd be able to make a fair-use claim since it's such a short excerpt. But I don't have enough information to say much of use beyond that. Is anything more known about the history beyond what's in the article? It's mentioned Short wrote it down in score - was this published at some point? Do we know to what extent Torch "polished" Horne's original idea? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, the Fair Use route seems to me the way to go. We don't know how much Torch altered Horne's original hummed tune (probably at most the note values, rather than the actual notes, I imagine, but I don't know) and I've never seen it in print (or I wouldn't have got it wrong when I had first go at transcribing it), and it isn't listed as published in WorldCat. Tim riley talk 09:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was published at some point and still comes up for sale on the second hand market (see this by way of example, but I’ve never seen it either. It lists Torch on the front, so we know he was somehow involved, but no idea on the extent - it doesn’t come up on any of the sources I’ve read. As DBaK was the one who recreated it from ear, he will have to be the one to upload the local copy. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going that route, you could simply use a score and treat it like a quotation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, Nikkimaria. Lilypad is miles beyond my competence and I've sought help with it here. Tim riley talk 14:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And help was rapidly given, by Cremastra, to whom grateful thanks. Tim riley talk 15:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Michael Bednarek has adjusted the Lilypad score; I have no idea which version is considered "better" in this context. Cremastra (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I, but I'm indebted to Cremastra and Michael Bednarek who are both miles and miles ahead of me with this program. Bless you both! Tim riley talk 16:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wehwalt

[edit]

Support. I had heard of the show because it's mentioned in one of Nevil Shute's books. Happy to review.

  • Is there a reason not to spell out ITMA in the lede?
  • "Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth II) who was on her first public appearance since the birth of her first son—Prince Charles" I understand the need to say that she later received a promotion, but if one, why not the other?
  • Images: I'm dubious that a candy bar is really relevant to this, especially since I suspect the bar is of considerably later vintage.
  • It's really only tangentially relevant, but it's the only image in the body of the article, apart from the music. I wouldn't be too sorry if we had to remove it, but it's nicer to break up the text a little if possible. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1947 billing reads "Richard Murdoch in 'Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh', with Kenneth Horne, Sam Costa and Marilyn Williams"; by 1954 the billing was "Richard Murdoch, Kenneth Horne and Sam Costa in 'Much-Binding'".[25]" I guess the question is why no italicisation?
That's it. Most interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt; all done, bar the image - although I'm open to being pushed on that one too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that strongly on the image having been in similar situations. Just thought I'd point it out. Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • oh, my word ! - Is that space present in the original?
  • "Flight Officer Flannel"—played by Binnie Hale, Dorothy Carless or Doris Hare—according to availability, would sing, as would Costa - I'm a bit lost here. Isn't a comma missing before "according"?
  • the characters had been demobilised and, and shook hands
  • was on its way to overtaking ITMA as the most popular British radio comedy - How's popularity measured in this regard? Number of listeners or anything like that?
    Number of listeners - it's the only way (I think) that popularity of a radio show could be assessed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • greeted by Murdoch with, "Good morning - Is that comma needed?
  • You have The cast comprised Murdoch, Horne, Costa, Denham and Bryan but also Denham's other roles included Luigi the Italian, Winston the dog, Gregory the sparrow, Group Captain Funnybone, Lieutenant-General Sir Harold Tansley-Parkinson, and the receptionist at Much-Binding. I think there ought to be consistency as to the use of the Oxford comma. There are other instances of this.
  • There's nothing about why the show returned to the BBC.
    It's not discussed in sources. They had a one-year contract with Radio Lux, which they fulfilled, but there's nothing more about it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Costa played Prudence Gush, the radio critic and Denham added more roles to his repertoire - A comma is missing after "critic".
  • He managed to travel to Australia - I think "Horne" better than "He", because otherwise it gets a bit confusing.
  • − "Oh, jolly D!" − - I would go for the same dashes for consistency.
  • His mother - Uppercase after a semicolon.
  • Fifi de la Bon-Bon, known as Mademoiselle Fifi was - A comma is missing.
  • played by the singer Dorothy Carless. was one

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Alavense: all sorted, except where commented above, where the sources just don't cover the ground enough. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits and the responses. I'm happy with that and I think the article (a nice read) meets the criteria, so I'll support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]
lead
  • BBC Radio and in 1950–51 by does the hyphen mean somewhere between the two dates?
    No, it was the dates of the series, so it covered both years. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • radio comedy, and was succeeded remove the comma
background
  • broadcast the show Merry-go-Round,[a] originally a musical show to which remove "the show", "a musical show" does the job
broadcasts
  • second for orchestra with singer. "singer" needs an article ("a" or "the") before it
    This is common use when dealing with music ("a tune for piano and trumpet", etc) - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barker or Robb Wilton, and moving remove the comma
  • By the mid-1950s, tastes in comedy had changed for consistency with the rest of the article i'd remove the comma
characters
  • played their usual characters, under their remove the comma
  • under their own real names remove "own"
  • laugh (spelled in the script ==> "laugh (spelt in the script" is more common in BrEng
    I think both are now common in BrEng - they have both been accepted for years, and it seems as if the longer version overtook use in BrEng use at some point in the 70s. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • many a coquettish "Ooh la-la!". maybe a hyphen between "ooh" and "la"
music

No comments here.

legacy
  • the corporation were concerned ==> "the corporation was concerned". "the corporation" would be referring BBC itself, not the people who run it
    Both are accepted - BrEng commonly treats collective nouns as plural - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No other problems. feel free to decline any suggestions with justification. well done, and thank you for the article! 750h+ 09:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, 750h+. All done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seen. Happy to support. 750h+ 01:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent, but sometimes BBC Genome is mentioned and sometimes the reference doesn't say so. I wonder, are Barry Johnston (writer) and Norman Hackforth reliable as biographers? Is "Forgotten Heroes of Comedy: An Encyclopedia of the Comedy Underdog" a prominent source? Everything else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've tweaked one of the Genome references to Radio Times, leaving only one mention of Genome - this is a search across multiple editions of the RT, so. can't be narrowed down to a single edition. I think Hackforth and Johnston are both acceptable as sources (they've been accepted on several FAs before), unless you know of any reason why they wouldn't be? I wouldn't say Forgotten Heroes of Comedy is a prominent source - it's used only once in the article, and the author, Robert Ross, is recognised as a historian of film and television comedy. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have fine credentials in general, but I wonder about biographies specifically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're fine. As I said, both have been used in FAs before without any problems. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Do any of the other shows mentioned in Background warrant a redlink? Were they prominent enough to potentially get articles?
    I'm not sure they are (although only based on a very quick search). Most of them disappeared with the end of the war, and it was only Much Binding that had any legs to it. - SchroCat (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • other shows, including the Overseas Recorded Broadcasting Service (ORBS) - was ORBS a show? Or is this missing "those of" or something similar?
  • Is it worth including the "guests" section in the characters section? As it is only a few sentences, it seems a bit short.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved it up as a sub-section. Tim, what think you? - SchroCat (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Tim riley talk 08:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Chris; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2024 (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) 27 September 2024 [5].

Hurricane Cindy (2005)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Cindy, the first of several hurricanes to hit the United States during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Cindy caused a fair amount of damage, including to the Atlanta Motor Speedway from a tornado, as well as the largest power outage for Entergy, the energy company responsible for Louisiana/Mississippi region. Of course, this whole area would be devastated by Hurricane Katrina just a month and a half later. As a weird bit of foreshadowing, there were five parishes in Louisiana that were declared disaster areas on August 23... the same day that Hurricane Katrina formed. Cindy wasn't all that bad compared to the later storms, but it was still significant enough to warrant having an article.

Thanks to edits from Zzzs (talk · contribs) has helped make sure that the article is well-polished, so I'd like to invite that user to co-nominate this article for FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to comment that I accept the invitation. ZZZ'S 23:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Dylan620

[edit]

Great to see another tropical cyclone at FAC! I have an active FLC on similar subject matter, so it only feels appropriate to review this. Ping me if I haven't added anything to this space within the next week. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • and was significant enough in five Louisiana parishes to be declared a federal disaster area → "and was significant enough for five Louisiana parishes to be declared federal disaster areas" (the current wording implies that the overall damage itself was a federal disaster area, which I'm fairly certain isn't what was intended)
  • the storm organized into an eye feature → "the storm developed an eye feature" (the current wording implies that the storm became a giant eye, and the emergence of an eye is itself an indicator of increased organization)
  • The extratropical storm restrengthened slightly – Isn't "extratropical storm", at least in the context of post-transition former TCs, reserved for systems of an intensity equivalent to at least TS force? Since Cindy's winds in its extratropical stage never went any higher than 30 kts, I would suggest replacing "storm" with "low" or "cyclone".
  • In the second sentence of §Preparations, I would recommend adding "later" after "NHC", to clarify that the US warnings were not issued simultaneously with the Mexico warnings.
  • In north Atlanta – My initial instinct was that "north" should be capitalized, but North Atlanta is a disambiguation page that provides a couple possibilities for what "North Atlanta" could be. Maybe either this should be clarified, or "north" rephrased as "northern"?
  • In Arlington in northern Virginia, floodwaters closed roads and businesses → "In northern Virginia, floodwaters closed roads and businesses in Arlington" (a blatant nitpick, but this reads more smoothly imo)
  • In Pennsylvania, rains from the storm led to flash floods in Lebanon and Lancaster counties – I would swap out "led to" for something like "generated" or "produced", since the phrase "leading to" is used later in this same sentence.
  • In Lebanon, the floods forced 22 homes to evacuate. – The town or the county?
  • the large tornado caused heavy damage – I would remove mention of the twister's size from this sentence, since it's already mentioned in the sentence immediately prior.
That's about it, I think. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the review Dylan620 (talk · contribs)! Lemme know what you think. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my comments so quickly Hurricanehink! I'm pleased with the changes and I'm happy to support now. This article is a great piece of work. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

I kinda figured it out I'd review this since I possibly need more detailed review somehow for my FAC also.

Upon first glance. Note: I'm not expert this topic, including its source reliability.

  • Be consistent to the referencing. For example there was citation like "[15][1]", it should be arranged properly.
    Done --ZZZ'S 22:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pls bundle the referencing also if it was cited already 4 or more sources. It looks like you ended up ref bombing it.

More to come 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)

*", injuring a man who was flung out of the building." I'm not quite sure about this, but could you perhaps reword this if you can?

  • What do you mean in context of Hurricane Cindy? Like in ref 22, saying "Sources for fatalities?" I'm not sure how that would work, since each URL needs its own reference (with different titles, dates, accessdates, whatnot). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink just letting you know that I renominated my FaC just incase you may be able to review it again. Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from wtfiv

[edit]
Meteorological History
[edit]

I very much enjoyed reading this article, and appreciated the opportunity to look over some of the sources too. My comments are mainly minor stylistic ones.

  • Paragraph 1
  • First sentence starts with plural "origins" but references the singular "tropical wave". Should it be origin, or are you pointing toward subcomponents within the "tropical wave"?
I believe it is referring to the subcomponents within the tropical wave, so I won't change it. --ZZZ'S 22:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jamaica, which Consider using a gerund, "becoming more" without the "which", as the "which" falsely looks like a descriptor of Jamaica.
Reworded. --ZZZ'S 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
  • NHC assessed, assessed looks like a verb at first, but "moved" is the verb. If NHC accessed is meant to be an adjective, it might need a hyphen. But is NHC assessed needed here? If it's a verb, it doesn't make sense in the context of "moved", which is an empirical action. If an adjective, the NHC is already implicated in the assessment. Or does this sentence mean something like, "As Cindy moved ashore the NHC assessed it as..., but the agency upgraded..."?
I believe assessed is related to the intensity of the tropical cyclone. I tried to rephrase it to make it clearer. Let me know what you think. --ZZZ'S 03:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (minor suggestion) Consider changing ...depression, and Cindy merged... "depression and merged..." as Cindy is already the topic from the previous sentence.
Done. --ZZZ'S 22:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations
[edit]
  • (minor suggestion) Consider moving the clause Offshore in the open Gulf of Mexico to follow "six oil rigs", as it is more a description of the rigs than the oil companies, which the clause is currently adjacent to.
Moved to the end of the sentence instead. Will that be alright? --ZZZ'S 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Impact
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
  • The sentence starting The energy company is a little unclear. It says "largest ever", but then appears to negate this when discussing Katrina.
Clarified. --ZZZ'S 03:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding "to date" after power outage. Perhaps end clause with a period, and begin a new sentence. Then the new sentence could focus on the previous high-outage hurricane, Georges, and the one to come, Katrina.
Done. --ZZZ'S 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2
  • as strong winds caused roofing damage, consider replacing "as" with "and" or "while": (Though context quickly clarifies, in my first pass, "as" initially read like it was functioning in its explanatory role as a synonym of "because")
Replaced with "and." --ZZZ'S 03:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unclear on a point made here. Paragraph 1 made it sounds like George was second-place to Cindy. But this paragraph states that the second-most outage causing Hurricane was Betsy. Could this be clarified?
  • The second-most outage was about the power company's history, which includes more than just Louisiana. That's why it was the state's largest blackout since Betsy, even further back than Georges in 1998, which makes sense since Georges didn't directly strike Louisiana. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentences on declaration of emergency and Katrina
  • (minor suggestion) The last two sentences- coincidence of Bush's declaration of state of emergency and the emergence of Katrina is fascinating, but the way it is written, it almost seems to imply that there may be a connection between the declaration and the development. Is there a way to soften this? Maybe something like rewording the last sentence to reading "During this time, another tropical depression was developing that would later become..."
Reworded it differently. What do you think? --ZZZ'S 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do these sentences fit here? I can see the logic. It emphasizes the extent of the damage to the five parishes. The narrative is taking place in July, then jumps to late August. Is there a place near the end where the aftermath can be discussed?
  • If this is moved, the mention of Katrina in Paragraph 1 as the larger cause of outages could be put in the same paragraph as the mention of Katrina here. Moving this later may help readers get a better context of how Cindy relates to Katrina. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
  • Last sentence is related to previous point. Discussion of Dennis seems out of the timeline. It is a bit more confusing because the previous paragraph discusses Katrina, but now it sounds like Dennis will be intervening before Katrina. Can this possibly be clarified? (Again, maybe collecting aftermath issues into paragraphs near the end.)
  • Paragraph 4- No suggestions
Tornado outbreak
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1- No suggestions
  • Paragraph 2
  • is the "already" in already measuring needed?
No. Removed. --ZZZ'S 22:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3-
  • The use of Fuji nomenclature is a bit unclear. In paragraph 2, it is defined adjectivally, as a measure of tornado intensity, but here it is used as a noun. This can make Paragraph 3 a bit confusing for a reader, requiring a double take to find what F0 means in the previous paragraph. Here's two possible suggestions:
  • Consider making all subsequent mentions of the Fujita number consistently adjectival. (e.g., F0 tornado, "F2 tornado") This would possibly be simpler. For example, paragraph 4 uses the Fuji number consistently as an adjective, which makes it clear.
  • Alternatively, Start off by making F2 on the front side of the first description, saying that the tornado was an F2 on the Fujita scale and define it. That way, readers are ready for tornados to be called by their Fujita number alone.
  • Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6-No suggestions, but comment: The use of Fuji numbers are clear in these, as they are used either as adjectives or as explicit descriptions of tornados or events.
  • General comment: My own feeling is that it would be good to see the aftermath items, such as following storms and Cindy's place in them near the end, after the main narrative has been told. This is not critical, but would clear up the timeline slightly and clarify the various relations between Cindy, Dennis, and Katrina. Wtfiv (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wasn't much aftermath for Cindy specifically. It was more of a prologue to Dennis and Katrina, and the longest lasting aspect of the storm was the tornado damage to the Speedway. I took that note and added the mentioning of Denis and Katrina earlier in the narrative, saying that Cindy was the first of six storms in 2005 to produce hurricane force winds in the US. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I'll take another overall look when you are ready and all the comments have been addressed. Please ping me when you're done. I'll try to check in now and then, but I don't have this on my watchlist. Wtfiv (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, after reading some of the earlier comments about the timeline, I agree, an aftermath section would be useful, and there is enough to put there. Please let me know what you think, Wtfiv (talk · contribs). Thanks again for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you could've definitely pulled it off if you didn't put an aftermath in, but I also think an aftermath would be even stronger. Cindy sounds like the prelude to a season of storms culminating in Katrina. My own feeling is that it would also help put the coincidence of the date Bush's call for a state of emergency for Cindy and the rise of Katrina in context and be a good ending for the article as it would define more clearly why Cindy is significant. Wtfiv (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I like it more with the aftermath, thanks for that suggestion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you decided to do it, I think the afterward really improves it and puts more emphasis on its notability. I feel this definitively address the 2005 discussion on the articles talk page that I just looked at, which debated whether the hurricane is notable. Though I think you make a good case in the text itself, the Aftermath section makes it explicit: it is important as the first hurricane of the season and the first to cause the cumulative damage resulting in the declaration of a state of emergency just before Katrina formed.

Support. Wtfiv (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Have sources here been consulted? #16 is broken. I am not sure that a thesis is a high-quality reliable source, they are often subject to a less deep review than a monograph or a paper. There is some inconsistency in source formatting, where #64 lumps multiple URLs together that e.g #45 keeps separate. Sources seem reliable and well-employed to me; some additional inconsistencies in formatting seem to be due to the diversity in source types. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, yes I looked through Google scholar, the article uses two different sources from. Many search results are about other Atlantic storms named Cindy, such as in 1963 or 1999. Here is an example of a source on there I didn't use, since it was about how Cindy didn't fit into a hurricane impact model.
  • I'm not sure if I'm mistaken, but ref #16 works for me.
  • I notice what you mean about the source formatting. I will get to that in a few hours (headed to rehearsal as soon as I finish this edit lol) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Hi Hurricanehink, i'll review this. Comments coming shortly. 750h+ 10:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • Eventually, the remnants of Cindy moved into Atlantic Canada, eventually dissipating on July 13 over the Gulf of St. Lawrence. "Eventually" is used twice in this sentence. I'd remove one or find another word.
  • US$70 million worth of damage ==> "US$70 million in damage"
meteorological history
  • the NHC assessed as a strong tropical ==> " the NHC assessed it as a strong tropical"
  • near Waveland, Mississippi with 50 mph per MOS:GEOCOMMA, add a comma after "Mississippi"
preparations
  • between Intracoastal City, Louisiana and Destin, Florida. MOS:GEOCOMMA: add a comma after "Louisiana"
  • filled sandbags which would personal preference but i'd add a comma before "which"
impact
  • A driver in Tibbie, Alabama crashed GEOCOMMA
  • A driver in Peachtree City, Georgia drowned in a ditch GEOCOMMA
  • in Frederick County, Maryland when their vehicle GEOCOMMA
  • A driver died in Crownsville, Maryland after crashing GEOCOMMA
  • Over a three-day period ==> "Over three days"
  • all of them short-lived and rated as an F0 i'd remove "of them"
  • caused $150,000 worth of damage ==> "caused $150,000 in damage"
aftermath

That's all i got. fine work! 750h+ 10:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, I implemented them all! Lemme know what you think. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. 750h+ 09:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 September 2024 [6].

2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just before Christmas in 2016, dozens of people in the Russian city of Irkutsk woke up to discover that they could no longer see. Others never woke at all.

It quickly became clear that these people were suffering from methanol poisoning after drinking a contaminated batch of unregulated surrogate alcohol. In the end, 74 people died—a toll that the Associated Press called "unprecedented in its scale"—and the Russian government took a few actions to try to prevent it from happening again.

I wrote the original draft of this article in 2016 after I read this New York Times article. I successfully nominated it for ITN in the same month and GA in mid-2017. I'm looking forward to any comments you might share. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sodium

[edit]
  • Shouldn't the first section be named something like "Background"
    • Done
  • Nikishin, thea vodka historian -- Also define a "vodka historian", that's not a phrase most people associate with a profession
    • "The" is meant to refer to the earlier mention of Nikishin. I adopted that phrasing from news articles because I liked how it split the difference between repeating full names and professions vs. hoping people remembered the first reference. Would refactoring "vodka historian" as "historian of vodka" make things more clear?
  • I'm not really sure about the fact that the concept of methanol poisoning is defined in the article after two or three references to methanol poisoning itself.
    • I struggled with this one. I definitely see where you're coming from, but the background section is discussing the issues related to alcoholism and surrogate alcohols in Russia—not necessarily methanol poisoning. I did remove one sentence that improperly conflated the two, and I'm open to removing the rest of the info given about alcohol poisoning. That's different from methanol poisoning and may be confusing to readers in this context.
  • The two alcohols are similar in many respects and cannot readily be distinguished, and their contents differed from the labels on the bottles, which indicated that they contained ethanol. An investigation later revealed that the methanol was usually used in the local production of windshield washer fluid, known locally as antifreeze. I'm confused here, were the bottles mislabelled or was it that windshield washer fluid was used because it was cheaper (as you mention in paragraphs before) ?
    • Both. The bad batch was placed into the standard bath oil bottles, which were labeled as containing ethanol.
  • Who conducted said investigation ?
    • Fixed. It was the government.
  • A picture of ethanol v/s methanol bottles would drive the point home for the first paragraph of the "Events" section
    • If I'm understanding this ask correctly, we unfortunately don't have freely licensed photos of these bottles. That's why I used {{external media}} near the top. The ethanol and methanol bottles were the same per above. Never mind. I assume you mean a photo of ethanol vs. methanol to drive home how similar they are. There isn't anything on Commons in one photo, but I've reached out to WP:CHEMISTRY.
  • drinking too much non-fraudulent ethanol-based bath oil Whether or not this incident was caused by actual fraud is explicitly never addressed in the article, I would advise you to figure that out and tweak the wording of this sentence or add more context accordingly.
    • Fixed. This was a really good flag, and I can't believe I didn't see this myself!
  • Of the remainder, a problem in attempting to treat them was that fomepizole, a methanol antidote, is not certified for use in Russia and is therefore not available in the country's hospitals. This sentence feels stilted
    • Fixed, I hope.
  • Overall, the victims included teachers, nurses, and drivers; The New York Times described the majority as holding "steady if low-paying jobs".
    • Fixed.
  • What is "counterfeit oil" in About 500 liters (130 U.S. gal) of remaining counterfeit oil were seized from the underground facility where it had been produced, does it refer to the methanol laced oil or the bath oil which turned into vodka in general ?
    • The former. I hope this is now fixed; I discovered that I had read the reference wrong and that the 500 liters were seized from local shops in addition to authorities discovering the underground facility.
    • Hello Sohom Datta and thanks so much for giving this a read. I've left comments inline above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, this is some really good work, I think my concerns have been addressed. Can't find anything else to criticize. Sohom (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Nikkimaria

[edit]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

[edit]
  • Instead of "the Associated Press news agency" statement, we should have our own Wikipedia statement on whether this was the biggest mass poisoning in (Russia). THough it could be used as a reference.
    • I have not seen a reference that compares mass poisonings in Russia, unfortunately, and for methanol specifically List of methanol poisoning incidents#Russia only shows several other incidents from 2021 and 2023. The full quote is: "Poisonings caused by cheap surrogate alcohol are a regular occurrence, but the Irkutsk case was unprecedented in its scale." I've expanded the lead and better clarified what the quote is referring to?
  • We could explain that "Боярышник" means hawthorn.
    • Done.
  • A quote from Alexander Nikishin should probably be reworded in Wikipedia voice.
    • Done.
  • 4 deaths → four deaths MOS:NUM
    • Done.
  • Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Graeme Bartlett: Thank you—I really appreciate the thorough review and time you spent reading the article. I've responded inline above. I also would love to confirm with you that this newly added/tweaked sentence is accurate: "The human body breaks down methanol into formaldehyde and formic acid, both of which act as nerve toxins and damage the optic nerve." 'Nerve toxins' is the phrase used by DW, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't being used improperly. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

[edit]
  • The number of affected people could go in the lead.
    • Done.
  • According to early reports on 19 December, a total of 57 people were hospitalized - Is this the earliest known point at which people fell ill? It's not entirely clear over what kind of time span the poisonings unfolded.
    • Thanks for pushing me on this. Previously, all the sources I'd seen didn't give an exact date... or so I thought, as this journal article did give a start date. I've added it.
  • In the immediate aftermath of the poisoning, a state of emergency was declared. - Who declared the state of emergency? Was it municipal authorities, the Siberian regional government, or a higher power? That would eliminate the passive voice, too. I would also include the date.
    • It was the mayor of Irkutsk! Good catch.
  • The article defines Rospotrebnadzor as the federal consumer rights protection agency in both the Background section and the Aftermath section. The latter definition can probably be removed!
    • I'm split on this. There's a big gap between mention #1 and #2, and I don't like to assume that readers go through articles in order from top to bottom.

Overall, a solid article! — Penitentes (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Penitentes: Thanks so much for the review! I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I've responded to your comments inline. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BorgQueen

[edit]

Support from UC

[edit]

An interesting story -- maybe short of a full review, but some things that stuck out to me as I read:

  • Make sure that Russian and transliterated text are in the appropriate templates, for the benefit of screen readers.
    • Done.
  • Russia's government agency devoted to consumer protection, Rospotrebnadzor, recorded about 36,000 such poisonings in the first nine months of 2016, resulting in over 9,000 deaths.: we need to put this figure in context -- how did that compare with previous figures? How much confidence do we have that Putin's government would report this accurately?
    • I included this as a way of showing the scale of the problem, and not to prove the preceding statement around increasing deaths over time. I'm open to removing it. To your second question, in several areas of the article I've tried to be very specific when the information's source is either the state or state-owned media.
      • Even just to show the scale, it needs some kind of context -- it's obviously a big number, and a single death is a tragedy, but 9,000 deaths a year in Wales would be a different proposition to 9,000 deaths in China. I think showing change over time would be one good way to do this: otherwise, was this the largest in the world? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I decided to remove this in place of a note around alcohol poisonings being generally high in Russia prior to the increase. I went looking for additional sources to contexualize it, but then I found that the WHO said in 2018 that "The measurement of alcohol poisoning deaths may be affected by the miscoding of alcohol poisonings as cardiovascular diseases [...] however, the miscoding of alcohol poisonings appears to be limited to the former Soviet Union". So the direct-from-government stats I was quoting are likely to be quite wrong anyway. (The new addition cites the study the WHO cited.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • bath oil named boyaryshnik or Боярышник, after its hawthorn scent: I think we need to spell out that Боярышник is the Russian for 'hawthorn'.
    • I believe this is fixed. I was trying to avoid repeating "hawthorn", but you were right to question the phrasing and I'm struggling to find a better solution.
  • Everybody knew that it was not bath oil", one individual later told the US newspaper The New York Times. "That label was just meant to fend off the inspectors": who is this individual? What gives them the authority to make such a sweeping pronouncement?
    • The quote is from a local that does not have any authority on their own, so I omitted the name. I decided to include it in relying on the editorial judgement of Neil MacFarquhar, who was The New York Times' Moscow bureau chief at the time and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer in 2017 for reports about Russia. I don't believe MacFarquhar would have included the quote if it wasn't effectively true.
      • I'm not happy here, I'm afraid. Journalists include sometimes quotations because they're authoritative, sure, but they also include them to add flavour, to be seen to be presenting the views of local people, or even to distance themselves from the views put forward -- it may be significant, for example, that MacFarquhar chose not to write, in his own voice, "everyone in Russia knows that the bath oil is meant to be drunk". However, I imagine it would be fairly trivial to find another source which does say that people were selling drinking alcohol as other plausibly-deniable products in Russia at this time, and that this was widely known? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • MacFarquhar did write that in his own voice. :-p Specifically, he said: "[...] it was common knowledge that bootleggers produced the rotgut specifically as poor man's vodka". I've removed the quote and left the citation intact, as the other part of the article's preceding sentence is covered by another part of the NYT piece: "They felt they were being scapegoated for the illicit vodka trade, which the police had long tolerated, if not controlled". Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes need citations.
  • As days went by, subsequent reports increased the number of impacted people: I notice that each of these reports comes from a different source, so it's not easy to differentiate change over time versus different sources/counting methods/reliability/whatever of different news organisations.
    • I've rewritten this paragraph to use only sources that explicitly cited the local health ministry in their articles. I feel pretty confident that's the source the previous sources were using too, as none of them said they were counting in other ways, but WP:V is better satisfied in the new formulation. Thanks for calling this out!
  • We have a couple of figures given in roubles: it would help to give a sense to non-Russian readers of how much money these represent.
    • Done. {{To USD}} is a great template, or I've filled in conversions directly from the sources. If you were actually hoping to see inflation-adjusted figures, I don't think {{inflation}} can handle cross-currency conversions. I might be able to use something like Measuring Worth with citations?
  • Lots here relies on news sources from inside the news cycle, which have their concerns. Can we pull some of that information from more retrospective studies instead?
    • Solid portions rely on things published outside the news cycle. The two most significant sources used in the article are the retrospective New York Times MacFarquhar piece (15 calls) and an academic piece to give this significant attention (9 calls, +1 more with info from its appendix; I could add more citations to a table that provides a bullet list of Russian government actions during/after the poisoning, but in most cases the news articles provided more detail.). I'd also call out the Deutsche Welle article, which was published a week after the poisonings began and deliberately takes a step back to give a wide view of the incident.
    • Overall, I would argue that the in-cycle news sources are appropriately used. Many are in the incident section, as you might expect, and in the aftermath section for things like legal cases and politician pronouncements. Others have been mined for the background info they provided, thereby acting as a secondary source in that context. I'd also note that I've dropped sources that made errors while trying to catch the cycle (NPR and the now-defunct Siberian Times). That said, I've gone through to trim unnecessary references, most of which were news cycle-specific.
      • An update here a day later: I did additional digging for retrospective resources and came across a Siberian Medical Journal article in the references of another article. That hadn't shown up in my prior searching, but I've now integrated it into the article. Of note, it gives two numbers for the death toll, so I've explained the source discrepancy in a new footnote. I've also added two academic articles from 2018. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the Lachenmeier article doing in Further Reading? What does it add that hasn't been incorporated into the article?
    • I don't seem to have access to this article any more. My memory is that while it was a research synthesis follow-up on unrecorded alcohol use in Russia by the same authors as the main academic source on this poisoning, it did not have any info that I wanted to add to the article proper. I don't mind removing it if you feel strongly.
  • Similarly, why the link to Khodorkovsky's blog?
    • My thinking was it met WP:ELMAYBE #4. It's not a reliable source, but a then-prominent opposition politician's voice felt worthy of inclusion somewhere. That said, I have even less attachment to this link than the further reading one, so I'm happy to remove it if you feel strongly.
      • We might do well to incorporate it into the text -- to say "Khodorkovsky, a prominent opposition politician, said...", and link it as a source. Even better if someone else has got there first and reported the remarks at second hand, so we can then cite it to that reliable source and say "K. made his remarks on his blog, at [this place]" UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Y'know, the note around secondary sourcing got me thinking. As far as I can tell, Khodorkovsky's article had effectively no impact. I searched and found exactly one public post on Facebook and zero on the website formerly known as Twitter. There may have been mentions in Russian opposition reporting or social media that I can't easily search for without knowing the language, but without evidence of that I removed the link. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, UndercoverClassicist! You said that this wasn't a full review, but you nevertheless hit on some great points that I'm grateful for. You can find inline replies above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, UndercoverClassicist. I dropped more replies above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one -- a small issue, but the map in the infobox currently looks very odd indeed with the frame-within-a-frame, at least on my screen. I did have a go at fixing, but no success. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: I'd noticed that too and couldn't address it. Thankfully, it appears to only be a desktop issue—I'm not seeing it on the mobile version or the Android app. Even on desktop, though, I think it still looks better and gives better context (through interactivity) than a location map. I'll ask Module talk:Mapframe and see if there's a solution we're missing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't claim to actually understand all the inscrutable maplink attributes, but I cargo-culted what has worked for me in the past and that seems to have fixed it. RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, RoySmith! I can't believe I missed the |plain= parameter that is almost at the top of Template:Maplink#Usage... sigh. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're almost there, but looking at the "incident" section, I see a lot of choppy, short paragraphs and a couple of prose infelicities (repetition of death toll, MOS:CLICHE of pegged the number of deaths at, a break of MOS:LQ with the AP quotation). Could you give that section a look with this in mind?
  • A smaller point, but does uncovered an underground facility mean "beneath the earth" as well as "illicit and hidden"? If so, no problem; if not, suggest another word.
    • Ah, interesting thought. The AP called it an "underground facility", and I echoed that language. I haven't seen other sources give detail on it. I tweaked the sentence clause to say "uncovered a bath oil production facility". Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another small one, sorry -- to keep drinkable medicinal tinctures, antiseptics, and Eau de Cologne on retail shelves: MOS:CLICHE again -- they wanted to keep them available for sale, not literally on shelves (in fact, they were meant to move off the shelves into people's homes). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from RoySmith

[edit]

Just a few things I see quickly. I may or may not come back for a full review.

  • Paychecks totaling around 15,000 rubles (about US$246 in 2016) were common is that per week?
  • Russia remained as one of the highest consumers per capita in the world that should say "highest consumers of alcohol ...". Also that's immediately followed by "an average yearly consumption of 11.7 liters". The first sentence is talking about the country, the next sentence switches to per-person, so you should say that.
    • Fixed.
  • even amidst the declining economic situation I'm not sure "even" adds anything.
    • Fixed.
  • Experts estimated ... Other experts estimated we've got a lot of anonymous experts. Would it be possible to specify who, specifically, is doing the estimating?
    • The New York Times doesn't attribute their expert figure, while RBC attributes Federal Service for Alcohol Market Regulation numbers on surrogate alcohols consumed, then compares them to Federal State Statistics Service (Russia) on overall alcohol retail sales. For the second sentence, The Long Hangover doesn't attribute their expert, and The Moscow Times attributes "Vadim Drobiz, the head of the Center for Federal and Regional Alcohol Market Studies, an independent think tank." That's why I left it all generalized, but I'm open to reworking these sentences to get more specific if you'd like.
  • I'd move File:Total alcohol consumption per capita - litres of pure alcohol - 2015.png down so it lines up with the start of the paragraph At the same time, Russia remained ...
    • Done.
  • caused by a fraudulently produced batch fraudulently produced or fraudulently lableled?
    • Both, really. I've removed "produced".
  • nerve toxins -> neurotoxins?
    • The source says "nerve toxins", and I've left a question for Graeme above on whether that's an appropriate phrase to use.
  • and 500 liters (130 U.S. gal) of remaining fraudulent bath oil from around 100 retailers in the Irkutsk area there's no verb here.
    • Ah! Whoops. Thanks and fixed.
  • Twenty-three people involved in the production of the oil ... including ... police officers, and a senior regional government official this makes it sound like the police officers and the government official were involved in the production. Or maybe that was indeed the case?
    • Not the case. I've copyedited the sentence.
  • Thanks for your comments, RoySmith! I've left inline replies above and hope you decide to come back to review the whole thing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, coming back for another pass...

  • over 70 people died[A] in a mass methanol poisoning I don't know if there's any grammatical reasoning to back this up, but to me this makes it sound like an intentional attack, similar to "in a mass shooting". I'd rephrase it as "died of methanol poisoning" or perhaps even be more explicit with "died of accidental methanol poisoning". Same logic for the following sentence, "the incident was the deadliest methanol poisoning".
    • Done. Please take a look at the new wording, as you may have additional thoughts on the second sentence in particular.
  • available from supermarkets, strategically placed vending machines, and other shops. I'd drop the "strategically placed"; you do explain in Background why you call them strategically placed, but I don't think you need that in the lead. Also, "other shops" goes with supermarkets, but a vending machine isn't a shop, so that's an odd construction.
    • Fair points! I removed the two words and changed "and other shops" to "and more".
  • I'd zoom the infobox map out a couple of steps; the context you get now is where Irkutsk is relative to Mongolia and China, but you want to show where it is relative to Russia.
    • I wish I had more choices, but AFAIK we're limited to zoom=1 or the current zoom=2. I love the interactivity mapframe brings, but its display inflexibility is unfortunate in this case.
  • other restrictions introduced in recent years to curb alcohol consumption in the country. Recent relative to when?
    • Fixed.
  • symptoms of methanol toxicity include central nervous system depression the source says "it destroys the central nervous system". You might want to get an opinion from a medical SME on whether "central nervous system depression" is an accurate way to say that.
    • I'll drop a question over at WP:MED. Stand by.
  • They delivered the bodies straight to a morgue Who is "they"? "Irkutsk authorities"? "city residents"? "homeless individuals"? "numerous people"?
    • Second on that list. Fixed!
  • She consumed two shots, which was enough to kill her How much is two shots? Maybe just link to "Shot glass".
    • Fixed.
  • about US$199 I'd make that "about $200" ({{To USD}}'s resolution should do the trick).
    • Done! Took a bit while I figured out that the |r= parameter allows for negative integers.
  • Russian authorities ... detained twenty-three people ... the last of 19 individuals jailed or fined Be consistent in your use of figures vs spelling out numbers.
    • Huh, I don't know why I used different formats there. Fixed.
  • Alexei Navalny, an opposition politician, opined ... I'm not sure this counts as an "opinion", so I'd use "said". MOS:SAID.

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this; the topic seems interesting. As full disclosure, I know very little about alcohol firsthand due to being a Southern Baptist. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link Irkutsk at the first mention in the body
  • "At the same time, Russia remained one of the highest consumers per capita in the world" - alcohol has yet to be mentioned in the body as of this point, so I would specify that this is consumption of alcohol
  • "which is poisonous: symptoms of methanol toxicity also include central nervous system depression" - I would drop the "also" - there's no other symptoms that the central nervous system depression is being listed in addition to.
  • "By the end of the next day, a total of 57 people were hospitalized and 49 were dead" - I think "had been hospitalized" would be better based on the source, as the source does not state that all were in the hospital simultaneously. This phrasing also better leaves open the possiblity that some of those who had been hospitalized had passed on
  • "According to state-owned media, Irkutsk's government gave 13,325 rubles to families of the dead to pay for funerals (about US$199 in 2016)" - is this figure per family, or a total split across all of the families?

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate the time spent on this, Hog Farm! I've addressed all of your comments along the lines you suggested. To the last point, that sum was given to various families; it was not the sum total of compensation that was then divided among them all. I've added the word "individual" to "individual families of the dead", if that works for you. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
Lead
  • "fraudulent surrogate alcohol": is "fraudulent" the right word? Often surrogate alcohol is used as an adulterant (and is therefore, by definition, fraudulent). It may be more correct to say "toxic" instead here?
    • I've wrestled with that particular word. The surrogate alcohol was a legitimate and technically legal product, but it was being used in supposedly unintended ways, and this particular batch was made with methanol for reasons that secondary sources don't name (other than it doesn't seem to have been a mistake, as they deliberately acquired the methanol). Fraudulent seemed to be a middle ground amid that uncertainty. Using "toxic" there makes it sound a bit mass suicide-y to me... Thoughts?
Background
Symptoms
Incident
  • "Because a number of residents": best to swap this out for 'numerous' or 'several': at some point someone will replace it and say that zero is a number. (I'm not entirely convinced on their arguments as it's clear from the context, but you may as well future proof if possible)
    • Done.
  • "Irkutsk authorities resorted to looking for deceased individuals on their properties": I'm not sure "resorted to" is entirely right (it has a touch of editorialising to it too). Maybe "Irkutsk authorities searched for deceased individuals at their properties". I'm intrigued to know how they knew which properties the dead were at, or was it the case that they did door-to-door enquiries at every property?
    • I don't know if it was every property, but they at least wouldn't have had to check every property in the city as the poisonings were mostly confined to a specific neighborhood. The source does say that they were visiting people's apartments and another source added that they were checking places frequented by homeless individuals. I've copyedited this line.
Aftermath
  • "(equivalent to about one pint, and US$3.06 in 2016)": This reads a little oddly: maybe "(equivalent to US$3.06 for about one pint in 2016)"?
    • Fixed and thanks. Obvious answer for a parenthetical that I stared at and gave up trying to make sound better.
Notes
  • "The company head had themselves acquired the methanol illegally": -> "The company head had acquired the methanol illegally"

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • Four paragraphs in the lead is too many, see MOS:LEADLENGTH. Suggest running the last three paragraphs together. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Gog the Mild! The lead's paragraphs are structured so that there's a statement of significance, background info, incident info, and aftermath info. Running them together would lose those distinctions. In addition, at 177 words the lead's length is shorter than what MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends for featured articles. Given that, I'd prefer to keep the lead at four paragraphs but can find a solution if you feel strongly. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that structuring, and I have no issue with either the length or the content. (MOS:LEADLENGTH doesn't make any recommendations re FA lead lengths; it notes an observation.) But 177 words split up into four paragraphs unnecessarily breaks up the flow, IMO. This is not helped by MOS:LEADLENGTH currently being under discussion, with changes to the MOS being made and unmade. Nevertheless, I would be unhappy with 177 words being broken into more than two paragraphs. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Fair enough. BorgQueen has been kind enough to make the change! Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I kinda wonder about the reliability of this journal. It has little non-Russian citations and seems to have been founded pretty recently. Probably because of the 2022 war, the Russian researcher sphere has been shut out of western academica. Have the editors and the journal some reputation? Komsomolskaya Pravda can probably be linked, for once this is a case where a questionable source can probably be included even in a FA, but I think the use in #20 (for the percentage) is inappropriate. What makes https://www.irk.ru/news/articles/20161219/poisoning/ a reliable source? Source formatting seems largely consistent, keeping in mind that there is more than one kind of source being used here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for the comments! I'll take those on in order.
  • Baikal Medical Journal: This particular journal was known as the Siberian Medical Journal (Irkutsk) in 2017, when the article used here was published. It claims a legacy that dates back to the 1920s, and its direct history dates to the mid-90s. It looks to have had an editorial board composed of regional academicians and accepted articles from various countries around the world. However, the journal was shuttered in 2019 and reformed in 2022 as a result of new legislation, probably the Russian fake news laws (see "In 2019, due to changes in legislation, the Siberian Medical Journal was forced to suspend its activities in its previous format. In 2022, after major transformations and changes in the composition of the founders, the journal was re-registered as the Baikal Medical Journal." [Google translated]). I would personally be skeptical of using this journal's post-2022 articles, as it sounds an awful lot like the existing property was usurped. For the places it's used in this Wikipedia article, primarily speaking to the history of a medical event located in the city the journal is published + at a time when it faced less political pressure, I believe that its use is appropriate.
  • Komsomolskaya Pravda: I'm open to removing the percentage, as it's a minor point.
  • Irk.ru is a local news source with a short masthead, a couple decades of publishing history, and what appears to have an established readership. I've thought of it as akin to a local US newspaper or US television station's news activities. Per WP:RSCONTEXT, I used it in the article only to source a line that specifically refers to when "local press reports" (my emphasis) were published about the poisoning. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, OK. Percentage needs a better source if it's to stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not writing clearer, but I removed the percentage right after replying! Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2024 [8].

Weise's law

[edit]
Nominator(s): ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ever wonder why Greek and Sanskrit cognates involving gutturals don't always match up like you expect and usually before an /r/ sound? Yeah, me either. But in 1881, a German linguist commented on this oddity and proposed a sound law to explain it. "Largely forgotten by the scholarly world", the law developed newfound interest when Dutch linguist Alwin Kloekhorst gave the law a full defense in 2011, giving Dr. Weise a high honor: naming it after him. As of now, there are no Proto-Indo-European FAs and only one other GA, which is something I'm hoping to fix. This article may be of interest to you if you speak a language affected by the law, including a Balto-Slavic language, Albanian, Armenian, or any of the Indo-Iranian languages, such as Farsi or Hindi. I would like to extend my thanks, first and foremost, to UndercoverClassicist who beat this article into shape during its GA nomination, swung by to help out during PR, and overall just gave great feedback. Also thanks to RoySmith and Matarisvan, both of whom gave me great feedback at PR as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see this here -- will pop in at some point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in for a review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 10:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima: Courtesy ping. Just wanted to see if you were still interested in reviewing this since it's been a few weeks. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Presented at a conference in 2008". Who or what was presented?
  • Rephrased.
  • "several different sources on the topic, both referencing Weise and not". This would work better as 'several different sources on the topic, some referencing Weise and some not' or similar.
  • Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog! Looking forward to your comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the palatovelar stops generally were made into alveolar sibilants in most cases". You don't need to say both "generally" and "in most cases".
  • Good catch. Fixed.
  • "Sanskrit words contain many potential violations of the rule occurring". I am not sure this is grammatical. Try deleting "occurring".
  • Fixed.
  • "However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family such as in Sanskrit"> I am a little confused; "such as in Sanskrit", as opposed to what?
  • In short, there appear to be violations of the law which are explainable by sound changes that took place after the law. In Sanskrit, as an example, /l/ becomes /r/ in many circumstances. Because of this, śr clusters appear to be violations of the law – since ś is largely, if not only, derived from PIE *ḱ – because *ḱ cannot precede *r according to the law. But because these words may be the result of a PIE *ḱl cluster, there is no violation. The examples serve to demonstrate such cases.
In which case I suggest that a bit much is being asked of this sentence. Perhaps something like 'However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family. Examples can be found in Sanskrit, where ...'
Fixed.
  • Non-actionable comment: I like your two uses of "In other words". Is this deliberate minor humour?
  • I'd love to say yes, but this is the template phrase of someone used to reading and writing technical jargon trying to make it more accessible. In other words, sadly no. :-)
  • "The law must have occurred by". I know what you mean, but I am unsure that it works as prose. Perhaps unpack "The law" to say just what it was that "must have occurred by"? Similarly with references to "the law" in the last sentence of the paragraph.
  • I've changed a few of these up; I think I'm understanding you right. If not, could you offer a suggestion?
Yep, that's fixed it.
  • And in "there is positive evidence that the law never occurred in Armenian" and similar uses. I am not sure that "the law occurred" etc communicates well to a reader.
  • Ibid. above
Likewise.
  • "linguists suggest that this sound change occurred before the centum–satem split." All linguists, most, or some?
  • Now that I'm looking at it again, I think it's really just Kloekhorst saying that. I've changed it to reflect that.
  • "Although, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages, Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families." ' Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages' seems easier to parse.
  • Done.
  • "See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for more." Maybe '... for further information' [or 'detail', or discussion']?
  • I like "further discussion". Fixed.
  • "Larry Trask also categorizes both". Categorizes both as what?
  • Clarified.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog. Thanks for your feedback. I've responded accordingly. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one come back of note above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be addressed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning support, but as it is early days for a technical topic I am going to hold off formalising this until I see what other reviewers think. In particular their view of WP:TECHNICAL "Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience." I think that it passes this, but only just, and would like to see others' opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading, the article seems more accessible than I left it - thank you UndercoverClassicist and the nominator. And UC has explicitly approved of the level at which it is pitched. Who am I to disagree. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you for the comments and support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Borsoka

[edit]

Before starting a detailed review, I think the article needs some expansion:

  • the main text could explain that the sound change is assumed to have occurred in Proto-Indoeuropean;
  • If I'm reading you correctly, discussion on this is found in the "Relative chronology" section, where I've written about the two competing views: Kortlandt (Proto-Indo-Iranian only) and Kloekhorst (late Proto-Indo-European, excluding the Anatolian languages).
  • Proto-Indoeuropean could very shortly be introduced;
  • Done.
  • I think this has been fixed with what I wrote for the above suggestion, since I talk about how PIE is hypothetical and no record of it exists. I go over that in the representational conventions in "Terminology", so I think all the bases are covered.
I have responded accordingly. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything or need to do anything else. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Gentle nudge to see if you're still planning on reviewing/giving support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentiong in the first section that an asterisk (*) indicates a non-documented/constructed term or sound.
  • Hard to think of a non-awkward way to jam this in, but I think I picked an okay spot. Let me know what you think.
  • Although almost no attested language in the Indo-European language family distinguishes between these three sets of consonants,... Could the negative statement be replaced by a positive one? "Although only one/two/... atteste languages - X, Y, and Z - distinguishes ..."
  • I doubt that we know the exact borders of PIE's Urheimat. Furthermore, alternative location exists (such as Anatolia and Armenia) even in mainstream literature. We should mention who proposes this location. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fair enough. I did a source check for the image and have changed the caption to reflect that the the darker green reflects the estimated range of the Yamnaya culture specifically and added some contextual comments about the steppe hypothesis with appropriate sources. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. Thank you for completing it. I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. I appreciate your time and your comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I am struggling to find too much to say, though I know I have already stuck my oar in a great deal on this article. I hope the below is useful nonetheless. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for your help on this article. I've fixed most of what you've pointed out and responded to the rest accordingly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think I'm probably at the end of my expertise here, but I think we're in a much better place -- balancing technical detail and comprehensibility in an article like this is extremely tricky, and as far as I can see it's about as good as it can be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. Thank you for your tireless effort making this article more accessible and better quality. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest point throughout -- I still think we could do more to help non-linguists understand what is going on here, particularly in the lead. I admit that I was never particularly good at philology in undergrad, but I've got pretty good training in it and find causes the depalatalization of the palatovelar consonants *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ in certain contexts. In short, when *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ are followed by *r, they depalatalize and thereby merge with the plain velars *k *g *gʰ, respectively, unless the *r is followed by *i or the palatalized form is restored by analogy pretty tough to parse. I also found the penultimate paragraph of the "Overview" section a little tricky.
  • I've been thinking about how to de-technicalize the lede for some time now. I think I've figured it out, but let me know if I'm still off the mark. As for the penultimate paragraph in "Overview", I've also rewritten part of that. Same goes.
  • I wonder whether "merge with" is likely to be confusing for most readers -- I'm not sure many non-linguists will parse it as "become [indistinguishable from]". A bit later, with One such example of this is Sanskrit अज्र ájra 'field, plain', which is derived from h₂éǵ-ro- 'field, pasturage'; in this example, the reflex of the palatalized consonant has been restored: can we say what it would be if Weise's law were followed, or what's "wrong" with ájra under it? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had to do a little source-digging and ended up clearing up a few things I thought could be further de-technicalized, but I added the expected reflex for ájra. As for the "merge with" issue, I asked a non-linguist whether that term was clear and they confirmed your concerns, so some thoughts: With respect to changing it to "become indistinguishable from" as an alternative, I'm concerned this may lead to the belief that they are still somehow distinct in some meaningful way; linguists do distinguish surface representation from deep structure. In other words, something may not be distinguishable in discourse, but may still be distinguishable in some other way. What I've done instead – since I cannot think of an sufficiently broad term that is correct in the linguistic sense – is link Phonological change#Merger. I think this will adequately address my technical concern about accurate terminology and the general concern about accessibility to non-linguists. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be anything wrong with saying that one sound merging into another is, for all intents and purposes, that sound simply becoming the other one? I think the link helps, but as the tooltip doesn't give a definition (as it's linking to a section), it's not a perfect solution. Some sort of gloss on merge to explain that it includes taking on the same sound (even if it doesn't strictly mean that) might be possible? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am a bit wary of "become" in this context is that it doesn't convey that the plain velars were already in the language; I think it sounds like they became novel sounds in the language. Could I steal the terminology from Phonological change#Merger and say that the distinction between the palatovelars and the plain velars was lost? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would probably work? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think this has been adequately addressed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing that I think would help with this is a demonstration -- could we perhaps do a table with three columns -- PIE, [example centum language -- Latin?] and [example satem language -- Sanskrit?], with a few words that show the distinction written out in easily-parsed transcription?
  • I'm not opposed to that, but I'm not sure what should be demonstrated with a table. There is a table on the Centum and satem languages page, which demonstrates the difference, which I suppose I could add with real examples (instead of just descriptions) to show the difference between the two fairly generally. The problem is, in the cases in which Weise's law applies, the difference between centum and satem languages can't be differentiated as a result of that depalatalization; Weise's law basically causes the "pseudo-centumization" of certain palatal sounds. I'm also concerned that using attested languages like Latin and Sanskrit may be unhelpful to the layperson because they will invariably show forms that are the result of later sound changes and may further confuse someone unfamiliar with historical linguistics.
  • Similarly, some of the (entirely correct) technical notation could be written in plain language without sacrificing much: instead of (e.g., Sanskrit: श्रवस् śravas 'fame' < *ḱleu-es-; ह्राद् hrād 'to resound, to make a noise' < *ǵʰleh₃d-), try for example, the Sanskrit word for 'fame', śravas, derives from the Proto-Indo-European *ḱleu-es.
  • Fair enough. Fixed.
  • The law is named after German linguist Oskar Weise: a false title: this and similar are better as "the German linguist..."
  • Done.
  • According to Alwin Kloekhorst, Weise's original article has "been largely forgotten by the scholarly world",: is the tense quite right here, given that Kloekhorst was trying to bring it back to scholarly attention? Might be more accurate to do was largely forgotten as a paraphrase. I think we do need to put a date on K's work here.
  • I'm not gonna push back too hard here, but I'd say it's still kind of forgotten. I think Kloekhorst did a good job reminding others that the law existed and sort of established the boundaries better than Weise did, but sound laws like Grimm's, Szemerényi's, and Verner's are commonly mentioned in the field's literature, whereas even narrow etymologies of Sanskrit don't mention it at all. Still, I'm willing to stand down on this if you think Kloekhorst successfully brought it back to scholarly attention, but I'm skeptical. That all said, I've dated the quote as requested.
  • Note how the tongue's point of contact or constriction moves increasingly forward, from the palate to just behind the teeth. the MoS discourages editorial asides like "note how...", and takes the position that everything we write is notable. Better simply to start the sentence at The tongue's...
  • Fixed.
  • Another tough bit: since the metathesis of late Proto-Indo-European *u and *r occurs after both the divergence of Anatolian (e.g., Hittite: 𒍝𒈠𒀭𒆳 zama(n)kur 'beard' < *smóḱ-ur) and any depalatalization under Weise's law.
  • Good call. I revamped this paragraph entirely.
  • there is positive evidence that this kind of depalatalization never occurred in Armenian (սրունք srunkʿ 'leg' < *ḱrūs-ni-; մերձ merj 'near, close to' < *méǵʰsri).: as above, I think it might help to write out the bit in brackets in layman's terms.
  • Yep. Done.
  • Albanian and Armenian have a controversial placement in centum–satem taxonomy. See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for further discussion: this currently seems a bit disjointed, since we then talk about this in the last paragraph of the article.
  • Yeah, I originally put this in here to get in front of any head-scratching coming from someone with linguistics knowledge, especially since I originally wrote an extremely technical article (i.e., one in which a reader would only have gotten that far with some background in PIE linguistics). I think the discussion on the page is better (and better sourced), so would it be better to just {{slink}} the "Relative chronology" section of this article instead? Or should I just remove it outright?
  • I think it mostly works: While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages, Kloekhorst considers Albanian and Armenian to be satem languages: is it worth sticking in the middle "it does affect Albanian and Armenian; most scholars categorise these as centum languages, but Kloekhorst..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My take on the scholarship is that "Albanian and Armenian are satem languages" comprises a plurality – but not a majority – of opinions on the topic. I'd say "Albanian and Armenian exist outside the dichotomy/exist on a spectrum within the dichotomy" is a close second (usually in "inoffensive" contexts, such as intros to the field and papers in which Albanian and Armenian do not constitute a significant portion of the data). And I found this to remain the case as I developed the article, though scholarship is changing somewhat on what exactly the dichotomy is as a whole. That's why I simply put "have a controversial placement" rather than implying any sort of majority opinion because I don't think any polls or reviews of the literature would support an outright majority. And if they did, it might be outside the scope of this article; Weise's law affects these two languages, so for the purposes of most of scholarship on the law, they are categorized as such and that's really all the reader needs to know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, we need to think about the phrasing of While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages..., since this implies that Albanian and Armenian are generally-accepted centum languages. I'm not sure you need to come down hard either way, but we should avoid giving the reader the wrong impression. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. It's fixed, but let me know if the verbiage is still off. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that footnotes always end in a full stop (the citation template adds one automatically, as does sfn; harvnb doesn't) -- see note 3 for instance.
  • Good catch. I think I got all of them now.

SnowFire

[edit]

Nice work.

I know that having some commentary or suggestions is common to sort of "prove" that the reviewer actually read the article, but I'm a little gunshy of making such on a highly technical topic, and when UC above has already massaged the prose pretty well. I did read Kloekhorst's paper for comparison and it seems summarized and fairly represented, but usual disclaimer goes that I'm not a linguist here, and some of the summations probably require someone who really knows the field for a 100% confidence review.

The main concern is the one that both Gog & UC alluded to above: that this topic is going to be a rough read for "casual" readers who aren't familiar with linguistics and the details of PIE theories. I agree with UC that some sort of table of sample words would be a nice-to-have as something, anything that casual readers can glom onto - even if what it's demonstrating is actually a similarity rather than a difference. But I read the examples in Kloekhorst's paper, which are all hypothetical old words and about as clear as mud, so... respect that this is hard to do, since modern languages have concealed the difference leaving us with Old Avestan and reconstructed PIE. Basically, some sort of "here's a reconstructed word with *ḱ, here's a word that should have a *ḱ but really has a *k because it's followed by *r, here's a word that has a *ḱ and is followed by *r*i" might be nice. While I think this would be helpful, it's not enough to block promotion - just something to strongly think about if there's a good example in the sources. (And if there are good examples in modern languages, that'd be even better.)

A cautious support - this is one of those topics I suspect isn't very main page friendly (only hardcore linguists stumble on this article by accident), but there's absolutely a place for that in FAs. SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your kind words and support. I was concerned this page would languish in FAC limbo with only two supports, so thank you for voicing your support here as well.
With respect to the table, I took both yours and UC's table hopes to heart and I genuinely cannot think of a way to adequately tablify the concept without it descending into extreme theoretical historical linguistics. In effect, what Kloekhorst is arguing is that at an earlier date, the palatalized consonants may have been more widespread, but PIE is reconstructed through the comparative method and every daughter language appears to have depalatalized either all palatals (centum languages), all palatals before resonants (satem languages, except Indo-Iranian), or all palatals before *r alone (Indo-Iranian). This is why Kloekhorst doesn't give examples, only possible counterexamples. I gave the Avestan example from de Vaan as a helpful explanation, but both Kroonen (p. 244) and Matasović (p. 224) reconstruct the root as *krep- and I don't see any real reason to reconstruct the palatovelar except perhaps to posit a relationship with another root. All this to say, I made a table after UC's comments, but found myself realizing why Kloekhorst wrote the paper the way he did.
Again, thank you for supporting the article for FA. If you have any suggestions later or think of some way to further de-technicalize the article, feel free to let me know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass; image review pending

[edit]
File:Eisenberg Wohnhaus Oskar Weise Tafel.jpg needs a licence for the plate. I wonder if the information in the files of the "overview" section can be sourced. File:Centum Satem 2000BC.png is even tagged for such and should probably say where the underlying map comes from.

Is there a logic between the use of quotes in the references? Also, many inconsistent IDs in the sources section. "Kleiner, Kurt (19 February 2024). "New Linguistics Technique Could Reveal Who Spoke the First Indo-European Languages". Scientific American. Retrieved 1 August 2024." is a somewhat so-so source IMO.

Spotcheck:

  • Yes, I removed that since spotcheck began; while it is true that the tongue moves, it's not pertinent to the process of assibilation (e.g., [c] → [ç] is still assibilation even though the place of articulation remains the same), so I removed it pursuant to WP:OFFTOPIC. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, per Beekes: "Assibilation, the development of a palatal or palatalized consonant into a °sibilant or (a cluster or) an °affricate with a s-sound as a second element; e.g. PIE *ḱmtom > Skt. śatám, Av. satəm; Latin centum > Ital. cento [č-]." (p. 302, where "°" signifies "defined elsewhere")
  • 16 OK (I can read German and checked the translation)
  • 19 I think this source might actually benefit from a quotation.
  • Okay, I added a few. The two pages contain a lot of information to confirm Kortlandt's thoughts on the topic, but I tried to minimize the length to make the point.
  • 21 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 25 Can I have a copy of this page?
    I've seen this page, but I don't get "The effects of the law are commonly found in zero-grade stems – that is, stems without their typical vowel – which often receive inserted vowels in the daughter languages in order to ease pronunciation" from it nor "Although the original palatovelar *ḱ does not immediately precede *r in the Avestan reflex, it is still in accordance with the depalatalization described by Weise's law since *ḱ immediately precedes *r in the zero-grade form *ḱrp-os-". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've cited the definition of zero-grade per Beekes and changed the wording for the first concern. For the second concern, *ḱ and r are separated in the reflex (see the romanization provided) and de Vaan says that the zero-grade is affected as a result of Weise's law and may go back to *ḱrp- on p. 138. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26 supports the whole claim: "PIE: *krep- [...] oblique case-stem of the PIE etymon, *krp-". Matasović uses "case-stem" instead of the term "zero-grade", but they refer to the same thing. As for 27, the page is correct (p. 244); Kroonen even gives the same Old Avestan example as de Vaan and shows both the full grade (*krép-es-) and the zero grade (*krp-). ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 29 Needs a page number.
  • Already paginated: 266.
  • This should be fixed now. It looks like I wrote backwards a little bit; I've added a clear restoration model example and clarified that the ajra example should align with the morphemic boundary model. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already paginated with quote: 268.
  • 36 Is there a transcript of the pertinent part of the video?
  • Not that I'm aware of, but I'll see if I can't whittle down the ~10 min time frame/quote the appropriate parts of it. ETA: Added a quote from the slide.
  • 37 I am not sure that this actually says that Indo-Iranian languages had secondary depalatization.
  • It doesn't. First usage is to discuss later depalatalizations in Albanian and Balto-Slavic only and the last usage explicitly carves out the Indo-Iranian languages from the statement.
  • 41 OK
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the source/image review. I'm planning to fix these sometime in the next 24 hours or so, barring any unforeseen circumstances. I've responded to a few things above. As for getting copies of the pages, how should I go about doing that, given that the source is copyrighted? I've never done this through Wikipedia before. Re: quoting strategy, there isn't one. Mostly, if I thought the context were relevant or the quote particularly useful, I added it. I tended to exclude quotes that were particularly technical. Re: inconsistent IDs, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you give an example? Re: the plate, should any additional licensing be necessary, given that Germany has freedom of panorama? Thanks again for the review. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got to more of these. A few questions/comments. For the articulation images, can just I cite Beekes's definition of assibilation (palatalized consonant → affricate or sibilant) or is there something else that should be cited? For the map, I've cited the general areas where these were. I can attempt to recreate the map without coloration if you insist. As for the SA article, I'm not sure what's objectionable about it; the author cites or interviews reputable linguists (Olander, Clackson, etc.) and Renfrew's claims are the minority, but well-known and have some support; I think he's wrong (see Goedegebuure source), but there are linguists who agree with his reasoning and he holds a high position at a reputable institution. It's a reputable source per WP:RSPSS for popular science, which is its only function here. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beekes' definitions would work. With the maps, I mostly want to see where the background map comes from. The thing with SA is that such popular science things often have somewhat lower standards than journals and thus may not satisfy the "high-quality" requirement of WIAFA. Although I confess that such a source was allowed into 1257 Samalas eruption so I guess it's not an universally shared concern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've cited Beekes as discussed. Re: the map, I have no idea where it comes from. Can I suggest replacing it with File:Indo-European migrations.gif or File:Indo-European steppe homeland map.svg and changing the caption accordingly? I think SA is fine for what it is here, but if you really feel strongly about it, say so and I will look for a different source. In any case, let me know how you would like me to transmit the copyrighted pages you requested above. I'm happy to type out the quotes if that's acceptable, but if there's an easier/better/more appropriate way, just let me know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the Dropbox or Google method, but email is probably easier. Aye, the image should be replaced if its information can't be sourced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I've found links for Adams et al. 1997, Monier-Williams 1899, and Beekes 2011 on the Internet Archive. Your user page also indicates that you have access to JSTOR; if that's true, you should have no problem getting Trask 2000 through the link provided. If not, just let me know and I can copy down some pages. Books for 25, 26, and 27 were already linked; are you having trouble accessing them for some reason? I think that should cover everything, but of course let me know if you need me to provide any more sources. ETA: I have also replaced the image as discussed. The citations are nested in the Commons, but present. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Trask 2000 apparently isn't in the JSTOR package. IA seems to be occasionally flaky when it comes to which pages it shows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've addressed everything above. Pages not found in links provided in the article can be found in this Dropbox. Let me know if there are any more concerns, if IA keeps acting up for you, or if you have trouble getting access to DB for whatever reason. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'fraid that this dropbox requires a login. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try this link. I tested it logged out so hopefully it should work now, but let me know if it doesn't and I can just email it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It works now. Noting though that it doesn't have all the works that I need to check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, glad to hear it. I did a little spot check and it looks like everything requested has either been provided in the dropbox or have been linked in the current revision of the page. If IA continues to give you trouble, let me know and I can drop some more pages for you. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think #32 is the only one missing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the dropbox now with the beginning part highlighted. Monier-Williams uses an older form of linguistic shorthand so you should read "fr. √aṅg" as "from [the] root aṅg" ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think I caught everything, but I've been wrong before. Let me know if you have any more concerns. Thanks for your patience and understanding. I know this is a seriously technical set of sources. 00:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC) ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this review is done; you can deactivate the Dropbox. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thanks a ton for the review/support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added for the benefit of the coordinators: The sourcing in the captions of File:Voiceless palatal plosive.svg, File:Voiceless alveolar sibilant affricate.gif and File:Voiceless alveolar fricative articulation.svg needs additional page numbers, or a suggestion to look up the terms in the source via search. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this requiring action on my end? Happy to add more pages to the dropbox if need be. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily; an explanation of how to find it in Beekes, or additional pagenumbers, should suffice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Beekes gives the example of [c] (ḱ) → [s] on the page cited and [ts] is used to express "an affricate with a final s-sound as the second element". What needs to be explained further? Do I just need to add something like "p. 303 § Assibilation"? ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the captions of the images. The file descriptions don't explain why the particular tongue movements should be palatal stops, alveolar fricatives or alveolar sibilant affricatives, so the caption needs a source. Beekes p 301 tells me what an alveolar is, the others need an explainer too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, everything should be squared away; everything was able to be cited in Beekes. Let me know if there's something else that needs to be defined or cited. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. Should be good on the image review then, right? ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, save for Borsoka's point with the borders of the PIE Urheimat but I'll let that conversation proceed without my input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be cleared up now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 17 September 2024 [9].

Atrociraptor

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a dromaeosaurid (or "raptor") dinosaur in more than a decade, and this particular genus has recently become (in)famous as antagonist in a recent Jurassic World movie. Because their portrayal in that film is atrociously inaccurate, improving this article will hopefully set the record straight. FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • No date for Currie and Varricchio?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No publisher location for Allison and Bottjer?
Looks like this has been added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that lived during the Late Cretaceous of what is now Alberta, Canada". "of" → 'in'?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "restrain struggling prey while dismembering it with the mouth". "it" → 'them'?
Why not, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicate it survived later as well" doesn't really work for me. Why not just say 'indicate it survived for over 2 million years'?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It lived alongside a variety of dinosaurs". 1. Why single out dinosaurs? 2. "it is not known for certain if any of the animals from the Horsethief Member directly coexisted with it" seems to indicate that the lead is stronger than warrented.
I just removed the sentence, goes without saying it lived alongside other animals... FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fossil collector Wayne Marshall". Was this his occupation, or a hobby?
The sources state he collected fossils while being employed in other fields, so that seems to be the case, but not sure how to source it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'the part-time fossil collector'?
Went with that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 1 cm (0.39 in)". Looks a bit false precision to me.
  • "serrations per 1 mm (0.039 in)." Similarly, and elsewhere.
What would be the solution to these? FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the sigfig parameter here and elsewhere, as suggested below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Latin words atroci". Foreign language words (which are not proper nouns) should be in lang templates, not just italicised.
Added. But what's the point of those templates? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Lang, "The purpose of this template is to indicate that a span of text belongs to a particular language. It often makes no visible changes to the text but can prompt web browsers to use a more appropriate font or screen readers to use a particular kind of pronunciation and so on."
  • "rather than that the snout was shortened." I feel that 'rather than because the snout was shortened' makes for an easier read.
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "in the teeth being almost all the same size"; main article: "the teeth have different sizes but the same form".
Ouch, I think that was left in from the original version, changed to "(the teeth being of similar size)". FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the clarity of the interrelationships recovered in their phylogenetic analyses." I "recovered" the best word to use here?
  • "in a clade more derived than Saurornitholestinae". I don't think that a non-specialist audience will understand this.
  • "but included more taxa which had been described in the interim." Maybe 'but included additional taxa which had been described in the interim'?
  • "contains data for a wide number of coelurosaurian taxa". What is a "wide number"?
  • "Atrociraptor has been consistently recovered as a member of Saurornitholestinae." I think you need to define "recovered" somewhere, or use a different expression.
  • "and does not have a generally agreed-upon answer." I am (very) unsure what the question is that is unanswered.
  • "then they may have been recent immigrants". More recent than what?
  • "This hypothesis is supported by the possibility". Can a hypothesis be supported by a possibility. Optional: is there a better way of phrasing this?
  • "ranged from using the claws for slashing or climbing up prey larger than themselves." If you use "ranged from" the options should be separated by 'to', not "or".
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a shift from using the feet instead of the hands for restraining prey". I'm confused. Should "from" be 'to'?~
Oh yeah, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked in the intro and at first mention in the article body (discovery). Want one more further down? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Cynical Idealist is probably best at determining this. If that's the case, then alternative title should at least redirect, or become the new title of that article. Or it should perhaps be merged into the formation's article? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different unit, they are not the same. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a much wider geographic and temporal distribution than initially suggested." Suggested by whom, when and what was the suggestion?
  • "corresponds to "poorly-drained" sediments rich with organic material. The sediments of the Horsetheif Member are composed primarily of coal, shales, sandstones, and mudstones. These sediments are rich with organic materials, which reflect a highly saturated environment". "... rich with organic material ... rich with organic materials ..."
  • Caption: "Several dinosaurs known from the Horsethief Member of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, where the first Atrociraptor specimen was found". Do you mean 'Several dinosaurs are known from the Horsethief Member of ..." or 'Conjectural reconstructions of several dinosaurs known from the Horsethief Member of ...'?
Should we go with "hypothetical", as was mainly thrown around at the talk page last time? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the unexplained "tooth-taxon" is a bit much for a non-specialist reader.
  • "The absence of these fossils from the older members does not necessarily mean that these taxa did not exist at that time, and may simply be reflective of the fossil bias which makes the preservation of small-bodied animals less likely." Is fine. "Remains of smaller animals are also common in the Horseshoe Canyon Formation. " Is fine. When the former is immediately followed by the latter, the word "also" reads oddly.

That's it from me. Another fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes you suggested to the "Classification" and "Paleoecology" sections. Word choice was refined, repetition of phrases was removed, and technical language (recovered, derived, tooth-taxon, etc) has been removed or explained. As mentioned above, the "Horsethief Member" of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (in Alberta) is unrelated to the "Horsethief Sandstone" (in Montana). "Horsethief" seems to just be a common name for landforms in western North America.
Thank you for your input. @FunkMonk wrote the remainder of the article and I'll leave the changes you suggested to those other sections to their discretion. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed "my" issues, so it seems everything else is done if ACI fixed the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I added that to the beginning of the phylogeny section. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although they did directly comment on the placement of Atrociraptor in their analysis." Just checking that there isn't a "not" missing from this.
  • "The diverse and abundant prey in the environments of the deep-snouted Atrociraptor and Deinonychus may have allowed for more specialised diets of large-bodied prey for them." I am not sure that the last two words are needed.
Tried to rephrase, any better? "The diverse and abundant prey in the environments of Atrociraptor and Deinonychus may have allowed for more specialised diets of large-bodied prey for these deep-snouted dromaeosaurids." FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assigned teeth from other parts of the formation indicate it survived for over 2 million years and in a wider geographic area." Wider than what? (You can't say wider than a single location.) Perhaps '... and in a wide geographic area'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Cynical Idealist is probably best at answering the last two points. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already fixed the missing "not" and changed "wider" to "wide". All the other suggested changes to the classification and paleoecology sections have been implemented. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll try to review this sometime ovver the next week. Hog Farm Talk 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when Gog's concerns have been addressed, and I'll start my review then. Hog Farm Talk 20:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's about now, Hog Farm. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 5 km (3.1 mi) from the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology," - I'd argue that this is false precision as well. There's a way to round this off in the conversion template using the sigfig= parameter
Added sigfig there and elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Atrociraptor mainly differs from its contemporary relatives Bambiraptor, Saurornitholestes, and Velociraptor in that its face is much deeper, and in that its maxillary teeth are more strongly inclined backwards than in most other dromaeosaurids, and in the teeth being almost all the same size" - this may need some rephrasing. The reader is later told that the maxillary teeth being inclined backwards is also a feature of Bambiraptor. The teeth being the same size is contrasted against Velociraptor. When I first read this quoted sentence, it read as if all of these these three features were the series of distinct things that set Atrociraptor apart from all these species. I don't know if there is a good way to clarify this, though
These particular features are singled out in the intro because they were singled out in the description paper's abstract. About the teeth, it does say "more strongly inclined backwards than in most other dromaeosaurids", which leaves room for exceptions like Atrociraptor (as is done in the abstract). I tried to rephrase it like this (closer to the source), if it makes any difference: "Atrociraptor differs from its contemporary relatives in that its face is much deeper, and its teeth are more strongly inclined backwards than in most other dromaeosaurids, and are almost all the same size." FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and, unusually for dromaeosurids, there are no gaps left by shed teeth." - is this referring specifically to the absence of tooth loss in the holotype? I know this is a description of the holotype, but I'm concerned that the lay reader will try to apply this to the species as a whole, and wonder if the teeth regrew, or shifted after the loss of a tooth, etc, and lead to confusion
Unfortunately the source doesn't specify, but since we know they would have shed their teeth, it's pretty certain they just mean this specimen, so I've added "in the holotype" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The maxillary teeth have larger serrations on their front cutting edge, 3-4.5 per mm, than behind, 5–8 per mm." - this doesn't seem right - p. 122 of the source has 3-4.5 on the posterior and 5-8 on the anterior; compare also to "The serrations at the front are smaller and more numerous, 5–8 per mm, than those behind, 3.5–5." when discussing the dentary teeth; I wouldn't expect the front/back characteristics of the serrations to be reversed on the maxillary and dentary teeth
Yeah, swapped front and back at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The uncertainty around the classification of Atrociraptor would not be resolved for some time." - has this actually been resolved as of 2024 (or ever will be, without further material discoveries?)
I've removed this sentence because it doesn't really seem to reflect what's said by the sources, but is verging on editorialising. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the fragmentary remains of a dromaeosaurid jaw from the Prince Creek Formation" - I think its necessary to indicate where the Prince Creek Formation is located
Added "from Alaska". FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the Evolutionary implications section needs either a closer tying to Atrociraptor specifically, or a bit of a trimming; as it currently stands this is more general material on the eudromaeosaurs. The title implies that Atrociraptor itself has particular evolutionary implications, but what these implications are on say the third paragraph remain unclear
A Cynical Idealist is probably best at solving this one. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think its best to just remove the whole section. The paleobiogeography of Atrociraptor is not really extricable from a general discussion of eudromaeosaurs. If that generality is a core issue with its inclusion as a section, then removal may be the best option. None of the listed sources really comment on Atrociraptor in isolation other than in a discussion of the taxonomic uncertainty and its possible implications on geographic and temporal dispersal. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I think removing it all may be a bit too drastic, as while it may have been too detailed before, it did have relevance to how and when Atrociraptor appeared and its wider context. Most other dinosaur FAs go into these issues, so I think a trimming would have been enough. What do Hog Farm and Jens Lallensack think? FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that the section is not about Atrociraptor and does not need to be here. Maybe you could add something about it to the beginning of the phylogeny section, to provide some (very basic and brief) background about eudromaeosaurs before going into the classification details; for example, you could state there that velociraptorines are a primarily Asian group and saurornitholestines are North American, and that it is debated whether Eudromaeosaurs evolved in North America or Asia, and that faunal exchange might have happend in the early Maastrichtian via the Bering landbridge. I would furthermore suggest to move the deleted section to the Eudromaeosauria article, I think it fits there well. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently close to finished with a very extensive rewrite of Eudromaeosauria, so don't worry, there will be ample discussion of it there. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the subject probably didn't need an entire section to begin with, but I think the following brief paragraph could be kept for context: "The pattern of eudromaeosaur dispersal is controversial among scientists. Some researchers have suggested that saurornitholestines are the earliest-diverging members of this group.[1] If that is the case, it suggests a North American origin for Eudromaeosauria.[2] However, if saurornitholestines are more closely related to velociraptorines, then they may have immigrated to North America from Asia closer to the end of the Cretaceous.[3]" FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particular reason why poorly-drained is in quotation marks?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me; I hope the above make sense. I'm personally a bit skeptical of the tendency of dinosaur research to assign new species/genus from extremely fragmentary remains; I suspect that in a hypothetical world in the far future where dogs have gone extinct and dog fossils are dug up that the German Shepherd and the chihuahua would be assigned as diferrent genera, but that is neither here nor there. Hog Farm Talk 22:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in dinosaur palaeontology in particular there is a tendency to lean to the "splitting" side, where almost every species gets its own genus (though there are some notable exceptions). But since we don't have dinosaur DNA to properly conclude relations from, that may the most stable way to do it, since otherwise a species will often be moved to a new genus in every other paper where someone finds it more similar to something else. Taxonomy is a very arbitrary field in general... In this case, though, no one has moved it to another genus, which indicates it is actually considered distinct "enough" by most researchers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reduction of the implications section is much improved; I'm happy to support now. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick drive-by comment

[edit]

The generic name is derived from the Latin words atroci, which means "savage", and raptor, "robber". For atroci read atrox. By convention when referring to Latin nouns or adjectives as words, we use the nominative singular form, which is how they are listed in modern dictionaries. Choliamb (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're aware, problem is that the source (the original description) says "Etymology: "Atroci" is a Latin word meaning savage, whereas "raptor" is Latin for robber". No other sources about this animal give a detailed etymology, so the question is how far we can veer off the source without going into WP:OR and WP:synth territory. Since the source seems to translate the component words with the form they appear in the name, it doesn't seem to be inaccurate as such, just unconventional. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the generic name is not derived from atrox, so it would be misleading to say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog: The generic name is derived from atrox. The uninflected stem of the adjective atrox is atroc-, and for that reason atroc(i)- is the form used when attaching suffixes and forming compounds: cf. the Latin derivatives atrocitas and atrociter, or the English derivatives atrocious and atrocity. All of these are ultimately derived from atrox (check any etymological dictionary). For comparison, you can see the same pattern in the generic name of another therapod, Ornithomimus, the first part of which is derived from ὄρνις (ornis), the Greek word for bird. The uninflected stem of the noun ornis is ornith-, and for that reason ornith(o)- is the form that we use when creating compound words like Ornithomimus or Ornithopoda or ornithology. The WP articles for all of these words correctly state that they are derived from ornis, not ornitho-, because ornitho- has no independent existence; it is simply a form of ornis. The relationship between atrox and atroci- is exactly the same. Compounds begining with ornitho- are derived from ornis; compounds beginning with atroci- are derived from atrox.
FunkMonk: Yes, I see your problem. If the source makes this mistake, and no other source gives the correct form, then I suppose your hands are tied by WP policy. A pity, but there it is. In any case, I've made my comment, so I'll be moving on now. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that we should change to atrox, and I personally do not see any WP:synth issue here; a statement that the name is derived from atrox is covered by the source, as there is no other way to interpret it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just popping back in because I thought of an even closer parallel: Velociraptor, which is derived from velox, not from veloci. Like atroci-, veloci- is just a form of velox and has no independent existence. These two adjectives, atrox and velox, follow exactly the same pattern, both in ancient Latin and in the modern Latin binomials derived from ancient roots. Choliamb (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a personal opinion on this, apart from the OR/synth concern. But if everyone here agrees it's not a case of that (even my co-nominator made the change at one point[10]), we'll change it. We'll begin fixing the other listed issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed the word, using the site linked in the first comment as citation, though I'm not sure if it's formatted correctly. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • Only few comments from me, since I've already done the GA review.
  • Now that we have a skeletal diagram, maybe we can produce an additional figure out of that: Crop out the head, and add labels of all the terms mentioned in the text? It would be so much more factual and more helpful than the Dromaeosaurus skull. Happy to help out with that if needed.
Comparing with the published figures, I'm not sure it matches 100% to be used directly. But I'll tag the artist, Mettiina, about a closer skull only version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of this inclination, the tooth enamel at the base of the teeth is also inclined, whereas in Saurornitholestes, Dromaeosaurus, and other relatives where the teeth are oriented more vertically, the enamel is almost perpendicular to the longitudinal axes of the teeth – I am still not quite sure what this means. The enamel is the outer layer of the tooth, so if the tooth is inclined at any given point, the tooth must have the same inclination at that point. I do not really see what this adds, and you already discuss tooth inclination in great depth, so I would suggest to just remove this sentence, it is a bit too much imo.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2011 study by the palaeontologist Denver W. Fowler and colleagues found these ideas unlikely – You clearly give preference to this particular hypothesis while discarding the others. Do we have any secondary source that states that this hypothesis is now the favoured one? Or is this hypothesis of particular relevance for this genus? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a much newer source on the topic [11], which also suggest a function of the claw in restraining smaller prey. So it indeed looks like this is now the favoured hypothesis, but that newer study should be incorporated I think. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current text probably goes too much into that one paper, will see if I can make a more general rewrite reflecting more views more equally. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded a bit with the newer study, as you say, it agrees with the Fowler study, but also seems to suggest some additional functions. Also added an image from the paper, don't know if using both is too much in that section. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Description" section relies exlusively on the 2004 paper that names this genus. Any reason the Powers et al. 2022 paper is not cited there even though it has two pages discussing the anatomy of Atrociraptor (p. 8–9)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I could see, all of it was very detailed description of non-diagnostic features that wouldn't really add much to the text (similar to other text from the original description that was left out). But perhaps you or A Cynical Idealist see something useful I overlooked? FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to read the original description to make an assessment of the independent value of Powers et al 2022. Glancing over the Powers paper, it seems to mostly just be comparisons with other taxa. Maybe there could be a paragraph added to the description specifically noting the morphological similarities with other taxa? Other than that, I doubt there's that much more to add. Its only 4 bones after all, so the original description can't have missed much. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was also my impression, not much that adds to the general understanding for laymen. So since we already cut out some of that kind of stuff, I'm thinking adding more comparison of anatomical minutiae is a step back? FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering if any updates are needed because that paper is so much newer, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Looking good...

  • "Horsetheif" is written several times in body...this is a typo for "Horsethief", right?
  • Also, in the Contemporary fauna and flora section, why are the zones in double quotes as looks odd...?
  • In the (in my view redundant) See also section - I can't see how one item is relevant as this critter was not in Jurassic Park (oops, missed that...in which case is it worth a few sentences somehow), and the Timeline of dromaeosaurid research is in the navbox at the bottom of the page
Do you think it would be worth adding a short sentence under discovery saying it was in the movie? FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a mention, with the rather meta observation ""it's a very real dino with its own Wiki page and everything". FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all these. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no deal-breakers remain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "The antorbital fenestra of Atrociraptor was relatively small compared to in other dromaeosaurids, with the portion in the maxilla taking up less than 43% its length": just checking there's no error here -- the dromaeosaurus skull diagram given shows an anterior fenestra apparently much smaller than this.
    Unless you mean the two small, unlabelled holes in the maxilla, yeah, it does seem like the antorbital fenestra is smaller here than in other reconstructions of Dromarosaurus.[12] So that could be a good reason to take up Jens Lallensack on the offer for making a new one? FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will see what I can do tomorrow! Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, fig. 20 in this paper has a newer skull reconstruction of Atroci for reference:[13] FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The new diagram has now been added. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "neurovasular" typo for "neurovascular"?
    Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The maxilla contains eleven teeth (similar to in other dromaeosaurids)": seems an odd thing to say -- do all other dromaeosaurids have eleven teeth in the maxilla? If so I'd make it "as do other". If not, what does "similar" mean -- a number similar to eleven?
    The source only says "The number of tooth positions compares well with most other dromaeosaurids". So it's a bit vague, but I changed to "(comparable to most other dromaeosaurids)", if that's any better. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which suggests that the change in climate forced the small theropod to either move elsewhere or become extinct": suggest "which suggests that either the change in climate forced the small theropod to move elsewhere or it became extinct".
    This was partly done; I edited it a bit further. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a pair of spaced em dashes near the end of the article; per MOS:DASH you have to pick either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes. You also have a couple of ranges that use em dashes, e.g. "71.5—69.6 million years": those should be spaced en dashes.

That's everything; all very minor. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed the dashes, and I made the fix to "which suggests that the climate...". A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spaced em dashes are still in the body text, and the ranges now have en dashes but they should be spaced. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have removed all of the em dashes and replaced them with spaced en dashes. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you used hyphens instead of en dashes? I went ahead and replaced them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK

[edit]
  • "dromaeosaurids, and are almost" Comma unnecessary?
Removed, not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skull such as the part" to "skull, such as the part"
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link member in the lead and body, it's a very niche term.
Done there and in article body. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "72.2 - 71.5" en-dash?
Looks like these were taken care of. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since then, Marshall led" to "Since then, Marshall has led", although I'm not sure why this particular detail was mentioned.
Added, I think it's worth nothing that he has done more important work in the area. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jurassic World Dominion, the director" to "Jurassic World Dominion, with the director"
Done, was actually how i first had it... FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not quote the entire bit from Slashfilm ("might sound like another made-up hybrid dinosaur invented for the "Jurassic World" films...but it's a very real dino with its own Wiki page and everything") instead of loosely paraphrasing the first half?
Added the part you quoted, don't think the rest of the original sentence is necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relatively large prey, and to wound it" I'd have assumed prey would be plural. Also, comma unnecessary.
Removed comma, but not sure about prey. Isn't this a case similar to "group" being singular? Pinging Gog the Mild. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all dromaeosaurids, with their deep maxillae,"
  • "velociraptorines, with their elongated snouts that allowed for rapid biting at the cost of power, perhaps"
  • "become extinct" go extinct reads better to me, although this is just a preference
  • "71.5 - 69.6" en-dash?
  • "Albertonykus, in addition"
  • Ref 7 should have the name of the site (which is actual Greek to me) instead of the url (logeion.uchicago.edu).
  • Ref 9 (Sven 1997) looks like it has too large a page range, especially since it cites just one claim.
Shortened range. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 12 (Eberth et al. 2010) looks like it has too large a page range.
  • ref 19 (Turner 2012) has too large a page range.
  • ref 24 (Evans et al. 2013) has an incorrect page range (1041–9)
  • ref 37 (Allison 2010) the page range looks too large for a sentence-long claim.
  • That's all I have. AryKun (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 and 19 still look like the page range is too large, and you seem to have removed the page range for 24 entirely instead of adding the correct one. AryKun (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was not as thorough as I thought I was. I've corrected 19 and 24. Reference 9 was used by @FunkMonk, so I can't speak to the page range for that particular reference. The remainder of the suggested changes are to the portion of the article written by them, so I will leave those corrections to their discretion. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on prose since almost everything has been addressed, I'll let Gog weigh in on the grammatical number of "prey". AryKun (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Images seem well-placed. File:Halszkaraptor Restoration.png, File:Fred Wierum Microraptor.png, File:Deinonychus Restoration.png and File:Austroraptor Restoration.png should probably explain on which information these reconstructions are based on. What are the credentials, or the process, that led to the drawing of File:Albertosaurus confronting Pachyrhinosaurus.jpg and File:Albertosaurus hunting Saurolophus.jpg? OKish ALT text. Source-wise: I kinda wonder, is Jurassic World Dominion so prominent that this source is WP:DUE? Yes, I know that DUE is more a content than a sourcing policy, but I am querying the entire paragraph. What makes this a reliable source? I am not sure that the accessibility icons are consistently applied. Otherwise, generic name is a disambiguation and nothing to say on the sourcing - most of it passes "high-quality reliable sources" and the only inconsistencies I see seem to be due to different articles having different identifiers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the images from the cladogram, as it was inconsistent to have images there and not in the other cladograms anyway. As for the two environment images you listed, both have passed review at WP:Dinoart and have citations supporting the anatomy of the animals shown. Being more familiar with the flora of the time and place, A Cynical Idealist could maybe add citations to those images broadly supporting the kinds of plants shown (also could look at the Climate Data link)? As for the Jurassic World paragraph, it was requested in a review (as was the expanded quote), and the film is this dinosaur's only real claim to fame after all. Is it important for FAC that accessibility icons are consistently applied? I corrected the link to generic name. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2024 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 17 September 2024 [14].

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an interesting aspect of the 1982 Falklands War. While nuclear weapons were obviously not used, the British warships that were sent to the South Atlantic carried most of the country's nuclear depth bombs, mainly as it would have taken too long to have offloaded them. However, the British government and military did not seriously consider using nuclear weapons and the War Cabinet never wanted the depth bombs sent south. It was reported during and after the war that a British ballistic missile submarine had been sent to menace Argentina but historians have found no evidence that such a deployment took place. Interestingly, it has emerged in recent years that British Prime Minister Thatcher might have been willing to use nuclear weapons if the war had gone disastrously for her. Historians and international relations experts have also discussed why Argentina decided to invade British territory despite the UK being nuclear power and the broader implications of this.

I developed this article to set the record straight after a really bad article on this topic was developed and rightly deleted in May. It's turned out to be a much more complex and interesting topic than I expected, leading to a wide ranging article. The article was assessed as a GA in mid-June and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in August. I have since further expanded and copy edited the article and am hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

UC

[edit]

Very much enjoying the article, as I expected I would given the nominator. Three general pointers so far:

  1. I think the lead currently errs too much towards brevity rather than completeness -- remember that we should be content for readers to stop at the end of it and have picked up as much information as we really need to give them.
  2. Similarly, I think the prose is just slightly too simplistic in places -- it's very clear, but occasionally it almost reads like an introductory school-book that pulls some punches on detail and general polish.
  3. If we can quickly and easily give a piece of information that answers a reader's question, even if it's not strictly relevant (e.g. "who was that person? When did that happen?"), I think we should. Footnotes might help here, if you feel that the flow would be unduly interrupted.

I hope this is helpful. As ever, please do let me know where I've been unclear or unfair, and I'm very happy to disagree on matters of taste (which is most of this review) without any prejudice.

  • The first sentence (sorry to start so early!) could do with a bit of thought. I don't really like "even though" as WP:WEASEL: most pilots never seriously consider using their ejection seat, even if they have one in the aircraft. Secondly, the word "initially" is slippery -- it could mean anything from "when they were built, years earlier" to "in the opening stages of the conflict".
  • Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: titles in apposition like this, for politicians, are very American: BrE prefers the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher or Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister.
  • The head of the British military: that was the Queen -- I think we mean the professional head, and I would give his title and name him as Terence Lewin. I'm surprised that we don't get the views (either here or later, except on a related issue) of any other military people -- did Woodward ever express a view, for example, or any of the ships' commanders?
    • Tweaked. None of the sources discuss the views of other military commanders involved in the war other than the commander of the nuclear missile submarine that was alleged to have been deployed to be able to attack Argentina. I recently read Woodward's memoirs from cover to cover and he doesn't note this issue at all, despite providing a very detailed account of his forces operations. I suspect that this is the result of the secrecy around the deployment of British nuclear weapons. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been alleged that a British ballistic missile submarine was sent to the South Atlantic to potentially attack Argentina. This has been denied by senior British government figures as well as the commander of the submarine in question: can we therefore name it as Resolution -- and be clearer that this was reported at the time, rather than just post facto?
  • The British nuclear arsenal did not deter Argentina's invasion of the Falklands on 2 April 1982 due to the commitments the British government had made to not use these weapons.: Hm -- can we know the cause and effect here for sure -- is it impossible that the Argentines considered the British commitment to be unreliable, but also that (e. g.) the missiles wouldn't work, they would be able to intercept them, it was worth the risk, etc etc? Later, we suggest that they were more reassured that the superpowers would stop the British from launching nuclear weapons, which implies that they didn't think Britain's commitment meant all that much.
    Good change -- it was the 1–1 link between the two statements, rather than each of them individually, that was the issue. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Falkland Islands is an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean and a British Overseas Territory. There has been a long-running sovereignty dispute over the islands between Argentina and the British government. : as it's now over forty years later, I would couch this in 1982 terms. Put another way, if the dispute gets settled tomorrow, we shouldn't have to change this sentence.
    • Given that the dispute is still ongoing and the war didn't resolve it, I think that this wording is OK. It also helps to explain the post-war squabbling over whether the UK had stationed nuclear weapons in the Falklands. If the dispute is ever resolved, I'd be happy to update this! Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My issue is that, when you think about it, this material isn't actually relevant. It isn't important to what happened in 1982 that the Falklands are a BOT in 2024, or that there has been a long-running dispute in 2024 -- it matters what the status of that dispute was in 1982. I think we'd be on safer ground to talk about some of the key developments in Anglo-Argentine relations and the Falklands dispute in the decades preceding the war. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tweaked the wording a bit here. The history of the dispute isn't really relevant to this article: what I think is significant is to briefly indicate that there was a long running dispute (to help explain to readers why such an unlikely and now somewhat little known war took place) and that the dispute continues given it's relevant to the section of the article covering developments since the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British government decided to liberate the Falklands: consider retake as more neutral (from the Argentine perspective, they were de-liberating them).
  • This campaign was very risky for the British and required the deployment of substantial military forces at a great distance from the UK.: a bit woolly, I think -- we probably should have said how far the Falklands were from the UK earlier, so "a great distance" is both vague and, in an ideal world, unnecessary. Similarly, "substantial military forces" -- by 2024 British standards, yes, but by almost anyone else's it was a pretty small operation, at least initially. Aren't military campaigns inherently risky, especially for the people taking part? Do we mean militarily risky (they might have lost) or politically? I think there's something here, but it would be worth recouching it in terms of what made this campaign more risky than others.
    • I've tweaked the wording here to make it clearer: in short, the British forces weren't significantly superior to the Argentine forces, especially due to the distance the operation was conducted from the UK. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Numerically, perhaps, but the land forces at least were definitely superior in terms of training and equipment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but the air and naval forces were not and the sources agree, including those cited here, this made the war highly risky. Woodward also stressed how risky the campaign was in his memoirs on purely logistical grounds given that he wouldn't have been able to maintain his fleet off the Falklands during the winter. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This made the UK the third country to deploy these weapons: after...? I know it's not particularly relevant, but if we're going to make readers ask the question, it seems fair to answer it given that we can do so very quickly.
  • The Royal Navy's four ballistic missile submarines were equipped with 100 warheads fitted to standard Polaris missiles and 35 fitted to missiles that had been upgraded through the Chevaline programme.: a total of 100 or 100 each? MOS:FIGURES would like "four" in figures for consistency.
  • Most of the American-owned warheads were assigned to British Army units in Germany.: I think a very brief comment on the British Army of the Rhine and what it was doing in Germany would be useful here.
    • I don't think it would hurt to explain that they were intended to be used against the Warsaw Pact in the event of a Soviet invasion of western Europe (or at least to deter that from happening), but not a major issue -- the current framing works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was legal for the UK to deploy nuclear weapons to other locations in the South Atlantic Ocean.: from my very limited reading on this topic, it's a tricky question as to whether a given breach of a treaty is technically illegal. Suggest "it would not have breached the treaty...".
  • Nuclear powered ships: hyphenate as a compound modifier.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • the strong international norm against the use of nuclear weapons which had developed due to their devastating effects - often labelled the "nuclear taboo: MOS:DASH -- use either a spaced endash or an unspaced emdash here.
  • recapture the islands by force: is there any other way to recapture some islands?
    • Yes, the British could have blockaded them or similar to force the Argentinians to give them up. For instance, the British seriously considered landing troops on an isolated part of West Falkland and building a military airfield instead of attacking the main Argentine forces on East Falkland as part of a strategy to sustain a blockade and intensify diplomatic pressure on Argentina. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's still using force, as your wording (perhaps inadvertently) shows -- either it wouldn't have been recapturing them (as opposed to having them returned 'voluntarily'), or it would have been by force. However, if you want to differentiate what happened from e.g. a blockade, you could say by invasion or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Michael Quinlan, who had noted in a 2013 BBC interview that Thatcher had told him after the war...: MOS:SAID: noted endorses the factual accuracy of this, which we can't do -- stated or similar needed.
  • 'surveillance rounds' or 'training rounds'. The 'surveillance rounds' : MOS:' is unclear on scare quotes, but generally doesn't like them. Suggest munitions termed "surveillance rounds" or "training rounds", which sits better with that guideline and MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
  • While some of the nuclear depth bombs could have been offloaded from warships at Portsmouth, this could not be done covertly: why would it need to be done covertly -- anything more than the obvious not wanting to tell the enemy what you're doing?
    • It was due to the British policy of not disclosing the whereabouts of nuclear weapons - the next para notes that this was a significant consideration at the time. I've added some material earlier in the article on this to help provide context. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • concerns among some senior Royal Navy officers: a little bit weasel-y -- can we be more precise as to who and how many, or is this all "I heard that some admirals were unhappy"? Might not be much we can do here.
  • If the issue was raised in Parliament, the government would have confirmed that nuclear weapons would not be used but not comment on whether the warships were carrying them.: suggest decided to confirm or similar -- we can't know for sure that they would have followed through with the plan.
    • This reflects the wording in the source that "there would be an unequivocal affirmation that nuclear weapons would not be used in the present context" if it was raised in Parliament. I've tweaked the wording a bit here. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a proposal made by Foreign Secretary Francis Pym: outside journalism, more usual in BrE was "the Foreign Secretary, Francis Pym".
  • I think we should indicate the publisher of Proceedings in the citation (the US Naval Institute). Is it ever cited as Proceedings of the US Naval Institute?
    The United States Naval Institute Proceedings began in 1874 as The Papers and Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, though "Papers and Proceedings" shortened to "Proceedings" by 1879. Some early issues were titled "The Record of the United States Naval Institute" even as the volumes containing them had "Proceedings" in the title instead. The title permuted to "United States Naval Institute Proceedings" in 1907. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Hawkeye7 notes, it's usually referred to as just Proceedings. I've added the publisher details. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Hawkeye's comment as suggesting the opposite course of action -- it might be referred to in the field as Proceedings, but its actual title is United States Naval Institute Proceedings, and we should use that. In my own line of study, we have plenty of arcane journal abbreviations: open up any classical journal and you'll see BMCR, Arch. Eph., TPhS and so on, but per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:MTAU we spell them out in full so that they are accessible to readers outside the discipline. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a lot of use here of the British official history of the war. I wouldn't go so far as to call that unreliable, but it's definitely not fully independent. Is there anything we can do to corroborate it from other work?
    • The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently. Consistent with this practice, the only restriction Freedman notes in the book's introduction is that he was limited in what he could write about on a few matters concerning intelligence - this restriction usually applies only to material on intelligence collection operations or practices that remain active. The book was published by an academic press and has been widely cited by other works on this issue as well as the Falklands War more broadly, including some that are critical of the British government's actions. All the reviews I've seen have been positive: I don't think that provisos would be needed unless multiple reviews have judged the book less than fully reliable or independent. Many thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently: I'm not disagreeing, but would be interested in some reading on that topic -- I'm reminded of an interview where (I think) Andrew Marr protested that nobody at the BBC had ever told him which questions to ask, to be told that if they thought they needed to tell him, they wouldn't have picked him for the job in the first place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • [15] is a useful brief overview of British official histories, and notes that while there are some concerns over the genre the standard in the UK these days is good. It describes Freedman's official history which this article cites as being "acclaimed". Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I know that's a blog, but I would definitely still take caution here -- it's good that we're not talking about works that are explicitly censored, but if the British government is choosing who writes the book and (indirectly) the sources to which they have access, we can't call the work fully independent. That doesn't mean we should throw it out altogether when it's known to be a good work of scholarship, but I would be looking for corroborating sources where possible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I already have checked every available reference, many of which cite Freedman. Hennessy and Jinks re-assessed some matters that Freedman considered and ended up largely agreeing with him (Hennessy is an expert on British nuclear weapons policies and deployments). The main discrepancy I found is in relation to Thatcher's possible actions as covered in the last two paras of the 'During the war' section, where I've sought to explain the different views and conclusions. These differences are largely due to Sir Michael Quinlan's revelations after the official history was published. The Argentinian Government also has a different interpretation of the Treaty of Tlatelolco from Freedman and other historians, and I've also sought to cover this. The 'British nuclear weapons policies' section is also an example of where I've provided accounts by different historians on an issue Freedman has covered. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more -- in general, where I haven't replied above, I'm more-or-less happy -- it's obvious that you've thought about the issues, usually before I have, and done your due diligence on them.

  • There is no evidence to support claims that one of these submarines was sent to the South Atlantic.: I don't think we actually put it quite this strongly in the article, so I'm going to cry [citation needed] here. We've outlined a few good reasons to believe that it wasn't, and that Freedman couldn't find any in the archives, but neither of those are quite the same thing.
    • Freedman states that he couldn't find any documentation of such a deployment and dismisses it as a result and Hennessy and Jinks reached the same conclusion, including after interviewing the relevant submarine captain and his commander. As such, I think that this wording is an accurate summary. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be accurate, but it needs to be verifiable, too. "Archival evidence" and "evidence" are not the same thing, nor does the fact that one researcher could not find something demonstrate that it does not exist. More seriously, we've WP:SYNTHed our way from "here are two sources who say that X probably isn't true" to "no reason exists to believe that X is true", and that's not workable. We either need a less cautious source or a more cautious phrasing, I think.
        Better, but do either of our sources actually say "historians [in general, not just the present author] have found no evidence"? Either way, we need to cite that, as it isn't quite what we say and cite in the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were all judged to be "safe and serviceable" following inspections after they arrived back in the UK: consider dropping the quotes per MOS:SCAREQUOTES.
  • the conservative MP: needs a capital, as we mean the party, not (just) the state of mind.
  • the Labour Party member of parliament Tam Dalyell who claimed to have learned this from an unnamed Conservative member of parliament: I would cut the Party for consistency and to fit normal usage.
  • In 2005 a psychoanalyst who had regularly met with French President François Mitterrand during the time of the Falklands War claimed that he had told her that Thatcher had threatened: literally, a lot of he-said, she-said here -- I must admit to being dubious. More importantly, the Guardian doesn't vouch for this claim, and nobody else in the quality press seems to have even picked it up. I would be inclined to cut this, given the circumstances -- WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies, I think, as this is a fairly explosive (sorry) claim resting on pretty flimsy evidence. I know we don't endorse it, but by reporting it, we're giving it some credence as a possibility, a "some people say" etc.
    • I agree that it appears to be nonsense, but Hennessy and Jinks considered the claim worth discussing and evaluating in their book, so I think that this should be included. Both these authors are experts on the history of the British nuclear weapons arsenal. There's also a long-running myth that France was recalcitrant in helping the UK counter Exocet missiles during the Falklands War, which presumably this claim relates to (in reality the French government provided the British with considerable assistance to stop Argentina getting more of these missiles during the war). Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • noting that it is not clear what 'codes' for Exocet missiles she was referring to: double quote needed, but see above.
  • I'm going to need a citation that that Vulcan took part in the Falklands War. Suggest giving its number.
    • I've added a reference. The aircraft's serial number would be a bit confusing if not explained in this context, and I'd prefer to omit it given it's not relevant to the subject of the article (the photo is to show what a Vulcan looks like). Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • nuclear weapons-capable: endash, not hyphen, needed here (MOS:DASH)
  • Officials dismissed the wartime speculation over this issue: officials on which side(s)?
  • This led to Australian authorities declining permission for Invincible to be repaired in a dry dock during 1983.: some areas of Australia are nuclear-free zones; was this one of them?
    • All the sources are oddly vague about the details here, but it would have almost certainly have been the Captain Cook Dry Dock in Sydney (as this is the only large naval dry dock in the country), which I think was a nuclear free zone. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think it was -- worth adding, as otherwise it's a bit confusing as to why Australia would have had such an issue (readers might know that New Zealand doesn't allow nuclear weapons in its territorial waters, but Australia has never had such a prohibition). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • T.V. Paul: we normally put a space after both initials.
  • Consider MOS:CONFORMing "nonnuclear" to "non-nuclear", in line with usage elsewhere in the article.
  • Royal United Services Institute fellow Jeremy Stocker : false title.
  • In 1989 the British international relations expert: two things here. Firstly, he's the first person we've listed as an expert, which seems odd -- weren't all the other admirals, scientists, historians and so on experts? Secondly and more importantly, he was also a Labour/SDP MP, and there was a pretty serious debate going on in those circles about nuclear disarmament -- it's not as if he was a detached commentator on the matter.
    • Tweaked here. The section is about people's views, so whether they're detached or not doesn't seem particularly relevant as long as readers know where they're coming from. An interesting feature of the debate over nuclear weapons, especially during the Cold War, is the cross-overs between politics and technical expertise on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - no problem with including him, but readers need to be able to place the quotation in proper context. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He noted that...}: MOS:SAID -- this isn't a statement of fact. I'm most likely to go for a run if it's sunny, but it's still possible that I might stay in on a nice day if I'm feeling a bit lazy.
  • Luard gets a lot of airtime in his area of the article, and is double-cited with the official history: where does that second citation come in here?
    • I've removed the third sentence now that this has been covered earlier in the article. The second reference is to an earlier work by Freedman where he discussed Luard's views, not the official history. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ward Wilson is likewise not exactly detached: he runs an anti-nuclear pressure group.
  • "A Critical Examination of "the Myth of Nuclear Deterrence"".: single quotes within double quotes.
  • Make sure you capitalise e.g. Sheffield in the titles of cited works.
    Title parameter of note 56. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under British command and control procedures, the Prime Minister is the only person who can authorise the use of nuclear weapons: this is cited to a 2024 page -- can we confirm that this was also the case in 1982 (it was, but our source doesn't strictly prove that).
  • The titles of cited works should be capitalised consistently, at least within source types (that is, all books the same way, all journals the same way...)
    MOS:CONFORMTITLE advises the opposite approach. Is there a particular reason to divert from it here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that guideline provides bad advice here. It seems unjustified to fiddle with the titles of works to deviate from what the author or the journal/book's editor has selected. As it's only a guideline, I'd prefer to stick with the original capitalisation. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, but you're right that it's only a guideline, and I'm not at the point of opposing over something which makes very little difference to readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's my lot for now -- as ever, please do let me know where I've been unclear or unfair, and take (almost) all comments as suggestions rather than hard demands. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Placeholder. Please ping ping me once UC starts to run out of steam. Gog the Mild (talk) 12: 09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: most of what I've got left is pretty small stuff, so don't wait on my account. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing to review.

  • "defended only by a small party of Royal Marines." Is it possible to give a number?
  • "The Argentine forces there were defeated and surrendered on 14 June 1982 following a series of fierce battles." IMO this would read better if it were recast into chronological order.
    • It already is. The idea of this section is to give readers an understanding of the nature of the war rather than its exact chronology given the issues the article covers are more relevant to what the war was like than its course (most of the key decisions covered in the article took place before there was any fighting, for instance). Our article on the war covers the chronology well. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is something like 'Following a series of fierce battles the Argentine forces there were defeated and surrendered on 14 June 1982.' Thus putting the three things referred to in chronological order.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The size of this force peaked". Is "force" the right word? 'stockpile', 'arsenal'?
  • " A total of 100 warheads fitted to standard Polaris missiles and 35 fitted to missiles that had been upgraded through the Chevaline programme were carried by the Royal Navy's four ballistic missile submarines." I don't see how this is supported by the source cited.
  • "In addition, the British Armed Forces also had". You don't need both "In addition" and "also".
  • "the WE.177A nuclear depth bombs nuclear depth bombs".
  • "but had still not ratified it at the time of the Falklands War." Suggest deleting "still".
  • "the South Atlantic as well as their territorial waters." Maybe 'the South Atlantic or their territorial waters'?
  • "The nuclear depth bombs on board Brilliant were transferred to RFA Fort Austin". Perhaps a brief explanation of what type and size of ship Fort Austin was.
  • "The weapons on board Invincible were transferred to Fort Austin on 2–3 June." Where, approximately, did this take place?
  • "Fort Austin returned to the UK on 29 June." Left the fleet to return starting on this date, or arrived back in the UK on this date? Is it known which port she arrived at?
  • Similarly for Resource.
  • "Seven of the containers holding active and inert nuclear weapons were damaged". Is the total number of bombs they contained known?
  • "The surveillance rounds were inert WE.177As". What was it that caused them to be "inert"? Did they contain nuclear material?
  • "The Conservative MP was likely the backbencher Alan Clark." If the article is written in UK English then "likely" → 'probably'.
  • "an unnamed Conservative member of parliament. The Conservative MP ... suggested that the conservative MP who told Dalyell". Conservative or conservative?
  • "who had been the Flag Officer Submarines." Why the upper-case initial letters?
  • "In these letters he had observed". Delete "had".
  • "He also said though that the revelations had not harmed the relationship between Argentina and the UK." Delete "though".
  • Most of the last paragraph of "Nuclear weapons policies" either duplicates material in "Commentary on nuclear deterrence" or would fit better into that section.
    • Are you referring to the para that starts with "The Argentine government was aware"? This covers the facts of the Argentinian Government's decision making, of which there isn't any disagreement over. The "Commentary on nuclear deterrence" section then covers various commentators and experts views. I'd prefer to retain this structure to keep the material about what happened separate from the material covering views of why this happened. I've trimmed the "Commentary on nuclear deterrence" though to avoid a bit of duplication - I think that this also helps clarify the structure of this section, with the first para discussing views on why the UK didn't use nuclear weapons in these particular circumstances and the second para discussing views on whether the non-use means that nuclear weapons will not be used in any circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "failing to coerce a nation with a weaker military." The source given does not mention Argentina, or any country, having a weaker military.
The source given still does not mention Argentina, or any country, having a weaker military.
Oops, I didn't make that edit. Now done. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argentina was believed to have three air-launched variants of these missiles remaining". Is that a total of three missiles, or an unknown number of missiles split between three variants?
  • "if the aircraft carriers were struck by Argentine Exocet missiles". Could there be a brief in line explanation of what an "Exocet missile" is.

Classy work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry for the slow response here. I've replied above. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Hi Nick-D, my comments:

  • Add archive URLs for

Refs #2, #5, #11, #23, #28, #30, #49-50, #52, #54, #61; Freedman 1989, Iacono 2022, Polmar 2007? Or you could just run the IA bot and it will archive all these for you. The sites hosting these sources will never go down in all probability, but their URLs may change and prudence never hurts anyways.

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

I think what you have done with this article is awe-inspiring! I note that 5% of the content has been added this month. A few comments:

  • "Prior to the Falklands War the British government had also provided a commitment not to use its nuclear weapons against countries that did not possess these weapons." My understanding is that the UK gave an undertaking that it "will not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT" or "in material breach of the NPT" (emphasis mine). Argentina had not signed the NPT. Consider adding that it did not do so until 1995. The reader might infer too much into the fact that Argentina did not have nuclear weapons; at the time, but there was grave concern about Argentina's nuclear weapons program. [16]
    • This is covered by the second para of the 'Pre-war' section. The sources note that while technically Argentina wasn't a non-nuclear power the UK treated it as such. I've added some extra material on Argentina; the sources don't note that the British had any concern over its nuclear program during the war. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader might also infer that this was some solemn undertaking by the UK government, but it modified it in 1990 in response to the threat of chemical and biological weapons from Iraq, so the current stance is that "Security assurances extended to other countries by the UK are now subject to review 'if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary". [17]
    • The article covers what the relevant British policy was at the time of the war. I've added material to the lead on the relevant international norms (it's striking that the Cold War era British military didn't even consider using these weapons). Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the single quotes around "nuclear taboo" to double quotes?
  • "conventional British forces could not be deployed at such a distance from the UK". There was a tiny garrison and an ice patrol vessel on station. Suggest "sufficient conventional forces to recapture the islands by force".

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Noswall59

[edit]

Just a very quick comment as I don't have time to review this in full. The article (very interesting!) mentions Thatcher's purported views on using nuclear weapons in the war, citing Hennessy and Jinks (2016) and Quinlan's interview (2013). Have you checked Charles Moore's biography of Thatcher? I think volume 1 looked at the Falklands War. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Ooh, really interesting subject! Placeholder for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: can I please check whether you'll be leaving comments here? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. I was waiting for you to wrap up UC's very thorough review. I can't promise anything ttat thorough but give me 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • though as it had not ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or the Treaty of Tlatelolco at the time of the Falklands War bit of a complicated sentence.
  • The paragraph starting The Argentine government was aware does not read very well, and we can find a better way to start a sentence in an FA than "this was due to".
  • I worry that we have quite a few Easter egg links: "escalated in 1982", "first tested", "task force of warships"
    • I've changed the first and tweaked the third, but I think that the other one is OK given it's about the first British nuclear test which there's no need to specifically name in this article (especially as the name of the test is fairly obscure). Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was due to the strength of the "nuclear taboo" we've covered this above (almost word for word) and "this was due to" can almost always just be replaced with "because"
  • Is there anything more on the Vulcan bombing raids? I believe one long-range flight was conducted with the express purpose of demonstrating Britain's ability to deliver a (potential) nuclear bomb over that distance. The article skims over the role of the Vulcans quite briefly which surprised me a little but possibly because it's the only prior knowledge I have of the subject matter.
    • I haven't seen any sources saying that. The Vulcan force operated almost exclusively in the nuclear role before the war and this was frequently practiced, but didn't do extremely long range flights as their air-to-air refuelling capability had been removed. Once this was re-added the Vulcans practiced Operation Black Buck over the North Atlantic, but all the sources I've seen have said this was done with conventional bombs. As Sechser & Fuhrmann are the only source that notes a possible a nuclear connection to the Black Buck raids (while noting that the British never intended to use the Vulcans as nuclear bombers during the Falklands War) I don't think that there's much more that can be said. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: many thanks for this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed except for the last and I can't remember where I read that and if there are no sources there's not much we can do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 September 2024 [18].

Siege of Baghdad

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of Baghdad shook the world. The end of the Abbasid Caliphate, the zenith of the Mongol conquests, the foundation of a new empire in the Middle East. Legends sprang up around the siege, and it became a byword for wanton destruction—but was it?

This article passed a GA nomination from sawyer777 earlier this year, and I now bring its nomination to FAC. If successful, it will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

I'll have a look at this. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • Could Persia be linked in the lead and body?
    • Done.
  • What variety of English is being used? I see "utilised" rather than "utilized", but "centers" rather than "centres" and "vassalize" rather than "vassalise".
    • Should be standardised to BrE now, which allows both -ise and -ize in many cases, I believe.
      • I take it you are using Oxford spelling. "centers" and "epicenter" still need to be changed to "centres" and "epicentre".
        • Done.
  • "...in the words of Justin Marozzi." How about "...in the words of English historian Justin Marozzi." to tell the readers who he is.
  • "In that year Chormaqan..." Suggest to add a comma: "In that year, Chormaqan..."
    • Done both.
  • "Hulegu's progress from Karakorum was extremely leisurely by Mongol standards." Suggest to change to "Hulegu's progress from Karakorum was slow by Mongol standards." Leisurely feels too imprecise. It wasn't literally leisurely was it?
    • Yes, it was. done in a relaxed way, without hurrying. There was feasting, hunting, diplomatic negotations, more banquets, etc. It took almost three years to travel from Mongolia to Persia, a journey which could have been made in a number of months.
  • 19 November." Can a year be added to that date?
    • Added.
  • "...while Gerdkuh held out for fifteen years, only falling in 1271." Is this part relevant to the siege of Baghdad, seeing as it take place over a decade after the event.

Baghdad campaign

  • "...and so he refused." Suggest changing to "...so he refused."
    • I think that works less well.
  • "...meaning Baghdad was in a difficult position..." Suggest changing to "...placing Baghdad in a difficult position..."
    • Adjusted.
  • "...who had been occupied with troubles to the northwest." What kind of troubles?
    • Defined.
  • "...this was just "provocative bluster"..." Who is saying this quote. I don't think this should be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
    • Rephrased.
  • "The assault on Baghdad's flood-weakened walls..." I think the flood-weakened walls should be mentioned in the above paragraph at "the walls were in disrepair".
    • Moved.
  • "According to Kirakos Gandzaketsi, an Armenian historian..." Suggest changing to "According to Kirakos Gandzaketsi, a 13th-century Armenian historian..."
    • Good idea.

Legacy

  • No comments.

Those are all my comments for now. Steelkamp (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Steelkamp. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck though the comments that have been addressed. There is one left which I think you have missed. I would like to do a second read-through of the whole article before deciding to support. Steelkamp (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that Steelkamp, the article should be ready for your second readthrough now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steelkamp, any further comments? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm feeling a bit out of my depth in reviewing this article. I have a feeling that the "background" section is a bit too long, but don't have any concrete suggestions on what to cut. I also feel that some of the language used is not accessible to a wide audience. I'm giving a support, but I encourage you to take those comments on board. Steelkamp (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'll take a look at what you've said. Thanks for your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Matarisvan

[edit]

My comments:

  • In the lead, "prince" does not need to be linked, doing so is creating SEAOFBLUE.
    • Adjusted.
  • "near to": remove the "to" from both instances in the article?
    • Done
  • "Assassins": add a apostrophe after since we have a possessive noun, or change to just "Assassin"?
    • Added an apostrophe; the Assassins were never referred to in the singular.
  • "ordered him put to death": rephrase to "ordered him to be put to death"? Though former may be grammatically correct, latter flows much better.
    • I disagree; I find the latter excessively wordy.
  • "were still quite delusional": Is this per the sources? Otherwise, "delusional" seems too strong a word for Wiki since we have to be neutral. Atwood 2004 uses "unrealistic" which is quite better.
    • I think "delusional" is somwhat tame—al-Musta'sim has been described by sources as "pathologically avaricious", "in a state of mental imbecility", "extremely reckless", "weak, vain, incompetent and cowardly", and "utterly lumpen and uncontrolled".
  • "Seljuk, Georgian, and Armenian vassals": link "Georgian" to Kingdom of Georgia, since we haven't linked to it in the article at all even though we have the corresponding categories?
    • Done.
  • "disrespectful behaviour towards Hulegu's envoys": Any details which can be added to the article?
    • Added a phrase.
  • "Baiju returned to the vanguard at Irbil": Our last mention of Baiju says he had rejoined Hulegu at Hamadan. Where was he in the interim between Hamadan and Irbil, was he not with the main army?
    • Yes, he rejoined Hulegu and the main army at Hamadan, where they decided to attack Baghdad, and then he rode back to the vanguard, which he commanded, which had remained at Irbil.
  • Link to Karkh?
    • Done.
  • Translate daruyachi as admin officers per NOFORCELINK?
    • Provided.
  • "by the Ottomans in 1534,": the comma is not necessary, consider removing?
    • Done.
  • Provide 26673137 as the JSTOR ID for Biran 2019? I can't remember the exact MOS but I read that the policy is to provide multiple access options for sources.
    • Done.
  • Consider removing the second link to JA Boyle in Boyle 1968? It does not serve any purpose as far as I can tell.
  • Have you read this recent article by Brack, Biran and Amitai: [19]? It questions the occurrence of a plague during the siege. I have not read it yet but if you do read it before I can, please let me know if it can be used here.
    • I had not; it seems to not question the occurrence of a plague, but rather the plague i.e. the disease caused by the Yersinia pestis bacterium. I have added a half-sentence citing it in the article.
  • Link to Cambridge University Press as done for other publishers?
  • Add 10.2307/3632138 as the DOI and 3632138 as the JSTOR ID for Smith 1975?
    • That is essentially the same link three times, but done.

That's all from me on the text. A great article overall, with more details than I expected would have been extant. Matarisvan (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

AirshipJungleman29, here goes:

  • All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
  • Add 10.12987/yale/9780300125337.001.0001 as the DOI for Jackson 2017?
    • Book, DOI not needed.
  • Add 10.1515/9781474417402 as the DOI for May 2018? ISBNs are different in both this one and the above one but I don't think that would affect the content.
    • Book, DOI not needed.
  • #1: need exact quotations.
    • It's a summary of two chapters; I cannot quote all of them.
  • #4: ok.
  • #8: Is p. 263 the right one for Atwood 2004? That page has details on the history of Japan and Mongolia/the Mongol Empire. Also need the quotation from May 2018, accessing it is tough.
    • Was meant to be p. 363. May: "Thus in 1251 Mongke became Qa’an of the Mongol Empire and began the Toluid revolution. While the transition of the position of Qa’an from the house of Ogodei to the house of Tolui..."
  • #18: ok.
  • #23: Jackson 2017 and Boyle 1968 ok. Need exact quotation for Lane 2003.
  • #38: ok.
  • #41: Jackson 2017 is ok, need quotation from Chambers 1979.
    • "believing that they would be allowed to retire into Syria, [the soldiers of the garrison] marched out unarmed, only to be divided into companies and slaughtered."
  • #45 and #56: ok.
  • #53 needs page numbers for Chambers 1979.
    • Fixed a sfn mistake.
  • Add 10.1163/9789004192119 as the DOI and 10.1163/j.ctt1w8h10n as the JSTOR ID for Bai︠a︡rsaĭkhan 2011? The latter is open access.
    • Book, DOI not needed. Added JSTOR.
  • Add 10.1163/9789004314726_008 as the DOI for Biran 2016?
    • Book, DOI not needed.
  • Add 10.2307/j.ctv125jrx5.7 as the DOI and j.ctv125jrx5.7 as the JSTOR ID for Hodous 2020?
    • Book, DOI not needed. Added JSTOR
  • Add 10.4324/9780203417874 as the DOI for Lane 2003?
    • Book, DOI not needed.
  • Add 10.4324/9781315165172 as the DOI for Lane 2022?
    • Book, DOI not needed.

Mostly ok just needs the above changes and quotations. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responses above Matarisvan. My general position is that citations to books don't need DOIs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but it's always a good idea to give readers multiple options for accessing a source. DOIs are not required per FA criteria but it does not hurt to have them. You should get comments from other reviewers on this and see what they have to say. Matarisvan (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you note, they are not required by the FA criteria. What the FA criteria do require are consistently formatted citations, which would not be present if those to certain books contain DOIs and those to other books do not. In any case, DOIs for books are created by adding the code of the publisher to the ISBN, meaning they essentially duplicate what is already in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The source review is a pass then. I would appreciate it if you could comment at a PR I have running, linked here, your comments would be very helpful for improving that article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
I'll be back soonish, had to wrap up some other things. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link dawatdar in image caption.
    • Done.
  • Not your "fault", but a bit weird that Talisman Gate links to a Commons page, it should really have its own article here...
  • "This incident is likely the source of a folktale, reproduced in the writings of Christian writers such as Marco Polo" What is the significance of mentioning religion? Does it mean Western writers instead?
    • No, "Christian" is specifically highlighted by Jackson 2017, who provides a list: "It clearly held a ready appeal for Christian writers, since variants are supplied by authors as diverse as the Byzantine historian Georgios Pachymeres (d. c. 1310), the Armenian historian Grigor Aknerts‛i (c. 1313), the expatriate Armenian prince Hayton of Gorighos (1307), the anonymous ‘Templar of Tyre’ (c. 1314), the Venetian adventurer Marco Polo (1298), the Dominican missionary Riccoldo da Montecroce (c. 1300) and St Louis’ biographer Jean de Joinville (1309)."
  • You could also give dates in the captions of the last two images as you do for the others, for context (show they're not contemporary with the events).
    • Good idea, done.
  • "Having granted the palace to Makkikha to be the Christians' church" A bit hard to understand. Why specific, and not "a church"? And doesn't "church" already imply it's "Christian"?
    • Simplified to "a church".
  • There's a lot of mention of what religion certain people or factions belong to, which is good for context, but it leaves me wondering about the religion of the Mongols at this time, since one talked about "god", another had a Christian wife, etc. Perhaps it can be added somewhere whether they were still pagan or were starting to adopt Islam or what was going on, and what it meant for their conquests?
    • Very hard to summarize in an article like this, because the Mongols' concept of religion was very different from our own, and the modern world would consider them very religiously diverse—the royal family contained shamanists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims. Later, the religious differences would grow more stark, but that would be at least a decade away. Religion had no real impact on this campaign as it was going on—its importance was increased in retrospect.
  • Similarly, the legacy section describes this as a blow to the Islamic world, but it appears the Mongols didn't try to weaken the hold of the religion? Wasn't it rather just weakening of Arab dominance of it (as later rulers were still Muslims, just of non-Arab ethnicities)?
    • No, the legacy says it was a "momentous occasion"—I have specified that it was the end of the caliphate that made it so.
  • "transported either to Mongke" Is this a place or Möngke Khan? Could be specified either way, and if the latter, needs an umlaut.
    • Specified.
  • Link Mongol campaign against the Nizaris in the article body like you do in the intro?

Comments from Shushugah

[edit]
  • In an article about Islam use MOS:BCE instead of BC/AD (where it says Baghdad was founded in 762 AD and early 1258)
  • repercussions -> ramifications
    • Probably better, yes.
  • Date range inside Infobox does not match body of article. Should it be 17 January – 10 February 1258?
    • No, 17 January was the date of a battle to the north of the city, not the start of the actual siege.
      • Ah I see why I didn't find 29 January, because there's 30 January possibility too. The infobox refers to Siege with date range, while body refers to assault. Either modify body or the infobox to make it clear they're referring to same thing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand what "Either modify body or the infobox to make it clear they're referring to same thing." means Shushugah. I've added "/30" to the infobox if that's what you meant? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I would understand "assault" to be interchangeable with battle, but according to your explanation, the assault on 29/30 January is the beginning of the siege, while on 17 January was an unrelated battle. Infobox title refers to siege and includes a date range, without explicitly clarifying what this date range refers to. I do not have a specific solution in mind, but was and am still confused when reading it, so clarifying what is being referred to would help other readers. Perhaps I am not familiar with WP:MILHIST terminology, but neither are most readers ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          The infobox is titled "Siege of Baghdad". As such, the information therein is about the siege of Baghdad, not about the events leading up to it.
          The lead section states: "the Mongol army soon approached Baghdad, routing a sortie on 17 January 1258 by flooding their camp. They then invested Baghdad, which was left with around 30,000 troops. The assault began at the end of January. This, chronologically, defines the 17 January battle as a sortie, notes they surrounded Baghdad, and states they began their assault at the end of the month. I don't know how "assault" could be interpreted as referring to the battle on 17 January—that seems counterintuitive.
          The body, meanwhile, does essentially the same over three paragraphs, and even says "The assault on Baghdad's walls" to reduce confusion. I honestly don't see where the lack of clarity is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • proclaimed khan -> what does this mean? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shushugah, just a courtesy check to see if there is any more to come from you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 last series of nitpicks:
  • My knowledge of geography/kingdoms at the time is limited, but what is the relation of historic Persia to Azerbaijan (toponym)? I appreciate that sometimes the territory/region changed, but it's hard to tell during the travels whether these are different countries by geography or time.
  • Wiki link first mention of Caliph even though it's implied from Abbasid Caliphate
  • Replace comma here with a fullstop. escape the increasingly putrid air,
  • Wiki link or explanation of Sacked is. Perhaps looting? It is mentioned 6x including the very first lede, so seems important term for warfare but I am unfamiliar with it. Similar to how invest is wiki linked. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very extensive and focused article. I have not done a source review so AGF. I found it a challenge to follow what empires/political configurations of each city/country was at the time, but that's not German to the article which is about the siege. I have made some last nitpicks, but accepted or not, they are not blockers for my support. Thank you for creating a FA article ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Drive-by comment

[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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 September 2024 [23].

Uncanny Tales (Canadian pulp magazine)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Canadian pulp magazine from the 1940s that is now extremely rare. It carried no memorable fiction, but has some interest for historians of sf because it was the setting for an episode of one of science fiction fandom's early feuds, between Sam Moskowitz and Donald Wollheim, later both important figures in the field. The article is very short but I think contains everything that can be said about the magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 00:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was the Coblentz novel serialized?
    Yes; I added the details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known why it took almost a year off after moving to the bimonthly schedule?
    Not as far as I can tell. I would guess difficulties caused by the war -- perhaps paper shortages -- but nothing I can source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the first four issues the format remained unchanged, and almost all the stories were by Kelley or other Canadian writers" - Ketterer's Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy (here notes that the first six issues were "all-original" before US reprints began.
    Interesting; I hadn't seen that -- thanks for the link. I think Ketterer is wrong, though; see here -- the sixth issue included one reprinted story, "The Thought Monsters". I've added a sentence about the first five issues, citing Ketterer and also giving a note with the correction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work as usual; I expect to support. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

UC

[edit]

A nice little article -- I hope these comments/suggestions/queries are useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies above; more to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC, all responded to. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- that's my lot, and all seems to be in order. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild - another one I reviewed and then totally forgot about LOL. I'll give it another once-over later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

Sources

  • Sources all look appropriate.
  • No issues that I could see with source formatting.
  • The links to Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines and directly to page 685 give "This item is no longer available", so the links might as well be removed.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot check on "Kelley provided the entire contents of the first issue". This is verified on p.86, so the citation needs a slight tweak.
    Tweaked; thanks for spotting that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot check on "Although science fiction had been published before the 1920s, it did not begin to coalesce into a separately marketed genre until the appearance in 1926 of Amazing Stories, a pulp magazine published by Hugo Gernsback. By the end of the 1930s the science-fiction magazine field was booming, with multiple new magazines launched in a short period" - no issues.
  • Spot check on "According to Moskowitz, Wollheim heard rumors of the new magazine, perhaps via Nils Frome, a Canadian fan whom he knew. Wollheim obtained more details from Chester Cuthbert, a Canadian author he was in correspondence with, and contacted Colby to arrange reprints of stories from Stirring and Cosmic" - no issues
  • Spot check on the para beginning "Moskowitz had also heard of Uncanny Tales..." - no issues except that this is all from Moskowitz's account; do we need some more caveats of the type "According to Moskowitz..."?
    The last sentence of the previous paragraph starts "According to Moskowitz"; I put the paragraph break there because that's where the story switches from Wollheim to Moskowitz, but if I moved the paragraph break before that sentence it could be justified as signalling the change from Wollheim's account to Moskowitz's account. Would that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to leave this to your discretion, but that sounds like a good idea. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot check on "one of which, "Lure of the Lily", had been rejected by Wollheim for the American magazines for being too risqué" - no issues.
  • Spot check on "The magazine is now hard to find and complete runs are very rare"; no issues, although the source goes further on the first part of the statement and says that "The magazine has always been uncommon". The structure is somewhat similar to the source but WP:LIMITED applies.

General comment

  • No free to use cover or other images? The pictures in these old SF-and-similar magazine articles are normally a delight.
    This page lists the artists for the covers; if you click through to the artist links, in every case all that is known is "fl. 1940s" -- i.e. they were alive then and no more is known. Canada's copyright term is life plus 50, per this, so I don't think we can assume any of these are out of copyright -- an artist in their thirties in 1942 would only have been in their sixties if they'd died in 1974, fifty years ago. So sadly I don't think there's anything that can be used. Here are the covers, if you're curious to see them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks for letting me know. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; responses above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC
  • I think I'm right in saying that "rumors" should be spelled "rumours" in CanEng (Nikkimaria, can you confirm or deny please)
  • "The stories of Canadian origin were generally unmemorable": as this is an opinion, I think you probably need to say whose it is
  • "Ketterer says the first six issues": This is the only mention of Ketterer, so full name (and 'who-he' introduction) would be best

That's my lot – another enjoyable, if brief, read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done; I had a quick look at CanEng rules and I think you're right, so made that change, though I'll defer to Nikki if she disagrees. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 September 2024 [24].

2001–02 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, after some time away (partly down to being unable to access newspapers.com through TWL) I am back with yet another article on a Gillingham F.C. season. I attended most of the matches mentioned herein, and my two abiding memories of this season are being enthusiastically hugged by a total stranger when Gillingham equalised for the second time against Arsenal and the moment when a Crewe player took a penalty kick so bad that the ball hit a house outside the stadium. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

The article contains the following images:

All images are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution. They are all relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. All images have alt-text but I'm not 100 % happy with some of the alt-texts. For example, the alt-text of "Jlloyd_Samuel.jpg" says "Football Jlloyd Samuel". This should presumably be "Footballer". This is also a problem for some of the other photos of the players. I would include a description of the medium, i.e. "Photo of...". The alt-text of "AndyHess2009.jpg" says "Footballer...". In this context, would it be better to describe him as a manager? The captions are fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: - I tweaked most of the alts, let me know what you think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that resolves the concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]
  • "of the campaign for a transfer fee" ==> maybe add a comma between "campaign" and "for"
  • "in the UK" ==> in the United Kingdom
  • "After a 2–1 defeat at home to Coventry City" ==> home can be linked earlier (e.g., at "The highest attendance recorded at the club's home ground" (lede) and "in a 5–0 victory for the home team")
  • "distance of nearly 40 yards" ==> also convert this to metres
  • "Jason Brown (pictured in 2005)" ==> this picture is from 2015
  • "A week later, they lost 3–1" ==> A week later, Gillingham lost 3–1
  • The image captions of "Gillingham were eliminated from the FA Cup at Arsenal Stadium." and "Gillingham won at the Kassam Stadium, home of Oxford United, with a goal in the final minute of extra time." could both do with a "(pictured in ....)"
  • "and the championship of the Premier League" ==> I would shorten it to just "and the Premier League"
  • "and avoiding relegation only" ==> "and avoided relegation only"
  • Another great read! Had to chuckle when reading that part about the Crewe penalty miss. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

[edit]
  • You can remove these commas
  • "It was the 70th season in which Gillingham competed in the Football League, and the 52nd since the club was voted back into the league in 1950."
  • "Gillingham began December with a 2–2 draw away to Nottingham Forest with two goals from Shaw, and extended their unbeaten run to eight games by beating Sheffield Wednesday 2–1 at Priestfield on 15 December"
  • "BBC Sport acknowledged that Gillingham had exceeded expectations in their first campaign in the First Division, but predicted that the team had"
  • "Brown had joined the club a year earlier, but had never previously been able to displace Bartram from the team"
  • ""On 19 March, Onoura scored an early goal against Norwich City and Brown saved a penalty kick to ensure that Gillingham were in the lead at half-time" - Add a comma after "Norwich City"--NØ 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • There is even sentence-case formatting in the references.
  • Is there a replacement for the Evening Standard? (WP:STANDARDUK)
  • Spotchecks:
  • ref 2 - verifies the claim
  • ref 25 - verifies that Gillingham is third in the table and the only team with a GA of 0
  • ref 26 - verifies that West Brom won 1-0 over Gillingham
  • ref 32 - verifies Grimsby Town losing
  • ref 76 - verifies there were promotion hopes for Millwall which ended due to the 1–0 Gillingham victory

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • This edit by the bot made you lose some of the edits you'd made earlier. You might want to check them.
  • Following a 2–0 victory over Portsmouth on 26 December - Can it be stated that this was the home game with the highest attendance of the season?
  • Following a 2–0 victory over Portsmouth on 26 December, Gillingham's final game of 2001 was three days later at home to West Bromwich Albion - The sentence as a whole reads a bit weirdly, because one would think that only the second match was played at home.
  • I'd include the {{Abbr}} template for both "No." and "Apps" in the table.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: - all done. Thanks in particular for picking up that first one, no idea quite what happened there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I guess you ran the bot, it took its time and in the meantime you made those edits, which were then lost when the bot completed its task. I enjoyed the read and the details I pointed out have been addressed, so I'm happy to support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC) I made a few very minor tweaks here to give the proper name of the paper, but otherwise I am a Support for this. I was actually at one of the matches mentioned, which didn't turn out so well for Gillingham! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: - hmmmm.....intriguing...... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 September 2024 [25].

The Importance of Being Earnest

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Importance of Being Earnest is allegedly the second most quoted play in the English language, after Hamlet, and has a lot more laughs. Many editors have contributed to the article since it was promoted to GA back in 2010, and I have attempted to incorporate all cited and relevant additions into the present text as well as expanding it quite a lot and making the text as cogent as I can, with suitable sections and headings. As ever, suggestions for improvement will be received gratefully. – Tim riley talk 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Alexander is missing alt text
Added. Can't think how I missed that one. Tim riley talk 09:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
Now just thumb. Tim riley talk 09:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor, who no doubt knows more about these things than I do, has changed it again. Perhaps you'd check it's OK now. Tim riley talk 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Millard-importance-earnest.jpg: source link is dead
Replaced with a difference image and added a fourth to the gallery, which perhaps you'd be kind enough to check. Tim riley talk 09:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wilde-1896-Toulouse-Lautrec.jpgn needs a US tag.
I can't find a specifically US tag for "Artist died more than 100 years ago". Could you advise, please? Tim riley talk 09:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC) I think I see what's happened here: some helpful soul has taken "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons" to mean "Do copy this file to Wikimedia Commons". I've replaced it with a local copy, duly (I trust) tagged. Tim riley talk 10:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as ever for the review, Nikkimaria. All attended to – I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 11:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the Heaven-knows-how-many times, thank you, Nikkimaria Tim riley talk 13:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers comments and support

[edit]

Synopsis

  • "The play opens with". This is "meta" information about the play. My understanding is that, on WP, plot synopses should simply "tell the story", without any reference to stagecraft, audience, etc. unless the script calls for the stage device to be pointed out to the audience ("Pseudolus says that the ensuing story will be a comedy"). So, I believe it should start "Algernon Moncrieff, a young man about town, receives his friend...."
  • ..."'Synopsis'. This heading implicitly informs the reader that the text within it describes the fiction. For conciseness, it is thus not necessary to explicitly incorporate out-of-universe language, particularly if the work is presented in a linear, direct presentation" (as you do in The Importance of Being Earnest). See MOS:PLOT, under "Plot summaries of individual works". -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Jack gives her his address in the country" -- I think "her" means Gwendolyn, not Bracknell? We ought to specify.
  • Governess is wikilinked. Is this necessary, particularly in a plot summary?

Composition

  • "...earlier drawing room plays, Lady Windermere's Fan, A Woman of No Importance and An Ideal Husband". Perhaps add years, or say "earlier in the 1890s"?
  • Re: Douglas's claims in the first paragraph of this section, do scholars believe him?
  • Can you please add that Douglas's claims in the first paragraph are not believed, or doubted? Otherwise a reader might think that everyone (other than maybe Gielgud) accepted Douglas's claims. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move into main text the statements that Ellman concluded that Douglas was untrustworthy and that Gielgud was unpersuaded. The imprisonment for criminal libel should stay in the footnote, I think.
  • ..."stage movements, using a model theatre"... Do any of the sources mention that this was also Gilbert's technique in designing stage movement for his productions?

First productions

  • "triggering a series of trials ending in Wilde's imprisonment... The Victorian public turned against Wilde" -- I think this goes by too fast. I think the following facts (at least a very brief mention of them) are relevant to an understanding of why Wilde's action backfired so disastrously, and the play's run was cut so short: 1. Wilde brought the prosecution against his friends' advice; 2. Queensbury was arrested, making it worth his while to hire private investigators. 3. Wilde's colourful private life became a daily news topic (not simply celebrity gossip), including accusations about his behavior involving underage boys, until it made his plays unpalatable to "respectable" theatregoers. 4. Wilde's flippancy on the stand served to reinforce this bad image of his character. 5. The case bankrupted Wilde.
  • That level of detail belongs, and is to be found, in the (very full and commendable) article on Wilde. What matters here are Queensberry's opening night attempt and Wilde's arrest and imprisonment. The reader here does not need to have "an understanding of why Wilde's action backfired so disastrously", but simply that it did. Tim riley talk 08:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but maybe just add a clause like this? "The Victorian public, who read daily, sensationalised reports of the evidence presented at the trials, including accusations about Wilde's behavior involving teenage boys, turned against him soon after his arrest..."
  • Your source for this?

Critical opinion -- no suggestions

Revivals

  • "You are tickled throughout with a feather, and is a very pleasant and comforting sensation." Is "it" missing, after "and"?
  • Are any of these notable? I have tried to cherry pick the notable productions rather than compile an exhaustive list of every one. I have, for example, omitted a fairly recent West End production that drew poor notices and did not run for long.
Now that I look at the reviews for the 1902 revival by Frohman's stock company in the US press, I see that (unlike in England) Wilde's name is prominently mentioned, and that fact is worth a mention, I think. Tim riley talk 08:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An Old Vic production in February 1934"... Why include the month, when we have been rounding to years previously?

Publication

  • It was sold for £650. -- Do we need to give the currency translation to today's pounds and dollars?
  • Good point. But I'm uneasy about keeping this addition. Is it really relevant to the play? I have written two thirds of the present text but there are bits of the other third, such as this, that I've inherited and am not sure about. Thoughts?

Analysis

  • No comments to add

Adaptations

  • Tim, you did not, apparently see this question above. (I thought you had answered it in the affirmative below, together with my next question, but after I did the work to add the production to the text, you reverted it. The production was the 4th in a series of the Wilde plays by the same company that ran at the Vaudeville throughout 2017 and 2018. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above, should we not that the 2011 Stratford and 2015 Vaudeville Theatre revivals were 1. released 2. on film?

MSinccc

[edit]
You might like to read the Oxford Style Manual which quotes Fowler: No absolute rules regulate a paragraph’s length, since its size is a function of the arrangement and flow of the text it contains. As Fowler says, 'The paragraph is essentially a unit of thought, not of length: it must be homogeneous in subject-matter and sequential in treatment'. Squashing an Indian derivative in with three Anglophone films is neither homogeneous nor sequential. You might also read The Economist's excellent style guide, which similarly quotes Fowler and adds One-sentence paragraphs should be used only occasionally. This is one such occasion. Tim riley talk 09:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. It's a fine article as it stands. I have nothing more for the time being. Support MSincccc (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "flat in Half Moon Street, Mayfair[n 1]": according to MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS, there shouldn't be footnotes in headings
  • "Irene Handl, was given a German accent": why did Millar insist on buggering about with rather odd and pointless changes in nearly everything he did? Bloody infuriating and distracting it was most of the time!
I entirely concur. I once sat through most of a Midsummer Night's Dream he did at the Almeida, where the fairies all had Scouse accents (when the poor young actresses could manage them). But to be fair he did a Marriage of Figaro for ENO that was wonderful - gimmick free and enchanting. Tim riley talk 10:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the supposed gay subtext": as we've not been introduced to this theory at this stage, would linking down to the section work better?
  • "Singapore in October 2004 ... London, in April 2005": Is there any need for the months?
  • Your use of the serial comma isn't consistent
  • FN6 - U.S. could happily live as just US
Touché (but what about your full-stopped Mrs. Potts chez Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?) Tim riley talk 10:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 14 (the French titles) could do with speech marks (as you have for FN 12): "The Importance of Being Serious", "It is Important to Be Loved", "It is Important to Be Desired" and "It is Important to Be Faithful". Either that, or have all the translated titles in italics.
Thank you, SchroCat. Excellent, helpful comments and gratefully received support. Tim riley talk 10:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Agate 1976 missing a publisher location (London, I presume)
  • I'm wondering why some double references are combined into one tag (12 & 38, for example), while others are not (21/22 & 29/40). I would think it should be standardized one way or another—you can identify the un-coupled ones by doing control/command F with "][" which should find double references
  • The liner notes to ref 149 "NMC CD set NMC D197" appear to be by Paul Griffiths (writer)—seems worth including him and perhaps a date
  • Ref 92 missing a publisher/website
Reliability
  • According to my reliability checker, it seems Broadway World has been deemed "generally unreliable" (ref 151). This looks like a better source: [26] or you could cite the company itself: [27]
  • There are quite a few old news reports, but given that they are direct citations to contemporary reporting of various performances, they seem permissible. I also doubt that better, more recent sources exist in this regard. This being said, this might be worth including.
Verifiability
  • The "1930–2000" section sources: are they available online? Links would seem beneficial for readers, here and with other old news sources.
  • They are indeed available online, which is where I got them, but I accessed them from the British Library and the City of London Libraries which have their own unique access codes, which are no use to anyone else. I try to give urls to all the online pages that I can usefully do. Tim riley talk 11:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the WorldCat refs cover the cast lists in the "Commercial recordings" section for the 1st and 2nd links; the year is not included in the latter either (unless you are citing their liner notes? That should be made clearer if so). These two sources should include the sought-after information: [28] [29]. The 3rd and 4th WorldCat refs seem fine, but could do with the inclusion of WorldCat's name
  • I've found a reliable source for the date of the Webster version, and WorldCat names the two actors now remaining in the present article. While looking for that version I came across another, impressively cast, audio version, which I have added. All other details, as suggested above, added, I hope. Tim riley talk 11:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed. Pass for source review – Aza24 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aza24. I hate doing source reviews and am full of admiration for those who volunteer to do them. I'm most grateful. Tim riley talk 08:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

Commenting by request; I also gave minor feedback on the Talk page earlier, where I confessed to having not seen or read the play. Completely unqualified commentary begins:

  • Drawing room play: pace our own article, MOS:HYPHEN would hyphenate, as "drawing room" is not a proper noun. Ditto, later, box office receipts.
  • Hmm. The OED doesn't hyphenate either term and Chambers' hyphenates both. As I have quoted before, "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad". Hyphens added before I am certifiable. Tim riley talk 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • some critics had reservations about its lack of social messages: can we expand this with a word or two as to what they felt Wilde missed out? We've already said that it satirises Victorian manners, which says that it did have some social message (though presumably it passed over what these critics thought were more important ones).
  • This is a bit difficult, as the critics and OW's fellow authors had various differing takes on "social message". Shaw, who pushed a largely socialist agenda, insisted that all art should be didactic, and Henry Arthur Jones was equally didactic from the conservative viewpoint. Pinero was somewhere betwixt and between. Every major playwright at the time, except OW, had some social comment in his plays: even W. S. Gilbert had some fairly biting stuff in his libretti. Tim riley talk 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After his release from prison: can we put a date on this?
  • The role of the formidable Lady Bracknell: we said that she was formidable earlier in the lead, so I wouldn't repeat it here.
  • Link "farcical comedy" in the infobox?
The same term links to farce in the lead, in the phrase it is a farcical comedy. Happy to defer to you on the solution, but we should apply the same logic in both places. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now just comedy in the i-box. Tim riley talk 17:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1: I know it's like saying the Pope is Catholic for those in the know, but does Jackson actually add a note to spell out referring to the London postal district of the street, running north from Piccadilly?
  • He doesn't, but Wilde's stage direction "Half Moon Street, W." needs some explanation for those who don't know London's geography or postal history. I don't think saying here that the street runs north from Piccadilly is in any need of a confirmatory citation. Tim riley talk 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be on the safe side, advise a rephrase to "W. is the postal code for..." -- that avoids claiming that this is exactly/entirely what Wilde had in mind, which would require a citation. On the geography, I'd include a citation personally: it should be easy to find one, and this would be a borderline case if we were at GAN, so we should probably err on the side of strictness here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've blitzed the explanation and just linked to our WP article on the street. Tim riley talk 14:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • an invalid friend: might consider a rephrase to get around the awkward inválid/invalíd distinction here -- "a sickly friend", "an unwell friend" or similar, or "to be friends with an invalid named..."?
  • he was adopted after being discovered as a baby, in a handbag at Victoria Station in London: suggest reordering to "discovered as a baby in a handbag at London's Victoria Station and adopted" or similar -- as written, it sounds as if the adoption took place in the handbag.
  • hitherto absent dissolute brother: hyphen after hitherto (he's presumably still dissolute).
  • Consider a wiktionary link on "triviality" and "Ernest/earnest" to help make sure readers get the joke?
  • Note 2: do we have a source that definitively says "Douglas is not considered a reliable witness" (not just "Douglas is not a reliable witness")?
Unfortunately, making that leap (from "everyone I can find" to "everyone") is fairly unambiguously WP:SYNTH, but there would be nothing wrong with "numerous authorities, including Smith, Jones and Evans, consider Douglas an unreliable witness", perhaps shifting the minutiae of names to a footnote. I think that would achieve the same end but avoid the problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the offending material. Now simply reporting what Douglas is reported as saying. Tim riley talk 14:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm -- I don't think this works, unfortunately. If none of our sources would write "Douglas claims XYZ..." without adding "but he's a lying bastard", we're misrepresenting them if we only include the first half. I think putting a name or names on the judgement of Douglas's reliability would solve the problem while keeping the wording pretty close to what you originally had. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Removed all mention of Douglas here. Tim riley talk 16:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm missing something here -- you seem to be taking out very good, useful work (which is probably required under WP:DUEWEIGHT and FAC "comprehensiveness" anyway, given Douglas's importance to the broader story of the play), and I don't really understand the need to do so. Have I missed something? If it would be helpful for me to put together a rough draft of what I had in mind, happy to do so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. I'd prefer to keep the information in, but can't work out how to meet your requirements. Tim riley talk 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:UndercoverClassicist, I also urge you to work on this draft as soon as possible, as I am also sorry to see the deletion of the information, including the doubts about Douglas's veracity. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, would advocate a restoration of the previous material in the interim — both have their tradeoffs but I think the article is better and closer to the FA standards with than without. I’ve copied it over to my Sandbox; will look over the sources over the next few days, give it a go and make a suggestion on the Talk page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support restoring the former material unless and until UC comes up with something better. I don't think "considered" crosses the line into synth because the writers noted in Tim's (usually thorough) research considered his statements (and this is a particularly self-serving one) to be unreliable, and there is evidence that some were demonstrably untrue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the writers noted in Tim's (usually thorough) research considered his statements (and this is a particularly self-serving one) to be unreliable -- indeed, and saying that those writers considered it unreliable would be perfectly fine. However, reading a number of sources that share a view, and inferring from doing so that the view is widely or generally held, is unambiguously OR -- that is, it's breaking the instruction not to combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreting policies with extreme rigidity, so that helpful content is suppressed, is not, actually, what Wikipedia is about. See WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not a rigid rule. -- Ssilvers (talk)
I don't honestly see how you can read my reply above and say that any of the helpful content needs to be suppressed, but I'll have to ask your patience until I've put together a short draft to make clearer what I'm going on about. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask more patience. The comment on Douglas' reliability was cited to "Ellermann, p. 588". Assuming that Ellermann is Ellmann 1988, p. 588 in the edition linked on archive.org is the last page of the bibliography, which clearly isn't right. I don't suppose you could dig out the correct source/page and ping me the quotation? The other sources cited are primary, which isn't a problem as long as some secondary work has made use of them in the same way, but I can't find them in Ellmann via the very crude tools I have. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent more than enough time on this. Bloody Bosie's uncorroborated assertions are of peripheral importance, and I propose to omit reference to him. If that's a sticking point for you then I suppose you may have to oppose the elevation of this article to FA. Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the strength of the sources previously provided, I think removal is and was the right call. If there are stronger sources, that would change the picture, but I don't propose to go looking particularly hard for them and will respect your decision on the matter in either direction. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He told John Gielgud (who was not persuaded), that: no comma, except in German.
  • And in your granny's English. I had a darling old colleague, whom I succeeded as librarian of the Crown Estate, who always used a comma in such a construction – plainly drilled into her by her teachers in the 1930s (just as I was taught in the 1950s to put a hyphen in to-day and to-morrow, scout's honour!). But removed from here. Tim riley talk 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. 16:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  • before rehearsals began, he changed his plans to help a colleague in a crisis: presumably he put his mate's play on instead -- is there a concise way to say something like "he replaced Wilde's play in the billing with Such and Such by Henry SoAndSo, to assist the latter with a personal crisis/medical bills/gambling debts"?
Ah -- I hadn't twigged that Alexander was the colleague. Perhaps move his name up into the preceding sentence? My impression was that there were two people involved -- Wyndham dropped Wilde to help an unnamed friend (by staging his play instead?), but fortuitously Alexander was in need of something to put on, so an arrangement was made that Wyndham would give up his now-unused rights. Even reading again with knowledge of the intended meaning, I don't think that was a particularly silly interpretation, so I think it could be reworked for clarity. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 14:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early 1895 ... had failed: the tenses here mean that I'm not exactly sure when the main action happened here. Did Wyndham's waiving of rights and dropping of Wilde's play happen in early 1895 as well? A bit of reordering would clarify, I think.
  • Redrawn.
  • Valentine's Day, 1895: for the benefit of readers who live where this is not celebrated, I'd add the date as well (it's important a little bit later).
  • policemen: consider police officers as more modern language: Wilde probably didn't specifically request that they be men, even though he wouldn't have had too much choice at the time.
  • He arrived with a prize fighter!!: I like the double exclamation marks but might be tempted to sic it to avoid a future editor removing one (which MOS:CONFORM would admittedly condone).
  • That's another thing drilled into me at school: Thou shalt not use more than one exclamation mark at a time. The snag about a sic here is that it would look to most eyes, I think, that it was "prize fighter" rather than the punctuation that I was sic-ing. Tim riley talk 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'd explain in a footnote, but then I have a bad habit of overusing those. UndercoverClassicist T·C13:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. A nice colleague once told me that the footnotes were the best thing about my FACs, which struck me as a double-edged compliment. Tim riley talk 14:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth spelling out what Queensbury would be doing with a prize fighter?
  • Good idea. He was the complete philistine and had something to do with boxing. I'll add a footnote.
  • This article suggests that Queensbury left the vegetables at the theatre to show his distaste; I think that would be worth including.
  • Any idea what Mrs George Canninge's name was?
  • Wilde's homosexual private life and ended in his imprisonment for gross indecency in May 1895: we don't actually spell out that homosexual activity was a crime, I don't think (he could theoretically have been outed as gay and then imprisoned for flashing, for example). I think it would be worth doing so.
Ah -- I hadn't realised that "gross indecency" exclusively mean sexual activity with another man. I think that would be worth explaining: it sounds like it just means "being extremely naughty". UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is leading me down long-ago autobiographical paths I can no longer retread. I'll ponder how to make the distinction you suggest, but I shall not be explaining to you the difference between "gross indecency" and "being extremely naughty". Tim riley talk 17:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On relection I don't think an explanatory footnote would add anything the blue link doesn't offer. Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Ida Vernon would rate a redlink -- Googling around, she had an interesting life (including running blockades during the Civil War and coming up in the inquest into Lincoln's death!)
  • Poor old Ida! I hate it when someone has a red link that lingers on and on, signalling that no-one thinks him or her notable enough for an article. The actress I most want to get an article for is Mrs George Canninge, but I can't find a date for her death, which puts the kibosh on it. Every other member of the original cast has an article, and this lacuna grieves me. Tim riley talk 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in subtlety of thought, brilliancy of wit and sparkling humour, it has scarcely been excelled"; "its fun is irresistible ... increasing in intensity until in the third and last act it becomes uproarious": these quotes should be attributed in the text.
  • We can't attribute them to an author as they are unsigned, and I really, with due respect to those publications, don't feel the need to mention The Otago Star etc by name in the text. All I could realistically do is say "Reviewers said...", which seems to me to be implicit in the existing text, though I have no rooted objection to adding it. Tim riley talk 12:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that framing would work well, and keep the MoS happy while keeping (arguably) less-than-essential newspaper names out of the way. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 14:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the first two paragraphs of "Critical opinion" (particularly a play which raises no principle, whether of art or morals, creates its own canons and conventions, and is nothing but an absolutely wilful expression of an irrepressibly witty personality, I find myself thinking of Wilde's prefaratory note to The Picture of Dorian Gray -- is there anything to be said here that the play's alleged solipsism and lack of interest in the "real world" might have been the whole point?
Do we? Maybe I missed it: I can see the first paragraph of "structure and genre" as gesturing in this direction, but not really stating it. Likewise, the "triviality" section gets there very briefly at the end, but I wonder if it would be a better approach to tie those two sections together and be a little clearer about the bigger social/moral/political/artistic implications of "trivial" art? I notice that the Decadent movement doesn't currently seem to get a mention. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's practically impossible to be ostentatiously decadent and gloriously funny at the same time. OW's decadent, sub-Baudelaire, side is to the fore in Salome rather than here. Tim riley talk 13:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • saying that in his other comedies – Lady Windermere's Fan, A Woman of No Importance and An Ideal Husband – the plot: I think clearer as the plot of his other comedies –
  • Note 7 (on Sardou) is missing a close quote, and coups de théâtre should be in a lang template (and probably linked somehow).
  • By the time of its centenary: I would add "in 1995"; I'll admit I had to look back up to check.
  • "the second most known and quoted play in English after Hamlet".: not your problem, but I would definitely have asked Lawson for his sources here.
  • Point taken, and I'm not a particular fan of Lawson, but if I hadn't thought his comment accurate I shouldn't have used it. I think probably the two Lewis Carroll Alice books are the all-round runners up to Hamlet, but so far as plays are concerned I can't think of a more plausible candidate than The Importance. Tim riley talk 14:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I didn't know that this was the source of "To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune ... to lose both seems like carelessness", or "the truth is rarely pure and never simple", which makes me less suspicious. I know those are on Wikiquote, but would it be worth including one or both in this article? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an attractive idea, but the difficulty is picking a few quotes out of the many available. Without an authoritative source to back up my personal list of lines from The Importance it would not be encyclopaedic. I'm reasonably comfortable with picking out what seem to me notable revivals and adaptations, but not about saying which of Wilde's lines are the most characteristic and celebrated. Curiously, the most famous line, I suppose, is famous not for Wilde's wit but for Edith Evans's three-octave down-and-up swoop on the words, "A handbag?". Contrariwise, when I saw the play in Paris a few years ago "Un sac de voyage?" went for comparatively little, and Lady Bracknell's "Fort heureusement, en Angleterre l’éducation ne produit jamais aucun effet" got the biggest laugh of the evening. Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very reasonable -- I had a brief look for sources willing to stick their necks out and call either "one of Wilde's most famous lines" vel sim, and came up with little. If they won't do it, we probably shouldn't. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one provincial critic: provincial can read as a little sneering (meaning "bumpkinish" rather than just "not in London"): "one critic in Folkestone", "in a local Kent paper"?
  • Again on attributing quotes: if we're going to give the Sporting Times a whole paragraph, we should at least credit them (is the reviewer's name known?)
  • The revival ran for 52 performances: earlier, we had it closed on 8 May after only 83 performances. I'm obviously missing something here -- why does only the first one get presented as a short run?
  • A first run of a play by a leading dramatist can reasonably be expected to run for a goodly time. In the late 19th century 100 performances or more counted as a success. A fill-in revival can play as long or short as wanted. Tim riley talk 13:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got a source that <100 performances was considered a failure, that would be a good factoid to add -- but I don't think the article is badly off for missing it. Given your explanation here, I think the "inconsistency" is fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite go so far as to say that plays that had under 100 performances were considered failures, but rather that those notching up 100 or more were judged worthy of listing in the theatrical reference books. Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Max Beerbohm: pops up a few times, but we never actually say who he was.
  • The New York Times commented that the play "has lost nothing of its humor … no one with a sense of humor can afford to miss it".: I think MOS:SAID applies here.
I think we're in the territory of For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said, but I do take your point about "comment" vs "news". Happy to disagree. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption beginning "Leslie Faber" isn't a full sentence, so no full stop.
  • Jonathan Miller, who had been prevented the previous year from staging the play at the National Theatre with an all-male cast: this sounds like a story -- by whom or by what?
  • Sir Peter Hall in his diaries. The National Theatre board discussed the proposal at length, and reluctantly gave it the go-ahead. The planned production had to be cancelled for lack of funds. Tim riley talk 13:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add the lack of funds? The vagueness of our current phrasing leaves open (in fact, I would say it leads the reader towards) the idea that the all-male cast was the reason for the play being called off. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilde's two final comedies, An Ideal Husband and The Importance of Being Earnest, were still on stage in London at the time of his prosecution: I'd remind the reader of the date, as we've just zoomed forward into the present day with all the revivals.
  • In 1898, when no one else would, Leonard Smithers agreed with Wilde to publish the two final plays.: do I read correctly that Wilde had previously approached other people? Any idea of who?
  • I inherited this, and now I check I have trimmed. Ellmann says "He was persuaded to have Smithers publish two of his own plays which, because of his disgrace, had never been printed". Our text was a reasonable interpretation of Ellmann, but not beyond criticism. Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 12: noting your opposition to German in a previous FAC, I would nevertheless translate the proposed titles.
  • L'importanza di essere Franco/Severo/Fedele: lang templates here.
  • I would spell out in note 14, as you have in 13, that Désiré and Fidèle are also given names.
  • Wilde himself evidently took sandwiches with due seriousness.: part of me wants to cry WP:V, WP:TSI and so on, but this is such a lovely line that I can hardly bring myself to do so.
Not on my account. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Algernon says in Act II, "one must be serious about something if one is to have any amusement in life", but goes on to reproach Jack for being serious about everything and thus revealing a trivial nature: we cite this to a text of the play -- just checking that this interpretative point is made there too?
  • it spread to the middle and upper classes during the century.: being very picky, the Victorian period didn't start until 1837 and carried on (just!) into the C20th, so "the century" isn't a good substitute for it: can we say "the mid-nineteenth century" or something more specific?
  • which continues in the discussion, "Yes, but you must be serious about it. I hate people who are not serious about meals. It is so shallow of them: who says this?
  • Algernon, having manoeuvred Jack into treating him to dinner at Willis's, a fashionable restaurant in King Street, near the St James's Theatre.
  • The men follow traditional matrimonial rites, whereby suitors admit their weaknesses to their prospective brides, but the foibles they excuse are ridiculous: traditional on stage rather than in reality?
Do you have the source to hand? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later: I am in your debt for challenging this. I wrote two thirds of the current draft and have striven to streamline and improve the remaining third. But I missed this bit: the cited source makes no mention of "traditional matrimonial rites", and I have replaced the offending words with something much more representative of the source. Tim riley talk 15:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Jack apologises to Gwendolen it is for not being wicked: use the em template for emphasis, not italics (renders the same), so that screen readers can process it.
  • The Jack/Gwendoline dialogue seems to be jerry-rigged into a table -- I haven't seen that before, and can imagine it doesn't play well with screen readers. This would seem very much what WP:NO-TABLES is warning against. Is there a suitable template here, or would it be possible simply to render Jack's line into prose?
  • I inherited this and don't like it much. The lines don't align properly. Happy to turn it into prose.
  • I notice that almost all of the "Conjectural homosexual subtext" section is concerned with Wilde's intent around the word "earnest". This particular author being more than usually dead, I'd be surprised if that's the shape of the field -- we gesture briefly at the idea that the subtext might have come about at least semi-unconsciously, and modern literary theory would have absolutely no problem suggesting that an author's suppressed desires, fears, traits and so on would "leak" into their work, or indeed that nobody cares, because meaning is only formed when the text hits the reader, and might change as audiences and society do. I think we have done Craft poorly in relegating his article (and bibliography) to a single unattributed pull quote. Some more bibliography:
    • Quite a lot in the intro to this edition/
    • This article has quite an idiosyncratic style, but also seems to have a lot to say about the tension in the play between what is spoken and unspoken, and to generally have an interesting and possibly useful reading.
    • This one isn't specifically about Earnest, but does have some good things to say (especially near the end) about how to approach Wilde's work as queer literature.
    • This article makes a few comments about different ways in which queerness has been read into Earnest, though frustratingly doesn't go into huge detail on them (it's more concerned with establishing methodology).
    • This one makes quite a few comments, but also mentions "Tales of the Avunculate: Queer Tutelage in The Importance of Being Earnest, an article by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, which is quite widely cited and seems to be particularly important here. It's in her collection Tendencies, and after some digging I found it here via TWL. She seems to have some useful bibliography too.
I didn't write this section, and I'm not excessively impressed at the annexation of the play by queer theorists, but will have a good look at the sources you suggest to see if there is anything that calls out to be added to this section. Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't open the third and sixth of these, and can't find much usable from the first, but I have drawn on the Eaton and Snider articles. Thank you. Tim riley talk 10:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you send me a Wikimail, I can ping you a copy. I'm not sure the third was vital but I think the sixth probably is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking my Wikimail reached you. Sent yesterday. Tim riley talk 08:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- I'm planning to have a look through the article beforehand so that I have something sensible to say about what from it might be worth including, but I agree with your assessment that it's somewhat tough going. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent the article by reply -- I think some key points from it are:
  • The play has a fascination with undercutting the idea that there is a "natural" correspondence between what things/people are called or considered and what they are (particularly the importance of fathers and fathers' names), and K-S follows Craft (and another important article by Joel Fineman here) in arguing that this points towards the conclusion that there is a "natural" path for a story and a man's life that ends in heterosexual family life (pp. 53–54).
  • Relatedly (again following Craft), the poem's obsession with punning and destabilising language -- making the default, "obvious" or dominant interpretation of words no longer so -- reflects the destabilisation of the social world, in which it is no longer "obvious" or dominant that heterosexuality and conventional masculinity should be default (pp. 54–55, Craft p. 38).
  • "Aunt" and "uncle" were slang terms for gay men in different roles in gay relationships (p. 59), and the play's focus on these also sets up resistance to a heterosexual norm by creating indispensible "family" structure that don't quite fit with the heterosexual logic (since you can't "pair up" an aunt and an uncle) (pp. 59–61).
  • Similarly, playing the role of aunt or uncle was and is a niche by which family members who weren't heterosexual could fit into a "conventional" family, and therefore their prominence is another way of showing a way in which gay people work (perhaps even work better than the rest) within a "normal" world. (pp. 62–64)
  • The intimacy between Jack and Algernon gestures in a very veiled fashion towards a possible gay subtext (pp. 68-70), particularly in the implication that they have lost something in their relationship by discovering that they are brothers (p. 68).
  • The the fact that Jack can't marry into the family until he proves that he is already in the family makes the marriage somewhat incestual, which hacks away at the idea of the conventional heterosexual family as natural/essential -- if the sexual rules can be stretched in this way, they might be stretchable in others (esp. p. 70) A good quote: a different angle – perhaps an avuncular angle – onto the family of the present can show this heterosexist structure always already awash with homosexual energies and potentials, even with lesbian and gay persons, whose making-visible might then require only an adjustment of the interrogatory optic. (p. 71)
  • There are other leitmotifs within the play that would register with gay culture/stereotypes of the time -- the mysterious and fictitious "brother" that Jack goes away to visit (p. 64–67, though K-S doesn't quite state the idea of this as an alibi for seeing a male lover); the focus on German and, in particular, Wagner (p. 66), "Bunbury" as related to the idea of "burying in the bun" (pp. 67-68, with quotation on 68).
We don't necessarily have to endorse all of these these arguments, but I do think we need to report at least the most important of them (I'd suggest the first two as shared in other scholarship, the third and last rolled in with the "Earnest" discussion, and the others as K-S's own contributions to the conversation) -- they are shared and cited in other academic work, including quite a few of the items listed above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was kind of you to send the article and kinder still to wade through endless literary sludge on my behalf. Your summary is so wonderfully clear that I have been able to add another 100 words to the article which, me judice, is more than ample for this sort of fringe conjecture. Tim riley talk 09:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't think this is "fringe" conjecture -- whatever we may think about it, this kind of deconstructive reading, where the author's intent is seen as something of very little importance, has been the dominant paradigm in academic English studies for at least thirty years. I may have a go at some tentative edits, having now got my head around some of the literature. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, but please don't overinflate the word-count. This subsection is already as long as the following three put together. It is important to confine it to the play rather than to Wilde's oeuvre in general. It may be current orthodoxy that an author's intent is seen as something of very little importance, but that is pretty much the opposite of what the queer theorists are saying so far as The Importance is concerned. Tim riley talk 09:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a rough go later on -- we can always hack whatever I write to bits afterwards. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have we come to a halt on this? Fine with me if so. Tim riley talk 19:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A pause -- I still need to get this done, but the delay is on my end. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any more to add? Otherwise I think it may be time to invite the FA coordinators to consider the article and review as a whole. Tim riley talk 17:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much belated -- changes made. I've done my best to fall in line with the Riley MoS -- substance of edits as follows:
  • We had quite an important misreading of Snider -- he does say that it's hard to find a homosexual subtext, but then he spends the rest of the article saying that he has found it -- it was just difficult to do so. Admittedly, his is a particularly treacle-like article to work through, and I've not tried to convey the main line of argument, which runs through Jungian archetypes of the Trickster, largely because I'm not sure I fully understand it.
  • The linguistic debate around "Earnest" needed to be put into context: it isn't the only potentially loaded term; the play is full of them, at least according to the critics.
  • Similarly, among the many Bunbury theses, I think we need to include the one that it's got something to do with gay men.
I didn't go into massive detail on Sedgwick's uncles, since I think your text could already be read as encompassing those, or on Wagner, though more detail there could make the case more convincing. Let me know what you think -- it's expanded the section a little, and I've played a bit with the layout to reflect that, but overall I think we're still on the conservative side when it comes to WP:DUEWEIGHT, bearing in mind how much ink our sources have spent on these topics. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Tim riley talk 08:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sonnet 'Of Boys' Names': double quotes around the title.
  • Although the earlier comedies suffer from an unevenness resulting from the thematic clash between the trivial and the serious,: this is a statement of opinion, and should be presented as such.
  • The formidable pronouncements of Lady Bracknell: perhaps a synonym for formidable would be wise -- I find "the formidable Lady Bracknell" is becoming something of a leitmotif.
  • Is Raby really the only person with anything to say about Wilde's use of language?
  • Wilde presents not stereotypical stage "dudes": whose word is dudes -- and would it really apply in the 1890s?
  • The Importance of Being Earnest has been adapted for the English-language cinema at least three times, first in 1952 by Anthony Asquith who adapted the screenplay and directed it: do we need the last clause? It seems repetitious, but I can also see its value.
who adapted the screenplay and directed it: without further context, I'd take that as the most likely meaning of The Importance of Being Earnest has been adapted ... by Anthony Asquith. However, "adapted" could in theory mean either or both of writing it and directing it, so perhaps it's good to be specific. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • an all black cast: hyphenate all-black. I am now imagining a production acted by New Zealand rugby players.
  • a production of The Importance of Being Earnest produced by James Joyce in Zurich in 1917: this seems like a story. Can you dig up anything more about this production? Joyce is hardly an understudied figure...
  • The facts are not in doubt. Details are given in Carr's article. But I don't want to go on about Travesties, which I love as much as if not more than Wilde's play, but is only of tangential importance to The Importance. I've added a ref to a biography of Joyce (not Ellmann's: we've had bags from him already). Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mein Freund Bunbury: lang tags.
  • continually mirrors that in Wilde's original: that of, surely?
  • We've generally abbreviated the play's title as Earnest, I think, though it becomes The Importance at one point. Suggest picking one.
  • There have been many radio versions of the play.: we haven't said anything introductory like this for the other media. Have there been notably more radio version than stage, film and musical ones?
  • Details of numerous BBC productions (in additions to the ones I have mentioned here) are available online, but it is much harder to find details of American radio productions. Even so, I think "many" is amply justified by comparison with the handful of films, operas, musicals. Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 1951 broadcast of the complete play: I'd suggest making absolutely clear that we mean the three-act version here.
  • Radio 4 broadcast a new adaptation on 13 February 1995 ... In December 2000 BBC Radio 3 broadcast a new adaptation: advise amending repetition (do we need to spell out that each one is new?)

Thank you for your comments. I fear we shall have to agree to differ about the mentions of Alfred Douglas, but otherwise I have found your suggestions invaluable. Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't leave a comment when supporting, so let me do so now -- this is one of those articles where the author's love of its subject shines through, but never trips over to make the discussion less than unimpeachably scholarly. I am reminded of the blockquoted description of John Gielgud as someone whose knowledge of theatrical lore was encyclopaedic. The prose is sparkling even by the nominator's usual standards, and the care over presentation is impressive indeed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm touched and gratified by such kind words. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk 22:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

Clearly of FA standard, the article is a joy to read. I found one typo, which I took the liberty of fixing. Support. Graham Beards (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards, what a nice thing to read! Thank you so much. Tim riley talk 09:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Just a couple of nitpicks:

  • The first paragraph of "Act I" was slightly uncomfortable to parse at first read, probably due to all the alter egos. I think it would be simpler if "John Worthing" was removed from the first sentence (i.e. "is visited by a friend he knows as "Ernest Worthing", who has come...") which reflects what Algernon/the audience actually knows at the start.
  • Is the shortening to The Importance (used twice) common?
  • The sources vary between that and just "Earnest". At UC's suggestion I've standardised on the one, which by an astounding coincidence is the one I grew up with and have been using for more than fifty years. I am reassured by the fact that Peter Hall and Shaw did the same. Tim riley talk 12:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not for me to question 1902 prose, but "You are tickled throughout with a feather, and is a very pleasant and comforting sensation" seems to be grammatically incorrect?
  • It wasn't correct: there was a missing "it", which in fact I inserted after an earlier suggestion from Ssilvers above, and then presumably managed to delete by mistake (which I'm rather too good at doing). It's there now, at all events. Tim riley talk 12:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the theme, which continues in the discussion," unless I'm missing something obvious, which discussion is being referred to here?

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 September 2024 [30].

Ove Jørgensen

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an ill-disguised soft spot for Ove Jørgensen. He is (barely) remembered among Homeric scholars as the originator of Jørgensen's law, an early and astute observation about narration in the Odyssey which in many ways set the stage for the modern fascination with narratology in the Homeric poems. After throwing an almighty strop in response to being left out of an academic society, Jørgensen left classical academia with a single publication to his name, and spent the rest of his career as a cantankerous if apparently beloved Classics teacher, an acerbic commentator on ballet and an erudite editor of Dickens. From an article-writing perspective, working on Jørgensen was a rewarding opportunity to bring together a few different threads of scholarship -- he is known for the early part of his career among classicists, for the later part among ballet historians, and throughout by scholars of his lifelong friends Carl Nielsen and Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen, but I think this is probably the first biography to pull together all those different threads of interest in him into a single picture. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
1896, in Baker's Art Gallery -- I've added the link to the Ur-source, at the NY Public Library, here to the Commons page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that site credits Baker's as the photographer? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see it as anything other than ‘this is where we got it from’ - at the very least, it surely means that Bakers exhibited it with the photographer unknown or uncredited? Alternatively, if we say that we don't have good evidence of its first publication (so, it's unpublished by anyone who would have the right to "publish" it in a copyright sense, which doesn't include the NYPL), it's pre 1904, so pd-US-unpublished would cover it anyway. The NYPL page states that they believe it to be PD in the US. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but exhibition doesn't typically meet the legal definition of "published", at least in the US. (Do we know if Baker's is American or something else?) Was there any other publication that we know of prior to the digitization by NYPL? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that Baker's Gallery is this place, founded in Columbus in the 1860s. The NYPL's catalogue states that the photograph was published c. 1896 -- admittedly, the distinction between "produced" and "published" may well be a matter of the metadata that their system allows rather than of copyright law. Part of me wants to take a strict verifiability, not truth position and say that a reliable source (the NYPL) has said it was published in 1896, so that's enough for us -- otherwise, we could use PD-because and explain that the NYPL have identified the image as being in the public domain in the United States? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think that last option would be neatest. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero

[edit]

The language field is inconsistently used for non-English sources. Would you like a photo of his grave site? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please on the photograph — done on the sources,I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Ove Jørgensen does not currently have a grave marker in Holmens Kirkegård -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting: thank you. I assume it was normal practice in Denmark, as in most European countries, to disinter bodies after a while and re-use the grave, particularly if they had no living family? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. My understanding after talking with my Danish coworkers is that gravesites in Denmark are rented for a term of years and bodies are disintered if the family is not willing to renew the lease. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That tracks: J. doesn't seem to have had any children or known family, so not a huge surprise, if a bit of a shame. Thank you for trekking out and looking, though! UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • This is well outside my area of expertise, but it's short and it's about a countryman of mine, so I'll have a look once someone more, uh, classically trained has reviewed it. Don't hesitate to ask if you need someone to look over or translate something from potential Danish sources. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi FM -- thank you for this, very much obliged. For now, could I ask two questions/favours? Firstly, I've included here just about everything I could find that mentions J. at any length: if you can do a cursory look and find anything else written in Danish, could you point me towards it? Secondly, if you know your way around IPA or pronunciation guides, I think one would be very helpful, but I don't really have the Danish expertise to make one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search earlier, and the most comprehensive account I could find was in Den Store Danske Encyklopædi.[31] At a glance, the Wikipedia article already seems to cover most of the ground, but I'll give it a closer look when I read the article and see if there's anything that could be added. According to some results, the 2005 text "Den (over)levende tradition / The (Sur)viving Tradition" by Karen Vedel covers Jørgensen, but I can't find it. Don't know much about IPA, unfortunately, but I know how the name is pronounced, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I used the Den Store Danske Encyklopædi heavily, and I think it's currently the only real biography, apart from this one, in print in any language. Could you give an English approximation of the pronunciation -- I can probably work it into close-enough IPA, or use it as a respell? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise it was the same source. That page lists some sources in its bibliography: "Peter P. Rohde i Information 10.11.1950", an article in the Danish paper Dagbladet Information, and "Thure Hastrup i O. J.: Udv. skr., 1971 7–19", which appears to maybe be the foreword to "Udvalgte Skrifter" which you have in the bibliography, and then the last source listed. "Papirer i Kgl. bibl." are papers in the Danish Royal Library. The two first texts should be findable, perhaps with the help of WP:RX? Googling a bit, this journal has some Danish articles by Jørgensen[32], this American article seems to mention him[33], and this Danish museum article[34] states that the period where Jørgensen and other significant figures associated with Carl Nielsen has been described as a "new golden age in Danish spiritual (or intellectual) life". As for pronunciation, when I just type in "Ove Jørgensen pronunciation Danish" in Google, an accurate sound clip is playable straight from the search engine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All wonderful -- thank you. Will work my way through it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK - got the "new golden age", the Udvalgte Skrifter forward is coming though the wonderful folks at RX (got a request there for the Dagbladet Information article too, but it requires a Danish or at least Scandinavian institutional login), and J's 1911 article is in there. The Calhoun article is used at length in Jørgensen's law (as C. was really the first to properly codify the "law" and outline its various caveats and exceptions): it might come back when I have a go at expanding the treatment of the law here. I've had a go at adding pronunciation -- please tweak if you can (I used this website to check that the IPA transcription sounded how I thought) UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the IPA is correct, you should not use {{respell}} anyway, since policy forbids its use in approximating languages other than English per WP:RESPELLNOT.
@FunkMonk: Can you confirm vowel length and lack of stød? ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UCC, I believe the 1950 Information article could be his obituary, so could definitely come in handy. TOE, that IPA reader website seems to give a distinct Anglophonic "twang" to everything, so a bit hard to judge, but it seems a syllable is needed for JØrgEnsen, now it sounds even more like the Danish name Jensen with an American pronunciation... I believe that "stød" should be where the otherwise silent g is, if I understand the term correctly. Like "Jør'ensen". Funny, they don't teach you about "stød" in regular Danish class, I guess it's just taken for granted. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the stød, which I think gets the right sound -- I used the Icelandic "reader" on the IPA website, as they don't have a Danish one! Agreed on the obituary: I'm not sure I can currently find enough bibliographical information to meaningfully list it in Further Reading, but I'm optimistic that someone will come along in RX (I don't suppose you know anyone likely to have the right login?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains the more "twangy" sound haha, Icelandic is the farthest you can get from Danish among the Scandinavian langues, would probably sound more correct with the German reader. I'm not sure that Icelandic website you linked at RX has Danish papers? I managed to find the correct issue on Information's archival website[35], but it seems it needs a subscriber's login... Maybe I can ask the Danish National Library, I got free copies of newspapers from them before. This site[36] run by the library also has scans, but you also need to be affiliated with specific universities to log in. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would be wonderful if you can get anything - I'll add those links to the RX request in case anyone finds it. It looks as thought this one accepts logins via the Danish National Library, which in turn looks like you can create an account using your MitID -- is that anything that makes sense to you? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just logged in, but unfortunately it says I can't view it anyway, I guess current university affiliation is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I first learned about the stød, I asked a Danish friend to explain it to me. She expressed a similar attitude, so it's neat to see you say the same. I found it quite difficult to differentiate hun from hund. On the topic of Danish pronunciation, can you confirm that the pronunciation of Jørgensen contains an /ŋ/ (as in English "sing") before the /s/ and not an /n/ (as in English "sin")? It seems unlikely that the /n/ would not be alveolar, though the rest of the transliteration corresponds to my (limited) understanding of Danish phonology. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would actually just be "n", hard to find a good demonstration, but you can hear it pretty clearly in this video 30 seconds in ("Bodil Jørgensen"):[37] FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary" considering the scarcity of sources, I wonder if this is something that has been published and could be used somehow?
    • It has, though the very limited access I have to it (Google Books preview) doesn't really pull up much of use -- I think I've mentioned this briefly in some of the other reviews. If you've got better access to it, would be grateful for anything you can find. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it called? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is via Google Books: part of an edited volume of diaries and letters, from what I can see. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "written in German, in the journal Hermes" I wonder if you could just say "in the German journal Hermes": it's less wordy, and it also specifies the journal itself was from Germany, without having to repeat the word "German".
    • True, but that would elide the fact that J. wrote in his second language -- after all, academic journals routinely take submissions in many languages. I'm not sure it's particularly important that the journal was German as opposed to that the article was. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, to me it would be pretty clear from "German journal" and the German title listed right before? German fluency was common for the Danish elite, so it isn't that unusual either way (most Danes still learn it in elementary school). FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Hermes" is a Greek title, and in their last edition, most of the articles were in English -- it really isn't the case that (e.g.) a French journal will only (or even mostly) have articles written in French. I do see your point, but I think the current framing is the right balance between making the important facts explicit and not being too repetitious. Interesting on German fluency -- I suppose that explains the many academic connections between Copenhagen and Berlin in the period -- and, slightly earlier, the outsized number of Danish intellectuals in the Bavarian-run Kingdom of Greece in the decades after independence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro, you present: "with the composer Carl Nielsen and his wife, the sculptor Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen" but in the article it's: "where Jørgensen met the composer Carl Nielsen and his wife Anne Marie". I wonder if her occupation should also be mentioned when she is introduced in the article body? And now she is just presented as a sort of "appendix" to her husband since you don't give her full name there. While I realise it's a repetitive name, since it's the same as her husband's, you do give her full name in the intro after all.
  • "promoting what he saw as authentic, masculine Danish aesthetics – represented by the ballet master August Bournonville" Kind of funny, since he was French/Swedish...
    • Go figure -- plus, of course, ballet is an odd choice for a definingly Danish art form! I suspect that J. was more concerned with the aesthetics and perceived conservatism than the nationality, given that he was happy enough to side with Fokine (who was very classicising and, I think, had similar ideas to J. about aesthetics). UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all from me, any success in getting those extra sources? Otherwise I'll write the National Library one of these days about the possible obituary.
    • Some success, but none with the obituary -- if you've got an "in" with the National Library, that would be wonderful. Otherwise, do you know if Danish Wiki has an equivalent of RX? Honestly, given that it was consulted for the Hartmann article, I would hope that it won't radically change what we know, but it may well have some useful details and I think has value as further reading anyway. Still nothing on his experience/actions under occupation, and the more cynical part of me wonders if that silence itself answers some questions... UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They answered that one has to physically go to the library to access the archive from their computers, so I'm not sure one can even save the info if they aren't a researcher... FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A shame -- I think we shall probably have to draw a blank here for now, then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThaesOfereode

[edit]

Feels like a topic I can throw my hat in on. Plus, a named law? Count me in. I hope the below is helpful, though it is a hair nitpicky, admittedly (maybe... this is my first FAR). Pretty much everything below can be challenged; I know the difficulty of trying to write about someone notable with glaring gaps in their life's story.

  • Thank you for the review -- I am hardly in a position to complain about nit-picking, and the more careful eyes that the article can have over it, the better. Replies below: all very wise and pertinent comments, though I think some of the infelicities you've identified are artefacts of the subject matter as much as of its presentation here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad I've been helpful so far. Below, I've responded to what I think needed comment or further revision (assume anything not addressed is good to go, addressed elsewhere, or awaiting other action). You'll note that I ask "Can we get a quote from XYZ?" quite a lot; don't feel like each instance needs to be fulfilled. I think just one or two from the suggestions will add something positive to the overall quality of the article, help to contextualize and/or explain critical elements of the piece. I might place slight primacy on contextualizing the Nielsen–Jørgensen relationship better with an appropriate quote from Nielsen's diary, but I will leave it up to you to decide if there is anything worth taking from it. Again, nothing in here is show stopping and if the below are not actionable, I'm still happy to support in its current condition. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I managed to get a little quote in on his ballet views, which has some distinctive turns of phrase -- it's quoted at slightly greater length in the source, but I think doing it as a quote box would be repetitious and would maybe crowd the article a little. I think we've got the most important and distinctive bits. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This article is in great shape; I'm glad you were able to find good additions to the article after bringing it here. Happy to support. Great work. Hope I was half as helpful in this article as you were in mine! ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you -- for your judicious and thoughtful comments, of course, but particularly for your help with the pronunciation. I am always grateful to have someone come along who actually knows what they are talking about! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Happy to help. Feel free to ping me whenever for IPA/linguistics concerns: I have more papers on the topic than I can count and I'd hate for them to just gather dust! ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came back to check how this article was doing. Given that it's changed quite a bit, I hope you won't mind me plunging in for a second volley.
  • You want to consider trimming down the lede since it's about twice as long as MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends.
    • MOS:LEADLENGTH has come up at FAC a few times: I don't think I'm speaking out of turn to say that few writers or reviewers have set much in store, at least recently, by the lengths proposed in the table. There's also often a contradiction with MOS:LEAD, which is to me the more important guideline -- that the lead should summarise the key points of the article well enough that readers can use it as a concise summary of the whole. 300 or so words in three and a bit medium-length paragraphs is very much down the line for an FA biography, and by my count it's about 15% of the length of the body. Happy to take suggestions if it's verbose or if there are unimportant details in there -- I know I'm probably too close to the text to see it dispassionately -- but would resist cutting it purely for the sake of meeting the suggested numbers (and they are only that) in LEADLENGTH. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think linking Fear and Trembling in a sacred shudder is incorrect; I think it's probably an Easter egg in any case, but if not, linking Kierkegaard's work seems like the least likely quotation. I think linking Philippians 2 is more appropriate, if the context suggests it is from Scripture, but broadly speaking, I think "a sacred shudder" is likely a metaphor, not a reference, especially given that the Pauline line has a totally different connotation (Jørgensen's "goosebumps in the presence of greatness" vs. Paul's exhortation to persist in obedience to the Divine).
    • Personally, I think it's almost certain that he is referencing "fear and trembling" in the biblical sense of trembling before the Lord (found in Psalm 55 and elsewhere, not just in Philippians) -- I would have linked to an article on the phrase, but there isn't one, and the phrase itself redirects to Kirkegaard (then explains the biblical reference early in the article). Honestly, the linking in that quote is a bit Easter-egg-ish, but it needs to be -- a large part of the point of including that quotation is to get across the sheer density of allusions, flourishes and languages in J.'s writing (he slips into English a paragraph or so later). If you think there's a real doubt as to whether there is a biblical allusion intended (the letter is transmitted in translation, unfortunately, which makes the question a little harder), I will unlink under only very mild protest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'm floored that Philippians 2 doesn't have any reference to "fear and trembling"; I guess it's another thing to put on my never-ending to-do list. Regardless, let's say for the sake of argument that the letter does have a clear reference to the biblical phrase. I think the casual reader will interpret that link there as Jørgensen referencing Kierkegaard, not Jørgensen referencing the same source as Kierkegaard. Jørgensen was a learned man and I would be surprised if he had never read the work of his fellow countryman with whom his father's life overlapped; I don't think it would be unreasonable to make that jump, for the reader to assume from the link that Kierkegaard is being referenced. And that's assuming it is a biblical reference. I think the big "if" as to whether that is the precise reference (which I'm willing to concede, given the time/person), the Easter egginess (no fault of the nominator, simply a problem of linking in quotations), and the possible confusion this renders to the reader all conspire to have us remove the link from the article, unfortunately. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be a workable compromise to direct the link to Fear and trembling (biblical phrase)? From a quick Google Books search, it would pass GNG and there's enough material for a stub/start. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. I can't believe there isn't already a page on it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good news -- there now is. Link changed to fit. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, this page is really good for having just been set up. Kudos! ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe a citation is needed after In Berlin, he began the process of writing what became his 1904 article on the invocation of the gods in the Odyssey.
  • Purely a cosmetic suggestion, so feel free to refute, but there's a sort of staccato in reading when you place footnote markers after commas, semi-colons, etc. Consider using {{multiref}} (or {{multiref2}} for lengthy quotations/explanations) at the end of sentences and just explaining which source states which cause. The sentences Jørgensen began work on a book-length treatment [...] and He became a lifelong friend [...], for example, would benefit greatly.
  • I think there's advantages and trade-offs to both approaches -- I don't necessarily disagree with your view of the aesthetics, but there is also an advantage to keeping citations as close as possible to the material they support, especially when (as often here) we are having to stitch together multiple sources to form a coherent narrative even at the sentence level. WP:CITE has citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods (full stops) and commas ... The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. -- that at least gives licence to the current approach, I think. Purely subjectively, I'm not a fan of how the multiref templates format the references section, especially when it's a long one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Like I said, it's more of a cosmetic change than a necessity. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; withdrawn. It can be difficult to tell which MOS standards have wiggle room and which ones must be strictly followed as a newcomer to FAC. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I have nothing else to say; this is still an excellent article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these -- I believe I've fixed and/or responded as needed. @Nikkimaria, Tim riley, SchroCat, FunkMonk, and Generalissima: in the interests of transparency, I have made a few additions from Hastrup 1971, so you may (or may not) wish to take another look to see if your view of the article remains the same. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at these additions, my support still stands - indeed, is strengthened by the new edits. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you got that source, looks fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very scrupulous of you UC. No, I see not the smallest need to revise my opinion and I continue to support. Tim riley talk 20:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that it looks good! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes on prose to start.

  • and of Jørgensen's wife – Seems like a WP:POSA thing to add; if he had been born out of wedlock in 1870s Denmark, that would be worth mentioning. Still, if you think this should stand, I think his wife is better than simply "Jørgensen's wife".
    • Yes, I think you're right -- think it's now better formulated as his wife, Louise née Wellmann.
  • an accompanied them to Constantinople – Why? Were they doing something of note there? I'm not sure traveling with someone of note necessarily needs to make it into the details of his life.
    • Sightseeing, particularly ancient monuments -- one assumes J. acted as guide. I've added a link to N's diary on the latter point. I'm struggling to find the duration of the trip (from memory, it was about a month). I'd agree that it's not the most exciting detail, but I think it helps to establish J's relationship with the Carl Nielsens as developing quickly and as more than simple acquaintance (in the original of the infobox image, N. is sitting immediately to J's right). I think he went to Athens with him as well, but couldn't get enough of the diary to be sure (User:FunkMonk may have more luck?) See the point below too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it's important to establish the origins of their relationship. Consider adding a crop of the image from the infobox with Nielsen; it might be nice to have a photo of them together given Nielsen's overall importance in the article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary. – I think this needs more context. Is this a lot? How long were they in Constantinople? I would strongly consider the precise dates, if the information exists. If they were in Constantinople together for an appreciable amount of time, it makes sense that Nielsen would reference Jørgensen a lot. Sixty-three mentions on a week's trip is a lot, but sixty-three mentions in a year is hardly noteworthy.
    • It's throughout the whole diary: I don't have context as to how often he mentions other people, but the point is that they were more than passing acquaintances. See above -- Nielsen is really the only true constant across the two halves of J's life, and is indeed the relationship between N. and J. is a not insubstantial part of what makes J. "notable", in the sense of being of interest to scholars -- on a rough count, somewhere not far south of half of the sources that write about him do so as a friend and correspondent of Nielsen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any chance that you (or FM) can add an excerpt from the diary? I know you've called it a pretty terse document, but something from Nielsen's diary that contextualizes Jørgensen's (certainly) vast knowledge about the area would be excellent. Equally as good – if not better – would be a quote that explains how they met, why/how they decided to take this trip in particular, etc., which would really help to set their relationship more comfortably in the article.
        No worries. I suspected this would be the case, but I had to at least advocate for it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this article, Jørgensen observed that Homeric characters typically use generic terms, particularly θεός (theos, 'a god'), δαίμων (a daimon) and Ζεύς (Zeus), to refer to the action of gods, whereas the narrator and the gods themselves always name the specific gods responsible.
    • to refer to the action of gods → to refer to the actions of the gods, right?
    • I'm not a classicist, but it's not clear at all why or how Zeus (a specific god) is used to refer to the actions of the gods in general. Is there a way Homer differentiates between the actions of "zeus" vs the actions of "Zeus"?
      • It's the characters, not the narrators -- the idea is that a character might say e.g. "Zeus gave me good fortune, and I won the fight", but mean that as a general idea that they had divine assistance, rather than specifically singling out Zeus as opposed to e.g. Athena, Hera, etc. There are one or two specific cases where this is broken (some discussed in the relevant article) -- in the Iliad, for example, Achilles sounds as though he's about to do it in Book 1, where he complains to his goddess mother Thetis that Zeus doesn't give him the respect that he deserves, but then goes on to make absolutely clear that he is talking specifically about the king of the gods (perhaps underlining his self-importance and perhaps arrogance?) In the Odyssey, Odysseus describes how Zeus sent a thunderbolt to sink his ship, after he angered the god of the sun -- again, here he's very obviously talking about Zeus specifically, but he does then explain himself by saying that he heard this account from the goddess Calypso later on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neat as hell. I think we might consider a way of conveying that to the audience. Can we splice in a quote from Jørgensen's work on it? Might add some nice detail into Jørgensen's writing style and his contemporary insight. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          If you have a look at the Jørgensen's law article, you'll see the best I could do on this -- unfortunately, it has to end up pretty chunky, as Jørgensen doesn't seem to have been interested in formulating it as a "law", rather than making observations on a specific part of the Odyssey. Honestly, I think that would be an undue use of space in this biographical article, though there might well be room to expand our coverage of the law in this one, and I think it has value where it is in the law's article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although most members were qualified as doctors of philosophy, others, including Nielsen, were invited. – Comma bomb here. Consider Although most members were qualified as doctors of philosophy, others – including Nielsen – were invited.
  • In 1916, working alongside the chemist S. P. L. Sørensen, Jørgensen completed and published Sophus's unfinished manuscript of Development History of the Chemical Concept of Acid until 1830. – Did Jørgensen only work on the manuscript in 1916 or was it just published in 1916 but had been worked on in previous years?
  • Jørgensen became an authority on ballet – How? Did he have background? Did he just write a bunch of stuff that others liked?
    • It seems to have come out of nowhere! This is admittedly the biggest problem in writing this article -- with (exactly) one exception, all of the biographical accounts of J. are either by classicists, in which case they stop just before he gets into ballet, or by ballet scholars, in which case they start just afterwards -- nobody has really attempted to write the story of how he got into it. He seems to have been a generally cultured and erudite man, given his multiple expertise in classical poetry, English novels and ballet, but I don't think we have the sources to specifically say where his interest came from. He doesn't seem to have had a formal job, but did write a couple of articles in Tilskueren, which seems to have been a reasonably prominent magazine.
      • Bizarre! Do you have any dates for articles he wrote in that magazine? It would be worth noting that he was writing ballet articles while he was still a professor, for example. As with his law, it would be cool to get insight on his view of ballet in his own words if the articles are accessible. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • He never was a professor (or "even" a PhD, which became a problem for him). His ballet articles, as far as I can tell, begin in 1905, the year he withdrew from academia (though he did write at least one review article of a classical work later, in 1911), but it would be WP:SYNTH to explicitly say that he only started his interest in ballet after/because of his falling-out with the classical establishment. It might be possible to pull a germane quote from one of those articles: I'll have a look. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He condemned the Art Nouveau– – Not sure what this endash is doing here.
  • calling it "quasi-philosophical experiments". → calling them "quasi-philosophical experiments"., right?
  • "standard analysis of ... the rules that govern human speech about the gods" – Probably non-actionable, but is there anything in the MOS about the use of [...] with the brackets vs. without?

A few notes on content.

  • I think, given that Jørgensen's main claim to fame is the eponymous law, I think maybe it deserves an expansion from its current (body) size of one short paragraph. In particular, I think it would be good to describe how Jørgensen originally formulated/supported his thesis and compare his work with modern scholarship (as in, Jørgensen's original formulation has stood the test of time or modern scholarship has departed from the original formulation in XYZ ways). Although, I suspect scholarship on how Jørgensen formulated the law may be scant.
    • It is -- I might come back to this. The basic thrust is that J. had the basic insight, but didn't really attempt to codify it into a solid "law" or to attempt to phrase it in rigorous terms, so later scholars have done that work and applied the "Jørgensen's law" label to it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a bit here -- from what I can tell, the real mover and shaker is Calhoun; there's some nice later work on the few cases where Jørgensen's law is straightforwardly broken, which usually makes a convincing argument that this would be noticed by the audience and tells us something interesting about what the poet is trying to do, but I think that's really out of scope for this particular article, as most of it happened decades after J's death. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jørgensen's relationship with Carl Nielsen seems... out of place. I can tell that there is something that called you to repeatedly mention this friendship (and I imagine it is worth adding), but I find it difficult to connect it to the content. In "Later career" it's a little clear that Jørgensen had some impact on his marriage, but is there anything that says that they influenced each other's professional work? They traveled to Constantinople together; are there any episodes from that trip (or any other) that show a working relationship? Even a brief vignette would help to make the mention of the friendship feel more at home in the article.
  • A similar thing can be said about the jump from classicist to ballet expert, but I admit there have been weirder jumps with less in the way of information about how A got to B. If any information exists on the topic – acknowledging that that may be a big "if" – it would be undeniably helpful to the reader.

Overall, this is an article in good condition, with hardly any issues in the way of prose. My main concern now is that there are parts which feel disjointed and do not convey importance to the reader well, but I suspect they can be easily remedied or the scholarship is simply non-existent/inaccessible. I suspect Danish-language skill may be a reasonable bottleneck here, but hopefully FunkMonk can assist should you find anything. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
  • "of Jørgensen's wife, Louise Wellmann" jars a little bit. Maybe "of Louise (nee Wellmann)" would suffice?
  • "the philologist Anders Bjørn Drachmann": worth linking philologist, as it's an uncommon term?
  • "Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary": This is a potentially useful fact, but with no frame of reference it's a bit lost. Is that a lot? Were the mentions positive? Over how long were these spread, etc. Maybe only half a sentence is all that's needed to give it a bit more relevance, but it just looks like a bit of trivia as it stands.
    • See ThaesOfereode's review above -- the point is well made, but we don't have the sources to do any of that, at least as far as I can find. I do think it's got some relevance, and it's not as if we're overloaded with biographical detail: when we've got comparatively little information about someone, I think we do need to drop our standards slightly and include things we might drop out of a fuller account of their life. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was his love of ballet a lifelong thing? It sort of appears part way through the Later career section with no indication of an origin
  • Was the Wanscher lecture connected to ballet at all? It doesn't seem to fit here, being sandwiched between two parts of Duncan

It's relatively short, but I guess if his notability is limited to the eponymous law and his writing on ballet, then that's to be expected, although I was surprised reading of his 1950 death and realising that he lived, presumably in Copenhagen, under Nazi occupation. Was 1930 (the publication of Dickens) the last notable thing about his life until his death? either way, this is, as always, beautifully written and something that made me genuinely interested in someone I've never heard of before, so thank you for that. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, as ever -- you have the nail on the head, and I'm sure there are some very interesting stories to tell about the last two decades of his life. Unfortunately, the sources are truly scanty indeed -- almost none of them are interested in him for his own sake, and only really discuss him in relation to his classical scholarship, his ballet writings or his relationship with the Carl Nielsens. It might be that we can come up with some more, but at the moment I've not been able to, and none of it features in the one real biography of him that I believe exists outside Wikipedia. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Generalissima Looks like you just need a source review.

  • I assume the "Search 'Ove Jørgensen' stuff refers to Google Books usage (since they have yet to perfect ctrl-f technology for physical books)? If so, might be good to provide the Google Books links in the bibliography.
  • Refs are generally laid out and formatted consistently. Good use of columns, and good job navigating a Danish-language source corpus.
  • Burke's Peerage is missing a location.
    Oh, fair point then. - G Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locations are not needed for publishers who have the name of the location in their title (See WP:CS1); so you don't need them for Oxford UP, Leuven UP, or Stockholm University.
  • Only source that seemed potentially suspicious were Burke's Peerage and Weltzer, but they're used appropriately and sparingly.
  • Looking through academic databases for Ove Jørgensen seems to reveal the exact set of sources you used, so it's safe to say you've done your due dilligence squeezing out whatever you can here.

@UndercoverClassicist: Beyond the minor scruples on formatting, seems like we're pretty much good to go here. Let me know when you've fixed up that stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Precious little from me. The article is in fine shape. A few minor suggestions:

  • "an article in which he outlined the distinctions between how the gods are referred to by mortal characters and by the narrator and gods in the Odyssey" – for precision I'd move "in the Odyssey" to follow "distinctions".
  • "He subsequently travelled to Athens in 1903" – don't think we need "subsequently" as well as the year.
  • I'm having a little difficulty with the calendar: if he spent the 1902–1903 academic year in Berlin it seems odd that he moved to Athens in time to meet the Nielsens and go to Constantinople with them in May 1903. Or was the German academic year quite different from ours?
    • Two possible explanations, I think, though neither is spelt out in the sources -- most likely, the academic year had ended (the week after the end of the Cambridge year is known as "May Week", though in recent times it happens in June), at least for these particular students (who weren't following a particularly formal course of study). Less likely, they could have considered the trip part of their studies, or simply bunked off. He didn't really move to Athens; that was very much a holiday/study trip. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jørgensen … forgotten them" – a 57-word sentence that could do with breaking up, I think, probably after "way of life". And is "expected few to have forgotten" quite right here? "Expected to" sounds like an order – "He expected them to polish his shoes" – rather than expecting that few would have forgotten.
  • "she had reconciled with Carl" – unexpected verb: I'd expect "was" rather than "had", but I may be wrong. Either way, would it not be more neutral to say "she and Carl were reconciled, and she was..." – rather than appearing to put the onus on Anne Marie?
  • "criticising the innovations introduced into European ballet by the dancer Isadora Duncan" – is it correct to say that Duncan introduced innovations into European ballet? She pranced about on European stages and opened a dance school but I'm not sure she dabbled in ballet, or would claim to have done. Perhaps safer to say "introduced innovations to European dance" rather than "introduced innovations to European ballet"?
  • "Personal life and assessment" – a perfectly reasonable header, but the following text deals with assessment and then personal life rather than vice versa.

I am indebted to you for the information that in Danish Great Expectations is Store forventninger. In exchange I offer you some Shakespeare: in Dutch, De vrolijke vrouwtjes van Windsor and in Welsh, Bid Wrth Eich Bodd.

That's my lot. What an interesting man – such a range of expertise! – Tim riley talk 08:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria. I much enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Tim riley talk 10:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Choliamb

[edit]

Somehow I missed this when it first went up, probably because Jørgensen was a complete cipher to me and the name rang no bells when saw it in the list of nominated articles. It's a fine article, almost everything was new to me, and I loved the peek into Wilamowitz's classroom. It is much shorter than your other FAs, but I have no idea how that affects its eligibility. My comment is limited to a couple of little quibbles about the quote from Tyrtaeus:

  • Consider revising the second part of explanatory note c to read simply "a line from a poem by the ancient Spartan poet Tyrtaeus", for two reasons: (1) "Fragment 10" is not the title of the poem, it is simply the number of this fragment in West's edition. It should not be in quotation marks. (2) This particular fragment is not universally known as fragment 10. It was fragment 10 in Bergk's Poetae lyrici graeci, but fragment 7 in Diehl's Anthologia lyrica graeca, which was the standard text for most of the 20th century. It became fragment 10 again in West's Oxford edition (followed by Gerber's Loeb), but it is still fragment 7 in the new Teubner edition by Gentili and Prato. Opinions differ about the merits of West vs. Gentili, but both numbers are still in use, and it is not uncommon to see citations like "Tyrt. 7D = 10W". Expanding this for Wikipedia audiences, you might write "Tyrtaeus, fragment 7 Diehl = 10 West; Gerber 1999, pp. 52–53" in the citation at the end of the explanatory note. This would allow readers in the know to find the poem in whatever edition they are using, and still provides the Loeb reference with its English translation for those who don't care.
    • All quite right -- I have done this with a slightly different phrasing, which I think is more layman-friendly; do let me know if I've mangled it.
  • In the quotation itself, a space is needed between γ' and ὀφθαλμοῖς.
  • Finally, not a quibble but a question: is the quotation itself correctly reproduced from J.'s letter? It ends νεμεσητὰ ἰδεῖν, which caught my eye because the hiatus would be intolerable unless Tyrtaeus observed the digamma in ἰδεῖν. The transmitted text (quoted by Lycurgus) has νεμεσητὸν here, and that is what all modern editions print (Bergk, Diehl, West, Gentili, Gerber). So if Jørgensen actually wrote νεμεσητὰ, he must have been using Peppmüller's revised edition of Buchholz's Anthologie aus den Lyrikern der Griechen, which appears to be the only edition that prints that form. The digamma was pronounced in Archaic Sparta, but it is not regularly observed in what survives of Tyrtaeus's poetry, a fact that has occasioned some discussion (see Dover, "The Poetry of Archilochus", Entretiens Hardt 10 (1964), at pp. 190–193). Nothing for you to do here, but interesting, at least for classicists.
    • As transcribed in the source, yes, it's an alpha with a grave accent. Not impossible that it's Mejer's error rather than J.'s choice, but given what you say about the different versions, I'd suggest that the most likely explanation is as you suggest, that he did indeed write νεμεσητὰ. If anything, we'd expect a modern editor's error to go the other way, and "correct" it to the modern text. I've been slightly bold and made it plural in the translation as well, though I doubt anyone would have noticed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Choliamb (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Choliamb -- all wise and most welcome. You may enjoy some other bits of J's letters, quoted in that Mejer article, which are a great pen-portrait of v. W. and his lessons -- he describes with some humour the scene of the German undergraduates flailing over giving torturously long line numbers in their shaky Latin, and eventually managing to say so little that Wilamowitz declares he may as well have settled the lesson's debate by drawing lots. I imagine you'll have access to a copy, but if you don't and would like it, will send one to you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always the numbers that trip you up, as I learned in high school French. One minute you can be rolling along like a native Parisien, and then all of a sudden things screech to a halt as you try to do the math to come up with dix-neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-huit. I will have a look at Mejer. Support. Choliamb (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • 'The observation of these distinctions became known as "Jørgensen's law".' I think this could be parsed in two slightly different ways, though as neither is technically wrong perhaps no change is needed. One interpretation is "His observation that these distinctions exist"; the other is "The adherence to these distinctions in the sources". I suspect the latter is intended, though as I say I'm not sure anything should be changed.
  • Perhaps link monograph.
  • The sentence starting "He became a student ..." has both a semicolon and a colon. I look out for this sort of construction because I have a tendency to overuse it myself; I think having two pauses in a single sentence isn't ideal. How about doing something like "... and made his first visit to Berlin that same year ..." in order to avoid the first one?
  • "he began the process of writing": would this lose anything if shortened to "he began writing"?
    • I think so, since the writing process begins with research, thinking and possibly writing (bits of) other stuff -- there's no definitive suggestion that he actually sat down with this title and started writing what we would recognise as this essay. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • "In June 1903, Jørgensen and Nielsen travelled to Italy" and "They subsequently travelled to Rome": these phrasings imply that Carl-Nielsen did not travel with them, but Hartmann's phrasing makes it appear that she did.
    You're quite right -- fixed, I hope. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which he considered a snub": I'm using Google Translate so can't be sure I'm right, but doesn't Hartmann say it was indeed ("rightly") a snub? That might justify strengthening the language here. It's not clear to me whether Hartmann is saying Nielsen or Jørgensen considered it a snub: Google gives me "He rightly felt that J. was not invited as a deliberate oversight, and when AB Drachmann offered to introduce him to the company, he bitterly refused", which seems to have two referents for "he".
    • Hm -- Hastrup has it completely the other way, and says that it was totally unintentional, but J had a fatal combination of self-doubt and excessive dignity that meant he took it very personally and very hard. I think the first "he" in that translation is slightly misleading, and the subject of "felt" is Jørgensen (or else impersonal: "it felt like..."): it doesn't make much sense if it's Nielsen, since the person refusing at the end of the sentence can only be Jørgensen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weltzer wrote in 1953 that his classes on ...": suggest "Weltzer wrote in 1953 that Jørgensen's classes on ...".
  • No change necessarily needed, but "middle-aged" surprised me in the paragraph on Isadora Duncan, as she was only 26 or 27 when Jørgensen began writing about ballet, and since that paragraph finishes with a sentence also set in March 1905 it seems the whole paragraph refers to his thoughts at that time.
    • Slightly rephrased to avoid that implication. I think there's value in putting that anti-modernist judgement with his condemnation of Duncan etc, especially as the chronology of these events within 1905 isn't exactly clear. On your point about middle-aged, I think you are right to be surprised and that Jørgensen was, as was often his way, being rather harder on her than he might otherwise have been. We could say "the twenty-six-year-old Duncan" if we really want to make it obvious. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If it's clear that the "middle-aged" reference is to Duncan in her mid-twenties, I think a footnote after the word with a sentence giving her age would not go amiss. If it's unclear just when he said this I think no change is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've done that -- it turns out that Duncan's age is slightly complicated, but she could not have been older than 28. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see; I'll be supporting when these are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Top quality work as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • "after he was passed over for an invitation to a newly formed learned society." What does "passed over for an invitation" mean? Passed over for an invitation to a join the learned society? The main article is no clearer. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is standard English (one can certainly be passed over for a job/promotion/opportunity), but I've changed to "after he was not invited to join..." in the lead. Also added a second "invited" in the body to remove a possible bit of ambiguity there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 September 2024 [38].

John Silva Meehan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Silva Meehan was the fourth Librarian of Congress, serving for the three decades prior to the Civil War. The library was a pretty low-key institution at this time; only under Librarian Spofford did it truly become a "national library", and Meehan has received a fair bit of criticism for not getting the ball rolling on this beforehand. Prior to his librarian service, he had a brief and ultimately unsuccessful career as a partisan newspaper editor. I hope this is an enjoyable read to you all! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 20:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he moved to Burlington, New Jersey to work as a printer " - while I disagree with it strongly, MOS:GEOCOMMA is part of the manual of style, so there should be a comma after New Jersey
    • Oops, fixed. - G
  • "Watterston was later described as having been a "librarian of one side of the aisle"" - by whom? The extent to which this quote can be taken at face value depends on if this is the conclusion of a modern historian, or if this is another Duff Green commentary
    • Added attribution. - G
  • "wished to hire an assistant editor at a significant lower rate than what he had agreed for Meehan" - while yes, this is true, I would argue that the use of "significant" here consitutes a form of original research, as we're only given the rates of $1,200 and $800.
    • Removed the word significant.
  • Our article on the City of Washington Gazette attributes the renaming to the United States' Telegraph to Meehan, but this renaming is never directly addressed in this article - can a simple statement that Meehan changed the name be sourced?
    • Done. - G
  • Is the correct spelling "Wharton" or "Warton" for his son's middle name? It looks like Nappo uses "Warton", but McDonough uses "Wharton"
  • McDonough states on page 12 that Meehan had a "reputation as a careful and precise businessman" and that he was thus asked to be the bookkeeper for several unrelated thimgs - is this worth mentioning alongside the Johnston quote?
    • Ooh, great idea! Since this was describing his contemporary reputation, I incorporated it into a paragraph further up into the article. - G

That's it for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 22:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

NØ

[edit]

Not a subject matter expert so I am just focusing on prose.

  • "After the firm moved to Washington, D.C., in early 1822, Meehan begun editing and publishing the Baptist weekly newspaper The Columbian Star." - Should this not be "began" instead?
    • Good catch, fixed. - G
  • "He attended school in New York, and later entered work as a printer." - There's a WP:CINS issue here which could be fixed by removing the comma.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Would a link to Baptists somewhere be overlinking?
    • Found a spot! - G
  • "He would leave the paper himself six months later, seeking to separate the Star from his entry into political writing." - nitpicky on my part but is this a better way to put it?: "Six months later, he would leave the paper himself, seeking to separate the Star from his entry into political writing."
    • I think so, fixed. - G
  • "Meehan diligently produced various "want lists" based on earlier catalogs." - It might be a good idea to have a reference directly present at the end of this sentence since there's a quote.
    • Added. - G
There are no major problems with the article from the areas that I analyzed it. Along with the prose, I also checked the alt texts and they look good and succinct. Good work!--NØ 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Journalist Arnne Royall ebuked him for his purchasing habits, claiming he had failed to "anticipate the research needs of legislators or scholars", and criticizing the acquisition of a number of books intended for Sunday school students." - Second comma should be removed
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Two major opportunities were presented to purchase expansive collections, but were both denied by Congress" - This comma should be removed as well
    • Done. - G
  • "with shelves placed in accordance to a modified version of Thomas Jefferson's original classification schema" - Shouldn't this be "accordance with a"?
    • Good point, fixed. - G
  • "Books were generally categorized by subject, and within subjects" - Remove this comma too
    • Done. - G
  • There is switching between "catalog" and "catalogue" in the article. The first one is preferred in American English.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "they simply waited out Mann's retirement and the beginning of the 33rd United States Congress, and continued the previous path." - Remove the comma, and this could probably convey the same point without "simply" for added concision!
    • Fixed. - G
Apologies for again raising a point I had touched on earlier after so many days, but the article needs combing through to conform to WP:CINS.--NØ 11:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

I'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. These are my initial comments:

  • So there are several mentions of "Librarian of Congress" that do not conform with MOS:JOBTITLES. Instances of this I could find are:
    • "the fourth Librarian of Congress" -> "the fourth librarian of Congress".
    • "the Librarian of Congress since 1815" -> "the librarian of Congress since 1815".
    • "Senator James Pearce served as Meehan's partner and ally for much of his tenure as Librarian." -> "Senator James Pearce served as Meehan's partner and ally for much of his tenure as librarian."
    • "from the Joint Committee to the Librarian of Congress" -> "from the Joint Committee to the librarian of Congress"
    • "Rumors that the newly-elected Franklin Pierce had appointed a new Librarian of Congress troubled Meehan." -> "Rumors that the newly-elected Franklin Pierce had appointed a new librarian of Congress troubled Meehan."
    • "asking that Meehan be allowed to continue his role as librarian" -> "asking that Meehan be allowed to continue his role as Librarian"
    • "Meehan additionally served as the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Baptist Columbian College." -> "Meehan additionally served as the secretary of the board of trustees of the Baptist Columbian College."
    • Done. - G
  • Names with initials should have non-breaking spaces between the initials as per MOS:INITIALS. E.g. "C. H. Wharton Meehan" should be "C. H. Wharton Meehan", "E. B. Stelle" should be "E. B. Stelle", and "G. P. A. Healy" should be "G. P. A. Healy" instead (look at the wikitext).
    • Fixed. - G
  • "remained unimplemented" -> "were not implemented".
    • Fixed. - G
  • Does Librarian of Congress need to be linked twice in the lead?
    • Fixed. - G
  • There is a citation error with one of the journals.
    • Fixed. - G
  • There is an inconsistency between "U.S. Navy Agent" and "US" in the infobox.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Baptist can be linked in the lead.
    • Done. - G
  • "In January 1815, he returned to New York" -> "In January 1815, Meehan returned to New York".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "In Philadelphia, he partnered" -> "In Philadelphia, Meehan partnered"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "and the Luminary was shifted to a monthly publication." What was it before that?
    • Five times a year; added. - G
  • "The two also served as the chief editors" -> "The two served as the chief editors".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Rev. James D. Knowles." Does rev stand for reverend? If so, can it be written out in full: "Reverend James D. Knowles".
    • Done. -G

Steelkamp (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Steelkamp: Okay! I think that's all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington D.C." -> "Washington, D.C."
  • "using notes endorsed by John Peter Van Ness". Is this referring to banknotes? And what does "endorsed" mean exactly?
  • "the most sacred principles of the Constitution". Maybe link Constitution of the United States.
  • "1824 presidential election". Maybe link 1824 United States presidential election.
  • In what way did the election of Adams and the appointment of Clay violate the most sacred principles of the Constitution?
  • Does "Anti-Jacksonian" typically have a capital "A"? There are three instances of it with the "A" capitalised and one instance where it is not.
  • "describing him as the "abused citizen"" -> "describing him as an "abused citizen""
  • "above the political games and corruption that he attributed to the Adams administration." Who is doing the attributing? Meehan or Jackson?
  • "Green wrote to Andrew Jackson in April 23, 1829" -> "Green wrote to Andrew Jackson on April 23, 1829".
  • The Library of Congress is not linked in the body. Can a link to that page be fit in somewhere?
  • "through multiple Whig presidencies". Can Whig Party (United States) be linked?
  • "often not meeting or failing to achieve quorum." -> "often not meeting or failing to achieve a quorum."
  • "Joint Committee was generally" -> "The Joint Committee was generally".
  • "with specific funds funding the republication" -> "with specific funds for the republication".
  • "seeking plant specimens to plant in their home gardens." -> "seeking plant specimens for their home gardens."
  • I think the photo of Alexandre Vattemare should be moved down one paragraph so that it's directly next to the paragraph that he is mentioned in.
  • A non-breaking space should be added to "8:00 am" and "11:00 am" as per MOS:TIME.
  • "spring of 1853." This should be replaced with a month range or year quarter as per MOS:SEASON.
  • Link Smithsonian upon its first mention instead.
  • "still in affect" -> "still in effect".
  • "Rumors that Franklin Pierce". Should be mentioned that Pierce was the president.
  • 1860 United States presidential election is linked in the lead but not the body?

Those are all the comments I have. Overall, this is a well written and engaging article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: Thank you very much for the thorough review! I think I made all the new requested fixes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Support. Steelkamp (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Repetition of "served ... served ... service" in the first three sentences of the lead; suggested "worked" for the second one.
    • Done. - G
  • "he continued to serve as Green's editor": do we know what this really means? If Green was in control after 1826, was Meehan working at Green's direction, or was he more of a managing editor, handling the administrative side of the business? As written it sounds like he was editing Green's work, which doesn't jibe with Green having taken over control.
    • An assistant, I clarified this a bit. - G
  • Four instances of "large" or "largely" in the second paragraph of the lead. Suggest "a purge of numerous incumbent officials" for the first one. "... purchasing large volumes of books ..." is confusing because "volume" also means a physical book, so perhaps "restocking it with substantial purchases of books".
    • Ooh, good recommendations. - G
  • "although reforms such as an overhaul of the library's archaic catalogue system were not implemented": this makes it sound as if this reform was acknowledged as necessary at the time, but he failed to implement it. Is that the case? Or is it just that it was a later librarian who took this on? If so I'd suggest something like "although he left the library's archaic catalogue system unchanged". I see there's a mention of an attempt by Jewett and the Smithsonian to recatalogue the library that Meehan opposed; is this what is being referred to?
    • Yeah, I was noting the Smithsonian part; but I moved this to the next part you suggested. - G
  • "rarely shifted library policy": can we get a more specific indication of what historians think he should have done but didn't?
    • added context. - G
  • "placing Meehan into editorship of the paper": simpler as "making Meehan the editor" or "leaving Meehan as editor".
    • Done. - G
  • "seeking to separate the Star from his entry into political writing": I don't know what this means.
    • Clarified. - G
  • The article says the Jackson campaign indirectly purchased the Gazette, but the next sentence hedges this by saying "the purchase was likely directed". Is it definite that the Jackson campaign made the purchase happen, or not?
    • Oops, changed some sentence ordering here. Jackson's campaign did it; its not definite that it was specifically Eaton. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure the details are needed here. - G
  • 'claiming Meehan held an "indiscriminate opposition"': suggest 'claiming Meehan's editorials [or "articles", or "opinions"] amounted to "indiscriminate opposition"'.
    • Done. - G
  • "with pro-administration presses": I think this needs to be "with the pro-administration press".
    • Done. - G
  • "Watterston sought to transform the Library of Congress into a national library, which Jacksonians feared would represent increased federal power." I don't understand this. I don't think I really know what is meant by "national library" beyond the obvious sense that it's a library established by a national law (in which sense the LoC already was a national library), and in what way can a library be seen as a dangerous element of federal power?
    • Clarified. -G
  • "describing various maintenance taken": I don't think "maintenance" can take "various" as an adjective. Suggest "describing the maintenance needed" or "describing the various maintenance tasks needed".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Journalist Anne Royall rebuked his purchasing habits" and "Meehan rebuked criticism": the direct object of "rebuke" has to be a person; the criticism or habits have to be the indirect object.
    • Fixed. -G

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from PMC - pass

[edit]

Incoming - will try to do today or tomorrow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting / nitpicking
Spot checks

Performed at whim

  • Both Carter cites substantively good (fixed a minor typo of May 23 to May 24 as both McDonough and Carter said 24)
  • Smith: Ref 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, all good.
    • I think ref 14 is attributed to the wrong source - pages 39-40 of Smith don't seem to support any of this, and it's attached to another Smith ref
      • Huh. I think thats a mistake - removed it.
  • McDonough: ref 32, 25, 35, 40, 41, 48 good
    • ref 31 supports the first sentence with the appropriation amounts, but I don't see where page 8 discusses Meehan being criticized for buying popular books (doesn't look like it's on p9 either)
    • Fixed. - G
  • Ostrowski 2000: ref 28, 34, 45, all good

I have no major concerns regarding sourcing. Just those few corrections and then we should be good to go. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Overall
  • There are a several places where WP:LQ has been left behind, and the closing quote mark is placed after the full stop: you should ensure that only full sentences are dealt with this way and that sentence fragments have the full stop after the quote marks.
    • I was unable to find any violations of this; all the sentences that end with a period before the quotation are from the end of sentences. - G
      • Anything that is not a full grammatical sentence should have the full stop outside the quote marks. The following is a (possibly non-exhaustive) list of examples: "purely an act of political patronage." "said to be twice as large as any in Washington." "truly beautiful." - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Turns out I misunderstood that part of the MOS: i thought it meant full sentences within the context of the original work. Oops! Now it has been fixed for realsies. @SchroCat: Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However" should only be used at the start of a sentence on rare occasions, and you have if five times in such a position and twice in mid-sentence. You should trim most of the instances used here, given it's one of the words overused by Wiki editors for no beneficial purpose
    • Good advice, reduced. - G
Lead
  • "After this, he saw a brief period of service" is a bit clunky: maybe just "He briefly served" (without the 'After this')
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Returning without seeing combat": The "Returning" is a bit odd without either a 'from' or 'to'. Maybe "After the war" or similar
    • Good idea, fixed. - G
  • "Congress via the spoils system and Green's urging": This needs a tweak, as he wasn't appointed via Green's urging, which is what it says. Maybe tweaking to "Congress via the spoils system and with Green's urging"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "A large fire in December 1851 saw the destruction": Did it see the destruction, or did it cause it?
    • Good fix. - G
Early life
  • "He served as a midshipman on the USS Firefly during the War of 1812, assigned as the flagship of a small group of commerce raiders in the West Indies": This is a bit of an odd sentence. It starts with Meehan as the subject, then switches to the Firefly; the first time I read it (in a slight rush), I thought Meehan was assigned as a flagship
    • Made this two sentences instead. - G
Publishing career
  • "Six months later he would leave the paper himself": I think you need to clarify who "he" is. I think it may be better framed as "Six months later Meehan left the paper," – which is much clearer and cleaner
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Meehan was additionally hired as Green's assistant": You don't need "additionally"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "although he continued to serve as Green's editorial assistant until 1829": you mention in the preceding paragraph that in 1826 he was employed as this for three years, so you don't need to repeat it again.
    • Fixed. - G
  • The Duff Green quote feels slightly disconnected from the relevant paragraph. Maybe moving it from a quotebox to a blockquote directly under the description of Green writing a letter
    • Good idea. - G
  • "than what he had agreed for Meehan": grammatically a little off (in BrEng at least): "than that he had agreed for Meehan" or "than that agreed for Meehan" are both a bit smoother and cleaner
    • Interesting, the former sounds a bit better better to my ears; if it's a potential for confusion though, I fixed it. -G
  • "through "cajolery, threats, and flattery"." This needs in-text attribution, I think.
    • Fixed. - G
Tenure
  • "containing about 16,000 books" -> "and contained about 16,000 books"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "based off Baconian conceptualization of knowledge" -> " based off the Baconian conceptualization of knowledge"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "size, or form" Does this need to be in quotes?
    • Fixed. - G
  • "a number of": best to swap this out for 'numerous' or 'several': at some point someone will replace it and say that zero is a number. (I'm not entirely convinced on their arguments as it's clear from the context, but you may as well future proof if possible)
    • Fixed. - G
Removal
  • "Meehan calmly left his duties" -> "Meehan left his duties" – no need for editorialising
    • Fixed. - G
Legacy
  • "during his tenure": you can lose these three words – he wasn't going to change anything outside his tenure, was he?
    • Fixed. - G
  • What is a "Later historian"? Why not just "Historian", given you date his observations to the year 2000?
    • Good point, fixed. -G

That's my lot – a list of niggles, rather than anything problematic – this is a very interesting and well-written piece, and thank you for it. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by (for now) from UC

[edit]
  • The blockquoted letter from Duff Green has some odd line breaks. Are these original? If so, MOS:CONFORM may apply, if there's no good reason to believe that they change our reading of the letter.
  • There are a few cases where a quotation ends a long-ish sentence and the period/full stop is placed inside the quotes: it should generally be outside (see MOS:LQ).

UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you UndercoverClassicist: I fixed the LQ issue and removed the line breaks in the letter. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rjjiii

[edit]

I accessed and checked one source, McDonough (1976), for WP:OR, WP:V, WP:CV, and WP:NPOV. Below I've made some notes. I think the article meets NPOV and am just noting how/why for future editors. The other issues are minor.

  • "he renamed the United States' Telegraph": Does one of the other cited sources verify this? McDonough uses the passive voice, so it's not clear who changed the name.
    • Smith doesn't, so I made this passive too to match. -G
  • Meeting NPOV: McDonough (1976) and the Wikipedia article frequently mention James Pearce and the Library of Congress. Both mention the library more than Pearce.
  • "on the grounds that he was a monolingual English speaker": I'm not seeing this on page 6?
    • Interesting. I checked all the sources I could have gotten this from, and I can't find anything. I may have misread something or gotten it mixed up with another source. Just removed that. - G
  • "... he retained his position through multiple Whig presidencies.": I see this on page 22 but not on 6.
    • Oops, fixed. - G
  • This is off-topic, but multiple overlapping and conflicting catalogs sounds like a nightmare to deal with.
  • Meeting NPOV: The article attributes value judgements to McDonough or to others cited by McDonough, like Clay's over-the-top comparison to the mythic burning of the Library of Alexandria.
  • "following the purchase of 36,000" books?
    • Oops, fixed. - G
  • Do we know why Meehan opposed Charles C Jewett's catalogging? Rivalry, stubborness, difficulty? McDonough gives the "useless" quote from Meehan but in a way that's not endorsing Meehan at his word.
    • Sadly none of the sources goes into detail on Meehan's opinion here.
      • Well, dang, - RJJ
  • No copyright violations. All quotes attributed.
  • Two phrasings are possibly WP:CLOP:

MD: "Meehan died suddenly, of apoplexy, at his residence on South B Street, Capitol Hill,"
WP: "Meehan died suddenly from apoplexy at his residence in Capitol Hill, Washington"

MD: "in 1818, began publishing the Latter Day Luminary, a religious journal issued five times a year, sponsored by a committee of the board of managers of the Baptist General Convention."
WP: "began publishing the Latter Day Luminary in 1818, a Baptist religious journal sponsored by the Baptist General Conference"

    • Fixed both of these. - G

And that's it. Hope that helps, Rjjiii (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2024 (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) 14 September 2024 [39].

Troika (1969 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An unsuccessful nomination later and some significant copy editing with the help of others, I am renominating this article for a second time. For those of you who don't know about this article it is on an elusive comedy art film. It was directed by artist-turned-filmmaker Fredric Hobbs, and was the first of several that he managed to complete until his retirement from the film industry.Paleface Jack (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose (having opposed the first nom). This seems to be a visually remarkable but lost film, about which very little is known. I commend PFJ for pulling it all together; a fascinating insight into the genesis of the modern horror genre. Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Ceoil! Thouhg it is never classified as horror in any of the sources, it does offer some modern motifs to the genre that are quite fascinating.Paleface Jack (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose per Ceoil. I've had a good hack at the prose and clarified one item in talk. I'm happy that it now meets the standard. John (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John! Paleface Jack (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

That doesn't matter. All article titles should be given consistently in either title or sentence case regardless of how they appear in the original. (That's why you switched from all caps in the previous comment. :-) )
Ok. (I bet I'm even older.)
  • "Dispersed throughout the segment are clips of a procession of the blue people proceeding across an otherworldly countryside, accompanied by a strange vehicle. At this point, the segment cuts from the cave ..." "Dispersed throughout the segment ... At this point ..." doesn't work: If something is dispersed throughout, there is no this point to cut from.
I revised that a little, removing the "at this point and dispersed throughout"--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this one.
  • "Plot": the 'The Blue People' section seems over-long and over-detailed to me.
    It's out of proportion to the other two segments, but that's more because the film is lost, and little is known about those two. It's not too long compared to other film FAs covering a third of the film. I would however like to see it cited, given nobody outside of those directly involved have seen it enough to make notes. Maybe it could be more suscintly worded, though I think readers will want to know. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Thrower's plot synopsis, there are more details with that section than any other portion of the plot. I agree with this assessment and will tone it down a little.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil I chose to use a footnote rather than an outright citation to save a little confusion of the readers wondering why there is a citation for a plot synopsis (not a lot of articles on fioms have one). It adds a little more reasoning to a citation for any editor coming in cause I have had that trouble before.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "from whose extended arm hangs". Just the one arm?
The description given by Thrower reads "A female figure reclines, extending her arm from which hangs the faces and forms of flayed humanity. A bird (an owl?) sits triumphantly astride her extended limb, with various grisly horrors dangling below." I had to simplify that because it becomes too confusing and symbolic for the average reader.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a bachelors degree in arts". Do you mean a bachelor of arts degree?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Trojan Horse" is the name of a sculpture or artwork it should be in italics.
  • "it incorporates several different narratives and genres for each segment." Optional: "for" → 'within'.
    Agree....done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hobbs plays a fictionalized version of himself as the chef and fantom characters." A fantom character is not elsewhere mentioned.
I looked over that synopsis but it does not mention the character of the Fantom. Yet it credits Hobbs as playing the character. It is very odd.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in much better shape than for its first nomination, well done for sticking with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could not have done it without assistance and advise.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Ceoil you have an excellent person on board for that. Nearly there. A couple of comebacks from me above and awaiting further comment or action on the "The Blue People" section. Thinking on't, the "The" of "The Blue People" should only be there if it is a formal title, not if it is being used as part of a descriptor. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The only part I would say that should include "the" is the descriptor of the segment, which includes this in my source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
  • "homunculus (an artificial human)": That's not quite what a homunculus is – the key part of them is that they are small
Considering the plot synopsis from my source just calls it a homonculus with descriptions that it is make of cloth, I removed the parentheses portion alltogether.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hobbs exits the frame and the film ends": I think there should be a comma after 'frame' between the clauses
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cast mainly drew from unknown actors": I'm not sure the cast drew anything: "The cast was mainly drawn from unknown actors" works much better
Agreed and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morgan Upton, later known for his roles as Wally Henderson in The Candidate (1972)[26] and Mr. Gilfond in Peggy Sue Got Married (1986)": do we need the role names? Seems a bit too tangential and the details clutters the sentence a bit
Agreed and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • The use of the Oxford comma should be consistent throughout the text. You have It stars Hobbs, Richard Faun, Morgan Upton, Nate Thurmond, Gloria Rossi, and but Hobbs named them in an interview "The Chef", "Alma Mater" and "The Blue People"
Ah, missed that. THanks for pointing that out. It is fixed now.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a chef wearing ritualistic face paint, begins making - No need for that comma.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tall insectoid named Rax (Morgan Upton), exits - No need for that comma either.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rax, alongside the Attenuated Man, then join a procession of blue people who embrace him as their "savior" - Is there a typo there and should it be "joins"? Or maybe I misunderstood the whole sentence.
"then joins" sounds incorrect and ebbs the flow, at least for me. Though I am willing to change it if you feel it is better.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way it is, there's no subject-verb agreement. I think you could say something along the lines of Rax and the Attenuated Man then join a procession of blue people who embrace the former as their "savior". Would that work for you? Alavense (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • from whose extended arm hangs many faces and shapes
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on a 25-minute - I think it would be better if there were consistency with the note, so either spelled out or in figures, but the same for the three instances.
Agreed and fixed it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • later known for his roles in The Candidate (1972), and Peggy Sue Got Married (1986) - No need for that comma.
Done.
  • Why is the reference after Hobbs drilled the student activists portraying the characters in the marching sequence to march in step laid out that way? Can't the page just be identified using the {{sfn}} template? It's the only instance of this I've spotted throughout the article.
It was left over when I was using that format. I removed it now.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Los Angeles Times should be "the Los Angeles Times".
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resulting Roseland: A Fable (1970), is - No need for that comma.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand the "Legacy" section, given that it is nothing to do with the film.
The legacy of the film was its success, pushing Hobbs forwards to work on several more films. As such, that is why it is included.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that, but then it might be better to mention it. Why not say that the film was a success and that it allowed for more projects in a sentence or two at the beginnig of the section? The way it is now, I think it is a bit disconnected from the rest of the article. Alavense (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of the excessive details of that to basic info (Birth and death of his film career). Paleface Jack (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the article is about Troika, not about Hobbs's career and should hence focus on the film. Anyway: In 1973, Hobbs wrote and directed his last two films. - That full stop should be a colon. Alavense (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Paleface Jack. Cheers, Alavense (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unsure about that "Legacy" section, but I guess there's no problem with that, as long as no other user points it out. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I combined that into a sub section of the reception section. Having 2-3 sentences is not enough for a section in of itself. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review - pass

[edit]
I wonder if File:Troika, 1969 film, press release.png's section on NFCC#8 should be capitalized. Regarding File:Trojan Horse, Troika, 1969, press release.png and File:Troika, 1969 film, WWCC Film Festival poster.jpg, in my experience you struggle to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 if your non-free image only illustrates part of the article topic. Not to mention, the latter's rationale is faulty in several points. I worry about File:SFAI.jpg, as it has no EXIF and TinEye says it was used once on http://www.artltdmag.com/index.php?archive&page=show&subaction=1241825259&ucat=18 before it was uploaded to Wikipedia.

#39 and #40 are mistyped. What makes MatchboxCine a reliable source? Same for " Reference Guide to Fantastic Films: Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Horror". I don't think news articles need an ISSN.

The Issn is removed. Refs 39 and 40 are fixed now. I tried looking up some of what you are saying about the image of the University appearing in the site you suggested but have found nothing, not sure what "TinEye" is but I am going to replace it with a better one. As for the press release image, it summarizes the film as promotional material. While the festival poster does have some faults, which I will work on, it is mostly a visual reference of renewed exposure of the film. I not sure how I can use that as a fair rationale. For the Matchbox source, while they are an independent film exhibitor, their screenings are covered frequently in reliable magazines and sources such as Glasgow Times, BFI, Dread Central, etc. For The Reference Guide, I am not sure what you are getting at with that.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an Update, I chose to bite the bullet and remove the film festival poster.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly clear on what makes " Reference Guide to Fantastic Films: Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Horror" a reliable source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into it. Some of these literary sources I find on Google Books are self-published, though this one seemed legit enough. I will see if there is any background on the citation to see if it is as high quality as it needs to be.Paleface Jack (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So looking at the author Walt Lee, I can see he was a film writer, and historian. In his Reference Guide to Fantastic Films, much of that information is compiled by film historian and critic Bill Warren. My only hesitation with the source is that it is admittedly self-published. Although my mixed feelings about the source are on the fence as the authors and people behind the source are well-known academics. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check on this version:
  • 1 OK
  • 2 Doesn't show up on Google Books.
Hm. I just tested it and it does for me.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books pages often show up only to people in particular regions. That's a common hazard when using it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will archive it and see if that will show up for you. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 Can I have a copy of this page?
how so?--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo means could you email them a copy. (Send them a proforma email, they will reply similarly, and you can then send them copies of the pages in question.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I find the part about Hobbs' own service here, or the one about "Nightmare USA: The Untold Story of the Exploitation Independents". I confess that I find this source hard to read. I notice that at some point you are using the {{rp}} template but otherwise aren't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have since removed the rp template and will send you a better copy of your requested pages. Sorry for their lack of legibility. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nightmare USA: The Untold Story of the Exploitation Independents" is still not mentioned? The service part is now there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it need to be mentioned again? The part about Hobbs serving is on page 358. The text mentioning it states "Hobbs himself served in the Air Force" and Hobbs' interview with Thrower, he stated "it's an anti-war statement". Paleface Jack (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention of Hobbs' service and simplified the sentence. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 I am not sure what this supports.
The reference supports Hobbs' work up until the film's production.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 I am not sure what this supports.
Same as reference #7.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 14 Link's broken.
Fixed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 OK
  • 21 Don't see the Rax-in-ghost-town thing,
Corrected to just have the citation to note the sculpture appears in the film.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 I am not sure that "crucified" here is sufficient to conclude that the writer is calling Nate Thurmond's character "Christ-like", and the #28 #25 combined reference doesn't seem to be supported by either.
The reference uses the wording "Christ-like".--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 28 Not sure what this supports.
The Cast section lists it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 Don't see "The "Alma Mater" sequence was shot at the San Francisco Art Institute" in here. Likewise, the #21 #30 combined reference doesn't seem to be supported by either.
The reference lists Hillsburough. I think I either messed up or copy edits made and error. I fixed it. The 21 and 30 citations do support that props and items from the film were exhibited.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31 OK
  • 33 That snippet is missing a lot of information.
I fail to see what information is "Missing" as its all in the info. Please clarify--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dandelion and double feature aren't mentioned and the JSTOR is broken. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is weird. The Jstor number is correct: https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.28039862 Paleface Jack (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, switched things so they fit the source. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Dandelion mentioned in the JSTOR? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dandelion was mentioned in the Los Angeles Free Press source. The source itself is an advertisement of the film. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 37 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 38 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 40 OK for part of this.
Which portion is not ok?--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this source supports is that the film has a copy at Berkeley. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. The Thrower and recent Glasgow Times might be better for that particular blurb then. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over everything. There seems to be no other place this film is stored at. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note to the coordinaters, keep this thread review open for a week or two while Jo-Jo reviews the requested sources.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now only 13 and 36-38 are pending. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated citations 36-38. I unfortunately had to remove citation 13 as i was unable to find a copy of the source anywhere. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I belatedly remembered that I didn't get #2. Neither 7 nor 8 nor 9 say "avant-garde" as far as I can see. I notice that the plot summaries aren't cited, but I figure that the film itself works well enough as a source for these things - save for "Abandoning the conventional narrative structure, Troika consists of an introductory story and three parts, each told in differing narrative styles" which needs independent sourcing. That's all what's left from what I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn I emailed you a screenshot of #2. I will resend it. As for 7-9, I changed the wording to fit with the source's description, removing avante-garde completely. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, received it. That seems like it wraps up the review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your time and patience, my friend. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2024 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2024 [40].

John Tonkin

[edit]
Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Australian politician John Tonkin. This is my first featured article candidate for a politician and, if successful, would by my longest featured article yet. Tonkin was the longest serving member of the Parliament of Western Australia, at 44 years, and was the premier of Western Australia for three years. My main sources are the Australian Dictionary of Biography's entry on Tonkin and a book by Peter Kennedy, supplemented with newspapers from Trove and the Australian Political Chronicle in the Australian Journal of Politics and History. Many thanks to GMH Melbourne for reviewing this article at GAN. I look forward to receiving any comments. Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a full review later, but I'd recommend merging the sections "Early political career", down to ""Premier (1971–1974)" into one section titled "Political career". 750h+ 00:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not have such a large portion of the article under one section and I think the current sectioning works. Steelkamp (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I am not sure, so I will remove that image. Steelkamp (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria is the candidate a pass on images with the above change? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Tonkin was a minister in the John Willcock, Frank Wise and Bert Hawke governments". I suggest "previously a minister" as you have just mentioned his later premiership.
    • Done.
  • "After working several jobs". "Working...jobs" sounds wrong to me, but maybe it is AusEng?
    • I've reworded this.
  • "Tonkin became interested in politics at a young age as his father was a unionist and a supporter of the Australian Labor Party." I would not say "as". Children of politicians are not necessarily interested in politics. Maybe "His father was a unionist and a supporter of the Australian Labor Party and Tonkin became interested in politics at a young age."
    • Done.
  • "After leaving school age of 15". "After leaving school at 15"?
    • Done.
  • "party figure Joe Chamberlain". "Party figure" is too colloquial and you do not say how it helped him.
    • I will have to take some more time on this one. I'm not entirely sure what Chamberlain's exact position at the Labor Party was at the time. I'm going to take a look at Chamberlain's autobiography to see what I can find there. It's possible that Chamberlain wasn't even in an important role in the Labor Party at the time. In that case, I will just remove any mention of Chamberlain here.
    • Update: I've decided to remove the part mentioning Chamberlain. It seems he wasn't in a position of authority in the Labor Party at the time.
  • "Douglas credit committee" You should explain this in the same sentence. For example, "Douglas credit committee to assess the proposal".
    • Done. I've moved the explanation to the same sentence.
  • I think you need some clarity on this. It sounds like a local proposal from your wording. If I understand correctly, it was a Labor party state committee which examined the theory of a British economist about the solution to the Great Depression and its application by the Federal Australian government. I am not sure it is worth mentioning and I do not think you can say that the committee "ruled" on it.
    • I've made some changes to this section. I think its relevant to mention because it shows Tonkin becoming more involved with internal party affairs and is a result of him gaining a profile from his previous attempts to enter parliament.
  • "became standout members of the backbench" "standout" is POV. Maybe "leading".
    • Done.
  • "Wise was elected to the ministry". What does "elected" mean here"? Were ministers elected by Labor assembly members? You say below that Tonkin was appointed a minister.
    • I have changed it to say that the Labor caucus elected them.
  • "Tonkin spent much of that time on leave without pay". Why? What did he do? Did he serve in action? Was he discharged because he was coming up to 40 years old?
    • I'm not sure. The sources don't say why.
  • "appointed by cabinet to travel to the eastern states to lobby Prime Minister John Curtin". You need to explain that Curtin was federal Prime Minister and I do not think you need to mention eastern states.
    • I reply re federal prime minister in the comment below. I mention eastern states because sources disagree as to whether they visited Melbourne or Canberra (possibly both).
  • You refer to state premier and federal Prime Minister. Are there different titles at different levels in Australia? If so, I think you need to explain as premier and prime minister are synonyms in British usage.
    • I've changed it so that "prime minister of Australia" and "premier of Western Australia" are written out in full the first time those terms are mentioned in the body. I hope that is enough distinction between the two positions. In Australia, prime minister is exclusively used to refer to the head of the federal government and premier is exclusively used to refer to the head of a state government. I've hesitant to use terms such as "federal prime minister" because that is not a term that is used often (if at all) in Australia, and it is not a source of confusion for Australians or those familiar with Australian politics.
  • "Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education, fulfilling a long-held dream of Tonkin's,[17] and minister for social services, a newly-created position, in the Willcock ministry." This is confusing. Were the appointments simultaneous or successive, and you do not need to say "in the Willcock ministry" as you have said that Willcock appointed him.
    • The appointments were simultaneous, which I think is clear because the sentence begins with "On 9 December 1943", which was the date he was appointed to the ministry.
  • "Tonkin saw his greatest achievements in education being the merging of one-teacher schools into larger schools, commonplace in rural areas. I think it should be "as being". Also, what was commonplace, one-teacher or larger? This is ambiguous.
    • Fixed. I've rearranged the sentence to make this clearer.
  • "Nevertheless, the commission made no findings against Tonkin." What was he charged with? This is not clear.
    • I've decided to completely remove that section. Only the Australian Dictionary of Biography source mentions that, and the royal commission report does not mention Tonkin at all.
  • "state aid for private schools". You do not need to repeat the expression three times in a short paragraph.
    • I've removed the second use of this phrase.
  • "it still retained government". This sounds odd to me. I would say "it still retained power".
    • Done.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Legislative Council" You should explain that this is the upper house.
    • Done, and explained the lower house as well earlier.
  • "The twelve-man ministry was chosen by the Labor caucus and Tonkin had the responsibility of allocating the specific ministerial positions." You should explain this above when you say that Tonkin lost in the caucus election.
    • I've added it to when he is first elected to the ministry as that's where I think it fits best.
  • "The next election was held in December 1943; parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war.[14] Labor won for the fourth time in a row, and in the days following, the Labor caucus elected Tonkin to the ministry.[18] Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education" For clarity, I suggest something like "The next election was held in December 1943. Parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war[14] and Labor won for the fourth time in a row. The ministry was chosen by the Labor caucus and the premier allocated their roles. Tonkin was elected and[18] Premier John Willcock appointed him as minister for education". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and so over the course of the Tonkin government, 21 bills were voted down by the Legislative Council". I would leave out "so" as implying that specifically 21 were lost.
    • Done.
  • "Labor had lost its majority and Coalition supporters called for a snap election, believing that the Coalition would win." You should clarify here that the loss was only pending the byelection.
    • Done.
  • "Court was unusually exuberant, even going doorknocking in Belmont". "exuberant" is an odd word here.
    • I've changed that word, although I would have been fine with exuberant.
  • "much to the surprise of Labor MP Don Taylor." How is this relevant to Tonkin?
    • I've removed that part, as its already covered by the word "unusually" in that sentence.
  • "against Liberal candidate Fred Chaney, albeit with a reduction in the seat's margin by around 10 per cent". The article on the byelection says that the Liberals did not stand in the previous election. "a reduction in the seat's margin" is meaningless.
    • Turns out the the source is comparing the by-election with the 1968 result, which I have clarified in the article.
  • "the seat's margin" is meaningless. Maybe "winning the by-election against Liberal candidate Fred Chaney, who was only 12% behind even though the Liberals had not stood in the 1971 state election". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to just get rid of that part. The by-election wasn't very close. The noteworthy part was the decline in Labor support, but as the 1971 election was not contested by the Liberals, making comparisons gets murky. I don't have a map of the electoral districts in 1968 and 1971, so its possible that changes in support for Labor and Liberal could be down to changes in boundaries. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, bureaucrats at the mines department were opposed". "bureaucrats" is POV. Maybe "officials".
    • Done.
  • "boycotted visits to Western Australia by the South Africa national cricket team and South Africa national rugby union team amidst apartheid". "amidst" is odd and unclear. Did he boycott specifically because black people were excluded from representing South Africa or as a general gesture against apartheid?
    • I've added an additional source and reworded this section a bit.
  • "The machine was discarded by the Court government due to being ineffective." Presumably the succeeding Court government.
    • Done.
  • "The appointment angered the party caucus though due to the Tonkin government's one-seat majority and due to Graham being one of the government's better ministers." This is clumsy. Maybe "The appointment angered the party caucus in view of the Tonkin government's one-seat majority and because Graham was considered one of the government's better ministers."
    • Done.
  • "Opposition Leader Charles Court". Here and in othee places I do not think "Opposition Leader" should be capitalised.
    • I would have thought it should be capitalised in those situations because it's directly followed by a persons name as per MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • "Arthur Tonkin. You should clarify whether he was related to John Tonkin, and if so, how.
    • They are not related, which I have clarified.
  • "He delayed further pressure. Maybe "He resisted further pressure".
    • Done.
  • "By that point though, it was too close to the next election for it to be a good idea to change leaders." This should not be stated as a fact but as the opinion of specified people.
    • Done.
  • Presumably, elections were held every three years. This should be spelled out.
    • Done.
  • "a swing against Labor of 0.81 per cent." This is a minimal swing. The article on the election says it was 2.5%.
    • I have clarified that this is referring to the primary vote swing and not the two-party-preferred swing.
  • "Many people laid the blame". This is too vague. What people?
  • "chose not to recontest his seat" What does recontext mean here. He chose not to contest it.
    • I've changed it to "contest", which is simpler and has the same meaning.
  • "This came under controversy" This is clumsy. I think you should say that it was opposed.
    • Done.
  • There does not seem to be any logic which sources you put in the bibliography and which only in the references. I would put them all in the bibliography for the convenience of readers, but this is a personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments Dudley Miles. I have responded to everything now. Steelkamp (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I should be able to post comments tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited as I read through; please revert anything I screwed up.

  • "Tonkin was previously a minister in": suggest "Tonkin had been a minister in"
    • Done.
  • "When Labor won the 1953 state election, he reassumed his role as a minister, most notably serving as the minister for works and minister for water." From a glance at the body he held these roles for the entirety of the 1953 government, so it would seem simpler to say "When Labor won the 1953 state election, Tonkin became the minister for works and minister for water".
    • Well he was also the minister for education for a short while, so I've changed to to "he reassumed his role as a minister, including as the minister for works and minister for water."
  • "By-elections occurred in 1971 and 1973, each resulting in the near defeat of Labor." Suggest "By-elections occurred in 1971 and 1973, each of which was narrowly won by Labor".
    • Done.
  • "He contested the state electoral district of Sussex in 1927 and Murray-Wellington in 1930". Can it be made clear whether this election was for the upper or lower state house?
    • Done.
  • How about making that sentence "He unsuccessfully contested the ..." and then the next sentence could be shortened to "These campaigns helped him gain a profile within the Labor Party"?
    • Done.
  • "appointed Tonkin to the Douglas credit committee to assess C. H. Douglas's social credit theory that ...": suggest just "... to a committee to assess ..."; the name of the committee doesn't tell the reader anything they don't get from the rest of the sentence.
    • Done.
  • I don't think any change to the article is needed, but I'm curious -- were the Australian states issuing money independently of each other, in which case Douglas's theory could have led to a change in Western Australian banking and currency, or was this a more theoretical exercise to determine if the WA state wanted to support Douglas's ideas at the federal level?
    • The latter. Each Labor Party state branch could make its own policy, which could be used to influence the federal party's policy.
  • "The Labor caucus elected Wise to the ministry": does this just mean Wise became a minister? I think in the UK one would say "he joined the cabinet"; "the ministry" isn't a phrase one would use to mean ministerial positions in general.
    • It just means Wise became a minister. The Wikipedia article Ministry (collective executive) seems to be using the word in this way. Each premier's ministry has an article, such as Willcock ministry or Hawke ministry (Western Australia). Also, the source seems to be using ministry in this way. In Western Australia, the ministry and the cabinet are one and the same, but at the federal level and in some states, the cabinet consists of only the more senior ministers.
  • "which led him to put greater concentration on his seat". A bit vague -- did he spend more time in his district, have more meetings with constituents, change his focus to work on issues important to his constituency?
    • The source is a bit vague. All it says is "Concentrating on his electorate after nearly losing his seat in the 1936 poll, ..."
      It appears that source is citing this, which I don't have access to. If you can't get hold of that how about "led him to pay more attention to the needs of his constituency"? Also vague, but perhaps a bit closer to the meaning of the ADB source. I know the oral history source can't be used for much as it's primary, in a sense, but where it's been cited by an RS I think referring to it would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That source is already cited for three direct quotes, and you should be able to access a pdf version here. I could only find the part about the "bull at a gate" (pdf page 140) but not the part about concentrating on his constituents. It's probably in there somewhere, but not able to be found using "control f". Either way, I'm hesitant to use that source for anything other than direct quotes. I've managed to expand the period after 1936 using the ADB source by writing "He improved his skills in parliament and adjusted his approach to be less aggressive and more measured." Steelkamp (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
      Sorry, should have recognized that you were already using that source. That works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Tonkin spent much of that time without pay": it's not clear what period this refers to -- May to December 1941? December 41 to January 42? If the former, why "but"? Being called up for deployment in December doesn't imply he should have been paid prior to that date.
    • This is referring to December 1941 to January 1942, which I reckon is clear because the leave without pay part is directly after the part that says the battalion was mobilised.
  • "were appointed by cabinet to travel": should this be "appointed by the cabinet to travel", or is the usual usage in Australian English?
    • This is usual in AusEng. See the Cabinet Handbook, which says "by Cabinet" 15 times.
  • "The next election was held in December 1943 ...": suggesting making it clear we are still talking about WA state elections -- the last seat we mentioned was Curtin's in the federal government.
    • Done.
  • "parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war": I don't think we need "as a one-off measure".
    • Done.
  • "...the Labor caucus elected Tonkin to the ministry. Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education ...". I see you're using "to the ministry" again, so it seems this may be standard usage in AusEng. This makes it sound as if the caucus gets to pick who is in the cabinet, and then the Premier assigns them a portfolio. Is that right? So Willcock couldn't give a portfolio to someone the caucus had not elected, and the caucus had no say in the portfolios of those they elected? If so maybe a footnote explaining this process would be helpful, and if not then I don't understand what's going on here. Added later: I see from the section on 1971-74 that this is indeed how it works, so I would suggest moving the explanation up or (I think the better option) putting the explanation in a footnote at the first point it's relevant.
    • I think you wrote that before I made some changes in response to Dudley's review above. You are correct that the caucus elects the ministry and the premier allocates the portfolios. I've added that this is just a Labor Party rule.
  • "made himself the minister or works and the minister for water supplies". The latter is just given as "minister for water" in the lead. I see from the linked article that the title of the post has varied over the years. I think if you're going to use lower case, I'd stick with one usage throughout -- "minister for water" is probably simplest. If you want to use "Minister for Water Supplies" I would capitalize it as it's the title in use at the time. Either way I think the lead and the body should have consistent usage.
    • The "minister for water" in the lead was a mistake, I meant minister for water. It remains uncapitalised though, due to MOS:JOBTITLES, particularly the part that says "When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower-cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs".
  • Did Tonkin's 1955 assumption of the role of deputy premier mean he lost his portfolios, or was it just an additional responsibility? And had he been the deputy during the earlier period when it was an unofficial role?
    • He kept his portfolios after becoming deputy premier. He was deputy leader of the Labor Party before that, which means he was unofficially the deputy premier, which is why he was acting premier a few times. I'll see if I can find some sources that show this.
    • Update: I've changed this section a bit with this diff to show that he was in the position unofficially since 1953.
  • Why was Tonkin acting premier in July 1953?
    • Turns out Hawke was attending the Coronation of Elizabeth II over a three-month trip. I wouldn't otherwise write the reason in the article, but since Tonkin's time as acting premier was so long, I decided to add it.
  • Do the sources give any more detail about the "Golden West" name for the bridge? Was Tonkin really choosing to name the bridge after the drink or was it just that "Golden West" was a term in use for the area and the drink was just a product that took advantage of it?
    • It seems the name was chosen because of Gold mining in Western Australia and "golden grain". It was then criticised for being unoriginal and too similar to the soft drink name, regardless of the soft drink company inventing the name or not. Perhaps an unfair criticism, but that's what occurred according to the sources.
  • "the Coalition's alleged secrecy within government" -- this is opaque to someone like me who knows nothing about WA politics. Can it be unpacked a little?
  • "At age 69 years, he is the oldest premier at the time of swearing to date": suggest "As of 2021, Tonkin, who was 69 when he was sworn in, is the oldest person to have become premier of Western Australia". Or is he the oldest for any of the Australian states and territories?
    • Done. He is only the oldest in Western Australia.
  • "Tonkin wanted to make it easier for Hanwright to develop McCamey's Monster": given that this name is somewhat hidden in the linked article, and the name doesn't make clear that this is a mine, suggest "to develop McCamey's Monster, an iron ore mine [or deposit, or discovery, if it was not yet a mine at this point] in the Pilbara region of the state".
    • Done.
  • "has been compared to the later case "Mineralogy v Western Australia": in what way?
    • I've expanded upon this.
  • "free return airfares for people working north of the 26th parallel". What was special about that latitude? And presumably this only applied to public servants? And does this mean that if the government required you to fly somewhere south of that latitude you had to pay for your own travel?
    • The source does not expand upon this. This just applies to public servants, as does the rest of the things mentioned in that sentence. I couldn't find any information online about this, but I did find the currently active Pensioner annual free trip scheme, which is for pensioners living north of the 26th parallel, giving them one return journey by air or coach per year to Perth or elsewhere in the South West Land Division. I would presume the free airfares that Tonkin implemented was similar to that, and would be used to make it more attractive to work north of the 26th parallel, where it's isolated and hard to attract people to work there. As for why they chose the 26th parallel, I would guess its just an arbitrary limit which was easy to legislate, rather than using local government boundaries which would be liable to change.
  • "block supply" -- you link this, but it's a term I'm not familiar with. If it's the standard term in Australia that's fine, but it would be good if it could be rephrased as something more definitional. Maybe something like "to refuse to pass funding legislation" or "budgetary approvals"?
  • The paragraph about the Balcatta by-election has no dates till we get to the September/October comment at the end. Maybe give the date for the YLO's motion of no confidence? And for the conversation between Bryce and Tonkin? And does "By that point" mean "at the time Tonkin suggested he should reveal the unpopular budget" or "September/October 1973"?
    • I've added a date for the by-election when its first announced in the previous paragraph. The source does say that the YLO's motion was "a few days after Burke's election", but I'm hesitant to include that, as I don't want to overdate everything as I think that doesn't make for the best writing. All that matters is that the threats from within his own party came soon after the by-election.
  • "This was opposed when the owners applied in December 2003 to have the house demolished". What was opposed? The decision not to add the house to the register? If so, who by? When East Fremantle rejected the application from the owners did they say it was because it's should have been added to the register?
    • I've reworded this section by changing it to "Stephens' decision became controversial..." I think the following sentences explain the main groups opposing the decision: the Town of East Fremantle, local heritage activists, and the National Trust of Western Australia.

That's everything from a read-through. Nothing major; just a list of nitpicks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mike Christie, I've responded to all your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of follow-up comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. I have done some minor copyediting.

  • "Tonkin was first a minister from 1943 to 1947." slightly awkward to my eyes, perhaps "first served as minister"?
    • Done.
  • ", among other things." bit of an awkward trailing-off, perhaps just cut?
    • Done.
  • "the economic crisis was caused by a "shortage of purchasing power" and that the government should "take over the control and issue of all money" from the banking system" as the Great Depression has not previously been referred to, this comes slightly out of nowhere and is a bit long-winded to boot. Would suggest trimming to "that the government could help the ongoing economic crisis by "tak[ing] over the control and issue of all money" from the banking system" or similar.
    • Done.
  • I think the 43–71 period would flow better if the sections became subsections of one level-2 heading
    • Done.
  • "On 12 June 1971, Tonkin married Winifred Joan West, a divorcee, at Wesley Church." do we know anything about her—life dates at least would be useful.
    • I've added some information about her.
  • "The financial state of the Government of Western Australia was poor throughout Tonkin's premiership. Tonkin managed to secure A$5.6 million (equivalent to A$68.71 million in 2022) in federal funding at the premiers' conference in April 1971 which went some way towards getting the deficit to manageable levels." do we know precise numbers for the deficit/manageable levels?
    • No, I have not found the precise numbers during my research.
  • "with Tonkin going on a tour of Hanwright's mines" it's not immediately clear that Hanwright was the company of Hancock and Wright.
    • Added that it was their company.
  • Also, the dispute seems to be with the company, rather then the two men specifically, so maybe adjust the section heading?
    • Done.
  • "The Legislative Council blocked legislation that provided private sector employees with four weeks of paid annual leave, ten days of paid sick leave per year, and long service leave after ten years" any idea why it was these specifically?
    • Not sure why those in particular, other than that the Legislative Council often blocked progressive legislation unless the Coalition could get some concessions in return.
  • "Tonkin had for a long time had a rivalry" excessive "had"s
    • Reworded.
  • "Graham had long-held ambitions to take over as leader from Tonkin. According to Mal Bryce, Tonkin was determined to stay as leader at least until Graham retired." might be worth combining these sentences.
    • Done.
  • "the Legislative Council declined to go along with Court's plan" any idea why? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why. I think it was just a difference in opinion by different members of the party that led to the plan not proceeding.

Thanks for the review AirshipJungleman29. I've replied to all of your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Do you have any more comments? Steelkamp (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  1. 6 "Parliament of Western Australia. " is the publisher, not the title, so it shouldn't be in italics. #14 seems to have the same problem. The description of The Mirror (Western Australia) makes me wonder if it's actually a "high-quality reliable source". #114, #126 and #128 should say whose media statements these are. What makes streetsofeastfreo.com a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, a first timer's source to text integrity spot check and a plagiarism check are going to be needed for this. Are they something you could handle? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed Parliament of Western Australia to publisher.
  • I've replaced The Mirror citation with a citation to The West Australian.
  • I've changed the media statements to use cite press release and added authors.
  • The homepage of streetsofeastfreo.com says that it is a project by the Museum of Perth in partnership with the Town of East Fremantle.
Steelkamp (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck on this version:

  • 2 OK for the infobox, not sure what it supports in the other cite.
    • That source supports the quotes from Francis Burt.
  • 20 Source's broken.
  • 24 OK
  • 25 OK
  • 30 OK
  • 33 Not on the page given.
  • 35 OK
  • 47 Where does either source say "July"?
    • FN 46 (published 4 May) supports Hawke leaving in May and FN 47 (published 29 July) supports Hawke arriving back in July and Tonkin being acting premier during Hawke's absence.
  • 48 Doesn't say "freeway"
    • I've replaced it with "controlled-access highway", which is the term the source uses.
  • 59 OK but I think the other source is being paraphrased too closely.
    • Reworded.
  • 60 Same as with #59, OK but the other source is being paraphrased too closely.
    • Reworded.
  • 63 Hmm, the other source says that Tonkin then agreed with Court against Wright, should that be said in the article?
    • That is covered later in the article in the "Dispute with Lang Hancock and Peter Wright" section.
  • 64 Where does it say by election?
    • I've added a difference page to support this. I hope that the first paragraph on page 50 is ok, although it is talking about the Ascot by-election specifically, it applies in general.
  • 85 OK
  • 92 Can't find this.
    • Oliver 2003 says "Another outcome of Graham’s retirement was that Alexander Donald ‘Don’ Taylor, the Member for Cockburn, who held the portfolio of Labour Relations, was elected to the Deputy Premier’s position". Kennedy 2014 says "The result sent a shiver through the Labor caucus, which by then had elected Don Taylor as Tonkin's new deputy."
  • 101 Can't see the Kennedy page.
  • 106 Can't access this source.
  • 107 OK
  • 116 Can't access this source.
    • I can send a photo if you email me.
  • 120 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've replied to your email. Let me know if you haven't received it. Steelkamp (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2024 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2024 [41].

Lise Meitner

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC) and Gah4 (talk)[reply]

This article is about Lise Meitner, the Austrian physicist who was the co-discover of the element protactinium and nuclear fission. She spent much of her scientific career in Berlin, Germany, where she was a physics professor and a department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. She fled to Sweden after Austria was absorbed into Germany in 1938. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have switched the lead image to a new one I found in the Library of Congress. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like queries on File:Lise_Meitner12.jpg, File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg, File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg, File:Lise_Meitner_standing_at_meeting_with_Arthur_H._Compton_and_Katherine_Cornell.jpg are still pending, as well as the layout issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine

[edit]

I'll drop some comments pretty soon. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 14:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- My comments are so minor that you already have my support. Well done! When all is done, I'd appreciate a review of the narwhal FAC. Thanks, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • You bold Elise Meitner in the Early years section, but you already mention this name in the lede - it should probably just be bolded there.
    Yes. Emboldened as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm slightly unclear what "advanced education" means in this context. Merely attending college, or becoming academics in their own right?
    Tertiary education. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897, and she completed her final year of school in 1892 I think this would make more sense with the clauses reversed, and moved after the following sentence; this way, it'd flow naturally into the "only career available" part.
    Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some context on what either her masters or doctoral theses were about could be interesting.
    The title translations are mine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Circumspect" seems like a bit of an obscure word here. Also "egalitarian" is a bit confusing - I know we're talking about how Hahn drank a lot of Respect Women Juice, but it's phrased confusingly in this portion.
    Germany was very formal society at the time. Oppenheimer, for example, once made the mistake of addressing Arnold Sommerfeld as "Professor" instead of "Geheimrat". Removed. I need to strike the right note here. For a man of his time, Hahn was progressive in his attitudes towards women. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later that year, perhaps fearing that Meitner was in financial difficulties and might return to Vienna, since her father had died in 1910, Planck appointed her his assistant at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in the Friedrich Wilhelm University I think it might be best to remove the "since her father had died" clause. Maybe split it up; "Meitner may have entered financial difficulties after the death of her father in 1910. Possibly due to this, Planck appointed her..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You reference prices in marks a lot, but a modern reader has no context. Is there a way we can have conversions? There's likely a template for the mark. (Tho these might be best as efns after each quote rather than as in-line text)
    I don't know how to do this. I will ask and see in anyone else does. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Betty Logan showed me how, so added currency conversions to euros. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fortuitous" is somewhat vague, since it can either mean "by chance" or "fortunately". Just using fortunately would be a lot clearer in this context.

That's all for now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: These changes look great! Happy to Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

This looks interesting. I'll try to find the time to review it in the next few days. As an initial comment, "what was now Nazi Germany" in the WP:LEAD would make more sense to me as "what was by then Nazi Germany". TompaDompa (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • There are quite a few places where I think the article would benefit from being more clear and explicit about the geography and geopolitics. Those conditions, especially during the pre-World War I period, will only become more unfamiliar to readers as time goes on, so I think it important to future-proof the article, as it were. I've made a number of specific comments about this below.
Lead
Early years
Education
Friedrich Wilhelm University
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry
World War I and the discovery of protactinium
  • Actinium being element 89 is rather important context that is missing here.
  • "the search for the mother isotope of actinium. According to the radioactive displacement law of Fajans and Soddy, this had to be an isotope of the undiscovered element 91" – I'm confused. They knew about beta decay, and the article has already stated that Hahn and Meitner made money off of radium-228 ("mesothorium"), which beta decays to actinium (as do other isotopes of radium, for that matter). Why did they assume the mother isotope had to be an alpha emitter?
    Presumably they detected alpha radiation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the isotope they had found was a beta emitter, and therefore could not be the mother isotope of actinium." – I understand why beta decay of element 91 cannot produce element 89, but I don't think this is clear to the average reader.
  • "In 1914 Hahn and Meitner developed a new technique for separating the tantalum group from pitchblende, which they hoped would speed the isolation of the new isotope." – this is jumping back in time a bit, so I would say that they had done so.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not only Hahn but most of the students, laboratory assistants and technicians had been called up" – I gather this is "called up" in the sense of "summoned to serve in the armed forces" as opposed to "personally selected (for some particular purpose more generally)". Maybe I'm an outlier, but I come across this phrase more frequently in the latter sense than in the former, and so think this should be rephrased somewhat to eliminate ambiguity/lack of clarity.
    As a military historian, I have never seen it used in that sense. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, from what I can gather, rather common in sports. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they devised a series of indicator tests to eliminate other known alpha emitters. The only known ones with similar chemical behaviour were lead-210 (which decays to alpha emitter polonium-210) and thorium-230" – this doesn't quite work. I might suggest replacing the first "alpha emitters" with "sources of alpha [particles/radiation]". I would also add "via bismuth-210" to the parenthetical statement.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The connection to uranium remained a mystery, as neither of the known isotopes of uranium decayed into protactinium." – I don't think it's clear why a connection to uranium should be expected in the first place? I might also note which those known isotopes of uranium were.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mother isotope, uranium-235" – technically uranium-235 is the grandmother isotope of protactinium(-231), no?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uranium-235, was discovered in 1929" – according to the linked article, it was discovered in 1935. Which is wrong?
    The source says it was in 1929. The linked article has no sources, but I found Dempster's 1935 Nature article. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beta radiation
Nazi Germany
Transmutation
  • "Irène Curie and Frédéric Joliot irradiated aluminium foil with alpha particles, and found that this results in a short-lived radioactive isotope of phosphorus. They noted that positron emission continued after the neutron emissions ceased." – neutron emissions? Not alpha particle bombardment? It would make perfect sense to me if positron emission continuing after the alpha irradiation ceased was viewed as evidence of radioactivity (as opposed to the bombardment "knocking loose" positrons directly or something), but I can't quite figure out the text as it is, which is why I'm suspecting an error of some kind (or maybe I'm just bad at nuclear physics).
    You are correct. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Escape from Germany
  • "On 1 August she took the train to Stockholm, where she was met at Göteborg station by Eva von Bahr." – this phrasing makes it sound like she was met by von Bahr at Göteborg station in Stockholm, which is of course nonsensical. Did she take the Stockholm-bound train and disembark at Göteborg? Or did she take the train to Stockholm and was joined from Göteborg by von Bahr? The former sounds much more likely as Kungälv, where they went next, is much closer to Göteborg than to Stockholm.
    The former. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 9 November" – WP:EASTEREGG.
    removed link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the results of the experiments, particularly the supposed discovery of isomers of radium" – the what now? Unless I've missed something major, this has not been mentioned previously.
    More details in the main article. Alluded to above in the final paragraph on transmutation. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear fission
Nobel Prize for nuclear fission
  • I don't think this heading really works. It sticks out a bit from the other (which it wouldn't if it were plain "Nobel Prize"), but more importantly it belies that Meitner did not receive the Nobel Prize. I don't have any good alternative suggestion right now, however.
    Changed to "Nobel Prize"
  • "On 15 November 1945, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that Hahn had been awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry" – this looks like an error, but it isn't one. I would definitely add an explanatory footnote about the one-year delay.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The five-member physics committee included Manne Siegbahn, his former student Erik Hulthén, the professor of experimental physics at Uppsala University, and Axel Lindh, who eventually succeeded Hulthén." – if that's three people, the first and third commas need to be semicolons.
    Added sme-colons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner" – that their relationship was poor came as news to me, as there was not really anything obvious above to suggest so—or did I miss it?
    It is the first mention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner was a factor here, as was the bias towards experimental rather than theoretical physics (a bias that did not help Chien-Shiung Wu when she was omitted from the Nobel Prize for her experimental work and the prize awarded to two men for their theoretical work)." - this borders on snide. The intended meaning is clearly that the exclusion was due to bias against women, the implicit (but unsubtle) argument being that even a bias in favour of a particular subfield was later not enough for a woman to be awarded. If the accusation of gender bias is attributable to appropriate sources, make it explicitly and attribute it to those sources. If it is not, remove the implicit one. If the mention of Chien-Shiung Wu being omitted from the Nobel Prize is retained, the year should be given.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hahn's receipt of a Nobel Prize was long expected." – the word "receipt" stands out to me as I almost never encounter it in any other sense than, well, receipt. I would suggest rephrasing here.
    Tightened text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section feels quite a bit like it was written to be later in the article than it currently is, beginning with "Despite the many honours that Meitner received in her lifetime" (as though referring back to the "Awards and honours" section), discussing the poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner (which is mentioned in the following section, "Later life", even if only briefly), and just generally covering events that happened at a later point in time than the first couple of paragraphs of the following section. This is, I think, a rather serious issue with the structure of the article at present. My suggestion would be to remove this section, add the Nobel Prize stuff in its proper chronological place in the following section in a "just the facts" manner, and move the analysis of the Nobel Prize stuff to the last section (which could optionally be renamed "Legacy" or something).
    Changed as suggested. (But it was never intended to be later in the article.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Later life
Awards and honours

Ping Hawkeye7. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this interpretation of WP:PROPORTIONAL, but even if we I did, it does not agree with the sources. This can be seen in Frisch (1970) pp. 415-416. Of course, it only goes up to 1970. There is also Sime (1999), p. 267. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I quite understand the second part, but if the disagreement here stems from differing interpretations of policy it would seem we are at an impasse and that the coordinators will have to decide whether this is actionable. I took a look at Frisch (1970), and it does indeed list awards and a few other honours (though not things named after her—granted, there may not have been much to list at the time). I am not sure exactly what source Sime (1999) is—suspecting the year might be a typo I looked at Sime (1990) and Sime (1996), though I did not find anything relevant on p. 267 in either case—so I have not been able to check whether the weight in the article matches the weight in that source. TompaDompa (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be pp. 365-366. I am in Europe and have no access to my books at present. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, of Sime (1996)? That's available on the Internet Archive, and pp. 365–366 covers awards and honours, but not things named after Meitner. TompaDompa (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

A fine article overall, only the source formatting seems to be a bit off. Matarisvan (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

[edit]

I'm pleased to see an article about a female scientist here, thank you for such an excellent effort. With the caveat that I am not a native speaker, here are some comments. Feel free to ignore.

  • The repetition of her name in bold is not great. I know of no specific guideline but in earlier FAs I have applied the use of " to introduce the commonly used first name. For example Nancy Sophie Cornélie "Corry" Tendeloo. So could Elise "Lise" Meitner be an option?
    There is a specific guideline. MOS:BOLD: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I avoided the construct 'Elise "Lise" Meitner' because that would give the impression that it was a nickname, and it was not. Note that she signed her papers "Dr. Lise Meitner". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was one of those responsible for the discovery of the element protactinium and the discovery of nuclear fission --> who was instrumental in the discovery of protactinium and nuclear fission
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry there --> can we drop "there"?
    Another editor wanted it clarified that the KWI was in Berlin.
  • to be with other family members --> to be with her family members, or, perhaps: to be with family members
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She also adopted the shortened name "Lise" --> is it known when?
    Not known. Her matura was recorded under the name Elise Meitner. "Lise's name also changed slightly from its original Elise. In Berlin such things might have caused a flurry of paperwork; in Vienna it made no difference." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She completed her final year of school --> from reading onwards I gather this is not secondary school. Would it not be better to explicitly say primary school here?
    She went to a high school for girls that went to what in my country would be year 8. This might be consider primary school depending on where the reader is. So it would not be better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897--> I don't get the "but". And would the list of subjects at school not be better placed with the earlier sentence about final year of school?
    Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the girls --> at age 23 she is not a girl. And the others were introduced as other young women. So "women" instead of girls
    She was 22, but point taken. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only four out of fourteen girls --> same thing
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was particularly inspired by Boltzmann --> to avoid confusion, perhaps professor Boltzmann
    Changed to "Ludwig Boltzmann". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Examination of a Maxwell Formula" --> "Examination of a Maxwell equation"
    Sure. Pardon my MilHist German. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thermal Conduction in Inhomogeneous Bodies" --> "Thermal conduction in inhomogeneous bodies"
    Title, so used title case. German conventions are different. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • she went further and made predictions based on her explanation, and then verified them experimentally --> this seems like a notable event that should be described in a bit more detail: what kind of optics issue are we talking about, what did she predict, how did she verify?
    Sources do not say; I have the journal reference, but copies are not available online, or in hard copy outside Germany. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meitner was introduced by Stefan Meyer--> is it known when?
    In 1906. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led Ernest Rutherford to predict the nuclear atom. She submitted her findings to the Physikalische Zeitschrift on 29 June 1907. --> From this order I infer that Rutherford made the prediction before her publication, and thus that there was some sort of informal communication between them. Is this the case?
    No; he read her paper. Revered the sentences to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • , and shared her love of music --> because of that comma, I read this with Meitner being the subject of the verb shared. But I guess you meant the twins to be the subject, am I right?
    Yes. Not sure what can be done here; changed to "Meitner's love of music". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the first years Meitner worked together with Hahn they co-authored three papers in 1908, and six more in 1909 --> During the first two years Meitner worked together with Hahn, they co-authored nine papers: three in 1908, six in 1909
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • physical separation method known as radioactive recoil --> I assume that is the same as atomic recoil, and thus should be linked, right?
    Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • discovered two more new isotopes --> which ones specifically?
    Sigh. Bismuth-211 and Thalium-207. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this more pitchblende was required, and --> For this yet more pitchblende was required, but
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who independently discovered it in 1923 --> when did Meitner discover it?
    In 1922. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vor allem steht ihre chemische Verschiedenheit von allen bisher bekannten Elementen außerhalb jeder Diskussion --> I don't think we need the German here
    I would prefer to keep it, so the reder knows that I am not misquoting or misrepresenting Hahn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • at Manne Siegbahn's new laboratory [sv] --> better link label would be at the Manne Siegbahn Laboratory [sv]
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • amiable --> not sure I would use this. I'm sure Sigvard was amiable, but we might need quite a few sources first before we can say this
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • reached a similar conclusion --> similar to what? + state when he said this
    Moved this paragraph back where it belonged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it remarkable that Meitner lived so long and did not seem to have suffered any radiation damage. She must have been really careful from the beginning. This is just a thought, no need to act on it.
    Ditto for Otto Hahn, who also made it to age 89. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on prose. I will look at other aspects later today. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Notes section:

References section:

I did a few spotchecks and all checked out fine. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I believe this fine article meets the FA standard. Thanks again for all your work. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

"On 1 August she took the train to Göteborg station in Sweden." I don't think it was possible to do this journey by train in the 1940s. Was it? John (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Copenhagen to Stockholm? In 1938? Sure. It became difficult after Denmark was invaded in April 1940. (example ticket) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the Øresund would have been in the way, which was not bridged until 2000. I imagine some kind of ferry or boat train must have been involved in 1938. It sounds funny if you know the geography to just say "took the train". What do the sources say? John (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 August, she left for Sweden. Again the trip was beautiful. Eva von Bahr-Bergius was waiting for her at the Göteborg station. Together they continued by train and then steamer to Eva's home in Kungälv, a small town on the west coast where Lise planned to stay until September.

There was a train ferry when I made the trip in 1998. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the regional administrative board of Skåne train ferry service opened between Elsinore and Helsingborg in 1892, and between Copenhagen and Malmö in 1895. Draken Bowser (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you happy with my edits so far? John (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I note that another editor wanted it clarified that Berlin is in Germany and Stockholm in Sweden. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about calling her "Jewish Austrian" in the lead. Could we say "Austrian Jewish"? John (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trimmed the "Jewish" from the lead sentence. Her Jewishness was only defintionally important to the Nazis. She was a scientist, not a religious figure. We find out about her ethnicity and the trouble it caused her in her life, but I do not think it is needed in the first sentence. Happy to discuss, of course.John (talk)
      Sure. Meitner's problem was sexism, not racism, up until the Nazis came on the scene. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for your work on this fine article. John (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Well, this is a high-profile topic if there ever was one. Keeping my usual caveat about not being familiar with the topic in mind, I wonder if there is any dedicated discussion to the conflict with the Nazis. It seems like we are using mostly academic publications and major publishers. What makes http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com/Lise_Meitner_and_Nuclear_Fission.html a reliable source? #112, should that give Nobel Prize rather than www.nobelprize.org? Especially since #113 does. Bit inconsistent with retrieval dates - #118 doesn't have one but #145 does? I wonder why only one German biography is used. What is the logic between placing some publications into Further Reading? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Removed www.orlandoleibovitz.com. Changed #112. Added date to #118.
  2. More than one German biography was actually used, but WP:NONENG: English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.
  3. Further reading: in the case of this article, the Further reading section dates back to 2005 and is actually older than the text of the article. It seems that readers proposed these sources but none of the works was ever used as a source. I do not remove material without a good reason. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm, in this case I wonder if some of these Further Reading could be used as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, Gah4 (talk) ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could incorporate some of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cut the Further reading back and added a couple of them to the article. I do not have access to the remaining book. I do have access to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article, but since that is a book review of one of the major sources in the article, I have retained it in the Further reading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how's that? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[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) 6 September 2024 [45].

KEXP-FM

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in a room in Seattle Center is a large map of the world, festooned with yellow pins. They tell the story of how a Seattle indie music station turned into a national, even international, audio institution. KEXP-FM (or KEXP, as you'll see it anywhere that isn't pedantic about call sign suffixes) started as KCMU-FM, the 10-watt campus radio station of the University of Washington, in 1972, but it was in the right place at the right time to become one of the standard-bearers for alternative music in a city that broke artists like Kurt Cobain and Soundgarden. After a turbulent early 1990s that included a listener boycott, the university's decision to split management from its public radio station and put it under the computing department, of all places, served as a critical technological catalyst for what it became later after partnering with the Experience Music Project in 2001: an independently owned and operated powerhouse with FM signals in Seattle and San Francisco, studios in Seattle that are a regular stop for touring acts and double as a community space, a massive streaming fanbase (of which I am now a part as a direct result of this project), and a prominent feature of the indie media landscape.

While I have brought five television stations to FA, this is a massive moment for radio station coverage on the English Wikipedia, as there has not been a new FA in radio stations (some 25,000-plus titles in total) since WINC (AM) in 2014. A significant thanks goes out to Maiacosis, who wrote about 15 percent of this page including programming descriptions and provided some of the images used in this article. I also appreciate Lee Vilenski for his 2022 GA review and the Phoenix Suns's gnarly blowout in Game 7 of the 2022 Western Conference semifinals for spurring me to distract myself with a major writing project. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:KEXP_logo_(black_on_orange).svg is confusing me. The source field says orange was added to match the Instagram picture, but the Instagram picture has orange on the bars, not the background; none of the versions linked have an orange background. Is this actually a version used by them, or did we make it up? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd indeed. They don't use a hard background with it, but that is their brand orange. I decided to strip the orange and leave a skin invert class to satisfy the original concern about darkmode visibility, Nikkimaria. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "... the station began to grow into one with an international listener base ...": suggest "... began to acquire an ...".
    • Done
  • "began formulating a plan to create a second UW station, one that would be run by students": suggest shortening to "began planning to create a second UW station that would be run by students".
    • Done
  • "Noonan had come from San Francisco, where he was aware of other college stations": do you mean that there were multiple student-run radio stations in San Francisco?
    • Yes. The original quote is, “There were student activities and protests and all these things going on, and none of that information was getting to the students; it just wasn’t being processed. The only thing the UW had was The Daily, and I had worked at some stations back in California that were interviewing people from the Black Panthers; people who were very active in movements back in those days,” he says. “I felt that the students needed an outlet, a voice.”
  • "While there were so few listeners in 1975 that UW administrators ordered a programming overhaul, by 1981, the station was starting to become more adventurous musically". The use of "while" implies there's a logical connection between the two halves of the sentence, but there doesn't appear to be -- "so few listeners" is not in opposition to "adventurous musically" in any way. And the only example of adventurousness given is airing new wave music; this doesn't seem an adventurous thing to do in 1981, when, if my memory is not leading me astray, New Wave was a major (and mainstream) commercial force. I was in the UK at the time, though -- maybe it meant something different in the US? In the UK it meant bands like Elvis Costello and Talking Heads. From some comments further down the article about KJET dropping their alternative music format it seems you're using New Wave to mean alternative but that would not have been the nomenclature back then.
    • This gets gnarly. The New Wave label was contemporary for the period, for sure (some of the stuff I went back and was able to make into public clippings emphasizes this). It seems new wave evolved into alternative? I could use guidance here.
  • "KZAM ... changed due to low ratings": I think this means that KZAM dropped New Wave music but I think it should be clearer.
    • Reworded for clarity
  • Suggest dropping the sentence "A power boost also came" and starting a new paragraph at that point instead.
    • Done
  • "... the beginning of stereo broadcasts for the first time ...": "beginning" is redundant with "for the first time".
    • Done
  • "commercial competition in the form of KJET which had adopted the format in 1982": I don't know what "the format" refers to here.
    • Clarified
  • "foundation of Sub Pop": suggest "foundation of record label Sub Pop".
    • Done
  • "Through the UW": is this normal usage for UW? One would never use "the" in this sort of construction with UT, say, or UCLA. There are more instances of "the UW" later in the article.
    • It's all over their website. There is no specific entry for it, but there are lots of sentences on the UW brand guide with it: It shows that the UW is authoritative, intentional and thoughtful, referring specifically to the UW.
  • "it remains on KEXP's schedule" needs an "as of".
    • Done
  • "two shows hosted by black DJs were added to daytime slots that were exclusively held by Richards, Cheryl Waters, and Kevin Cole": suggest "had been held", if I have the intended meaning correct. What does "exclusively" mean?
    • Tried to reword.
  • Re the analysis by Tableau Software, giving the "broadened" statement first is a bit confusing -- I assume the station broadened its mix in response to the analysis? In which case reversing the order of the clauses would be easier on the reader.
    • Done.
  • You might consider an internal link from the first text mention of the Gathering Space to the section about it lower in the article.
    • Done.
  • "The live room holds special significance as it serves as the backdrop for the station's video podcasts". What would be lost if this were shortened to "The live room serves as the backdrop for ..."?
    • Nothing at all. (This is the section Maiacosis contributed)
  • What is a "correlating fluid simulation"?
  • What are "activated festoon lights"?
    • Reworded this area to be a little less...dense.
  • "The Gathering Space has always included a coffee shop early since its inception". Triply redundant; how about "The Gathering Space has included a coffee shop since its inception"?
    • Done

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Should have responded to everything. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to keep "formulating" or just miss it? Other than that everything looks good except for the New Wave/alternate genre name issue. I am sure I will be supporting, but I'd like to see that sorted out first. Perhaps try posting at one of the music WikiProjects -- I think WP:ALBUMS is pretty well attended. What can you actually tell from your sources? Do they make it clear that the format hasn't changed in decades and also that it was called New Wave once (and I think it needs the caps) and alternative now? If we're going to connect dots across decades where the sources uses different names we need to be able to prove that they are the same thing. Or could we do something that simply reflects the sources such as (and of course I'm making this up): "histories of the station comment that it hasn't changed its format for X years, though it now describes it as alternative rock, instead of New Wave, as it was known in the early 1980s". Or whatever. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Outright missed "formulating" — my eyes glazed over. I found a source [46] (not linked in article; shadow library) and added it as a footnote. It hints at how nebulous format labeling really was for this. You'll also see "new music" in the early years. The term alternative had not come into use in 1981–82 for this music. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. I think that does it. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Neutralhomer

[edit]
  • As the editor on the WINC (AM) article, I'd be remiss if I didn't give my 2 cents to this FAC, which will finally add a second FAC to the WPRS project.
  • "By 1992, ten years after becoming listener-supported, KCMU's budget had grown from $20,000 to $180,000. In addition to the two technical improvements in the 1980s, it had added more paid staffers and listeners." Would it be possible to add a "in 2024 dollars" part to the budget line? I've seen it done on other articles, kinda connects it to today.
    • Added as a footnote.
  • I noticed that there isn't anything mentioned about KEXP being the official "soundtrack" station for the Seattle Kraken. A couple sources for that.
    • Already there, last paragraph, "Move to Seattle Center".
  • Just a minor quibble, in the Championing the "Seattle sound" section, I don't see anything about Alice in Chains. Is there anything that you or Maiacosis could find on them and KEXP to tie it all together with the rest of the Seattle grunge bands? Yes, I am an AiC fan. :)
    • I did a special search and did not come up with anything.

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

As I used to live right next to KEXP, I feel an obligation to look over the sources here.

  • Sources look consistently formatted.
  • There's not a title for ref. 31 (Sexton, Paul; Tilli, Robbert (May 31, 1997)), causing a CS1 error.
  • Before I go do a spot check, I wanted to note that there is a 2020 academic source on KEXP: Brick, Mortar, and Screen: Networked Digital Media, Popular Music, and the Reinvention of the Public Radio Station by Christopher Cwynar. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376529.2020.1738438. I would advise incorporating this into the article, as a specialist academic article is just about the best thing to incorporate into a subject like this to ensure that coverage is truly comprehensive. This would probably require a shortened footnote style of some sort for ease of use.

Let me know when you've gotten the Cwynar source incorporated in, Sammi Brie, and I'll do a source review of the rest. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima Journals do not normally factor into my work, but KEXP is not a normal project. There were some promising tangents in this one, and I added not one but three references off of that. I only cited Cwynar three times, so I didn't feel the need to dip into an sfn (like I did with Bridge at WBPX-TV). Also fixed a source I failed to clip and the missed title on the very recently added Sexton/Tilli source. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: So sorry this took a while.

  • 7A: I think you're missing a cite somewhere here? This doesn't talk about KUOW-FM at all. Everything after "As a result" checks out though.
  • 8A: Yep. That's the date alright.
  • 17: Checks out.
  • 28: Checks out, in that little corner.
  • 42a: Accurate summation of what Cwynar said here.
  • 49a & b: You cite this twice in a row, I don't think the first 49a cite is needed.
  • 46: Checks out, and interesting.
  • 68: Yep.
  • 76: Checks out.
  • 87: Checks out.
  • 89: Also good.

Not much to say other those two errors I found. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima The first issue led me not only to references to fill that void but to some additional material I got to incorporate in the first two paragraphs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, nice! Everything here looks good. Support on source review and spot check. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]

I will take a look in the coming days. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "specializing in alternative and indie rock programmed by its disc jockeys" ==> in the infobox, a lot more genres are listed than only these two, and in the body of the article there are these sentences: "Since 2020, the station has also made major changes to its programming and DJ lineup, and it airs specialty shows throughout the week to diversify from its traditional focus on alternative and indie music. As of April 2024, KEXP's specialty shows include the following:". I think it's an idea to use a newer reference in the first sentence of the lede than the one used right now (from 2018). Maybe it's also an idea to alter the sentence as, as I read it, the station isn't only specializing in alternative and indie rock right now.
    • This is a very good point. I am only a recent KEXP listener (not pre-2020), but yeah, the daytime variety mix is not just alt rock. (This also varies, of course, by DJ: see, for instance, Larry Mizell Jr.'s shows.) I think fewer genres listed in the infobox will help.
  • "By this time, the debate was ameliorated" ==> as a non-native English speaker, I had to look up what "ameliorated" means. Maybe you can use a more common term?
    • Changes made here.
  • "1 and 6 am" ==> 1 and 6 a.m. (as you've used a.m. throughout the article).
    • Probably a relic from a general formatting script that did this too often.
  • Some minor comments from me. Interesting and well-written article! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts

[edit]

comments tk. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Years would be helpful in the subsection headers in the history section, e.g., 1971–1987: Early years as KCMU. I also notice there's some overlap. For example, the aforementioned subsection goes up to 1987, but the next subsection begins in the mid-1980s. Any way to rearrange this to make it more chronological?
    • Reorganized some material (and removed one item I realized had become increasingly irrelevant as the article went on).
  • I think this should be removed. Unlike alums who went into the music industry, this seems less relevant: A KCMU alumnus of this period, who began with the station after KZAM folded, went onto a career in public office: Dow Constantine, later a Washington state legislator and King County Executive, whose future wife worked as a volunteer DJ.
  • The Experience Music Project—now known as the - add (EMP) after Experience Music Project.
    • Done
  • UW engineers invented CD players that could retrieve song metadata from the internet in order to build a real-time playlist - wouldn't they already have metadata if they're playing off of CDs? I'm a bit confused by this.
    • The reference is rather unambiguous here: University of Washington engineers invented CD players that could connect to the Web to retrieve song and band information, which could then be transfered to a real-time playlist at www.kexp.org.
  • ; the next year, the station started offering a rolling archive of its last two weeks of programming, branching out to offer an archive of past in-studio performances - remove the semicolon and make this its own sentence. I'm also not sure what "branching out" means in this context. Can you rephrase?
    • Done.
  • Web streaming was emerging as a major force for listenership around the world. When?
    • This is in the same early 2000s period indicated at the top of the paragraph.
  • The Tacoma simulcast agreement was wound down in March 2006 as being too costly ahead of EMP ceasing to underwrite KEXP's losses, though KEXP did increase its power to its present 4,700 watts that year. The fact that KEXP was experiencing losses just comes out of nowhere in the middle of this sentence with no context. This can be fixed be reorganizing the paragraph to start with their financial troubles (e.g., almost failing to make payroll => this occurring).
    • Reorganized. Great idea.

@Sammi Brie: That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 6 September 2024 [47].

January 1908 Irish representative peer election

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an almost forgotten election for an almost forgotten office. Yet interesting both for the winner, the former viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, and for the fact that the two runners up actually tied in the next election, and an obscure means of breaking the tie had to be invoked. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Lead images are quite small and difficult to see
I've replaced the image of Ashtown with a portrait shot which may help here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bird_notes_and_news_(1912)_(14562015579).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
I've added some and tried to find an individual photographer without luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Baron_Ashtown.jpeg: per the UK tag, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was. Ditto File:Lord_Farnham.jpeg.
Done and also for the new Ashtown image.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee comments and support

[edit]

Hello Wehwalt, I am going to make a few suggestions for this nomination.--Llewee (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Background[reply]

  • A brief explanation of what a United Kingdom peer was and how it was a separate category from a Irish peer would be useful in the background section. I think a brief explanation of what the house of Lords is might be helpful as well.
I've added something along those lines, at least drawing the distinction between UK peers and Irish peers.
  • "This made it inconvenient for Irish peers to vote, and some did not." - Was this because they felt uncomfortable swearing an oath of allegiance to the British state or just for practical reasons?
It was inconvenient for practical reasons. Most IRPs were Unionist and had no objection to swearing an oath to the British crown. It was just inconvenient for practical reasons. There were cases of Irish JPs traveling to England and in one case to Saint Petersburg to administer the oath in the contested 1825 IRP election.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elections for Irish representative peers lapsed..." — What does this paragraph about events after 1922 have to do with an election in 1908? If it is going to included at all I would suggest moving it to aftermath.
I think it is part of the background to explain why IRPs disappeared. I work from the assumption that anyone chancing on this article will never have heard of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's understandable--Llewee (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates and campaign

  • "threw himself off a fourth-storey balcony at his Paris hotel" — this sounds like an oddly flippant tone to me, maybe just say "jumped off a..."
Changed to "jumped".
  • "who had been suffering from illness, was killed immediately" — I would suggest taking out the clause about an illness, bluntly I don't think that much matters when you have fallen out of a high window. Also "died" probably works better than "killed" in this instance.
Suicide is a touchy subject on Wikipedia; even though he is long dead, I would rather put in information that explains the action. He was definitely having issues; they had set someone to watch him, which he evaded. How about "fatally injured"?
Fatally injured should be fine. The grammar of that sentence feels quite awkward, could it be reorganised so his illness is introduced first and then his death. (e.g Francis Browne, 4th Baron Kilmaine, an Irish representative peer since 1890, was mentally unwell. On 9 November 1907, he jumped from a fourth-storey balcony at his Paris hotel and was fatally injured.--Llewee (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The newspapers were circumspect in discussing his illness, the one I'm using for a source says he was suffering from insomnia. Let's just stick to the bare essential that he had died.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Writs were subsequently issued in the election for a successor as representative peer" — Shouldn't "in the" be "for an"?
It could go either way but "for an election for a successor" sounds kinda odd.
  • "(who had actually been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905)" — Did that mean he couldn't be a contender?
Since he had a seat for life, there was no point in his running. The press made a mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the last ever to be created)" — I'm not sure this is particularly relevant but if it is going to be included then clarify "before Irish independence in 1922".
Since the Irish peerage still exits even if IRPs no longer do, it would still be possible for one to be created. Therefore, if I said before 1922, that begs the question of after.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is fine--Llewee (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appropriate title as he took up his position as viceroy" — Clarify (possibly in a footnote) that peers were given the title of Lord which was prestigious.
I've added a source to stress he did not want to go to India as Mr Curzon. It doesn't actually say that it is a prestigious title but perhaps it is close enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he found that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons" — I think this could worded more bluntly "he was too unwell to campaign for reelection to the commons"
I'm not sure. Curzon certainly lived a very active remaining 17 years of his life, during which time he came close to being prime minister. I'd rather not rephrase in that way. He had back trouble and he was certainly devastated by the recent death of his wife Mary, but I haven't been able to identify a physical ailment.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable. It just struck me as slightly odd that he was well enough to be a Peer but not well enough to be an MP.--Llewee (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, perhaps 'felt' instead of "found"? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered it undesirable that a recent viceroy fight for a parliamentary seat" — Why was this?
He considered it undignified that a former high representative of the King-Emperor scrap for votes. I've added something.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this, and soon after, resigned. The new prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, also refused Curzon a United Kingdom peerage" — Why did these prime ministers oppose him receiving a peerage?
Because Curzon differed on Indian policy with the Secretary of State for India, William St John Brodrick, which led to his resignation as Viceroy, and Brodrick put the kibosh on the peerage with both Edward and Balfour. When Curzon appealed to the new PM, Campbell-Bannerman, citing precedent that an honour for the returning viceroy was not a political matter (Balfour [and Curzon] was a Conservative and a Unionist and C-B was a Liberal), C-B hemmed and hawed made vague promises but eventually said there was opposition in his party to doing it and he wasn't going to. Curzon got his earldom in the Coronation Honours of 1911, after the deaths of both Edward and C-B. All of which is too much detail in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could just say (perhaps in a footnote) that he was from a different party and disagreed with the government on India policy.--Llewee (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "look with favour on the only way he could see to re-enter public life." — This is a bit non-neutral, maybe just say "support his campaign".
It's not being said with Wikipedia's voice but as a paraphrase of what Curzon wrote.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with considerable satisfaction" — this sounds odd to me, maybe say "with approval"
I'm trying to stick as close to the source as possible. It says "In Unionist circles here the candidature of Lord Curzon as a representative peer for Ireland is regarded with the highest satisfaction". I don't think approval is the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like a slightly quaint term to me, but it's not a major issue.--Llewee (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curzon was opposed for the seat" — I think it would be clearer to say "some opposed Curzon's candidacy".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They therefore saw no reason to diminish the Irish representation in Westminster during Curzon's lifetime to accommodate an Englishman." — I think a more neutral way of wording this would be "They felt this would in effect reduce the Irish representation in Westminster for the rest of Curzon's lifetime."
I don't know about feeling it, it would. Curzon wasn't Irish and normally the IRPs were elected from among Irish residents. I've rephrased somewhat, look it over.
  • "He had a contentious relationship with his Irish tenantry" — I feel more information could be added here, why was there a boycott against him?
Added.
  • "but considered Curzon's candidacy hard on peers" — I think changing "hard" to "unfair" would sound more formal.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wrote to three candidates, including Curzon," — Weren't there only three candidates in the race?
Lord de Vesci apparently had some designs on the seat. He got the 1909 vacancy, he might have been one of the three. We don't know what was meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since his "happy release from that country", he had ceased to vote" — perhaps add a footnote say he had left Ireland in X year to take up Y position or wherever he'd gone
I assume he sold his Irish lands, but what he meant would be rather speculative.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for Irish representative peer" — Shouldn't it be "peers" rather than "peer"?
Yes. Good point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the political wilderness" — this could be worded more bluntly (e.g out of politics)
  • " The Kerry News reported that the former prime minister, Lord Palmerston..." — I'm not sure what this sentence has got to do with the election.
Palmerston (Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston) was an Irish peer who had a seat in the House of Commons. The point of the discussion was that Palmerston seems to have feared that the Torys would elect him a representative peer and send him against his will to the House of Lords, and so did not claim the right to vote for representative peer following the argument that was used against Curzon that you had to be have claimed and had upheld the right to vote for IRP in order to be elected an IRP. Of course that argument did not prevail against Curzon. Possibly Palmerston was taking no chances.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election

  • "like the one later that year in November" — This clause referencing another election which isn't the focus of the page isn't really necessary.
Since that election involved two of the candidates from this one, its worth noting that it still attracted a considerable turnout even without Curzon's participation.
  • "The Irish Times was confident that Curzon would be seated, but stated that..." — I'd say change "but" to "while" because the quote doesn't contradict the first part.
There's sort of an implicit contradiction, because the clause is meant to say that even if Curzon was not seated, he will still have received a considerable honour. But I've changed to "and".
  • "though it required that the peers voting in an election for Irish representative peers have claimed a right to vote" — change "have" to "had"
I think "had" is correct. I could be persuaded otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "has the distinction of being" — change this to "was"
Was is ambiguous. The books are now closed on the IRPs and Curzon was the only one ever elected who did not live in Ireland, but if I said "was", the reader might wonder if that was true as of 1908 or is that still true. I've changed to "is".
I'm not going to get back to this until Friday or possibly the weekend. I just answered the ones I felt I could easily answer. The rest will follow--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. Proceeding to deal with Gog's, then the IR.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Llewee, are we good?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Llewee, I've added that footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, Ok it seems good to go--Llewee (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Background", first sentence: You don't give, nor is it possible to calculate, the size of the electorate. It can be implied from "A total of 134 ballots were sent to eligible peers" in the next section, but IMO it would be helpful to explicitly state it at the end of this paragraph.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords". Something like 'to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords from there ranks by the 134 Irish peers' might help a reader to grasp more rapidly what this is about.
Included. It's Irish peers eligible to vote. Remember Curzon was not at the time eligible to vote.
  • "and that Ashtown had gained the most votes among those so eligible." I read this as Ashtown gaining the most votes among those eligible to vote. Is it possible to rephrase to clarify?.
I tried to avoid a repetition, but I've spelt it out.
  • " but Farnham was chosen to fill the next vacancy." Perhaps add '... also in 1908'?
  • "one house of the British Parliament". It seems confusing to refer to the Parliament of the United Kingdom as the British Parliament. Given that Britain can be considered a component of the state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland it seems an unnecessary complication.
  • "signed by two Lords Temporal". Why the upper-case initial letters?
No idea. Done.
  • "Lord Chancellor would instruct the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to have the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper conduct an election". Similarly.
Ditto.
  • "returnable 20 January 1908" → 'returnable by 20 January 1908'?
No. The writ is returnable, not the ballots. I'm pretty sure that's the proper legal language
  • "who had actually been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905". I am not sure that "actually" adds anything. Perhaps just delete, or replace with 'already'?
  • " He had accepted an Irish peerage (the last ever to be created), to give him the title of "Baron Curzon" or "Lord Curzon" as he took up his position as viceroy", Perhaps ' He had accepted an Irish peerage (the last ever to be created) in 1898, to give him the title of "Baron Curzon" or "Lord Curzon" as he took up his position as viceroy'?
  • Link commoner.
  • "including replacing local labourers with Scottish replacement". Is it possible to avoid using "replacing" and "replacement" within six words?
  • "though this could not be proved." Perhaps 'though this was never proved'?
  • "The M. P. for Liverpool Scotland". Assuming this is written in UKvar, member of parliament is abbreviated to MP.
  • "The January 1908 election, like the one later that year in November, attracted a high turnout from the voters." Is the number of votes cast known?
No.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I haven't specifically replied, I've just gone ahead and done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC Interesting article – I'd quite forgotten the constitutional position regarding Irish peer elections. Just a couple of very small points from me:

  • The Malcomson quote refers to the "conservative party": I think—in line with MOS:CONFORM—this should be "Conservative Party"
  • "Lentaigne traveled to London": I think it likely he travelled to London

I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

[edit]

Wehwalt - hope you are keeping well. And what a wonderfully obscure topic (see below)! Some comments/suggestions from me.

Lead
  • Given the topic's obscurity - I doubt one reader in a thousand will have heard of the Irish Representative Peers (IRPs)! - I think the lead needs a brief explanation of the wider context. I accept that you have it in Background, and that there is a link, but I think a short para. in the Lead, probably the second, could explain; their creation - the Acts of Union; their purpose - Irish representation in the UK Parliament after the abolition of the Irish Parliament; and their, oddly small, constituency - fewer than 150 electing 28. I think the third and fourth para.s could be combined to allow for a new second to cover this.
I will add something on the Acts of Union 1800 in the background section and likely a sentence of summary in the lead.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curzon, despite a minimal connection with Ireland" - that "minimal" connection being....? I assume it's his Irish peerage, given that he'd never set foot in Ireland, and didn't own land there. You mention the peerage in the next sentence. I wonder if the nature of the minimal connection could be made explicit. Perhaps something like - "Curzon contested the election as a means of returning to parliament after being denied a United Kingdom peerage by the prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. His connection to Ireland was minimal; born in Derbyshire, the eldest son of an English peer, he held no land in Ireland and his association was limited to the Irish peerage he had been granted in 1898 on his appointment as Viceroy of India. This slender connection sparked opposition, and his late entry into the race also worked against him. Moreover, he had never asked the House of Lords to affirm his right to vote in Irish representative peer elections, a requirement for participation as a voter, which led some to argue that he was ineligible to stand as a candidate."
I don't know that he owned no land in Ireland, I'm not sure any source I have (and I looked through the relevant bits in four bios of Curzon) actually says that. I've rephrased somewhat, leading with the fact he was an Englishman.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as representative peer" - "nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as a representative peer"?
  • Fair enough
  • "Each of the eligible voters would receive a ballot in duplicate by post with a space for the name of the peer whom the voter desired to elect. The ballot was to be signed" - do the sources say what they did with the second copy? Keep it?
One copy was kept at the Crown Office in Dublin (and destroyed by fire in the Four Courts fire of 1922), the other went with the writ and return to the House of Lords.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an example from the Victorian era of a blank ballot on the National Archives of Ireland site, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the voter's seal affixed, and returned to the Crown Office in Dublin" - link seal and Crown Office?
  • OK.
  • "the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peer" - "the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peers"?
  • Not sure. Peer sounds correct to me.
  • "following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer, Lord Kilmorey, who died in 1961," - perhaps just, "following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer Lord Kilmorey in 1961,"?
OK.
Candidates and campaign
  • "Ivo Bligh, 8th Earl of Darnley (who had already been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905)" - I don't follow this. As Darnley was already an IRP, and, as you explain above, only death or dishonour terminated this, how was he again eligible? Were the press just wrong? The first source explains why he wasn't in the Lords as an English peer, which is fine, but he was as an IRP from 1905, so why would he be eligible twice?
He wasn't eligible. The press made a mistake, as best I can tell. I've tweaked it as far as I can go. There wasn't any follow up on this that I could see.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Curzon to be given an earldom, the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this" - given that this was unusual, going against the general precedent, and that the king specifically asked for it to happen, I wonder whether a brief explanation as to why Balfour opposed an earldom would be helpful, perhaps in a footnote. Kenneth Young covers it quite extensively in his Balfour. In essence, Balfour was concerned over the timing, following on from Curzon's resignation and his publicly-expressed opposition to government policy; "it would never do so to time this public recognition of his services as to suggest that it was in the remotest degree connected to his action in the Curzon-Kitchener dispute. In that dispute he was in the wrong. It would be absurd to take a step which would be universally interpreted as meaning I believed him to be in the right." (Balfour to Lord Knollys 7 October 1905) (Young, p=242).
I'm reluctant to over focus on this. This article really isn't about Curzon's resignation. The thing is, Balfour never honoured him, though I don't know if he did a resignation honours.
I said implement or ignore, so I won’t press the point, but, for me, it is pretty central. The only reason Curzon stood as an IRP was to regain a public platform. He didn’t have one because first Balfour, and then C-B, had denied him the, almost obligatory, post-Viceregal peerage. For me, the reader would benefit from an explanation as to why. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll write something up using the source you mention and insert it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've used your source (which is available online).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he felt that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons, and that King Edward VII considered that it marred the dignity of the viceregal office" - I'm not sure what the second that is doing?
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "asked that the voters look with favour on the only way he could see to re-enter public life" - perhaps, "asked that the voters look with favour on his candidacy as the only route by which he could re-enter public life"?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Manchester Guardian thought it appropriate that Curzon had been backed by Abercorn and Londonderry" - is "appropriate" quite right here? The Guardian is being sarcastic and I wonder whether something like "telling" would better convey that?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because Curzon was the heir to a British title, and when he inherited that title, he would not vacate his place as Irish representative peer. They therefore did not want to diminish the Irish representation in Westminster during Curzon's lifetime." - would something like this be a little simpler?, "because Curzon, as heir to a British title, would retain his status as an Irish representative peer on his succession, thereby diminishing Irish representation at Westminster."?
I've kept the lifetime, otherwise adopted.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the explosion of a crude bomb" - I appreciate the source does talk of a "crude" bomb, but am not sure what it adds. It's presumably something like "makeshift"?
There's a fair amount of discussion of this in the press, which comes to no real conclusion and seems very colored by viewpoint. I've deleted "crude" and let it go that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "few if any were Irish nationalists, which 80 percent of Irish constituencies were represented by" - aside from the placing of the preposition, I don't think one would expect many Irish peers at this time to be nationalists. But of Home Rulers, there were a few, David Cannadine suggests at most half a dozen. {The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy p=533}. I wonder if something like this would be a bit clearer, "and very few supported Home Rule for Ireland, the official position of the Irish Parliamentary Party which held over 80 percent of the Irish constituencies."?
I'm presenting O'Connor's perspective here. I'm not sure we need to get into it at the level you suggest, just presenting the perspective of people who thought the whole election was a farce.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Election
  • "like the 2nd duke of Abercorn" - it may be that the source has it, and I think MoS suggests it, but the lower-case d looks odd, especially for a specific Duke.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "were placed in an ordinary goblet" - to me, it looks like a wine glass and you use "glass" above. Would "wine glass" do? The blue-link for goblet is rather ecclesiastical.
There was a good deal of discussion of this. It was a piece of stemmed glassware, such as ordinarily was used by their lordships for satisfying thirst, not necessarily with water. I think that unless I'm missing something, wine glass is fine. (I personally prefer stemless glassware but most of the time drink from stemmed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are of some use. Obviously, they are mainly suggestions, which can be considered and enacted, or ignored, as you think fit. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, KJP1, all done. All's well here except I need the ministrations of the medical men more than in the days of my youth. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt - I appreciate your accommodating me on Curzon's resignation/Balfour, C-B's unwillingness to elevate. Looking over the other comments, I see I wasn't the only one to raise it, and I think your amendments address the issue very well. As for the other comments, again, I appreciate the responses and am very pleased to Support. Glad you are keeping well, with necessary interventions! I address my own ailments through self-medication with pinot noir, à la Riley, but I understand he's currently hors de combat with a plaster-cast, so he is probably administering it through a straw. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, and have sent a note to Tim expressing my best wishes. Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - PASS

[edit]
  • Just wondering why News Letter and Freeman's Journal have places of publication, but the other newspapers don't – is there a reason?
Yes, since there is no description of the location in the name, and these are relatively obscure Irish journals.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Anson, I'm not sure you need to have that it's in the UK – none of the other sources have a country.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not part of the criteria (and I don't take it into account), but it may be worth archiving the websites? (You have for one, but not the others)
I'm not adept at it, and would prefer that other people with bots do it.

- SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Fascinating stuff. As an Englishman of Irish descent I'm grateful to Wehwalt for a glimpse into Anglo-Irish parliamentary shenanigans. A few quibbles, some drawing on the 1917 edition of Erskine May.

  • Piping
Queen Victoria but King Edward VII – I know those are the titles of the WP articles, but it looks a bit odd here to have the female title in blue and the male one in black.
  • Background
  • "consisted mainly of several hundred hereditary peers of the United Kingdom": I'm not sure that's quite right: there were peers of England, of Scotland, of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom, and I don't think those in the first three categories were absorbed into the fourth.(Erskine May, pp. 6–12). The representative peer arrangements for Ireland followed the precedent of those for Scottish representative peers (sixteen of them) following the 1707 Act of Union (EM, p. 9).
Anson, at page 190, if I read him correctly, does describe England's peerage as merging into the peerage of GB, and then UK. I've spelled it out in a footnote. The Irish and Scottish representative peers weren't quite the same, the Scots only served for one parliament and the voting qualifications were different.
Afterthought: I think perhaps you could skirt round the matter by saying "consisted mainly of several hundred British hereditary peers", which isn't incorrect but avoids the distinctions between the four categories. Tim riley talk 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with 28 Irish representative peers and certain others, such as some Anglican archbishops and bishops" – the certain others being law lords (of whom there were four between 1876 and 1913 – EM, pp. 11–12 ), and the Lords Spiritual were the two archbishops and the twenty-four senior diocesan bishops (EM, p. 6)
Responding to the above two, I've put all that in a footnote. I have exact statistics as of 1909 but I don't want to put up too much of a wall between the reader and the meat of the article.
  • Candidates and campaign
  • "Commander-in-Chief, India, General Lord Herbert Kitchener" – this gives his title wrongly: unless Kitchener was the younger son of a duke or marquess, which he wasn't, his given name doesn't get into his title. He was General Lord Kitchener, but you could get away with calling him General Lord (Herbert) Kitchener.
  • Ah, I wasn't sure on that point.
  • "… objected because Curzon, as heir to a British title …" – this is the first we've heard of this heirdom, and it might be helpful to flesh it out slightly on the lines of "…objected because Curzon was heir to the British barony of Scarsdale and would retain his status..."
I've simply introduced Curzon as Baron Scarsdale's son and heir.
  • Sentence beginning "Freeman's Journal of Dublin pointed out ..." – I have three minor problems with this:
  • The article headlined "Lord Curzon's Pretentions" is actually headed "Lord Curzon's Pretensions"
  • The article thus headed is on page 6 of Freeman's Journal for 2 January 1908 and not on p. 16.
  • The article doesn't say that Curzon's father was 76 years old: it refers to him (wrongly) as "seventy-seven years old"
Errors fixed, 76 changed, alas, to elderly.

That's all I can find to carp about. Tim riley talk 10:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria and it has been a pleasure to read and review it. Tim riley talk 13:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks both for the review and the kind words. Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note

[edit]

Just noting that after today, I may be out for a couple of days for medical reasons, if there are further comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]
lead
  • among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to i'd remove "at that time", but i don't really mind
I prefer the way it is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • something required in order to vote in ==> "something required to vote in"
  • eligible to vote, and that remove the comma
  • among those who were eligible to vote ==> "among those eligible to vote"
  • did not apply to candidates, and declared Curzon remove the comma
background
  • House of Lords of Ireland, but provided for Irish representation remove the comma
  • voter's seal affixed, and remove the comma
  • with the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. i'd change this to either "with the Irish Free State's 1922 establishment" or "with the Irish Free State's establishment in 1922"
candidates and campaign
  • an Irish representative peer since 1890 died in Paris. bit confused here; what does "1890 died in Paris" mean
  • a successor as representative peer ==> "a successor as a representative peer"
I don't agree. It would be "a successor as MP" or "a successor as prime minister"
  • A total of 134 ballots were sent to eligible peers. ==> "134 ballots were sent to eligible peers."
  • It being thought that the viceroy and representative ==> "It was thought that the viceroy and representative" (i think)
  • also refused Curzon a earldom or "a" should be "an"
  • position in spite of the fact that Curzon had ==> "position although Curzon had"
  • supporters of the boycott, but was remove the comma
  • unfair to peers who had been waiting years for the honour ==> "unfair to peers waiting years for the honour"
I dont' agree. The present language better conveys that there were peers who had waited years for the item, although we don't know specifically who was being referred to.
  • people of Ireland, since the remove the comma
  • Irish nationalists, which 80 percent of Irish constituencies "percent" should be "per cent"
  • The number of them who exhibit Irish patriotism of any kind or degree are an insignificant minority. "are" should be "is". "The number" is singular, so the verb should also be singular.
I'm not certain about this. It's referring to multiple people so in BritEng shouldn't it take the plural?
I'm pretty sure. Maybe ask another editor, but i'm pretty sure it's this way. I don't mind too much
It's a quotation in any case from a newspaper so it should probably be left as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
election
  • by a number of peers that they ==> "by several peers that they"
  • Irish representative peers had claimed a right to vote, and had that claim upheld by the House of Lords, it did not require the same for the person elected. remove "it"
aftermath
  • Under a procedure set forth in the Act sounds excessively formal. i'd do "Under a procedure outlined in the Act "
I dont' agree. I've read that portion of the Act. It sets out in detail what must be done in the case of a tie, and was done for the only time in the November election.

That's all i got. fine work! 750h+ 13:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a few days before I respond. Health reasons.__Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just one comment above. No problem. 750h+ 13:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done or responded to. Thanks, 750h+
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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2024 [48].

Brochfael ap Meurig

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brochfael was king of Gwent in south-east Wales in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. He is chiefly known for having been one of the Welsh kings who submitted to the lordship of Alfred the Great in order to get protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians. Brochfael was involved in a number of disputes with Bishop Cyfeilliog, who is an FAC below, and was once threatened with excommunication for insulting the bishop. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Is there no image of the subject that could be included?
  • Suggest expanding the alt text

source review from sawyer777

[edit]

yay, a medieval Wales FAC!! one of my favorite topics. i'll get to this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sawyer777. There is another one below at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyfeilliog/archive1! Dudley Miles (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
aye, i'll give it a review if i've got the time and/or it stalls out & needs more feedback. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, let's get to it.

  • in the publishing location, the cities don't need ", UK" (or NY, for Ithaca) after them - there's no ambiguity about which London or Cardiff is being referred to. also, for Oxford University Press, having the location is a bit redundant as it's right in the name. not really a big deal though. overall, citation formatting & consistency is great.
  • no concerns about reliability; Iolo is nowhere to be found, and all of the sources are from solid academic publishers and authors. i see only three old sources, Haddan & Stubbs 1869, Evans & Rhys 1893, and Lloyd 1911, which are used perfectly reasonably.

small spot-check (ref numbers as of this revision):

  • ref 8 (a & b): good
  • ref 10: good
  • ref 15: good
  • ref 18: checked Charles-Edwards and Davies, both check out
  • ref 25: good

no significant issues i could find. support on sourcing. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Could "charter" be linked?
  • "in order to get protection". 'in order to gain protection' sounds a little more encyclopediac to my ear.
  • "Brochfael's acceded to the throne" ?
  • "and submitted to the West Saxon king." And who might this be? They don't seem to have been previously mentioned.
  • "and thus in an important step towards the unity of England." What unity of England? I think this needs unpacking a little further.

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

You wait years for an early medieval Wales FAC, and then...

  • Mercia claimed dominion over Wales: in the body, we've only said most of. How much are we talking here?
  • in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians: is oppression the right NPOV word here, or are we unwittingly parroting their/Alfred's spin on the situation? From what comes later, it sounds like the Ur-source here is Asser, who isn't exactly a neutral.
  • That is true, although as a monk of St David's Asser was more concerned with its oppression by the king of Dyfed. However, Asser's description is accepted by historians, and it is hard to see why the kings should have voluntarily submitted to Alfred if Æthelred was not oppressive. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there's the usual reasons that any ruler submits to another -- most obviously, feeling a choice between voluntarily submitting (hopefully with benefits or at least gentle treatment) and involuntarily submitting? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the chronological discussions about Gwent vs Glywysing in the body, I'd suggest putting a more concrete date on the map than just "early medieval".
Right, but we have In the seventh century, south-east Wales was one kingdom called Gwent, but by the ninth century it was divided between Glywysing (later Morgannwg and Glamorgan) in the west and Gwent in the east. If we stand by the text of our article, we can therefore say that the map (with Gwent and Glwysing undivided) shows the borders of those kingdoms as they were before the ninth century, at the very least. However, on closer inspection, I have some bigger worries about the map. It has White Castle, which was built after the Norman Conquest, and Grace Dieu Abbey, which wasn't founded until 1226. How certain can we be that the other toponyms and, in particular, the borders are accurate for the time we're discussing? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the label from Early medieval Wales to Medieval Wales in the light of your comments (also in the Cyfeilliog article). The map shows the area of the kingdoms. There is no better map which we can use which I am aware of, and I think it is much better than having no map. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but we do need to caption it appropriately. If the borders of Gwent on the map are not the borders of the kingdom of Gwent that we describe, we should say so; if it's a map of 13th-century Wales but happens to have a lot of the right places labelled, we should say that too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I missed this. The full map in the book is labelled 'Medieval Wales'. If it is of any date it seems to be 11th century as it has Gwent, which was conquered by the Normans soon after the Conquest, and Morgannwg, a name for Glywysing which came in at the end of the tenth century. (The legend says that "9" means Morgannwg and I wrote that it means Glywysing.) I do not have any source for specifying a date, and the map may include some earlier names, but I could change the caption to "Medieval south-east Wales. The number "9" means Morgannwg, a name for Glwywsing which came in by the year 1000." The borders are not exactly known and changed with the conquests and defeats in each generation. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • defeated the Vikings: "the Vikings" weren't (and aren't seen in scholarship) as a single group of people under that name -- we do, however, have the term "Great Heathen Army" for the force that Alfred defeated. Better to use that with some explanation?
I think we could do better, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the current approach is wrong. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was doubtful about putting in the battle at all as it is only peripherally relevant. I do not think we need to worry about using a term which is widely used by reliable sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceolwulf's successor as ruler of Mercia, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians at the Battle of the Conwy: needs a comma after Mercians, but consider reworking to streamline the syntax a bit.
Comma corrected, syntax much the same, but perfectly grammatical and readable. I suppose you could argue that the "Lord of the Mercians" epithet is superfluous in a sentence that says he was, well, lord of the Mercians, and just give his name as Æthelred. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we give any indication of the reasoning and the whys behind the different dates for Brochfael's accession?
  • I do not think that I can find citations for a more detailed explanation. As so often, historians assume knowledge of basic points. There is only one fixed point for Brochfael's dates, Asser's mention of him in the late 880s. Apart from that, it is a matter of historians' judgements on the dates of charters which mention him, and maybe in some cases who is being referred to. Bartrum dates him 830, which is obviously wrong as he is recorded into the tenth century. Davies dates him c.872-910. Sims-Wiliams does not give an accession date (so far as I know) and says that Owain probably became king of both territitories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owain probably became king of both territories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out. : I'm a bit uncomfortable here -- taking no position on your judgement here, I think it's OR to say "this looks too early" purely on our own initiative. At the moment, it sounds as though we have Davies saying 910, Sims-Williams saying 893, and Charles-Edwards saying before 918 (which is compatible with either). Has anyone actually put it in print that 893 is impossible? If not, I think WP:DUEWEIGHT means we need to include it, even if we weight it as a minority view. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree. Sims-Williams gives as a reason for the 893 date that Owain was recorded as king in 927, and cites pages in Charles-Edwards which do not support 893. Davies dates two charters of Brochfael to 905 and 910, and Sims-Williams has not questioned this dating so far as I know, or provided any reason for his 893 date. I think mentioning the date would be misleading without unreferenced qualifications. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found out the sources, and I agree that Sims-Williams is light on justification, but he does unambiguously give the terminus post quem for Owain's rule as c. 893, not 927. Rebecca Thomas, here (search "893") also gives 893 as the terminus post quem for Owain gaining control of Glywysing and Gwent. I'm not sure it needs to contradict what's in the article already, but I do think we need at least a footnote to the effect that both Sims-Williams and Davies say that Owain's rule over the two kingdoms began at some point after c. 893. We've given a terminus ante quem, so the other side of the date range is manifestly relevant, and we need to observe both WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:OR here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give a brief introduction, at least by approximate date, to the Book of Llandaff and the Life of King Alfred.
  • Ffernfael may have been subordinate to Brochfael: may therefore? I think we need something to tie the logic of this sentence into the previous one.
Does the source not connect those two dots at all? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brochfael's father Meurig gave grants in both territories, and Charles-Edwards and Davies think that he ruled them both as king of Glywysing: we've demoted the dissenting view into a footnote. I know it's two against one, but WP:DUEWEIGHT is not a vote -- do we have a separate good reason to think Sims-Williams is wrong? If not, I think we need to give the two sides equal billing.
  • Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy: suggest reminding us of the date, particularly for readers who won't go through the article top-to-bottom.
  • Brochfael and Ffernfael were joint kings of Gwent, and their cousin Hywel ap Rhys was King of Glywysing: this isn't wrong, per the MoS, but the capital on the second king reads oddly, and is inconsistent with how we've approached the same problem in the first sentence (Brochfael ap Meurig was king of Gwent in south-east Wales.. Would suggest decapitalising.
  • three modii (about 120 acres (50 hectares)) of land: you can avoid the awkward double brackets by replacing the outer set with dashes. This comes up twice.
De gustibus -- not a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latin text should be in lang templates, which will do the italics for you.
  • Quotations that are put into italics for language reasons don't then have quotation marks around them (MOS:"?)
  • Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle : this sounds as if we expect readers to know it already. Suggest "One [date?] manuscript of the ASC, known as Manuscript D, states..." Do the others omit this bit, though? That might be cause for concern?
  • I think Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is self-explanatory, and there is a link for readers who want more information. D is thought to be a northern version dating to the mid-eleventh century, and there is probably a good deal to say on this, but I do not have a source. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a style point rather than a clarity one. I think it's certainly relevant that the source is perhaps over a century later than the events it describes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She died in around 910: just around 910 is more concise and, I think, more natural English.
  • King of the people of Gwent: definitely needs a decap of king per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
  • he may have been the father of Gwriad ap Brochfael: and who was he?
  • This is a difficult one. It is based on Bartrum, whose dictionary covers a vast number of Welsh people in fact and legend up to 1000. It is published by the National Library of Wales and cited by historians, but there are signs of carelessness in some entries. I have changed the comment to a footnote covering Bartrum's speculations. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davies seems to argue with herself, and give two different dates (and levels of confidence) on Meurig's reign. Why have we given one of those in the body text (implicitly endorsing it) and the other as a footnote?
Personally, I'm not sure we can really do that, unless it's clear from context that one is definitely not the author's intent. I don't think we can definitely say that authors or editors stand more strongly by data presented in prose than data presented in tables. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with the last one, I enjoyed reading this -- a great job of reconstructing a life where the sources clearly make it difficult to know much for certain. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your very detailed and helpful review UndercoverClassicist. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles and UndercoverClassicist, how's this review coming along? FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my points on submission, captioning and dating are still live. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Only two quibbles from me:

  • In the second sentence of the lead I'd lose "while" if I were you, as although the context makes it clear that it just means "and", I feel it safer as a general rule not to use "while" unless you mean it in the temporal sense. There's no real danger here of "the Bishop preached the sermon while the Dean read the lesson" but you might like to consider an "and" or a semicolon instead of the "while".
  • In the Kingship section "Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy in 881" reads a little strangely to my eye. Somehow without the "Battle of…" before it – as at earlier mention – it looks odd, like saying "the Allies' victory at the River Plate" or "Nelson's victory at the Nile" or "the Allies and Axis forces at the Atlantic". Not wrong, but strikes an odd note, though I most definitely do not press the point, or indeed the one above it.
Well illustrated (a pity about the lack of a mug shot, but I see from the above that one is not to be had) and a good range of mostly modern sources. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm glad to support. I always enjoy reviewing Dudley's articles, but this time I had an uncovenanted bonus when my spell-checker announced that Brochfael should be either Rochdale or Bronchial. –Tim riley talk 11:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

I'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is "Brlochfael"? Is that a typo of Brochfael?
  • "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, and in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians." Suggest changing to "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, but in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians."
  • "The historian of Wales Thomas Charles-Edwards thinks that he may be the Meurig..." It's not clear that this is referring to the father, and not Brochfael ap Meurig.
  • Is there anywhere that "grants" can link to?
  • "In the previous generation, ..." Is this part of the sentence strictly necessary given that the latter part of that sentence establishes that it is talking about the father?
  • I would change "(about 120 acres (50 hectares))" to "(about 120 acres or 50 hectares)" using disp=or in the convert template. This solution avoids using double brackets. Same with "(about 240 acres (100 hectares))" to "(about 240 acres or 100 hectares)".
  • "...which Brochfael gave to his daughter, ..." Is this Brochfael's daughter or Cyfeilliog's daugher?
  • "Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that in 927 Owain, king of the people of Gwent..." Suggest adding a comma after 927 and before Owain.

That's all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceoil

[edit]

Have read through (with trivial edits) a few times and have been following the reviews above. Really like these Anglo-Saxon Kingship articles, and this one is very clearly written and precise with no unnecessary padding. Sourcing is excellent, and I gather that info is so scant that it easily passes comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ceoil. I have removed the word "believes" in your edits. Some historians strongly object to it as they think it implies an opinion not supported by reasoning, as with religious belief. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah was thinking you might :) Was trying to avoid "thinks" x 2, and there was the hedge "may be" just afterwards. It's something I struggle a bit when writing about the dating of Iron-age artifacts. So no worries. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

[edit]
  • Although the caption says that Glywysing is the 9, the map seems to suggest that that is Gwynllyg. Am I misreading it?!
  • The lead doesn't actually say much about Brochfael the king himself, more the regional politics.
  • "having a higher status" > the higher status.
  • Anothr map, showing the broader geography—where Mercia, Wessex etc were positioned in relation to Glywysing would be useful for the background. (Maybe a crop of this?)
  • I agree that a broader map would be helpful, but the one you link to is of Britain in 600, 300 years too early. There is a better map at [49], but it is of the mid 10th century and shows Gwent as one large territory, so it might confuse people. What do you think. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • re. Ffernfael's subordinacy, probably worth adding "Charles-Edwards has speculated", since no-one else has; indeed, it's odd that he doesn't mention the dangers of relying too heavily on charters when it is known that only a (random) percentage have survived.
  • I think "may have been subordinate" is sufficient qualification. Other historians have not made the point because Ffernfael is such a minor figure that he is rarely mentioned. He is only recorded twice, by Asser and as a witness to one charter of his father, and I think he probably died soon after Asser mentioned him, but of course I cannot says so. I take your point about charters and have qualified by saying "Ffernfael does not have any surviving charters of his own". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All from me. Nice one Dudley Miles, compact but comprehensive. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 13:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Unlimitedlead

[edit]
  • "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales..." Suggest changing to "The Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales..." for clarity.
  • "The historian of Wales..." This sounds like an official title. Suggest revising to: "Thomas Charles-Edwards, a historian specializing in Welsh history, thinks that Meurig...", or something of that vein in order for improved sentence flow.
  • Introduce Wendy Davies; we do not know who she is.
  • Why does Davies postulate a different date?
  • Can more be said about Brochfael's own family? The fact that he had a daughter is suddenly thrust open the reader in the last few sentences.

Please notify me when you have had the chance to reply to my concerns. Great work; it's always nice to see more history articles here at FA :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Another very readable article. The only minor point I would raise is the caption on the map, which refers to "Medieval south-east Wales"; as that covers about a millennia, and as the boundaries shifted (or at least territories merged and separated), can we be more precise on the date? Fair enough if the sources don't clarify tyhe point, but worth checking. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks SchroCat. On the map caption, see the discussion with UndercoverClassicist above. Any suggestions how to deal with this welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your suggestion further up of captioning Medieval south-east Wales. The number "9" means Morgannwg, a name for Glwywsing which came in by the year 1000, but would like to be even more explicit in the first part: something like Map of south-east Wales, showing sites from throughout the medieval period (c. 600 – c. 1300) (or whatever date range the book uses for "medieval"). It's not ideal that the map doesn't really match our time period, but it's a necessary evil -- however, I think we have to be really clear with readers so that they know what they are and are not getting. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that too. - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I forgot to mention in the blurb a curious point, which is that when I created this article, there were already articles about Brochfael in the French and Russian Wikipedias, but not in Welsh. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2024 [50].

Suicidal Tour

[edit]
Nominator(s): – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a tour undertaken by a Brazilian football club which quickly spiraled into chaos, becoming more and more unbelievable as it goes on. My first FAC! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Within the week, badger me if I forget. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, slow night at work, so here we are. Please don't be freaked out by the number of comments, I write down everything that comes to mind when reading FACs. Suggested re-phrasings are always suggestions, feel free to do your own thing. If sources don't have info that I'm asking about, don't worry about it. Finally, I'm always open to discussion or disagreement - you're the one who knows the content, and FAC reviewers aren't infallible. And away we go!

Lead

  • "looking to raise funds in friendly matches" - phrasing a bit odd here. Maybe "playing friendly matches to raise funds" or "playing friendly matches as a fundraiser"?
    Picked the first phrasing.
  • Nice use of "who knows what the truth is" footnote :)
    Thanks! :)
  • Sentence two is so, so long. Can it be split?
    Split into two, let me know if it needs to be split further.
  • "misfortune, danger, and tragedy" - this feels a bit like over-egging the pudding. Can we pick one?
    Went with misfortune.
  • Might link Nazism in Brazil since otherwise it's likely to be confusing (or maybe Brazil in World War II)
    Went with Brazil in World War II.

Natal

  • Any details about what the financial crisis was or why it was happening? (Was it related to WW2?)
    Added.
  • Link North Region again
    Done.
  • For the ignorant among us, how would playing exhibition matches make them money?
    I assume it was through ticket revenue, but none of the sources actually spell it out.
    There's nothing more funny yet annoying than running into a situation like that, where every source is like "obviously everyone will know what a blorbo is, I don't have to explain" and then it turns no one knows what the damn blorbo is because no one explained it
  • Recommend linking Brazil in World War II and maybe noting that German U-boats were patrolling the area, because many people might not realize they were
    Linked.
  • Actually, the above three suggestions might fit well in a "Background" section (and you could give some brief background on the team)
    Created the background section.
    Looking good! (years ago I got taught to do Background sections and I've found it's such a help with setting up the rest of the prose)
  • Is Santa Cruz from Pernambuco? I assume yes, but it's not clear - they could just be visiting there. Good fodder for the background section
    Yes. Added to background section.
  • "local state's team" - no link I guess?
    Nope, not even an interlanguage link. :(
  • Might want to clarify that Belem is a city, and add the state
    Added the state.
  • I don't think "by" is needed when you're giving a whole-game score. You don't "win by" 7-2, you win 7-2, and win by 5 points. See what I mean?
    Removed the "by"s.
  • Why is Remo 5 to 3 when everything else is given with a dash? Consistency is important
    Dash'd.
  • Might be worth clarifying that all those teams are based in the city of Belém, as that's not clear from context
    Added. Doesn't read too smoothly imo, but it works.
  • Are there no details in any sourcing about any of these games?
    There's some small details about them in modern sources, but definitely not anything substantial. Contemporary sources have some more stuff, but I'm not if in-game details really matter that much here, since the article is more about the overarching story than anything.
    Ah, just checking, in case any of them had any disastrous incidents :P

Manaus

  • Again, might want to clarify that Manaus is a city, and add the state
    Done.
  • Do we know who invited them?
    Clarified in background section.
  • Was the head of delegation a player also, or like a coach?
    Clarified in background section.
  • I know we don't always link countries, but I think Peru and Guyana are reasonably relevant links here
    Done.
  • Link Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Brazil)
    Done.
  • I know the answer is likely WW2, but why were clubs not supposed to leave?
    Added.
  • "Under the possibility of being suspended for 90 days" - phrasing a bit awkward here
    • Suspended from what?
      I don't know, none of the sources elaborate on what the "suspension" would be.
    • If they can be suspended for leaving, it's not really a request not to leave, is it?
      Clarified, hopefully.
    • I might suggest moving the suspension to the previous sentence, or rewording a bit
      Reworded.
  • "relapsed from the dysentery" - "had a relapse of dysentery" is more correct
    Done.
  • Are first names known for King and Papeira? If so, please include them on first mention; if not, maybe footnote it (if a roster is known, it might be worth putting one in a table in Background)
    I couldn't find Papeira's first name anywhere. Including only King's name is kind of awkward in my opinion, so I'd rather not add it. Added the roster.
    Fair. You may want to footnote somewhere about names being unknown/the one-word-nickname tradition thing
    Done.
  • "both having disobeyed previous medical orders" about what?
    Added.
    To be fair I'm not sure I could restrain myself from eating eggs and lobster either
  • "but all maritime travel was prohibited by the Brazilian government" - since when? they were boating before, no?
    Added date.

Belém

  • "Defender Pedrinho" first name thing again
  • Did Pedrinho still get to play in the game?
    I'm not sure if he did play against Remo, but he did play against Paisandu on the 9th. Added.
  • "was also a club director, and was interested in the player's abilities." - so... he was going to arrest him then seduce him into joining his own team?
    Correct!
    • I'm dying to know how he thought that was going to go, loooool
  • "Sidinho, who had defected to the club a week earlier" - who is Sidinho? What is "the club" that he defected to?
    Added him to the roster at the top (confusingly, there's two players named Sidinho, and sources don't agree on how to spell their names...). "To the club" is a typo, it should've just been "defected the club". Rewrote the whole sentence.
  • "The club then played..." I would flip the clauses in this sentence and remove "then"
    Done? I'll be honest, I'm not happy with either version
    • Fair, I think it works better this way but if you want to change it another way it won't affect my support
  • "before the end of the game" could tighten to "during the game"; similarly "After the end of the match" could be tightened to "After the match"
    Done.
  • commemorated - I think you might want commiserated instead
    Done.
  • "the Taça Cidade de Recife" - the what
    Translated "taça" to "trophy".
    • Sure, but what's the trophy for? I thought these were largely exhibition matches?
      Clarified.
  • "starting the journey back" via? And if by boat, when did the government stop prohibiting maritime travel? (or are we riverboating here)
    Via boat. No idea when they started allowing it again.
    Is it possible to try to track this down? It's just that it sort of presents a thread that can be pulled on. If you can't find it, that's fine.
    No dice.
  • Were the trophies valuable in and of themselves?
    Probably? Since they went out of their way to hide them, they probably had some value, but I can't verify it.
  • "boat was retained" - I think you want detained
    I think either one works, see wikt:reter#Portuguese.
    Sure but we're not writing in Portuguese; "retain" in English lacks implication of legal matters that "detain" has.
    Done.
  • for the Campeonato Pernambucano - context? Even if you just say "the state championship, the Campeonato Pernambucano"
    Done.

Okay! Overall I think this is a well-researched and interesting article. It could use some polishing to get to the FA level, but it's definitely doable and I look forward to seeing it get there. No rush on responses. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I've addressed all of your comments. Thank you for checking my article! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hilst:, responses to a few things above, anything not commented on looks fine to me. The question about the value of the trophies has no response - possibly missed? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, I have no idea how I missed that. Sorry! Unless I've missed something else, @Premeditated Chaos, it's done! sorry for the pings too lmao – Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I'm a support :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

[edit]

Committing to a review in the next couple of days. Congratulations on the successful GAN for this, and welcome to FAC! joeyquism (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilst: Apologies for taking so long to get to this. The article seems to be in pretty good shape after the preliminary reviews before mine; however, for the sake of being comprehensive, I've noted a few things below. Feel free to refuse with justification:

Lead

  • The introduction of the term "Suicidal Tour" in the lead feels a bit late. From MOS:BOLDLEAD:
If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence:
The electron is a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge. (Electron)
Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way:
The United States presidential line of succession is the order in which officials of the United States ... (United States presidential line of succession)
Perhaps the lead paragraph can have its sentences rearranged and reformatted so that the first sentence refers explicitly to this term? Otherwise, do not fret too much about this critique; I haven't seen it mentioned in other reviewers' comments, so unless that becomes a point of contention, I will not base my final stance on this entirely. Leaving this as a suggestion.
I thought similar. I have put a proposed draft lead on the talk page of this FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm liking what you've proposed as a solution. joeyquism (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Not sure if "Brazilian Portuguese" needs to be included before "Excursão da Morte".
    Removed.
  • No comma before "due"?
    Not needed with the new lead.
  • I'm noticing that Brazil in World War II is linked here; however, it does not appear to be linked anywhere else in the article. Would this be appropriate as a replacement for World War II link in the Background section?
    I think that link would be a bit too MOS:EGGy for my taste.

Background

  • I'm a bit confused by "subsist off of their suburban football fields" - is there something about the quality of these fields that using them would be seen as subsistence? Sorry if this is a silly question; I'm mostly just wondering. Feel free to tell me if answering does not seem worthwhile.
    They were subsisting off the revenue from leasing them to other people/clubs. Changed it to "subsist off of the revenue from their suburban football fields".
  • What is meant by "buying" here? I'm not into the euphemistic use of words in articles; a clarification would be much better.
    Buying as in paying Transviário so that they would play a few matches against Santa Cruz. Feel free to suggest a reword, I can't think of anything. Removed the quotes around buying.
  • The semicolon after "players" should be a colon, as it's coming before a list
    Done.

Natal and Belém

  • Would it be worth it to mention that this was a relatively untroubled time for the team during their tour? Just an observation; if sourcing for such a claim is not possible, I'd say it's alright to go without it.
    No source says this as far as I can tell, sorry.
  • No double link for Pernambuco; it's linked in the previous section.
    Already done.
  • No comma after "lights off"
    Done.
  • No comma after "3-3"
    That one was added by Gog, btw. Done.

Manaus

  • "Thrice" is a bit of an outdated word; "three times" should be good
    Done.
  • "as they were "attracted by good offers" from local teams - Not sure about the quotes again. Is this quote lifted from the sources, or is there some larger situation that is being euphemized by this phrase?
    Lifted from Aragão 1979.
  • "two players had a relapse of dysentery" - Did they get dysentery again, or did their health deteriorate as a result of having a sustained case of dysentery? Just wondering.
    The latter, I assume.

Belém to Recife

  • "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl" - Same issues as other noted usages of quotes.
    It's a quote from Aragão 1979, who lifted it straight from the mentioned telegram. Rewrote the proceeding sentence slightly so it's easier to determine where it came from. (Also moved the source up since that got left behind in a rewrite.)
  • For footnote D, "Some sources incorrectly report the date as 3 March." - Is this known to be incorrect, or is there simply a discrepancy between sources (there is a difference)? If it's the latter, I would remove "incorrectly".
    It's the latter. Done.
  • No comma after "Cidade do Recife trophy"
    Done.
  • Is there an aftermath/legacy to all of this? Might be a big ask to include, but if there's information/analysis on this tour's impact, I think it would be worth it to include in the article.
    I don't think there is anything out there detailing it's legacy.

Overall, a very nice article on an interesting (albeit tragic) topic. I'll read over it again after my comments have been addressed. Looking forward to hearing back from you, and I hope you're having a wonderful start to your week. joeyquism (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism: All done! Sorry for taking so long to answer your comments, oops. – Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hilst: Looking a lot better! Happy to support this for promotion. joeyquism (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Link football in the lead, so we know exactly which sport we are talking about
    Done.
  • In the lead you have "friendly match" (unlinked) but in the body you have "exhibition match" (linked).
    Swapped the links and renamed the second instance to friendly.
    Both should be linked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • "including a lack of funds, the threat of Nazi attacks and deaths" => "including a lack of funds, the threat of Nazi attacks, and deaths"
    Done.
  • Link the club again in the body (and also show full name, like in the lead)
    Done.
  • "where they beat Transviário Esporte Clube 7–2, Tuna Luso 3–1" => "where they beat Transviário Esporte Clube 7–2 and Tuna Luso 3–1"
    Done.
  • "drew with the Pará state team 3–3, 4–4 with Paysandu" => "drew 3–3 with the Pará state team and 4–4 with Paysandu"
    Done.
  • "While the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém to be the last ones of the excursion" => "Although the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém to be the last ones of the excursion"
    Done.
  • "they lost their first game in Amazonas to Olímpico by 3–2" => "they lost their first game in Amazonas 3–2 to Olímpico"
    Done.
  • "the head of delegation and six players" => "the head of the delegation and six players"
    Done.
  • "Defender Pedrinho was sent an arrest warrant" - I am pretty sure that arrest warrants are not sent to the suspect. Maybe "An arrest warrant was issued for defender Pedrinho"
    Fixed.
  • "being accused of "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl"" => "as he was accused of "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl""
    Done.
  • "It turned out that the police officer who ordered his arrest was also a club director" - which club?
    No idea, none of the sources mention it by name.
  • "Santa Cruz entering the field before a game in Belém." - this doesn't need a full stop
    Removed.
  • Do we really need the exact time of King's death and (particularly) funeral? If you feel we do, I think they should be shown using the 12-hour clock i.e. 2.35am and 4.00pm
    Removed the funeral time. I believe the 24-hour format is more appropriate here, since that's the one that is used in Brazil.
  • "At 16:30,[16] before the end of the game" => "At 4.30pm,[16] before the end of the game"
    See above.
  • "but had to return to São Luís due a thunderstorm" => "but had to return to São Luís due to a thunderstorm"
    Fixed.
  • "The players then decided to go to Teresina, Piauí, via train" => "The players then decided to go to Teresina, Piauí, by train"
    Done.
  • "Papeira's briefcase was given to his family, but King's briefcase could not be returned" - just a guess as I can't read the source but I suspect they were suitcases rather than briefcases
    Done.

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done all, thanks for commenting! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
[edit]
  • "buying a five-game season for five million Brazilian réis per match" - what does this mean? They had to pay 25 million reis to undertake the tour? Would that not make their finances worse rather than better?
    In the short-term, yes, but I assume the revenue they got from those first few matches was enough to cover the costs.
  • "it took two weeks for the squad to arrive to the state of Amazonas" => "it took two weeks for the squad to arrive in the state of Amazonas"
    Done.
  • "Three players, Cidnho, Omar and França" - first name seems to be spelt wrong
    Fixed.
  • "Papeira played barefoot" - when? This section seems to be describing a journey and doesn't reference any matches
    I don't know. None of the sources say when.
  • "He would play for Santa Cruz shortly after" => "He would play for Santa Cruz shortly afterwards"
    Done.
  • "Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly after" => "Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly afterwards"
    Done.

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All done! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 19:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "they played over 25 matches". Is the exact number of matches played not known? Ok, one needs to read the unobtrusive note. Suggest 'they played either 26 or 28 matches'.
  • PS. The lead is meant to be a summary of the main article, but I can't see this mentioned in the latter.
I think you missed this one.
Oops. I'm a bit confused by this suggestion: should I add they played either 26 or 28 matches to the main article or should I change the note to say that?
IMO this important enough to be included in the lead - your suggestion works - rather than buried in a note. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Leads are not usually cited, as they are summaries of the main articles, which will be cited.
    Removed.
  • "and had to subsist off of their football grounds". I don't understand how their grounds (why plural?) helped them financially.
    I assume it was through leasing them to third parties. Changed wording so its closer to what's said in the source.
  • "and the monthly payments from their associates." What associates? I mean, are we even talking people or organisations? And why were they paying money to the club?
    People. Associates in this case are fans who pay a monthly/annual fee for benefits like discounted ticket prices and merchandise. Check out the second paragraph of Sports club § Organization
When I ask a question I am not asking it for my benefit, but for that of future readers. You have given a fine succinct explanation in answer to my query, along with a link. Could it be incorporated in line in the article?
I think incorporating it inline makes the paragraph too clunky. I've trimmed the explanation down a bit and added it as a note.
  • "Santa Cruz's directors decided to take a "quick spin" in the North Region". Why the colloquialism and the unattributed quote? 'take a short tour' would be more encyclopedic.
    It's a quote from Aragão 1979. Replaced.
When quoting, bear in mind the MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • Who or what were "Transviário Esporte Clube"?
    Clarified.
  • "The tour started at the height of World War II". What does at the height of mean. Perhaps 'in the middle of'.
    Done.
  • "Due to fears of possible Nazi submarine attacks". Replace "Nazi" with 'German'.
    Done.
  • "Afterwards, Santa Cruz traveled to" → 'Afterwards, the delegation traveled to'.
    Done.
  • "Although the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém". Suggest deleting "for".
    Done.
  • "The club left for Manaus on 25 January". I suggest you stick with "delegation" throughout.
    Done.
  • In the first paragraph of the Manaus section I suggest that you make it clear that they were travelling up the Amazon River.
    Done.
  • "both having disobeyed the medical orders." What were the medical orders, and in what way were they disobeyed?
    They're defined in the previous paragraph. Clarified.
  • "Santa Cruz intended to return ..." This reads oddly. Firstly, in what way is the football club synonymous with the delegation; secondly, I don't see how a football club is capable of intentionality, this is usually reserved for people.
    Changed to delegation.
  • A map of Brazil showing the key places mentioned would greatly help.
    Costa 2020 has such a map, but I don't know its copyright status. I could make a free map, but I have no experience with this sort of thing.
Oh the fun I had (not) doing maps for my first two FACs! So I left myself some notes and a couple of examples at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#Maps. I have added the start of a Brazil map at the bottom - see how good to you I am. The map documentation is at Template:Location map many. The Wikipedia article on each location has its coordinates at the top right, click to get a conversion to decimal. You should be able to take it from there to fill in the other locations. Have fun and shout if you have queries.
Lol, thanks. Done.
Perhaps add the location of Santa Cruz's home ground? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "An arrest warrant was sent for defender Pedrinho". What do you mean by "was sent for"?
    They received a telegram from Manaus ordering his arrest. Rewrote sentence.
  • "the police officer who ordered his arrest was also a club director". Of which club? Santa Cruz?
    Not mentioned in sources.
  • "Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly thereafter". Suggest 'Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly after'.
    Done.
  • "being accompanied by a large crowd." Suggest deleting "being".
    Done.
  • "Due to King's death, Cidinho, who had defected from Santa Cruz a week earlier, returned to the club." Who was Cidinho, why did he "defect", what does "defect" mean here, and why did King's death cause him to return?
    A player; he left so he could join another club in Manaus, see the last paragraph of the Manaus section; defect as in abandon (wording used in a source, can change if needed); I don't know.
How come we know that Cidinho returned "due" to King's death, but not why? It seems odd and reads very oddly.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Costa 2020 only says: Because of his teammate's death, Sidinho gave up on leaving the delegation and going to play in Manaus. I agree that it's quite odd. I can remove it if you want me to.
Bleh! How would you feel about replacing "due" with 'after'? Thus removing guesses at Cidinhos's motivation.
Done.
  • "A minute of silence was held before the match." It would be more usual to say 'A minute of silence was observed before the match.'
    Done.
  • What is "the Cidade do Recife trophy"?
    I believe its just a random tournament Paysandu made up for a symbolic gift. The source says that "the Paysandu board [offered] the club the Cidade do Recife Trophy, played between those two great clubs and which ended in a draw for each team."
  • "substituting for an injured teammate." The cook won't have been a teammate of the injured player. Better to say something like 'injured member of the delegation'.
    I think "substituting for an injured player" is the best option here.
Yes, that works.
  • "The players returned to playing football on 2 May". "returned to"? They had just played 26/28 matches.
    Changed.
  • You state it is disputed whether 26 or 28 matches were played, then list every one. Which two are disputed?
    Not every match is listed. I don't know which ones are disputed, Aragão 1979 doesn't list all of them.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment "The tour became known as the Suicidal Tour (Brazilian Portuguese: Excursão Suicída) and the Death Tour (Brazilian Portuguese: Excursão da Morte)" is in the lead, the summary, but I don't see anything in the main article to be so summarised. Am I missing something? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure how that should be included in the article. It feels out of place in "Belém to Recife", and it doesn't really merit it's own section.
Putting it at the end of Belém to Recife seems ok to me. Or retitle the section. (Return home and aftermath?) The number of matches they played also needs to go in somewhere.
After combing through sources, I couldn't find anything about how it became known as that. I don't think that info is really needed anymore since the lead got reworded. Added the match number.
A couple more come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Done! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 17:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source review from sawyer777

[edit]

an interesting topic and it looks like no one's done a source review yet, so i'll do one this weekend probably. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, getting to it.

  • the sources seem perfectly reliable for this topic; we've got some sports publications and good Brazilian newspapers.
  • Guedes (2023) probably does not need to be a shortened footnote if it's not paginated/sectioned.
    Turned into full ref.
  • not all citations have ISSNs - where they're available, this is useful info to add & will make the cites more consistent.
    Done.
  • all of the sources are in Brazilian Portuguese, so i'll be relying on machine translation for spot-checks. if any Lusophones happen upon this page and take issue with my assessment, i defer to them.
  • spot-check as of this revision:
    • ref 2a - good
    • ref 5b - good
    • ref 11a - good
    • ref 15c - good
    • ref 23e - good

i will continue combing through in case i notice anything else. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer777: Sorry for bothering you, but do you have any further comments? – Hilst (talk | contribs) 10:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no worries - no, i don't think i have any other comments. support on sourcing. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

As I watched Santa Cruz play a few times when I lived in Recife, it's great to see them at FAC - comments to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • This is really short and doesn't really do the article justice. There's a lot of information that could be used to give a more complete picture of the tour.
    Expanded a bit.
  • You need to identify where SC were from. At the moment, people have to get into the body to find out one of the key bits of information about the team.
    Done.
  • The image is great, but I think you should make it a bit easier to identify the two dead players, as the two crosses aren't terribly clear. Highlighting, (such as like this) would work. (This is a suggestion only, but it's worth thinking about)
    @SchroCat: I agree. Should I trace over the crosses to make them more clear or should the two players be highlighted like in the linked pic? I'm asking since I couldn't find a high-resolution unmarked version, and having two identification bits seems a bit overkill for me. – Hilst (talk | contribs) 14:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your choice. You can either circle, or maybe make the crosses red - as it's a B&W photo, the colour should make it clear for most people. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made the crosses red. It's my first time editing an image for an article, so let me know if I did something wrong. – Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "The club had poor performances" is a slightly cumbersome (and misleading!) sentence. May be worth rephrasing slightly as:

The team were performing poorly, and the club owed wages to several of its staff, and had to subsist off the revenue from their suburban football fields and the monthly payments from their associates.[c][4]

  • Done.
  • "Santa Cruz's directors" -> "The club's directors"
    Done.
  • "tour in the North Region" -> "tour of the North Region"
    Done.
  • "participate in" -> "play"
    Done.
  • As with the comments below, I also don't understand "buying a five-game season for five million Brazilian réis per match" – you may need to clarify this a little
    Reworded.
Natal and Belém
  • For WP:ACCESS compliance, the caption should read "Santa Cruz's home city of Recife is marked with a blue dot."
    Done.
  • "against the local state's team" -> "against the state team". (I presume this either doesn't exist any more, or was a 'special' team made up of the best of the other local teams?)
    Done. I believe that it was the latter.
  • "Afterwards, the delegation traveled" -> "The delegation then traveled" (they couldn't have travelled before or during)
    Done.
Manaus
  • "plenty of fruits and vegetables" -> "plenty of fruit and vegetables"
    Done.
  • You need to show a conversion for the nautical miles. Use {{convert|10|nmi|km mi|spell=in}}, which gives you "ten nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi)"
    Done.
Belém to Recife
  • "to gather more money" -> "to earn money"
    Done.
  • "The story was fake, and the player was never arrested". You've already said the story was fake, so no need to repeat that, unless you turn it to: "As the accusation was falsified, the player was never arrested"
    Reworded.
  • I think you can upscale the picture a bit – add upright=1.2| to the markup to get it to a better size
    Done.
  • King's death: do we need to know the time? I think we can just stick with the date here.
    Removed.
  • "At 16:30,[21]": I dislike citations so early in a sentence, partly because they distract readers, but partly because all this is supporting is the fact that the time 16:30 happened: it doesn't support that the news broke at this time (that's all in the next set of citations at the end of the sentence). This should be moved to the end to join the others.
    Done.
  • "ship's cook as a player, substituting for an injured player" -> "ship's cook, substituting for an injured player" – no loss of comprehension and avoids the double 'player'
    Done.
  • "presence of German submarines in the sea": you don't need the last three words (where else would they be?)
    Done.
  • "either 26,[1] or 28 matches": that comma isn't needed
    Done.
Citations
  • Is there a reason you've provided a translation for some of the BrPort sources (FNs 6, 9, 12, 19, 20 and 24), but not the others?
    Done.
I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilst, A nudge on these comments, as you've done the ones below. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: All done! Thanks for commenting and sorry for the delay :) – Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • buying a five-game season for five million Brazilian réis per match - I don't understand what that means.
    Reworded. Any better?
  • The team's delegation consisted of sixteen players, a president, who also acted as the treasurer and the team's coach; and a referee from the Pernambuco Sports Federation - I think this would read more clearly like this: "The team's delegation consisted of sixteen players, a president—who also acted as the treasurer and the team's coach—and a referee from the Pernambuco Sports Federation".
    Done.
  • Afterwards, the delegation traveled to Belém, Pará, playing five games against Belém-based teams - Maybe "against teams based in that city"?
    Done.
  • and subsequently lost to Remo 5–3 - I think it would be better to write the result from the perspective of the team the article deals with, so 3–5. There are other instances of this throughout the text.
My bad, then. Ignore what I said there. Thank you, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, use {{nbnd}} for the results.
    Done.
  • Manaus, Amazonas should be "Manaus, Amazonas," for consistency's sake.
    Done.
  • ordering the arrest of defender Pedrinho, which accused him of - Maybe it's "who was accused of" what you mean?
    Done.
  • with either 26, or 28 matches - No need for that comma.
    Done.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: All done! Thanks for commenting :) – Hilst (talk | contribs) 12:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Image licence, placement and ALT text seems OK. I wonder where NordNordWest got the lines in File:Brazil location map.svg from. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are named in the file description: NIMA and WDB II data. NNW (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was rather blind on my part... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 5 September 2024 [51].

Born to Run

[edit]
Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's third studio album Born to Run. A make a break record for the singer-songwriter, it's easy to say he made it (very well). Now regarded by many as his magnum opus (although this editor would argue Darkness on the Edge of Town or Nebraska), I rewrote this article from the ground up and after its GAN it went through a helpful peer review and I believe it's now ready for the star. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

[edit]

It's great to see an article on a major popular music album here instead of the more common FACs on modern pop. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • " was designed to break him into the mainstream" - bit clunky
  • "the band and producers spent six months alone working on the title track" - seems like trivia for the lead
  • I would say otherwise because it displays how "prolonged and grueling" the sessions were; plus, most songs did not take that long to record, especially at the time. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Springsteen's lack of direction and confidence" - this appears out of the blue after text that stresses that Springsteen was ambitious about the record
  • Removed confidence
  • "Springsteen was sent multiple mixes as he was on the road and rejected all of them, approving the final one in early August." - this needs to be tweaked: if he rejected all of them how could he have approved one?
  • "such as a road can take you anywhere" - I suspect that a 'that' is missing here
  • Fixed
  • ""Born to Run" uses an automobile to escape from a depressing life" - this is unclear
  • "The success of Born to Run revitalized Springsteen's career" - this is unclear given the article previously stresses that the album led Springsteen to move from relative obscurity into stardom.
  • Same issue with that. 'Saved' seems appropriate if it's what the sources used (though it's hard to believe that Springsteen wouldn't have had a decent chance of making a successful music career given his skills). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had the album been performed live in total before 2008?
  • Not that I could find. Setlists for the Born to Run tours are hard to find. I know he has performed all the songs from Born to Run quite often since 1975, but the album itself in order front to back I could not find. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Apologises for my slow response here - I was travelling and the pings fell through the cracks. Those changes look good, and I think that the FA criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "By 1974 his popularity was limited to United States East Coast" => "By 1974 his popularity was limited to the East Coast of the United States"
  • "Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and the E Street Band" => "Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and his backing band the E Street Band"
  • Changed to "backing group" so we're not saying band twice
  • "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestra" => "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestras"
  • "Bittan mostly replaced Federici on the album, whose sole contribution" => "On the album Bittan mostly replaced Federici, whose sole contribution"
  • "The stunt generated interest the track" => "The stunt generated interest in the track"
  • "a long saxophone solo from Clemons, which he spent 16 hours replaying to Springsteen's satisfaction;[71] he dictated almost every note played" - it's ambiguous who the "he" is in the last part
  • Clarified it's the latter
  • "The seven known outtakes from the album included" - using "included" doesn't really work when you then list all seven. Change "included" to "are"
  • "The song contains autobiographical elements to Springsteen's youth" - don't think the grammar works here. Maybe "The song contains autobiographical elements related to Springsteen's youth".......?
  • "Following his demise, death and destruction continues across the streets" => "Following his demise, death and destruction continue across the streets"
  • "Springsteen's guitar strap dons an Elvis Presley pin" - I don't think an inanimate object can really "don" something. Maybe "On Springsteen's guitar strap is an Elvis Presley pin"
  • Changed to "An Elvis Presley pin appears on Springsteen's guitar strap,"
  • "The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers poll" => "The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers' poll"
  • "receiving both critical praiseand from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis" => "receiving praise both from critics and from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis"
  • "and moved different studios" - should this be "and moved to different studios"? "and moved between different studios"? I doubt he physically moved the studios........
  • Clarified 'between'

Ceoil

[edit]

Placeholder. Was part of the PR and intend to continue the review, but it may be a few days. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil Friendly reminder :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the co-ords re this timing out; I'm a likely support but haven't had the chance to re-look since the PR. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said my piece at the PR, where my main concerns were addressed. Support especially given all the work from other reviewers below. Ceoil (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moise

[edit]

Placeholder for me too. I'll try to start my review soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get started this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (as usual, I'll add them as I go along, in some cases one at a time):

  • "The band went back and forth between studio recording and live performances." This could be clearer. What exactly does "go back and forth between" mean here? Does live performances that aren't in the studio mean concert performances? Maybe it means some kind of jamming (because it says Springsteen used these to develop new material)? Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes concert performances. To me it's clear but I can see how you got confused. Clarified.
  • "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestras and had previously known of Springsteen's music, but Weinberg had not and had experience with various rock bands and Broadway productions." A bit awkward overall. "Weinberg had not" presumably is only referring to "had previously known of Springsteen's music" but it's not totally clear. In a way "experience with various rock bands and Broadway productions" emphasizes the rock/Broadway vs. symphony, which may suggest "Weinberg had not" is also about the symphony, which sounds like an unusual thing to say. Moisejp (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separated them into different sentences.
  • "The songs themselves feature introductions that set the tone and scene for each." Maybe specify the kind of introduction this is referring to, I imagined you meant extended musical bits before the singing starts. Moisejp (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "musical"

Thanks, Zmbro. I've finished my first read-through. I'll be busy the next few days but hope to get back to this review later in the week. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I did another read-through and am now satisfied the article meets the requirements. Moisejp (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
No, I'd say this is the realest Springsteen album. Before he really went commercial and then political ....

My comments:

  • "The album cover, featuring Springsteen leaning on E Street Band saxophonist Clarence Clemons's shoulder, is considered iconic and has been recreated by various musicians and in other media." I'm not sure recreated is the word. Maybe (not sure) imitated?
  • Changed to imitated
  • "By 1974 his popularity was limited to East Coast of the United States," Should be a "the" in there.
  • Fixed
  • "the then upcoming artist Billy Joel" this should probably have a hyphen somewhere in it.
  • Fixed
  • "the label conceded" Maybe "the label agreed"
  • Done
  • "From the Churches to the Jails, The Hungry and the Hunted, War and Roses, and American Summer.[23]" is it worth mentioning that some of these are lyrics in the completed album?
  • "an early version" a demo?
  • "By January 1975, the band had been working for over a year with only one finished track." Maybe " ... the one finished track"?
  • Removed the 'only'
  • "and the highway as a means of escape and coming-of-age journey ... "Jungleland" I'm not quite clear on who uses the highway as a means of escape/comes of age in "Jungleland".
  • The source has the song listed in quotes; I assume the authors grouped it there since the song takes place on a street and tells the story of the Magic Rat and his unnamed girlfriend. Think I should just separate it in a new description? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the songs on Born to Run are not specifically tied to New Jersey and New York" none of them? Really?
  • "According to Masur, the Rat was gunned down by his "own dream"." Why does that need Masur? That's what the lyrics say, "the Rat's own dream guns him down". And the quote makes it sound like it's Masur's words, not Springsteen's.
  • The quote after "symbolizing" is Masur's. Reworded to clarify.
  • "Following his demise, death and destruction continue across the streets until they are left in complete devastation" "they wind up wounded, they're not even dead"?
  • Removed 'death and'
  • "an article by Henry Edwards in The New York Times that slandered both himself and Born to Run." Slandered is a pretty strong word. Is it justified here?
  • The Greil Marcus paraphrase would probably be better as a direct quotation. If you're going to paraphrase at that level of detail, you are probably better off with a quote.
  •  Not done Will come back to this one. I'm sure Ceoil won't approve of the full quote so I wanna get his opinion (I also can't access the source for whatever reason atm). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the album nominated for any awards at the time of its original release?
  • Is the action of the state assembly to try to make the song Born to Run the state's unofficial rock theme worthy of mention?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]

My review will be focusing on prose exclusively. Ippantekina (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina are you still planning on offering a review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, please bare with me as I'm figuring how to contribute to this review taking into account the opinions of other reviewers here--but it's a positive thus far. Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way this article is organized and written, very interesting. My concerns are mostly regarding the tone of language here and there:

  • "... via lyrical imagery steeped in the romantic images of highways and travel" would something like "... via romantic lyrical imagery of highways and travel" work?
  • Done
  • Sometimes the language seems editorializing somewhat ("dense, crisp, and energetic yet difficult-to-achieve", "grueling sessions", "the cinematic storytelling and music"). I'd try to frame them as opinions rather than facts as the current language implies.
  • I'm curious; does this part include false titles? "saxophonist Clarence Clemons, organist Danny Federici, pianist David Sancious, bassist Garry Tallent, and drummer Ernest Carter;"
Yes this reads better. Ippantekina (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a favorite of artists such as Aerosmith and John Lennon" "who had recently engineered Lennon's Rock 'n' Roll album (1975)" I'm unsure how these help with the prose
  • Cut
  • nitpick-y "The songs themselves feature musical introductions that set the tone and scene for each"
  • Cut
  • Attribution needed for quotes e.g. The characters are "grounded",[102] regular people[103] "trapped by the space they inhabit" Utilizing a "four corners approach" to album sequencing
  • nitpick-y "Springsteen has said that" (I was told somewhere that it's best to avoid the present-perfect tense, though I'm open to discuss)
  • I'd strongly disagree that the present perfect shouldn't be used in articles, and in fact I come across lots of articles where I feel it should be used more. The simple past and present perfect serve different functions. The simple past is used when the time in the past that it happened (or was said) is explicitly indicated, or very clear from the context. Or if the person who said it is no longer alive. But the present perfect is open-ended and if it was said somewhat later than what it was being said about (not shortly after), I almost always use the present perfect. Using both tenses in tandem help separate the two timelines of what was initially happening, and what people have said about it later (if you use only the simple past, these two timelines get unnaturally compressed into one). That's a simplified explanation of how their usage is different, and there are nuances when (if it was me) I might have a special reason not to follow such guidelines, but in general that's how I write. Moisejp (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pay extra attention to quotation (WP:LQ) e.g. Masur argues the song "lays out hopes and dreams, and the remainder of the album is an investigation into whether, and in what ways, they can be realized."
  • Fixed
  • I'm not sure if other reviewers have pointed this out, but I'd like to see a short sample of a song that can demonstrate the musical styles/instruments of this album.

— Ippantekina (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina Replies above. I can work on getting a sample of the title track here in a bit. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my first comments! Some more comments, this time I've read through to "Critical reception":
  • Do we have the location of Eric Meola's photo studio?
  • I think it's common to capitalize East Coast of the US
  • Fixed
  • "Born to Run continued to be a strong catalog seller through the years, re-entering the Billboard Top LPs & Tape chart in late 1980 after Springsteen's fifth album The River was released,[173] and again after the blockbuster success of his seventh album Born in the U.S.A. (1984), spending most of 1985 on the chart.[174][175]" It'd be great if we have a third-party source rather than Billboard for this part. I think the current sources provide just the Billboard 200 chart info and could be a case of SYNTH
  • This paragraph was there before expansion but I never liked it because it interrupts chronological flow, and as you said it's all primary sources. None of the sources I have really back any of this up so I'm going to removed the whole thing if you are fine with that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was certified triple-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America in 1986" it was previously mentioned that the album is 6-times platinum
  • "In October 1975,[177] he Springsteen became the first artist..."
  • Fixed
  • "that defines what is a "magnificent" album"
  • Fixed
  • "felt the lyrics were more accessible and having a "universal quality that transcends the sources and myths he drew upon"." grammatical error here?
  • Changed to 'possessed'
  • "Springsteen's homage to girl groups from the 1960s, particularly ones embellishing themes of heartbreak and doo-wop sounds produced by Spector" might this be mentioned in "Music and lyrics"?
  • Format-wise, I suggest adding rowheader to the "Charts" tables, and separate them by year, as sorting doesn't work for the 3 separate years...
  • Fixed

Ippantekina (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. A very well-researched and well-written article. @Zmbro: regarding the audio sample I think a short one of the title track could do (the wall of sound production). That track has been on my Spotify's "On Repeat" for 2 months now fyi... Ippantekina (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was thinking I've just been procrastinating lol. Thanks again! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Images

  • I worry about the provenance of File:SpringsteenMadison.jpg - it doesn't look like an user-made photo and TinEye claims that it existed once at this page. In my experience, you cannot satisfy WP:NFCC#8 when your image only illustrates a subtopic of the article, so File:Born2Add.jpg probably must go. Otherwise it seems fine, but not all files have ALT text.

Sources

  • I wonder what kind of source "Wings for Wheels: The Making of Born to Run" is.
  • What makes AllMusic a reliable source - I remember that it weren't one.
  • AllMusic is considered reliable over at WP:RSMUSIC: Biography/staff reviews are reliable, but do not use sidebar, as it may be user-generated or otherwise separately sourced from the prose. Their reviews/star ratings are typically included on every album article on this site. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Vigilla, Hubert and Blum, Jordan reputable reviewers?
  • Why are some Rolling Stone articles online and others not?
  • I think officialcharts.com, live.brucespringsteen.net and brucespringsteen.net can be replaced with the titles of the websites.
  • Fixed
  • Is sputnikmusic.com a reliable source?
  • Don't think that Google Books links need to be archived.
  • Fixed; the IA management console always does that.

Don't know much of the topic or sources but these I inspected seemed to be from reputable authors and publishers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Replies above. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, can I check if you're good with the above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I wonder if all of these sources like AllMusic pass the "high-quality" part of the WIAFA criteria, though, but I'm afraid I am not well-versed on this aspect of music sources to judge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I assure you they are :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I can confirm that they are reliable sources. I understand these sources might seem questionable for a non-Music editor but I assure you they are, and the Music-editing community has curated WP:RSMUSIC for that matter :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2024 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 3 September 2024 [52].

Jozo Tomasevich

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jozo Tomasevich was a Yugoslav-American economist and historian whose works on Yugoslavia in WWII continue to be widely cited today despite his first book on the Chetniks being published nearly fifty years ago. According to the German historian Klaus Schmider, it is a tragedy that he died before completing the third volume of his planned series on Yugoslavia in WWII which was to be focussed on the Partisans. Even his second volume had to be published posthumously in 2001, with editing by his daughter. I have used his works right across my WP contributions on WWII on Yugoslavia, and his work forms the foundation on which many more recent historians have built. This is my second nom of a historian of WWII in Yugoslavia after Radoje Pajović. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Peacemaker67, some comments:

  • "the former Yugoslavia": just "Yugoslavia" would be fine, no?
yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is SFSU linked in the lead on second use and not first?
Good question. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps clarify that The Chetniks was part of the 3 volume series and not a standalone book? I thought so till I read the Biblio section.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "so-called" really needed? We have to be neutral and we already say it was a puppet state. Consider removing in the lead and the body?
Actually it is necessary in my opinion, as it was named that, but ironically far from independent. Tomasevich himself called it an Italo-German quasi-protectorate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Klaus Schimder, the RMAS lecturer": Use "a" instead of "the"? I'm assuming Schmider was not the only lecturer at the RMAS.
Yep, whoops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't the Mihailović picture be better placed at the start of the World War II subsection?
Good call, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding the ISBN for Tomasevich and Vucinich 1969. Is this the one: 9780520015364? Also, Google Books shows Vucinich here was an editor and not an author.
Done. No, Google Books is often wrong about such things, Vucinich was the author of two chapters as well as the editor. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to The American Historical Review and Nationalities Papers, as done for other journals?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any details on his collaboration with Wayne Vucinich?
Not beyond him contributing a chapter to the book. They taught at different universities in California and I understand they were close colleagues and co-received an award in 1989, and I'd love to know more given the Vucinich brothers were Serbs and Tomasevich a Croat, but they appear to have got along very well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure military biography is the right WPMH task force here, you should consider removing it and retaining only the historiography task force tag.
Excellent point, he was not a military person. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone endeavored to publish the Tomasevic papers at HILA or Volume 3 of his series? I found one article on this from the Washington Post but it was paywalled.
Not that I'm aware of. It would be wonderful if Vol 3 was published. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking a look, Matarisvan. I reckon I might have addressed all your comments. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Peacemaker67, above comments all OK. A minor issue I forgot to spot last time: we need page numbers for a couple of the sources, namely Baletić 1997, Prosecutor versus Vojislav Šešelj 2008, Irwin 2000, Auty 1976, Dragnich 1976 and Campbell 1976. The other sources are only one pagers, so those don't have any problems, but these one have multiple pages, so you will need to add the page numbers for them. Matarisvan (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Matarisvan. Strictly speaking, the short "review" citations do not need a page, as the page range given in the long citation is only 2-3 pages long, and anyone wishing to verify them need only read a page or two, and in any case their comments should be read in the context of the whole review. I have added pages for the Baletić and Prosecutor vs Vojislav Šešelj short citations, as they are longer pieces of work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Matarisvan, sorry about the delay. I think I have completed all these now. It isn't clear whether he was US or Yugoslav at the UN, so I went for a different cat. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to now support for promotion to FA class. Matarisvan (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Look these changes over
  • His final book was the second volume of the series – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – which was published posthumously in 2001 after editing by his daughter Neda.
after usually means -> in the time following an event or another period <-> in which case, it soumds like the book was edited after its publication - what am I missing?
  • In an obituary in the Slavic Review, Tomasevich was described as "a master of scholarly skills, a person of bountiful erudition, wit and human dignity".
Why is an not his?
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and is today part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia.[1]
today?
Changed to "now". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>I hate quibbling further, but now means at the present time, at this moment or very soon. So, how about dropping the word, or replacing it with something like this: -> Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and in (year) became part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia. Pendright (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when the village became a part of the municipality, and now means at the present time. This is accurate at the present time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>On this one, we'll have to agree to disagree!Pendright (talk)
  • Nado returned to the village in 1894, [and he] married the daughter of his first cousin and worked as a farmer.
Suggest these changes
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] thereby "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University".
"availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" -> If this is a direct quote, should there be attribution-if not, then should italics be used?
Quotes don't have to be attributed, just closely cited. In this case, it is, to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Interesting! You can further my education by referring me to something authoritative on the subject. Pendright (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:QUOTE#Attribution. This is not an opinion quote which would require attribution to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Thank you! Pendright (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other brother living in Košarni Do received the share of the fourth brother who, by then, was a merchant mariner living in New Zealand.[4]
Could drop "other"
I'm not sure I can. There were two brothers living in Košarni Do, and "other" indicates that this is not the one who received Jozo's share of the farm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

of World War II – and now known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California.

and then known
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century.
Somehow,Chronologically, these sentences seem out of order?
Not really. He married, they had children, then he wrote a essay about his family history. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>He was married in 1937 and moved to the U.S. in 1938? In any case, it's your call.
  • His widow Neda died on July 5, 2002, at 88.[8]
Is where she died relative?
I don't think so, although it was Palo Alto, like Jozo. Do you think it needs to be added? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<>Probably a matter of opinion. Pendright (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added it for completeness. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia's economy

  • The first appeared in German in 1934 and was titled Die Staatsschulden Jugoslaviens (The National Debt of Yugoslavia).
during 1934
  • The following year, he had Financijska politika Jugoslavije, 1929–1934 (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia, 1929–1934) published in Serbo-Croatian, covering much of the same material but more accessible to Yugoslavs.[1]
  • Does 1929-1934 need to be repeated?
  • which covered
  • A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization – described Novac i kredit as an important work that filled a large gap in Yugoslav economic literature, and also gave a vivid picture of then-current economic theory.[9]
and it also
These all done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International marine resources and Yugoslav peasants

  • The first [book] was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources, [that was] published by Stanford University Press in 1943.
Suggest the above changes
  • The second book, Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia [was] published in 1955, was [and] described by Vucinich as "a study of monumental scope [which] has been widely recognized as the most comprehensive and accomplished study in the field".
Suggest the above changes
These are done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

  • In 1957, Tomasevich received a San Francisco State University grant for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
Suggest -> In 1957, Tomasevich received a grant from San Francisco State University for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
  • The first volume focused on the Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, which was subtitled The Chetniks and appeared in 1975.
In the context used, what does appeared mean?
  • Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty, professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University.
Replace the comma with "who was a
  • The third volume in the planned trilogy, which was to cover the Partisans, was 75 per cent complete at the time of his death,[1] and remains unpublished.
and it

@Peacemaker67: This is it for now. Pendright (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pendright, I may have addressed all your comments now. Let me know if anything needs tweaking or you see anything else. As always, thanks for your detailed review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker: Supporting - it's always a pleasure working with you. Pendright (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink

[edit]

I figured I'd review this considering I have an FAC of my own.

  • Could you add a caption for the infobox image?
Other than his name, there is really nothing to add. We don't know when it was taken, photos of him are quite rare. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google says Jozo's birthday is March 16, 1908, but there's nothing in this article. Any reason for not including the birth date?
lack of a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two books on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia and both of them received positive reviews." - the last part seems like an add-on, and makes the sentence a bit too long. Perhaps - "Tomasevich published two well-received books on economic matters"?
I went with "positively received" as "well-received" is used earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book was positively reviewed, and twenty-five years later was described as still the "most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia" - the quote doesn't seem important for lead. First, it's unattributed - I see in the body of the text that it was from the Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein, but that doesn't mean his quote should be in the lead. Could you write the same meaning without the quote?
I think it is important for the lead. T's contribution in this area is key to his impact, and Goldstein is eminent. Given it is an opinion, I have attributed it to him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the so-called Independent State of Croatia. - "so-called" seems a bit biased and pointy for my liking. Could you word it differently?
it is often described in this way (eg by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and others), as ironically it was far from "independent", being essentially an occupied quasi-protectorate propped up by large numbers of Axis troops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not on Wikipedia. I would rather "Axis-aligned" or something, since "so-called" is too biased for my liking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remains unpublished despite being 75 per cent complete at his death." - is there a reason you don't write it as 75%?
Per MOS:PERCENT, in non-scientific articles either is fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention Jozo's father's name, but what about mother?
An excellent question, I am popping into the library tomorrow to look at a source that might have it, but failing that, it isn't in any RS I am aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cannot find a RS for either of their given names, Nado is a nickname, I've clarified the latter and its meaning. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jozo completed his secondary education in Sarajevo – then part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia – before moving to Switzerland to study at the University of Basel where he earned a doctorate in economics. " - when? This is a pretty important part of his life that you glossed over. Is there anything more about this part of his life?
Just waiting on a source that might help with this, no more than a couple of days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have been able to locate a bit more on this period of his life, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • thereby "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" - who said this?
it is cited to Vucinich. Given it isn't an opinion, it doesn't need in-text attribution, just close citation, which it has. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Rich resources" is an opinion. The rest of the article says "According to Vucinich". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Rich resources" is an opinion? I would say it is WP:BLUE. Who would challenge the idea that Harvard has "rich resources"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the siblings, but never by name. Any reason?
They aren't provided in any RS I'm aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more year/date references would be nice for "Early life" section. For example, "After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco." - When?
I've added a bit on this where it was available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a bit more timeframe information from a newly-located source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California." - again, when? The war broke out in 1939, so there could be a variety of dates.
The source that might provide some answers is at a local university library which I will be able to look at over the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any update? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this based on the dates of his Rockefeller fellowship documentation which indicate about when the name change occurred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Jozo meet Neda Brelić? For a marriage of 57 years, there's very little on that.
Not known. It appears he was quite reticent about this personal life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He became an American citizen." - when?
Not known. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did Jozo die from?
Not known. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine, but it seems to focus too much on what other people think about his writings, and too little about his actual life. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a lot of unknown parts, which I'm not a huge fan of, like when American citizenship happened, what he died from, any siblings' names, the mother's name, when he went to SF, even the birthday. I get that a lot of this information isn't available, but it's a shame when you Google his birthday, and it says "March 16", but that there's no reliable source for it. The article is decent, for sure, but it's a shame that so much is unknown. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of a response to Hurricanehink's post-review summary, unfortunately Tomasevich was not very forthcoming about his family details in general and even in the chapter he wrote for Byrnes' book (perhaps for privacy reasons given it was during communist times), and neither was his obituarian, Alexander Vucinich, who must have known him and his family well. Given that, and because his notability relates to his work rather than his family, I think I can be forgiven for not being able to find any of these family details. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to a few of the above to clarify what I have been able to add. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Joy

[edit]

Since the name is only partially anglicized, it might make sense to figure out what was the pronunciation. We don't happen to have one at Jozo, while we do have one at Josip, but in case of Tomasevich it would specifically make sense to note how the Americans pronounced his first name because it's not clear it would have been the same as the original. --Joy (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was, but don't have any evidence for my opinion. I'll see if I can find some. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Joy, I have drawn a blank here. It would be great to find a video where an American historian (like one of the Vucinich's) pronounce his name, but I haven't been able to locate one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, we can leave a note to this effect on the Talk page for later. --Joy (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

As this nomination has been open for five weeks and has yet to garner support, it is liable to be archived in the next few days unless there's a pickup in activity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. I've been out of town, but have now addressed the first two reviews and have a crack at HH's shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just working through the remaining comments over the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tomobe03

[edit]
  • I may be nitpicking here, but the first paragraph of the Early life, education, career and family section and the first sentence of the second paragraph of the same section may give impression to casual readers that Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia existed at the same time.
No, that's a fair call. Have added a better explanation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "His widow Neda died in Palo Alto..." I'm wondering if either "his widow" or "Neda" is redundant because she's already introduced in the same paragraph as his wife. Striking this, as I realise that he had a daughter of the same name.
  • Regarding Financijska politika Jugoslavije (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia) - is that the English translation of the title the book is known as generally? I'd expect Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia to be translation of "Fiskalna politika Jugoslavije"... or that the English translation of the title is "Financial Policy of Yugoslavia". That is, of course unless the offered English translation is common translation of the title.
Doh, well spotted, not sure what I did there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I'd say the article appears comprehensive, i.e. I feel I have no question to ask that is not already answered by the prose.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a mention of Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia in Splivalo, Josip (1958). "Naučno djelo našeg profesora u Americi" [Scientific Work of Our Professor in America]. Naše more (in Croatian). 5 (1). University of Dubrovnik: 52. ISSN 0469-6255. The short article might be illuminating because it says that the book consists of three parts. The first one provides a review of historical development of of Yugoslav peoples and their common characteristics in economics. The second part reviews agriculture during the WWI and the third one examines agriculture in the interwar period. The review of historical development gives (at least to me) an impression that there's the point where Tomasevich's interest started crossing from economics alone to history. The article also indicates that Joseph S. Davis wrote a foreword for the book.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for spotting that, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done I think, Tomobe03. Thanks for taking a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Happy to support.Tomobe03 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Review to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two ellipses that should have non-breaking spaces before the ..., per WP:ELLIPSES
Fixed, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "a master of scholarly skills": as this is a quote it should be cited, per MOS:LEADCITE
Well, I could, but I think "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" applies here, given the quote is cited and attributed in-text in the body, and no-one else has raised it, I really don't think it is necessary here. I'd be happy to attribute it in-text in the lead as well if that would make you more comfortable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to your judgement. I suspect that when this hits the front page people may make waves about it, but it's your call. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "He became an American citizen": any date on this?
I wish. No, I had to find an oblique reference to it in a war crimes trial transcript after failing to find a direct source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It feels odd to have a section titled "early life" that ends with his death age 88. Maybe just call the section 'private life' or similar
Well, it has education, career and family in the title and section as well, not just "private life". I could add "death" to the end? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That, I think, may be a bit of overkill. Again, I'll leave to to your best judgement. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "a master of scholarly skills – needs a closing quote mark
Well spotted, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lot: very minor stuff in a very readable article - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, SchroCat and sorry about the delay in getting to your comments. See what you think of the above and my changes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 ? It's been a couple of weeks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog, I've been hunting a source to try to address a few comments, but will just get on with what I can do now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RoySmith

[edit]

I took a look at some sources:

  • Josip "Jozo" Tomašević was born in 1908 in the village of Košarni Do on the Pelješac peninsula in the Kingdom of Dalmatia , which was then part of Austria-Hungary . [1] probably a nit, but the source doesn't categorize Dalmatia as a "Kingdom", nor does it say anything about Austria-Hungary.
I think it's a nit. I'm working on the basis of WP:BLUE here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and is now part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia . [1] I'm guessing you've just got the wrong citation because the source doesnt say any of those things.
Yep, I have added citations to the Croatian post office website which details the local government status of these places within the county. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California. He was on the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute within Stanford University . During the war, he worked with the Board of Economic Warfare [1] ... After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. The source says

    Before World War II he moved to California where he was a member of the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute at Stanford University. During World War II he was affiliated successively with the Board of Economic Warfare and UNRRA in Washington, DC. After the war he was with the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco.

    so I'm a little concerned about WP:CLOP. I get that much of this is just a chronological history and full of proper names, but it still seems a bit too close to the original. Also, while the source does use the spelling "Tomasevich", I think it's a bit of WP:SYNTH to say "then known by the anglicised ...".
I've changed wording here, hopefully enough. Also, I've found a ref for a year by which he was definitely using the anglicised name, the Rockefeller fellowship in 1950, and have added that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and then the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in Washington, D.C. from 1944 to 1946. After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. [1] [7] Maybe I'm just not familiar with how harvard refs work, but I had to dive into the wikisource to figure out that OAC meant "Online Archives of California". And once I got there, it doesn't say anything about Washington, D.C.
Harv footnotes can be shortened for brevity. If you click on it, it takes you to the footnote list and if you click that it takes you to the full citation. There is no requirement for the footnote tag to be the full name of the organisation. I've tweaked the wording and added a citation to the UNRRA that says its HQ was in DC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His preference was for a position combining teaching and research, so in 1948 he joined the San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University). Tomasevich taught there for twenty-five years until he retired in 1973 – except in 1954 when he taught at Columbia University . [1] The source says

    Preferring a professional assignment combining teaching and research, he joined San Francisco State College—now San Francisco State University—in 1948 and stayed there until his retirement in 1973. In 1954 he taught at Columbia University for one year.

    This seems like CLOP again. I wasn't sure about this so I asked for a second opinion from my wife (who writes and reviews scientific papers professionally). She agrees that while it's not word-for-word, its the same sentence and paragraph structure with just a few words changed here or there, which is, as WP:CLOP puts it, "superficial modification of material from another source".
I get what you are saying, but there are only so many ways to present the same factual information about his work. I have attempted to move it a bit more away from the source formulation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century. He became an American citizen. [9] This appears to be mis-cited; it's in [1], not [9].
Not sure what happened there, cited to Vucinich, the citizenship is the only bit that should be cited to the trial case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop at this point. Most of the sources used are off-line, which is fine. But in almost every case, when I spot-checked a source that was available to me, I found problems. This does not give me confidence that the rest of the sourcing is correct. Perhaps I'm just being too picky, so maybe somebody else should do some more spot-checking.

Here's some more:

  • Tomasevich died ... in Palo Alto, California.[10] The source just says he was a resident of Palo Alto, not that he died there.
Fixed, also for his wife. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv , by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization ... [12] This is not in English so I'm unable to read it, but I'd wager that a review written by Lamer in 1940 says nothing about Lamer's future employment.
Yes, added a citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first book was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources , that was published by Stanford University Press in 1943 ... [1] The cited source says 1949. WorldCat does indeed say 1943, but you're not citing WorldCat.
Replaced citation with Tomasevich 1943. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty , who was a professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University ... [16] The source does identify Auty as being from Simon Fraser University, but doesn't say anything about being a "professor of modern history".
Added a citation from her obit in The Independent which shows her role there at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third volume in the planned trilogy ... and it remains unpublished. [22] Nit: this should be qualified with {{asof}}.
This is rather difficult to cite, as I am trying to prove a negative. I'm going to leave it as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy, I really must have been tired when I wrote some of this. I will get on to addressing these comments in the next day or so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi RoySmith, I am assuming that this constitutes a source review? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would call it a source-to-text spot check. I was mostly looking for WP:V issues. If I spotted any copying problems along the way, I brought those up too, but they weren't my main focus. I believe what you're talking about as a "source review" is more about formatting, consistency, and style which you may have noticed by now aren't what excites me, so I'll leave that stuff to somebody else. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough RoySmith, thanks. In the light of Peaacemaker's responses would you consider the spot check a pass or a fail? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a quandry how to answer that. The important issues have all be resolved. Some of the items I noted above were nits. I recognize that I let my personal preferences show through in a few places and agree that WP:FACR has been satisfied in all of those instances.
Where the quandry comes in is that if the spot-check is supposed to be a statistical sampling, I'd have to say that I found more problems in my sample that I should have, and since I restricted my sample to those sources that were available to me on line, it's reasonable to ask whether the sources that were not available to me would also have the same failure rate. I hesitate to speak for @Jo-Jo Eumerus, but it sounds like he agrees with me on that.
So, let me propose that @Peacemaker67 take some time to review the sources on his own, and when he tells me he's satisfied they're in good shape, I'll pick 5 more at random, concentrating on those that are not available to me on-line and ask him to send me scans (or whatever) and I'll verify those. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is very reasonable. Give me a few days to check everything. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's sound logic. When a sample of 10 out of e.g 100 sources shows that 7 sources have problems, that implies that of the 100 sources about 70 might have problems and thus all 100 need to be reviewed. That said, when evaluating offline sources I've found that asking the nominator to send screenshots or photos of the source by email or Google Drive usually works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Status on this, Peacemaker67? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working, nearly done. Give me 24-48 hours and I'll be ready for Roy to take another look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. My hope is that I don't find any problems, and if it takes a bit of extra time to get to that point, that's still a win as far as I'm concerned. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day RoySmith. I reckon I might have got through it all now, sorry for the delay. I made a few changes where the wording might have been a bit close to the original, even to my German translations, so hopefully all will be well. I also added a few closer citations and deleted a sentence fragment that seemed superfluous. If you can't access any of the sources, please ping me and I'll email them to you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll work on this in the next few days. RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 OK, partly done; no significant issues found so far. Could you send me Violich 1998 and Sanders 1956? RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67 Just want to make sure you saw my note above. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy, sent to your email. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked at the following

  • Citations (6), (7), (8), and (9), all to Violich 1998. Most of it verified. As a nit, (7) says page 11, but it's really on page 12. The only significant problem I see is with (8). I’m not seeing this on page 12. Some of it appears on page 10 (“With the establishment of the new Yugoslav state in 1918…”) Some of it appears on page 97 and following (“From Royalist to Communist Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia”), but not all. It mentions “Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes” and that it was renamed Yugoslavia, but not that the renaming happened in 1929. It also cites the Treaty of Versailles as the driving factor in the establishment of the Kingdom, which seems like an important detail to leave out. On the other hand, the source also mentions 1918, but the T. of V. was 1919, so I’m not quite sure what the source is trying to say (not your fault!). Also, I didn’t realize until you emailed me that this was available in the Open Library. Adding a URL for that with a “via” attribute would be useful.
  • Citation (35) to Kadazabek 2004. If we accept that “desire for statehood was exploited by the Axis powers who allowed PaveliA's Ustasas to carve a Greater Croatia from the spoils of war,” is what was supports calling Croatia “an Axis puppet state”, then this verifies.
  • Citation (33) to Campbell 1976. Verifies.
  • Citations (29) to Auty 1976 and (30) to Wheeler 1998. Basically verifeis with just one nit: what you've quoted as "a most impressive ... scholarly examination of evidence" would more properly be "most impressive ... scholarly examination ... of evidence" because there's some words you leave out, and the leading "a" isn't in the source.
  • Citation (27) to Sanders 1956. All the claims verify, but as a nit, you can combine the two consecutive citations into one. Also, you said in your email you got this out of WP:Library. I had looked but was unable to find it so a link and via attribute would be useful.

The only real issue is (8). I feel confident that I can read the article and the source and compare them. I feel much less confident to say if the discrepancy I found is significant enough to be an issue so I'll leave that judgement call up to the @FAC coordinators: coordinators. RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roy, corrected (7). The process of Yugoslavia's creation in 1918 as the KSCS and its change of name is uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged, so I was relying on BLUE here. Nevertheless, I have cited it. Violich is actually not correct here in respect of the driving forces behind the creation of the KSCS (later Yugoslavia). The creation of the KSCS was not actually a result of the Treaty of Versailles, it was a home-grown initiative between the various South Slav groups who took advantage of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to combine and form a new country that they had wished for for decades. Of course, the Great Powers eventually acquiesced and formally recognised its formation through the Treaty of Trianon (with Hungary) and the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (with German-Austria) over the next two years. So, I didn't include that bit because it is incorrect. I was relying on the sentence you quoted for the NDH being an Axis puppet state, but have added a citation here as well. I have reworded the Auty/Wheeler bit as you have suggested. I haven't combined the Sanders citations because they are closely citing separate quotations. I have also added the urls to the sources to aid verification, as suggested. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review with caveat

[edit]

I'll do the consistency-and-reliability check, but given what RoySmith found above, another spotcheck or general source-to-text integrity check is necessary IMO. Anyhow, #20 is throwing a harv error. I am not sure that academic publications need a retrieval date. It seems like we are mostly dealing with sound academic publications here, although I am not deeply familiar with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

harv error fixed. Had left ref=no in the template when I copied to to the refs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "after completing his formal schooling, he earned a doctorate in economics from the University of Basel in Switzerland". What does "formal" mean here?
have specified what is meant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "planned to include three volumes". "include" implies additional material. I suggest "consist of".
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was appointed professor emeritus of economics at SFSU". "professor emeritus" means a retired professor. "appointed" seems the wrong word as implying a special status.
My understanding is that it varies. Not every retired professor is entitled to use "emeritus", it usually involves a continuing relationship with the institution. It is still "bestowed", and sometimes requires a vote or action. In this case, the source (CREES) says "Professor Emeritus of economics at Stanford University", the "at" implying a continuing connection. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The primary agricultural product of the Pelješac peninsula was red table wine, the population were primarily subsistence farmers". This seems contradictory. You cannot subsist on wine - well not entirely.
Fair enough, have specified they were "otherwise" subsistence farmers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the peninsula did not have any roads until 1946". This needs clarification. They must have had roads, even if they were only dirt tracks.
Then they were not roads, they were tracks. I presume they mean paved, but the source doesn't say that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A track is a road. Merriam-Wesbster defines a road as "an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals". Other dictionaries add especially paved. I would add "paved" as that must be what was meant, but of course that is up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He became an American citizen." I suggest giving the date.
Unfortunately there isn't one in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The book was published posthumously in 2001 with editing from his daughter Neda Tomasevich." "with editing from" is an odd expression. Maybe "edited by".
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to list the languages Tomasevich knew.
Haven't got a source for that, the best information is the quote from Schmider but he doesn't specify. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the Vucinich obit is relied upon fairly heavily for description, the article quotes other authorities on the value of his work such as Auty, Schmider, Goldstein and Campbell. I could have added Ramet, Hoare, and Pavlowitch, but thought that would be overkill. Dragnich is fairly typical of the trenchant critics, who frankly are in a small minority. There are far more positive than negative views on his work, and I believe I have reflected the balance accurately. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dudley, I think I have addressed your comments, see what you think. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: I reckon this might be about ready to wrap up. Thanks for your forbearance. From Roy's comments above I presume it's over to you to determine if you want Jo-Jo Eumerus to review the sources further or not. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, however this ends up, I'd like to thank @Peacemaker67 for being extremely solicitous and cooperative as I poked and prodded through the details of the references at a level far beyond what is typical. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference kuru was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference powers2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Arctic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).