Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2021

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2021 [1].

Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic edit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A country, if one can call it that, which existed for little more than 6 weeks in the spring of 1918, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic was formed out of desperation. A union of Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and Georgians, it was not likely to have lasted even if it wasn't facing an imminent invasion. I've slowly worked on this for the past while, and got it up to GA recently, and now think it is ready here. I will note a couple things: the dates used are a mix of Julian and Gregorian, a consequence of the era; and while this is nominally a "country" article, the fact that the TDFR spent nearly its entire existence trying to defend itself militarily means that there are not much that can be said about more conventional topics for country articles. Scholarship on the state as a whole is also limited, though a regional journal did publish some relevant articles in 2020 (which are being released in book form in 2021) that have proven quite useful. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding here, just getting caught up in things. Should have it all addressed by the weekend. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source reviews edit

I'm satisfied with image licensing (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"As the TDFR lasted only a month, it did not leave much of a legacy." This sounds like an opinion based statement, it may make sense to attribute to a source or else delete it. (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that giving non-English names of entities which are not the subject of this article and have their own articles is helpful, since this info is or should be in the dedicated articles. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. For you other two points: I'll take a look at the sources, see if I can support the statement; otherwise I'll remove it. And for your third point, I'm a little uncertain what you mean. Can you clarify for me? Kaiser matias (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, "Council of People's Commissars (known by its Russian acronym, Sovnarkom" with a footnote "Russian: Совнарком; short for Совет народных комиссаров, Sovet narodnykh kommissarov". I do not think the footnote is helpful. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, thanks. I had that as I felt it appropriate to include the Russian version, but I'm certainly not married to the idea and if it's felt to be unnecessary can certainly remove it. Also will note I modified the "Legacy" introduction to be more neutral. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hovannisian 1967, p. 75 Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that (had the wrong year at first). Kaiser matias (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it seems like the more recent sources could be used to a greater extent. (t · c) buidhe 11:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks

Forestier-Peyrat 2016, p. 166 — problematic as the cited page does not mention the treaty of B-L
Zolyan 2020—mostly supports the content, I do not have access to the other source cited
Brisku 2020, p. 32—looks OK (t · c) buidhe 11:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at what I did regarding Forestier-Peyrat, and get that cleaned up. I also have PDF copies of most sources here, and am happy to supply if need be. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon edit

Claiming my spot. Will review over the following days. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon? (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Buidhe.

"The Commissariat initiated peace talks with the Ottoman Empire in March 1918, but that broke down quickly as the Ottoman refused to accept the authority of the Commissariat. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which ended Russia's involvement in the First World War, conceded parts of the Transcaucasus to the Ottoman Empire, who continued their invasion of the region in order to take control of the territory." -- Why did the Commissariat iniate peace talks with the Ottoman Empire? What was happening at the time in the region? IMO this part needs further clarification.
"The South Caucasus had been conquered by the Russian Empire in the early nineteenth century, with the last annexations taking place in 1828" -- The Treaty of Adrianople hadn't been signed yet in 1828. Kars and Batum were taken through the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878). Do you mean the bulk of the South Caucasus? If you're referring to that, I suggest changing it to:

- "The bulk of the South Caucasus had been conquered by the Russian Empire in the first half of the nineteenth century through wars with Qajar Iran." OR:

- "Most of the South Caucasus had been conquered by the Russian Empire in the first half of the nineteenth century."

"Much like in Petrograd, a dual power system was established (...)" -- suggest changing to "Much like in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg), a dual power system..."

Most of these points are the same as the ones I posted earlier on the talk page of this article. Once they are addressed, I will have another look and give my support for promotion. Its a well written article. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

Some nicely obscure history, will have a look soonish. Though my girlfriend is actually from one of the included countries, she had never heard of this state! FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, I wonder if O.S. has to be linked at every mention?
Still some names and terms that could be linked in image captions.
"the only other city of significance was Baku" State what country this is in today, as with Georgia?
There are also many terms after the intro that could need links at first mention in the article body.
"would continue to follow the Ottoman Sultan" Link to who it was at the time?
Mention (and link) the main ethnic groups of the region in the background section? You now list them in parenthesis under Transcaucasian Commissariat, but I think they could maybe all need some kind of more specific presentation.
"However they were concerned that the local population, who were mostly Muslims" is/was the Caucasus really majority Muslim?
"The South Caucasus was overwhelmingly rural: aside from Tiflis the only other city of significance was Baku,[8] which grew in the late nineteenth century as the region began exporting oil and became a major economic hub.[9]" Single sentence paragraphs are discouraged, could this be rolled into one of the adjacent paragraphs?
"and as it had acted at like a state when" The "at" doesn't seem to fit in?
"on their arrival an Ottoman official to quipped that" Seems like the "to" doesn't fit either?
"course of action; majority of the delegates" The or a majority?
It is a bit confusing that you seem to use Armenian/Dashnaks and Azerbaijani/Musavats interchangeably in places. Is it possible to somehow make this more consistent?
"The new republic, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR)" and "The Ottoman Empire recognized the new republic, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR)", do you need to spell it out and abbreviate it twice in succession? First time should be enough?
"Halil argued that as the two states are in conflict, the Ottoman would no longer recognize" A bit odd that this starts in present tense.
"bring the entire Armenia" Entirety of Armenia?
"as the Ottoman forcese" Forces?
"suggested that the real reason was to allow them a means to reach Baku." For what purpose?
"the Halil Bey" Any reason for the definite article here and not elsewhere?
The "German intervention" section doesn't really seem to imply much if any actual intervention? Maybe somethig more passive like "German position/opinion" or similar would reflect the content better?
Perhaps worth mentioning that the included states later had various armed conflicts with each other? Which would also underline the statement "seemed both to the actors at the time and to later scholars of the region to be unique, contingent, and certainly unrepeatable."
"dissolved in 1917 February Revolution" In the?
"While the three successor states would be reunited within the Soviet Union as the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, this would only exist between 1922 and 1936 before being broken up again into three union republics." Perhaps briefly state how this happened? Voluntarily or by force?
"as the Ottoman refused" Ottomans?
"the Armenians and Azerbaijanis each declared themselves independent" It seems a bit odd that you link these ethnicities here to their states instead of ethnicities, instead of linking the ethnicities at their first mention in the intro "three major groups (Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and Georgians". I also think you can spell out the full names of their republics at the end of the intro, as you did with the Georgian one.

Coordinator comment edit

Not much sign of a consensus to promote building for this article. So this is a heads up that if it hits the three week mark without a fair bit of further activity, then I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll reach out to some projects and users, see if I can't get someone to take a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias:, can I remind you of "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly." It would be helpful if you could respond to Buidhe's, Louis's and Funk's comments before the end of the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KM doesn't seem to have been around for well over a week, I think we'd best put this one to bed for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 April 2021 [2].

Project Emily edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the deployment of American-built Thor intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) in the United Kingdom between 1959 and 1963, which were operated by the Royal Air Force Bomber Command as part of the British nuclear deterrent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing looks good. Many of the source links are now dead but it would be surprising if any of these were not genuine US government photos. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a pass over them, and they all should be good now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro edit

References

On first impressions, cites are well-formatted, though I don't know why any of the publisher and work names aren't linked to their respective articles.

Lead

I find lead pretty lackluster given the several details and sections in the body; not even its preservation gets a sentence.

Background

I've noticed this sentence suffers from long sentences and a lack of varying lengths to keep it interesting, and the sentences are the same overly-long length.
Most of the jargon is linked and elaborated, but there's a couple that still needs elaboration or linked to introductory readers. What is a "manned bomber"? What is a "production model atomic bomb" and how does it differ from a regular atomic bomb? What are nautical miles?
Why is the first atomic bomb landing specified by an operation name and a full date, yet the first production model atomic bomb launch is present with only the location, month, and year without a day or operation name? Is it because of the reliable sources not revealing it? Just want to know, that's all.
"Britain's nuclear weapons armament was initially based on free-fall bombs delivered by the V bomber force, but the possibility of the manned bomber becoming obsolete by the late 1960s was foreseen"
- (1) What does it mean for the nuclear weapons to be "based on" a type of bomb? Did their designs take influence from them?
- (2) Like I asked, what is a manned bomber?
- (3) What is the message of this sentence, and how do the two clauses connect to each other?
"In parallel to the ICBM programme, the United States developed three separate intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) systems." Even though they're named later in the paragraph, I would still follow this sentence with a list of the three names of the IRBMs for ease of navigability.
"The United States National Security Council gave the ICBM and IRBM projects the highest national priority.[16]" How?

Negotations

"Implicit in Wilson's decision to develop an IRBM was that it would be based overseas." It may be I'm not the biggest history expert, but I find the use of "based" confusing? The following sentences seem to indicate this sentence means that he want IRBMs to "launch" overseas, not that they were "based" (or as I read it, located) overseas.

I'll stop here for now. So far, the prose is generally well-done and understandable (though as an American I can't tell if it keeps true to British English) but could use the fixes I mentioned above. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To address your points:

A "production model" of something is a mass-produced version as opposed to a prototype. Bombs used in nuclear tests were normally prototypes, although occasionally a production model was used.
Nuclear tests invariably have code names, but the delivery of production ordnance rarely does. Sources only give the month; my practice is to make dates as specific as possible, to make life easier for the people trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia.
1. By "based on free-fall bombs delivered by the V bomber force" I meant as opposed to missiles
2. The term "manned bomber" is a bit of a tautology, as bombers invariably have crews. Linked "bomber" and removed "manned" per MOS:GNL.
3. The point is to emphasise the distinction been aircraft and missiles.
The NSC simply declared that the projects had the highest national priority. In practice this meant that they had priority for human, financial and materiel resources, over other uses.
The missiles had to be based overseas. Deploying them at the last minute was not an option.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This is coming up to the three week mark with no general supports. If it hits that mark without at least some indication beginning to form of a consensus to promote, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that there is no sign of a consensus to support forming, so I am regretfully going to archive this nomination. The nominator is exempted from the usual two-week wait under the minimal feedback provision. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 April 2021 [3].

Friedrich Hayek edit

Nominator(s): F. A. Hayek 00:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Anglo-Austrian economist F. A. Hayek F. A. Hayek 00:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - hasty nomination. Nominator has edited the article twice, and it frankly isn't ready. There's messy stuff like ~~a completely unnecessary collapsed "timeline of Hayek" that I have never seen something like that in an article before,~~ uncited text is spots, outstanding clarification needed tag from last year, legacy and honors section that needs taken from list to prose, inconsistent citation style, the harv-ref error script I have installed is flagging errors like crazy, and I only gave this a glance. The B-Class assessment it currently has is generous, IMO. Hog Farm _Talk 01:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The timeline has mercifully been removed, but I still think working this up to GA, then taking it to peer review, is going to be the best path to getting this to FA. It just isn't that close at the moment. Hog Farm _Talk 05:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs major work to meet FA status. Lots of unsourced content for starters. Start class IMO. (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- closing procedural grounds (lack of edits) as well as article shortcomings noted above. Second Hog Farm's recommeneded next steps to get this on track for another nom down the track. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2021 [4].

Jamiroquai edit

Nominator(s): 옷O O 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the English funk and acid jazz band Jamiroquai. They are well known for their music video of "Virtual Insanity" and the song "Canned Heat", the latter which appeared in Napoleon Dynamite. My previous attempts to nominate the article in 2019 failed and understandably so, as it had cluttered writing and excessive detail, but has now improved in comparison. I've worked on this since 2018, which has been challenging but rewarding, as I've learned alot from it. This article is in hopes that it will represent the band's artistry and success above all the tabloids and sensationalism that overshadowed them. Thank you and I hope this passes. I want to give a special thanks to Ceoil for helping out. With his guidance, this article will age like fine wine. 옷O O 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ceoil and MaranoFan because I should have done so earlier. 웃O O 03:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

What are the copyright statuses of the headdresses? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA 2.0, CC-BY-SA 2.0, CC-BY 2.0. Or were you referring to the headdresses themselves? 옷O O 22:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The headdresses themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that there would be guidelines for clothing. If need be, the images could be removed from the article. Though they have been photographed by photographers releasing their work under CC. Overall, I'm unsure of the licensing regarding this. 옷O O 00:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per commons:COSTUME, costumes can receive copyright protection when distinct from clothing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I can come up with as an argument is that he isn't portraying as anyone else but himself. (though there could be some issue with the native american headdress) some of his hats are designed by himself, otherwise the other designers, such as one who created the Automaton LED hat, would create them for the brand of Jamiroquai. The photos taken are also freely licensed as well. I also want to add that they are all concert photography which is generally acceptable. 옷O O 01:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the photographers can only release the rights to their photographs, not to the designs which are not theirs. Is there any indication these designs have been freely licensed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I keep eyeing this quote: "If the costume is not the central focus of the image but only an incidental feature, or one among many costumes, it is likely to be considered de minimis." it's probably the best representative for the situation is it portrays him performing in a concert. But also the issue may just be the three images in the artistry section that give them closer looks to illustrate the hats apart from the other photos where the Kay the singer is singing zoomed out in the photo. Other than that, determining the license of headgear and such is beyond my knowledge. 옷O O 01:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, please provide a better caption for the image identifying the band members by name according to their position in the infobox. Consider cropping out the guy on the left if he's not important, as it would make the rest of the image much easier to see at the infobox size. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for removing the headdress pics. I feel like the infobox pic before at [5] gives a slightly better view of the band. Though the purpose I had with the images of the band was too illustrate the band's lineup from the left side of the stage to the right. 옷O O 15:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Not much sign of a consensus to promote building for this article. So this is a heads up that if it hits the three week mark without a fair bit of further activity, then I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2021 [6].

Accolade (company) edit

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic video game developer and publisher. They are of major importance in the early game industry, featuring veterans from highly notable peers such as Atari and Activision, and going on to create several notable franchises. Article is very complete, thorough, and well-sourced. I'm happy to work on the prose and formatting to bring it up to quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

I have made some copy edits as I went. Flag up here any you don't like or don't understand.

"before facing more difficult competition in the following years." More difficult that what? You haven't previously mentioned competition.
"consolidated into a singular Infogrames brand". Why "singular" rather than 'single'?
"The Accolade brand has since been revived in 2018". The grammar of that doesn't quite work. Maybe 'The Accolade brand was revived in 2018'?
Infobox: "Merged out" is jargon. Although I am stuck for a better brief description. Just 'merged' maybe?
The first quote box - I suggest deleting "Retro Gamer feature".
"Activision became the first ever third-party game developer". Delete "ever". First is first.
"After the large devaluation of their stock". Do you mean 'After a large devaluation of their stock'?
"Miller and Whitehead left Activision to form Accolade in 1984." No need to repeat "in 1984".
"They also hoped to take advantage of the emerging medium of floppy disks compared to the more expensive cartridge format seen on consoles". You are talking about two different things. It may work better as two different sentences.
"not to mention the licensing fees that console brands were charging developers." Again, perhaps a separate sentence?
There are a lot of duplinks.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed some of those sentences. Hopefully I'm on the right track. I didn't see any duplicate links outside the normal standard of linking once in the lead and once in the body, but let me know if there's anything I can modify. Happy to keep working on this once you have more notes. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To take just the first four of many: Porting; Mean 18; Adventure game; and Steve Cartwright. If you ask at Wikipedia:Help desk they will tell you how to load the dup link checker tool. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"multiple dialog options to be seen in later games." "to be" is a little clunky. Could it be tweaked? (Maybe 'multiple dialog options which later became common in games' or similar?)
"which led to HardBall! as his Accolade debut." Perhaps mention which sport features in this game.
"and also introduced new features". Delete "also".
"It became of Accolade's best selling games". Word missing?
"Accolade aimed to balance their role as both developer and publisher". 'roles'?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Still chipping away at this. Keep it coming. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"with external groups handling ports so that Accolade". "ports" is jargon and needs either a different word or phrase, or an in line explanation.
"selling 500,000 units on a budget of less than $80,000." "budget"? Sales budget?
"previously helped Accolade with ports". "ports" again.
"towards a market they previously abandoned." → 'towards a market they had previously abandoned.'
"Accolade CEO Allan Epstein expressed that" → 'Accolade CEO Allan Epstein expressed the opinion that'.
"The company soon released several games on the Sega Genesis" Open question: should "on" be 'for'?
"was that Accolade would meet a quota of games for Sega" . What does "meet a quota of games" mean?
"as a way for Sega to preserve its advantage over other consoles", How did it do that?
"Despite Accolade earning an agreeable court ruling and settlement". I am not sure that "earning" is the best word, and if "agreeable" is not a typo, it looks like one.
"lost somewhere between $15 million and $25 million". Profit or revenue, and why/how?
"As the company rushed to fulfill its mandate to Sega" I don't understand this at all.
"feeling that he lost interest in the diluted quality of their games." The grammar has gone wrong here Do you mean 'stating that he had lost interest in their games because of their diluted quality.'?

"As the company transformed". This is the first mention of a transformation.

Cite 80: 16 pages!?
"including their soccer game Pelé! and football game Mike Ditka Power Football". Anyone outside north America will wonder why you are using two synonyms for football.
"while fighting the injunction in court". Suggest "the" → 'Sega's'.
"the company hired former FAO Schwarz head Peter Harris as CEO in 1994" 1. Abbreviations should be give in full at first mention. 2. What is a "FAO Schwarz head"?

"to attract new investment." How did hiring Harris do this?
"and largely doubled down on existing series." I am unsure what either half of this means. Perhaps express it more formally?
"releasing the game on-time." Why the hyphen?
"The unstable release would ..." What unstable release?
"hurt the reputation of Bubsy series" → 'hurt the reputation of the Bubsy series'.
"as well as Accolade as a company." Did it hurt "Accolade as a company" - which is what you say here - if so, how and why? Or did it also hurt Accolade's reputation? (In which case 'as well as that of Accolade as a company.')
"at the same budget". At the same budget as what?
"did not enjoy the acclaimed legacy of the first two games". I am not sure if this is gamer speak, USVar, or if I am just feeling sleepy, but what does it mean?
"as well as the release of Deadlock that same year". Do you mean 'as was the release of Deadlock that same year'?
Explain what "E3" is in line.
"By that fall". See the MoS on seasons "Avoid ambiguous references to seasons, which are different in the southern and northern hemispheres."
"Accolade cancelled their plans" → 'Accolade had cancelled their plans'.
"Development also completed on Redline" → 'Development was also completed on Redline'.
"to acquire Accolade's employee base of 145 employees". Can we avoid employee twice in five words? Maybe 'to acquire Accolade's 145-strong employee base'?
"brands such as Major League Baseball". Why the italics?
"were published as Infogrames North America starting in 1999." Do you mean something like 'were published by Infogrames North America starting in 1999.' or 'were published under the Infogrames North America brand starting in 1999.'?
"What followed were a series". "were" → 'was'.
"The game was met with negative reception" → 'The game was met with negative reception'.
"where Metacritic aggregated "generally unfavorable reviews". I don't think that "where is correct, and what is "Metacritic"?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most of those. The legal stuff is particularly complicated, but hopefully it's clear that (a) Accolade shifted strategies to consoles, but (b) it backfired with the courts enjoining them from developing or selling the "unauthorized" games, and (c) while they won on appeal and settled with Sega, (d) they still lost millions of dollars due to the interruption, which (e) led to a scramble to make new games and attract new investment, and (f) the change in strategy rippled into the company's leadership. I don't mind taking another stab at it if the rephrasing has introduced new errors. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some minor copy edits as I have gone through. If you don't like any, could you flag that up here? The article looks to be in good shape and I am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The copy edits are great and make things more clear. Thanks for the review and the help. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

I removed one of the images that did not comply with WP:NFCC. The others appear to be appropriately licensed. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no objection, I'd like to re-add it. The article definitely mentions the historicity of Hardball, with the statement "The game was the first to emulate the behind the pitcher viewpoint seen on television, and also introduced new features such as coach-mode and player data." Unless I misunderstood your rationale that the article doesn't describe the gameplay of Hardball. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's no in-depth coverage of the gameplay of this particular game, such that it's not the case that the screenshot's "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" of the article topic (Accolade) as required by NFCC. Using in both the game article and the company article also goes against minimal use IMO. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I know that the WP:NFCC standard is deliberately more strict than fair use, which is sort of frustrating for the non-commerical use of an image of a game from 1985 that isn't commercially available, published by a company that no longer exists. It is hard to find relevant images, so let me know if you find a good image to improve this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. A common mistake is adding too many images to an article that doesn't really need them. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review edit

Add alt text to all of the images per MOS:ACCIM.
Add a caption, row and column scopes, and row headers to the gameography table per MOS:DTAB.
Convert <br> to plainlist or unbulleted list per MOS:PLIST. Heartfox (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be fixed now. Let me know if you see any other errors or omissions. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can add logo_alt to write alt text for the infobox image.
The table still needs row scopes and headers (! scope="row" | SunDog). You can add "plainrowheaders" next to "wikitable" to avoid bold centred text. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be done now. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Heartfox (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done

"The Accolade brand was later revived in 2018, when their former assets were acquired by Hong Kong-based holding company Billionsoft, leading to new Bubsy games published by Tommo. " The text states 2017 and mentions an announcement but not any new publications
Source for headquarters being in San Jose?
FN2: author name doesn't match source
FN4 is a dead link
Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
What makes Saltzman a high-quality reliable source? Hardcore Gaming 101? Retrovolve? VGF? Lendino? Allgame? Sega-16?
FN20 is malformatted
Gamespot or GameSpot or gamespot.com? Check throughout for consistency
FN30: where does this page range end?
Some inconsistencies on what's listed as a work title vs publisher - eg. Kotaku is listed as both in different refs. Check throughout.
Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
Fn41 is incomplete and doesn't match formatting of other refs
Use a consistent date format
Don't mix {{citation}} and {{cite}}-family templates
Ranges should use endashes
FN73 is malformatted. Ditto FN81, check throughout
FN96 is incomplete. Ditto FN108, check throughout
FN98: what kind of source is this?

Lots of formatting cleanup needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source for the Bubsy revival, and for the location being in San Jose. I managed to clean up most of the other references and thanks for catching those.

I went ahead and removed VGF and Sega-16 to be safe. But the other sources should check out very strongly. Saltzman is a prolific journalist for major publications in and outside gaming, and the passage is about Chris Taylor, who he interviewed directly. It passes the highest standard for WP:RS with flying colors, as well as the lower standard at WP:SELFSOURCE for uncontroversial claims about the interview subject. Hardcore Gaming 101 is considered a reliable source among the Video Games Wikiproject and Kurt Kalata is a highly reputable authority as the editor -- their site says "Contributors of articles may not be professionally affiliated with the developer or publisher of any of the games covered. All submitted articles are subject to fact checking and editing by staff." Retrovolve is an interview with the developer Michael Berlyn, quoting his experience with the game's production, so I think this is a WP:SELFSOURCE situation. Jamie Lendino is a reputable author among gaming publications and is really only there to verify the title of the game and its existence. AllGame is similarly only there as a database, and should be as reliable as AllMusic which is in frequent use around Wikipedia. It's since ceased operations due to budget issues, but should be reliable by every standard.

Let me know if there are any lingering issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the fact of being an interview doesn't automatically make the source reliable. Regarding HCG101, FN20 is not attributed to Kalata - why would this specifically be considered high-quality? AllGame is listed at RSP as questionable. I'm also on a quick look still seeing considerable formatting inconsistencies. For example, FNs 85 and 86 are to the same title on the same site, but have different date formats, different dashes and different italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the date formatting, and I hadn't been as thorough checking the accessdate field. I'm hoping I've caught them all now, but you can let me know if you spot any other inconsistencies. I'm happy to keep chipping away.

The HG101 source is for sure edited by Kurt Kalata, especially considering it's the site's official top 200 list. To be safe, I found this longer form published book that's attributed to Kalata as editor, and this is the "top 200" book that the article is summarizing and referencing in its contents. As for the Retrovolve interview, the important part are the statements from developer Michael Berlyn, which give important context about the company's development challenges. They are important but non-controversial claims, and I was able to verify a similar statement to another interview so that there is no doubt about the authenticity, as per the WP:SELFSOURCE section at WP:RS. I did read the consensus about AllGame being questionable, so I went ahead and replaced those with more reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still seeing lots of formatting errors and inconsistencies here. Please go through and make sure that similar sources are formatted similarly, and that the same information is provided where available for each. A few more quick examples, emphasizing that these are examples only rather than a comprehensive list: Computer Gaming World is unitalicized and unlinked in FN79 but both in FN80; Kotaku has a retrieval date in FN20 but not in FN35; Gamespot has a publisher in FN140 but not FN131; FN36 is missing pages and has the edition statement as part of the title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Nikkimaria. I went through them again and tried to dig into the guts of the citation templates. I fixed several more, including the few that you highlighted. There's a lot of references for this lengthy article, and they're from a variety of media (magazines, websites, newspapers, books). Hoping once again that I noticed the last bunch, but I will continue to chip away if you see any other issues. Your help is appreciated. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... believe me, Nikkimaria, I am trying my best. To your suggestions, I tried to (a) add access dates to all "cite web" templates, (b) replace all ranges with the emdash format, (c) fixed the misplaced italics markers, and (d) replaced all "publisher" and "magazine" fields with "work", except where the field is truly just the name of the publisher. I believe that's everything but once again I appreciate any pointers. This is still my first FA nomination but hopefully we're getting close. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I worked through another round of edits. I did a quick scan for quotes within quotes and found one other, which I fixed. Scanned dates and fixed two or three of those. I made the SF Chronicle cites consistent in name and form. I went through the author field for commas / first-last format. Checked the page(s) field to be consistent. I found just one more place where an ndash is appropriate. I removed the new Sega-16 interview, which was only to confirm the accuracy of another interview saying the same thing. Let me know if you see anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the remaining issues are inconsistencies rather than errors, so they're things that need deciding. For example, some periodicals currently have publishers and others don't - neither is wrong, but we need to pick one or the other and run with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little outside my element, so I don't know which sources count as periodicals or not. But my guess is it would be easier to just remove the publisher, assuming that there is still enough relevant information to identify the source. Where should I be looking? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Periodicals are magazines, journals and newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Took care of that to the best of my knowledge. See anything else? Shooterwalker (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what cases are you intending to include retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to use an access date for anything with a URL, and just went over it all again for consistency. It should include a mix of web sources and magazines that are archived online at certain urls. Double checked the book references and found they should all have publishers. Also linked to pages for magazines that have Wikipedia articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your patience, Nikkimaria. I checked once more to make sure the "cite book" templates have "publishers" and not "works". Is there anything else that you see? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be the last issue: FN102 is missing page(s) (and check that it doesn't need combining with FN124). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both of those. Let me know if that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been nominated for over three weeks and has only attracted one general review. If it hits the four week mark without a further detailed review or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's annoying. I'll see if I can scare up some interest from the video games WikiProject. Do you have any ideas to address the lack of reviews? I don't mind doing some QPQ if that's consistent with normal practices around here. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, wasn't SandyGeorgia attempting to fix this issue? I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere. P anini ^🥪 00:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini! edit

Wow, we really need more reviewers over here. Would it be a good idea to put a little icon in the corner of an article to show readers that the article is at FAC, in hopes to attract more attention? P anini ^🥪 00:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shooterwalker, I'll publish my thoughts piece by piece so you can work while I'm reviewing.

Thoughts

Like Namco and Nintendo, the subheaders under history should explain the time range of the events in that section ("(1990-2006)" as an example)
The quote box under origin should be moved to the right, as it breaks up the text and its subheader
Are there any navboxes for this topic?
The lead doesn't really explain why it was purchased by Infogrames, when just before it says they won a profitable lawsuit.
I'd link Activision in its first appearance under Origin
There should be a "Main article" template under Console and legal challenges to Sega v. Accolade, rather than a link in the text.
"New leadership", second paragraph: I think starting a sentence with "So the publisher" is a bit off, maybe try "Instead, the publisher"
There's a couple of duplicate links here, so I recommend User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to point them out.

This is a very solid article in my opinion. So much, in fact, that this is all I had to say and I feel guilty about it, considering you left an 8,000-byte review in return! I hope my future support will make up for that... (I will not be claiming points in the Wikicup for this one). P anini ^🥪 13:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel the least bit guilty -- the review is still helpful and a lot of the other issues were caught by other reviewers. I incorporated all your suggestions, including a clearer lead. Thanks for the review and hoping this means the article is suitable for FA status. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and other related. P anini ^🥪 11:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox edit

Can multiple dialog and three-click system be defined?
I think the 1999 header should reflect that the company ended in 2000. Heartfox (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both those things. Very motivated to get this article into shape, so let me know if there are any other fixes needed for you to feel comfortable supporting. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read the whole article and my comments above were all I had. I know nothing about the topic and haven't done any in-depth stuff but given the supports above and my reading of the prose, I can support promotion :) Heartfox (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note edit

By my count, three people now support promoting this to FA, with a few more neutral comments which I addressed through constructive editing. My hope is that's enough, but if not I would appreciate another chance to solicit more comments. I know I'm biased, but I'd be shocked if there were any significant issues left with the research, prose, or formatting. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recused, but @FAC coordinators: should attract my fellow coordinators, in the event that they have not already taken note. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Namcokid47 edit

I noticed that this was sitting in the FAC backlog for a bit, so I decided to have a look. Unfortunately, I've chosen to oppose this nomination, primarily for the writing. This page feels very half-baked compared to Sega, which is a featured article and more comprehensive and well-written than this. Games are introduced with no context as to what their importance is for the company or the industry itself. Some information feels more like trivia than something that should be included (ex. "Because Accolade had focused their success around sports games, they accidentally placed a sticker on the box of Star Control II calling it the "Best Sports Game" of 1992", I don't see how this is worth mentioning). There's a lengthy list of games that feels more appropriate as its own page than something in the article. The article doesn't really do a good job at explaining the how and why for certain events and game releases, and lots of it just feels tossed in. I get that trying to summarizing the entire history of a company is hard (I encountered this multiple times with Namco), but it still isn't that great. There's other issues as well, such as several links lacking archived versions and some information feeling biased (how exactly was Bubsy a "breakthrough hit"? I'm not seeing it in the citation), but the writing is my biggest issue with this. Namcokid 47 18:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namcokid47, I'm all for putting more work into this one and I've been trying to get more feedback. Were there more issues than the ones you mentioned? A comprehensive review is always appreciated, and I'd like to find a way to integrate any comments in a constructive way. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from TRM edit

"in October 1979" October not mentioned in the main body, would just make this 1979 in the lead and move October to main body.
"including HardBall!, ..." Hardball! doesn't link to a series, the other two do, this is inconsistent.
"published acclaimed games such " well the published the games which then went on to be acclaimed.
"But the company..." reads poorly.
"of a lawsuit with Sega, " even in the lead, worth just summarising what that was about.
"Still, games such..." not sparkling prose.
"called "Infogrames North America" and " Inc.?
"revived ... revived" repetitive.
"by Hong Kong-based" no need to link common geographical regions.
"coding team" jargon, link/explain.
"start Activision in 1979.[2] Activision" quick repetition.
Source says "the first independent game software publisher" makes more sense to me than the "first third-party game developer"
"Activision became the first..." game appears in this sentence thrice.
"in San Jose, California" linked in the lead but not here, what's the approach?
"This would also allow Accolade" -> "This also allowed Accolade..."
"video game climate of the time" odd phrasing.
"CEO" explain/link before using abbreviation.
"High Noon inspired" ->"High Noon-inspired"
Is Dialogue in writing really the pertinent link here?
"game HardBall! as his " this is a different link to that used for Hardball! previously.
"as coach-mode and" why is that hyphenated?
"best selling games" that should be hyphenated!
"Commodore 64[7] and was" you can safely move that ref to the end of the sentence to prevent the jarring insertion.
"commercial blockbuster" this seems POV, is it a quote?
"by external development groups." External groups would" quickly repetitive.
"focus more energy" feels a little colloquial.
Page numbers should be provided for book references.
"called Ace of Aces.[5] Ace of Aces became" quick repeat again.
"called Test Drive.[9] Test Drive was" likewise.
"other computer systems.[6] " do you mean "other platforms"?
"longest lasting" what does that mean?
"game Hardball went" exclamation mark?
Why isn't Serve & Volley considered notable enough for an article?
"Most notably, Accolade's biggest success would be in golf" why is this most notable? And why all the "would be"? -> was.
" in golf.[5] Their golf game"" repetitive.
"of games.[6] These games" likewise.
"Accolade was able to outsell other"-> "outsold"

That's got me to the "Console and legal challenges (1990–1993)" section. Generally I'd suggest the prose needs a lot of work for it to be considered satisfactory for a featured article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- this has been open more than two months and the prose concerns noted above will be better worked on outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2021 [7].

For the Night edit

Nominator(s): ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by American rapper Pop Smoke, featuring Lil Baby and DaBaby. This article has received a peer review and has been heavily improved since its last nomination. Any criticism on how to improve the article would be truly appreciated! ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 👨x🐱 edit

HumanxAnthro not sure if you want to comment but if so, would you say your concerns from the last FAC were adequately addressed? (t · c) buidhe 08:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ultimate Boss I'm gonna say this article looks a lot better than I remember. There are a few nitpicks, like how the Background section is one long paragraph and I don't see why we're only mentioning top-5 positions of other countries in the lead when there are top 10 and top 20 positions in other nations like Canada that are just as noteworthy, but I prose looks a lot better than I remember it, citations are perfectly formatted, and it's comprehensive, so Support for those areas. This article has yet to be spotchecked, however, although I don't doubt there will be many issues. I will ask someone else to spotcheck info cited from the Complex feature about the album, because on my computer it's somehow too much for my computer to load on, and my computer has a ton of data and GBs on it! 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro thanks so much. I have changed it to the top-10 in the lead and made the background to paras. ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essential comment to potential reviewers of this article. Thank you to everyone involved in the discussion! I'm noticing some comments are being made that suffer a syndrome I have been called out for having when considering FA promotions for review; as an experienced FA writer Damien Linnane puts it, "the time spent needing to criticise is extremely minimal compared to the time spend needing to investigate criticisms". Certain comments have been made in this discussion regarding skepticism of its comprehensiveness and other issues that are clearly based on a lack of proper reading on the article as well as knowledge of the actual source coverage the topic has received.

Let me make this clear. I'm not the nominator of this article, nor was I one of its prime writers (I've only made a few quick edits to it), nor am I anywhere near close to a fan of modern artists like Pop Smoke. There is also nothing wrong with being strict and difficult in FA reviews, and it should be that way so that we demand the best of articles. I'm also not a soft reviewer, as I have held nothing back with MOS comments, prose, spotchecking, reliability of sources, on other things when it comes to my reviews on Chromatica, Plants vs. Zombies, Taylor Swift (album), and I haven't even completed them yet.

My point is, we should be strict on the article with our comments. This does not mean, however, to be unreasonable and make comments based on ignorance. Stating an article is short and doesn't have certain info means nothing if there are no sources covering that info, and a short article does not mean a non-comprehensive one. We have had many short FA articles the same length or less as this article. If you think the article is non-comprehensive, research and look into the sources before you can actually conclude it is non-comprehensive. I've seen this issue in GA reviews as well, so please don't spread it here plus other FA nominations. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also changing my !vote to a Weak oppose, because concerns about the prose being weak have turned out to be valid the more I look at this page. I'm considering sections like "Background" and "Reception" may need a WP:TNT. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ImaginesTiger edit

Oppose on prose. I didn't contribute to the original nomination and haven't looked over the feedback there, but the prose isn't working for me. If I had to describe it in a word, it'd be staccato—the prose, to borrow something I saw Sandy say once, "isn't singing". I don't think the prose has to be a work of art, but it doesn't feel like there's any flow; it’s a list of statements that doesn't especially tie together. I don't have the time to do a full review, pointing out all of the issues, but FAC isn't the place to fix this all of this to force through an FA to 'honour' an artist. All of the little issues really do grate me: references are placed after punctuation; there's no need to provide initialisms for organisations named in the last sentence of the article; if a source's wording is used, they must also be named; why is the bit about DaBaby in "Writing and composition" instead of critical reception? The article just feels bare. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers Because it is talking about DaBaby's honoring Pop Smoke in his lyrics. They are not praising his lyrics, just talking about what he rapped about. And I am pretty sure references are placed after punctuation when it comes to articles. HumanxAnthro can you help me explain to Tigers with these issues? ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was that references should be placed after punctuation in the article. That isn't currently the case. Is it a small thing? Yes, but in a tiny article, it should have been caught before coming here, and the issues add up. It’s an oppose from me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro can you help me explain to Tigers with these issues?

Thank you for commenting, ImaginesTigers. I don't think the article is in a strong "Oppose" mode. The "little issues" he discusses are either easily fixable or non-issues.

(1) "there's no need to provide initialisms for organisations named in the last sentence of the article" Is this a MOS requirement at all? Because we shouldn't have the fate of FA nominations determined by extremely personal and trivial preferences of one editor that may not violate any guidelines.

(2) "references are placed after punctuation" I'm not sure how this is an issue as we always place citations after periods, commas, semi-colons, and other punctuation. I don't know how this is a problem. Or are you expecting citations after complete sentences, even though quotes, commas, semi-colons, and colons are punctuations too? This is not something to WP:SNOW end a FA nomination over.

(3) I expressed similar concerns about the prose ImaginesTigers is worried about in a previous FA nomination of this article, when it was in a lesser state. Honestly, I'm not finding these kind of "staccato" issues in its current state, as it does vary sentence length to keep it interesting. Even if there are instances where it feels a little bit like a list of details in a sentence, that's either easy to fix (at least in my experience working on articles) or the result of available reliable coverage of most pop songs being plain and overly-non-analytic in their opinions, facts, and interpretations. There are exceptions, of course, like "West Ass P-Word", in that they're so discussed within the sociopolitical landscape they can't help but get depthful coverage, but that is far from what "For the Night" got.

Excuse me for going WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but I honestly think the prose is just as good as the recently-nominated-to-FA "Lips are Movin", which has "staccato" prose especially in its reception and "chart performance" section and are still well-written sections with the material it has to work with. What else is there to talk about with worldwide commercial performances besides peaks and certifications when no analysis of commercial performances of those countries exist, for example?

In my honest opinion, in situations like these, the biggest concern would be if the prose was understandable and concise to readers. I still take organization and flow into consideration, don't get me wrong, but I think at its current state its the best it is for the milquetoast coverage it got.

(4) "The article just feels bare." If you're referring the length, please understand that featured articles don't have to be long (although they can't be stub length) to qualify; they just have to be comprehensive, and I can tell you it's comprehensive as that's all that was available in the sources.

(5) "All of the little issues really do grate me" I understand small things can annoy a reader emotionally where noticing all the other good things about it can get impossible, but please make sure your emotions don't affect the objectivity of your comments. I've been guilty of that before, trust me, and I've been metaphorically kicked in the ass for it.

I'd like to get perspectives from this who have reviewed and written pop song articles for featured article promotions. @MaranoFan:, @HĐ:, @SNUGGUMS:, would to like to chime in on this? 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro, it is definitely a weird move to criticize my article (which you made me rewrite for days and eventually supported for promotion) and then invite me to offer suggestions on how to improve this one. Anyways, I am of the opinion that if something truly represented "some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" then you wouldn't have to use another article as a scapegoat to defend it.--N Ø 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I wasn't criticizing your article. I was praising it and supporting as an example of good prose. Huh? 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a glance, I don't think the prose is so bad. The only thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was not using Hannah Giorgis's first name when first introducing the critic. A couple more minor issues are instances of two consecutive sentences starting with the same word (namely "The" in the last paragraph of "Critical reception" and "Jess Jackson" under "Background"), which feels repetitive. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Fixed the author plus the minor issues brought up 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. MoS doesn't supercede common sense. Why include an initialism for it to be never used? 2. Read my clarification -- I was saying that there is a reference not attached to punctuation, which should have been caught in a small article like this. 3. The prose isn't ready to me; this isn't saying that the prose has to be completely stellar, but just because it's better than it was before does not mean it's good. Likewise, article feeling "bare" isn't me saying it is short; it's me saying that the writing does not fill those gaps; the article feels bare because the prose is bare. It isn't about length. I'm not going to comment on other recent successful nominations because I haven't read them. Other stuff does, indeed, exist! 5. Questioning my integrity as a reviewer over emotionality is a bit ridiculous. I gave an honest appraisal, which is that the article's prose grated on me; stuff like "Retrospectively, critics have considered "For the Night" one of 2020's best songs. The Line of Best Fit ranked "For the Night" at number 46 on their list of 2020's best songs". Critical reception is, by my eye, the worst offender. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Actually, I did notice the "retrospectively" thing and thought it was kind of odd, so you're right about that.

(2) Just because I don't want to focus on this anymore, I removed those initialisms

(3) Apart from a couple of small edits I just made in the commercial performance section, there is not punctuation mark issue. Every reference is attached to a punctuation mark. Quote marks are punctuation marks. Commas are punctuation marks. Semi-colons are punctuation marks. I really hope you know this.

(4) I have taken a closer look at Reception and actually, you're right it could be better. Looking at it now 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the first sentence of critical reception. Are we reading the same article? :P That's a disjointed reference — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now we're reading different articles because I just revised it. If you're talking about the cite after the quote marks, quote marks are punctuation marks. If that's the issue, don't simply say "punctuation mark." Specify to cite after only periods or only commas and periods or only, comma, periods, and semi-colons. Otherwise, you're just throwing us off with vague wording. Like I said, this doesn't sound like a blatant issue to WP:SNOW end a nomination over. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hyperbole is a bit over the top; one oppose is not "ending a nomination". 🙄 — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion about article content instead of at other editors. As someone who's guilty of being sarcastic here and there, if I misinterpreted something, please bring it up civilly. I actually appreciate some of your comments for making me give a second look at the page, and although I'm not the nominator and prime contributor to the article, I've done some edits with these concerns. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Nick-D edit

Oppose I agree that this isn't a FA-level article at present and would need considerable expansion and copy editing to meet the FA criteria. Some examples (not intended to be comprehensive) are:

No background is provided on Pop Smoke or the various other artists involved - FA level articles should be accessible to readers who are completely unfamiliar with the topic, and articles on songs should explain how they fitted into the artist's career
- Background sections in song articles in general are probably a topic to be discussed elsewhere, but I'm gonna propose against this specifically for this article as it would violate 4 of the WP:FAC for "focus[ing] on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." Having random short bios of artists in the beginning is annoying and, in other FA song reviews where I've seen background sections of artists proposed, would have nothing to do with the rest of the article. We really need to stop putting random background sections into every article just because other articles do it. I'm absolutely for accessible prose as much as anyone, but an article is not inaccessible to a reader just because there aren't brief bios of the rappers; they have the articles on those rappers and artists to learn more about them. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is somewhat short, and doesn't provide much detail on key elements of the topic (for instance, 'Writing and composition' is a short para)
- While I appreciate that you're putting the article under scrutiny, the lack of certain details and a short length does not automatically equal a non-comprehensive article. The article is the length it is because that was the all the info available in sources. Keep in mind that a short article doesn't mean an incomplete article (although you can't have an article stub length), and we cannot magically produce new reliable sources to fill in some details out of thin air.
""For the Night" was written by Pop Smoke, Lil Baby, DaBaby, CashMoneyAP, Palaze, and Wylo." - what was the writing process, and what did each of these artists contribute?
- Unfortunately, there is no info from reliable sources to be used to answer those questions. If you're looking for all the info that was available on the making of this song, that's in the "Background" section. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"while Wylo, Jess Jackson, and Mike Dean were credited as additional producers" - what were their roles?
- Again, no reliable coverage to specify this. All we have is credits from the liner notes. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first para of the 'Critical reception' section makes little sense, as it confuses the views of individual critics with a consensus, even going as far as to seemingly claim that all critics" suggested it could be a "monster hit" and a "social media ready smash""
- I'll let the nominator and prime contributor of this article address what's going on with this. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto the claim in the lead that " Critics named "For the Night" one of the best songs of 2020, noting the rapper's performances and instrumentation."
- First paragraph of reception section starts with "Critics called "For the Night" one of the best songs of 2020,[4][15]". Second paragraph states "Other critics highlighted the song's vocals and instrumentation," with the rest of the paragraph elaborating what specific opinions were made about them. Body already satisfies lead. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the prose is frequently clunky (for instance, "Pop Smoke's team was surprised when he recorded his vocals as it was the first time they heard him singing", " Jackson's main challenge was hot to combine Lil Baby's timbre work with DaBaby", "The three rappers dream about events that normally happen during the night", etc). Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: Why are you replying to my comments here? Are you a co-nominator? If so, please add yourself and strike your vote above. I disagree completely with all of your responses above. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox edit

Three commas in the first sentence (and they're not after a date or list or something)? This should be rephrased for better flow.
"about nighttime events" → this is too vague.
"DaBaby his fourth, and Lil Baby his fifth top-10 hit in the US" → I don't think this should be in the lead.
"The song reached the top-five on the Billboard airplay Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Rhythmic charts" → why do we care about mentioning these charts when it was in the top 10 on the Hot 100? Usually genre/format-specific charts would only be mentioned if it didn't chart on the main one.
"the rapper's performances and instrumentation" → the rapper's instrumentation?
"background" needs a lot of reworking/elaboration.
WP:CITEOVERKILL in "writing and composition"; seven footnotes in a row is distracting.
"The three rappers dream about events that normally happen during the night" → what events? This could be interpreted in so many ways.
"convincingly dragged-out, haunting angle on his craft at the precipice of global stardom" → I don't know what this means; maybe try paraphrasing.
"While Wongo Okon" → using "while" in this way seems non-neutral because it's implied that the second critic's views are more credible than the first.
"declaring" → this is too strong of a word to use for a review of a song I think.
"Ashton Howard of Earmilk declaring the rappers delivered a "phenomenally charismatic appearance" → what does this have to do with the song's "vocals and instrumentation"?
It's hard to follow which rapper(s) the critics are referring to; maybe reorganize.
"The vocals and instruments incorporated had lesser reviewers" → I thought the song's vocals and instrumentation were highlighted? And what does "lesser reviewers" mean?
"The song was later released as the album's fifth single" → this may be hard to cite, but all the source gives is the radio add date, not that it was the "fifth single".

Given my comments above, I would have to oppose as well. I am also disappointed The Ultimate Boss has not edited in almost seven days and comments by other editors above have gone unaddressed. Given their comments elsewhere, that may be out of their control but the FAC instructions say "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly"—that is not happening right now. Heartfox (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2021 [8].

Philippines edit

Nominator(s): Showiecz (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the country of the Philippines, a nation of more than 100 million in Southeast Asia. As one of the most populated countries in the world, it is quite significant. Showiecz (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose nom is ranked 9 in the contributors by authorship, and they did not discuss on talk page with other editors if it is ready. (t · c) buidhe 14:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose Agree with above, as a major topic, and given the article hasn't been prep'd for FAC, with no indication of following up by the nominator on the likely myriad and complex points requiring addressing (see the FAC for India for eg), propose a WP:SNOW close. Appreciate however that the nom was in good faith. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - premature nom. As above, major article and primary authors have not been contacted. Furthermore, there's some issues throughout that show that this wasn't fully prepared - an outstanding better source tag from 2020, outdated material in spots such as the statement "Gross international reserves as of October 2013 are $83.201 billion." or "Remittances peaked in 2006 at 10.4% of the national GDP, and were 8.6% and 8.5% in 2012 and in 2014 respectively" (2014 source). Water supply needs almost a complete update, I think. Some prose issues as well "The Ati-Atihan, Moriones and Sinulog festivals are among the most well-known" is a sentence fragment. Some refs are missing page numbers, such as ref 108. This needs a got bit more preparation. Hog Farm _Talk 22:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2021 [9].

Tibesti Mountains edit

Nominator(s): Brycehughes (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an large, relatively unexplored, volcanic mountain range in middle of the Sahara desert. It possesses a harsh climate, yet supports a variety of desert flora and fauna. It is populated by the Toubou people, who have a unique culture and an independent spirit. This, along with its geographic position straddling the border between Chad and Libya, has engendered a volatile history. The Tibesti range is noted for its active volcanic landscape, its rock and parietal art, and its extreme geographic and cultural isolation. Brycehughes (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass, see talk for details (t · c) buidhe</fspan> 23:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta edit

I tend to agree with Buidhe about the length of the Flora and fauna section. I appreciate that it's there (it's usually the first section I look at in articles like these), but at the same time it's quite long, somewhat listy, and at the same time quite incomplete – no mention, for example, of lichens and very little of bryophytes. How do you feel about spinning off an article Flora and fauna of the Tibesti Mountains? Esculenta (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that section wasn't good. In fact, some of the sourcing in the fauna subsection was off. Back when I wrote it (like 2013), I'm guessing I wrongly used the WWF source as a proxy for the other sources listed in the WWF document. Anyway, I trimmed up both sections and fixed the sourcing, so hopefully they read better now. I also added information on bryophytes and lichens (although lichens are quite sparse in the Tibesti). Thanks a lot for suggesting that. Let me know if it needs more work.

Re splitting to a new article – I don't know. I think in theory a lot of the sections could have their own articles, but I'm not sure any of them desperately warrant it yet. The Tibesti Mountains have not been heavily studied, so there's not a lot of information out there. Moreover, I have absolutely zero expertise in biology, and I don't think I've ever written a biology-type article, so my confidence is not exactly high in terms of writing a decent one. That said, I'm not at all opposed to the idea in theory. Brycehughes (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section is now better. However, there’s still a lot of Latin in the flora section. I wonder if it might worth considering cutting some of this back by trying to use common names where possible and linking to the Latin name. This won’t be possible in all cases, and it might be difficult to make a judgment call on what common name to use when there’s more than one option available. But reading text like "sea rush and toad rush" is generally easier and more interesting than "Juncus maritimus and Juncus bufonius". Similarly, how about saying “the most common grass” rather than “the most common Poaceae”.

Done, where possible. Brycehughes (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments on this section:

”such as Enneri Yebige, which is virtually unexplored.”; “Although the lake appears rich in phytoplankton, it has not been thoroughly studied.” These statements are cited to sources that are over 20-25 years old; any updates since then?

25 years is like yesterday in Tibesti exploration time. The region has been rife with conflict for nearly 60 years now, keeping most scientists away and limiting exploration to satellites. See the "Modern history" and "Scientific exploration and research" sections for a summary of that. I check somewhat regularly to see if there has been any new research or exploration, because it's like finding a diamond, but sadly no, there has not been to my knowledge. Brycehughes (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

”Acacia nilotica grow near these water basins.”; “while Tamarix nilotica grow at similar elevations” It sounds pretty odd to me to use "grow" instead of "grows"

Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

”20 to 60 cm (7.9 to 23.6 in) “ too much accuracy in the output compared to what was put in, especially since the first set of numbers looks like a rough approximation anyway

Done, ~~but had to handwrite it because you can't set significant figures independently on a ranged convert template~~ converting it to integers worked. Brycehughes (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

”and do not exceed one meter.” should have a convert for that too

Done. Brycehughes (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fix "At the highest elevation elevations"

Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please add a picture or two of the most common plants, to help break up the text, and so I know what to look for next time I visit!

@Buidhe had removed the images (which I'm fine with) in this edit, along with the edit summary "Only use plants that have been photographed in or around the mountains", which, given that this is the Tibesti Mountains, is exactly zero. I wonder if it's okay to use an image or two with captions making it clear that this is an example of the plant but not photographed in the Tibesti? If not, we might be stuck on this one. Brycehughes (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to that if the caption is clear. The issue is massive galleries of flora and fauna photographed in a different location. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added File:Acacia laeta ms 2460.jpg, File:Abutilon fruticosum 1.JPG and File:Canis aureus revivim2.JPG (@Buidhe not sure if you care to review). ~~I don't think File:Abutilon fruticosum 1.JPG needs a detailed caption because the image is restricted to the flower.~~ Brycehughes (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless, the positive effects of the gold discovery should not be underestimated." This phrase sounds quite odd in Wikipedia voice ... Esculenta (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Does it? How would you rephrase?~~ Brycehughes (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review @Esculenta! Brycehughes (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esculenta, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only read the flora and fauna section, and my suggestions have been addressed, but I can't really commit to a full support. Esculenta (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chipmunkdavis edit

My resolved issues, including writing issues, and sourcing spot check questions, are on the talkpage. Article appears well written (1a), comprehensive on a topic that is understandably difficult to obtain sources on (1bc), neutral and stable (1de). The lead seems a reasonable summary (2a), article structure perhaps a tad on the long side but not egregiously so (2b), all book journal and news sources use consistent shortform (2c). Media appropriate and checked above (3), and article is within length guidelines with no obvious excess or tangents (4). CMD (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot edit

Looks like an excellent article. I have only a handful of small concerns.

"there is no relationship between the age of the volcanoes and their dimensions, geographic distribution or alignment, similar to the Hawaiian–Emperor and Cook-Austral seamount chains"— shouldn't this say "in contrast to" instead of "similar to"?

Fixed. Excellent catch. Thank you. Brycehughes (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources specify why it's possible to identify the Toubou with the people mentioned in ancient sources like Herodotus and Julius Maternus? Ethnicity is a slippery phenomenon, and while I'm not familiar with Maternus, Herodotus's understanding of the world beyond Greece was… inconsistent, shall we say.

Regarding Herodotus, the severely colonial (to put it mildly) Chapelle 1982 (first published 1957) devotes a paragraph to the matter (in French), which I have copied to the talk page here. First he quotes Herodotus, roughly translated as, "From Awjila, then ten more days away, there is a mound of salt, water and palm trees. ... The people of Garamantes live here, and they hunt Ethiopian troglodytes using four-horse chariots. ... They speak an unusual language that sounds like the cry of bats." Chapelle then goes on to argue that these "Ethiopian troglodytes" are indeed the Toubou, roughly translated and paraphrased as: "We can reason that these 'Ethiopian troglodytes' are the Toubou. Troglodytes are by definition cave dwellers, and thus they could only have lived in the mountains near the Fezzan, either the Tassili n'Ajjer or the Tibesti. The terrain of the Tassili n'Ajjer and its neighboring ergs are not suitable for chariots, while the regs that stretch between the Fezzan and the Tibesti would have allowed four-horsed chariots to pursue the troglodytes who came to plunder the palm groves. Besides, the language of the Toubou does sound like the cry of bats." (He does reference a source in his argument [Behm, E. (1862). Le Pays et le peuple des Tebu.] but I have no idea where one would find that.) Do you think I should summarize this in the article, perhaps in an endnote? Brycehughes (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a brief note would be good.

Done. Brycehughes (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Maternus, Oliver 1975 does not give a why, but he does say (p. 290), "And there is no reason why the Garamantes should not have shown their goodwill by allowing a Roman such as Maternus to take part in one of their expeditions (including camelry) against the southern 'Ethiopians' (in all probability the people of Teda [a Toubou people] and Tibesti and their neighbourhood)." Does that suffice? I could note the "probability" qualifier if necessary. Brycehughes (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fine with the qualifier.

Done. I used "almost certainly" as equivalent to the source's "in all probability". Brycehughes (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less significantly, saying that Herodotus "portrayed" (as opposed to "mentioned") the Toubou sounds odd, and given the ambiguity of ancient uses of the term "Ethiopian", it seems worth linking to Aethiopia, which explains those ambiguities.

Done and done. Brycehughes (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had momentary difficulty parsing the sentence about al-Maqrizi and Leo Africanus. "Recognized", again, sounds odder than "mentioned" or "referred to", and "that is to say" is wordier than "or" or "meaning".

Fixed per your suggestion. Brycehughes (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Chadian Civil War uses the qualifiers "basically" and "largely", but these are the kinds of words that can often be cut (though it depends on what the sources say).

To paraphrase, the article says, "The Tibesti area was basically ungovernable and thus the French left it largely alone". The key passage in the source (Nolutshungu 1995) is: "General Edouard Cortadellas had to admit the impossibility of subduing the Toubou in their own area. ... He concluded, 'I believe that we should draw a line below it and leave them to their stones. We can never subdue them.' Subsequent French policy never strayed far from that view." Accordingly, I've deleted "basically" since I suppose "impossibility" is pretty definitive there, but I lean towards keeping "largely" because "never strayed far" does allow some wriggle room for French interventions. Brycehughes (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

"Where mosquitoes do not abound, they support several villages…" If people don't settle in the most mosquito-ridden areas, it's better to make that explicit, and ideally say why (because the mosquitoes spread disease or are just a nuisance). A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source (Hughes, Hughes and Bernacsek 1992, p. 20) is pretty vague on this: "Where these oases are accessible, and not infested by mosquitoes, their natural vegetation of Acacia, Ficus, Hyphaene and Tamarix, tends to have been replaced by Phoenix dactylifera. Communities have developed at several sites ...". I suppose I'd argue that we're pretty safe in letting the reader infer that people avoid mosquito-infested areas because mosquitoes are universally known to be, at the very least, bloody annoying, and I worry about any extrapolation going outside the bounds of the sourced info. What do you think? Brycehughes (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all the sources say, that's all they say, so you can leave it as is. A. Parrot (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review, A. Parrot! Just a few questions above. Brycehughes (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Version reviewed

The lead says the Toubou first "appeared" in the range in 5th century BC, but the text says "settled" - I would say those are two different claims

Good point. I reworded both to "were settled in the range by the 5th century BC", in that they were first described as living in the range by Herodotus in the 5th century BC. I suppose they could have appeared there earlier. Brycehughes (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tarso Tôh, which includes 150 cinder cones, two maars and several basalt lava channels" - source?

Added: "Tarso Tôh". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved March 20, 2021.

"The range is 380 km (240 mi) in length, 350 km (220 mi) in width,[11]" This source agrees the maximum width is 350k, but gives a much longer length

Typo. Fixed. Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Peaklist a high-quality reliable source?

Removed, along with the endnote it was supporting. It was a compendium of data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission but it was only supporting a somewhat frivolous endnote, so I think the path of least resistance is removal. Brycehughes (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"more rarely, the Northeast African cheetah". Cited source mentions cheetah but not this specific species nor that it is rarer

I removed the subspecies and added a source for the rarity: "Bien que peu commune, l’espèce est distribuée en Afrique méridionale et orientale dans le Sahara central, et au Tibesti" in Camps-fabrer, H. (1999). "Guépard" [Cheetah]. Encyclopédie berbère (in French). Vol. 21. Édisud. pp. 3231–3234. doi:10.4000/encyclopedieberbere.1810.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

" Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia), of which it has the largest population in the world.[64][73][74]". I see that FN74 says it has the most important population, but it doesn't say largest

I removed the claim. I don't know what they mean by "plus importante population". I did some more research and it doesn't appear anyone really knows how many sheep live there. Brycehughes (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"20 CFA franc postage stamp issued by Republic of Chad in 1961" - source says 1962

Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of source is Baroin 2003?

I suppose it's essentially a thesis, and so I've updated the citation template. Although it's a little strange, because Baroin was quite accomplished by 2003, having published multiple books (including one, Baroin 1985, that this article cites) and journal articles over previous decades.

Would this thesis be of the kind that would meet Wp:SCHOLARSHIP, or are you basing its inclusion on Baroin being a subject-matter expert? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may well meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but I'm going to argue from subject-matter expert. Baroin is a long-time expert in Saharan/sub-Saharan anthropology, and with regards to the Tibesti and the Toubou, she is one of the very few anthropologists with a focus on the area and its people. To support my claim, I've put together a sample of her work on the talk page to show that she is cited in works by high-quality, authoritative academics, journals and publishers as a subject-matter expert. The Tibesti does not get a lot of attention from scientists, due to its isolation and danger. Baroin is a rarity. Brycehughes (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio France Internationale is sometimes italicized, sometimes not - should be consistent

Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzati: as per this RfC, are there any secondary sources indicating the significance of this reference?

There's this one, which devotes several paragraphs to the story on pp. 13–14 that I believe establish its significance. I had already used the source as a reference in an endnote; I've now added it to the end of the Buzzati paragraph as well. Brycehughes (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The hostage incident, known as "L'affaire Claustre" served to further destabilize Chad". This seems very close in wording to the source: "This hostage crisis "L'affaire Claustre" further destabilized Chad"

Rephrased and added source: Henderson, David H. (April 2, 1984). War since 1945 Seminar: Conflict in Chad, 1975 to Present: A Central African Tragedy (Report). Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Archived from the original on August 28, 2020. Retrieved March 21, 2021.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Similarly "the French leader of the intervention force, General Edouard Cortadellas, admitted that the Tibesti area was ungovernable" versus the source's "the French leader of the intervention force Gen. Edouard Cortadellas conceded that the Toubou areas were basically ungovernable"

Rephrased. Brycehughes (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked for other instances of wording that may be too close to the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my wording review on the talk page here, which reviews each instance aside from the two we already worked through above. (Hopefully it makes sense but please let me know if you need any clarification.) As a result of this, I have changed the wording of four further instances because they paraphrased the source too closely. Brycehughes (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed a number of other works, which led to these changes here. I've written a short overview on the talk page here. Brycehughes (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher and Fisher seems an odd source for what it's citing; can you explain? Ditto Leclant - why not cite the actual work instead of the review?

Re Fisher and Fisher: it's supporting "his expedition was fiercely opposed by the Toubou". For example, the "violent threats" discussion on page 36 and the "the intrusion into the Tibesti of an unauthorised and unwelcome foreigner" on page 37.
Re Leclant: I don't have access to the reviewed work. I'm stuck on an island in the middle of the ocean (thanks, pandemic), we don't have Amazon, etc. (plus, it's expensive), and according to WorldCat I'd have to travel to North America or Europe to find it in a library. It is searchable on Google books, and I have a hunch where the info might be, but Google Books isn't giving me access to the full pages in search, only useless snippets. So, I've sourced it from the review. Brycehughes (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about using WP:RX to get the relevant pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After all that blubbering, I found it. It's on page 228. I replaced Leclant with the original work. Brycehughes (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Hagedorn have an ISBN?

Added. Brycehughes (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes GlobalTwitcher a high-quality reliable source?

Rephrased info and replaced source with: Ginsberg, J.R.; Macdonald, D.W. (1990). Foxes, Wolves, Jackals, and Dogs: An Action Plan for the Conservation of Canids (PDF). International Union for Conservation of Nature. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 5, 2016.

Huß is missing publisher

Added. Brycehughes (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahjoub includes publication location but most sources don't - should be consistent. Also the link mentions a translator who should be credited

Removed location and added translator. Brycehughes (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tubiana & Gramizzi also has location when most sources don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Brycehughes (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. Brycehughes (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The specific issues identified above have been resolved, but just noting that Buidhe also found some text-source integrity issues - would strongly suggest going through to look for more of these kinds of problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks edit

I checked several cites and found that a majority were not backed up by the cited source. In particular, there was an issue with generalizations made with original research. See talk for details. (t · c) buidhe 11:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, many thanks for the review. I've responded on talk. Once you've had a chance to look at the responses, I'll proceed from there. Thanks again, Brycehughes (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just pinging here, Buidhe, I would be very happy if you could find the time to look at my responses in the next few days, but if you're busy, I absolutely understand. Brycehughes (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- if there are issues with a spotcheck after the nom's been open almost two months my immediate inclination is to archive and ask that rework be done outside of FAC; since Bryce has responded to the concerns, I'll give Buidhe a bit longer to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking my oppose because reconsidering the responses, I am not sure if this is a systematic issue. However, I think the article would benefit from more source checks. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Heh, I think this has probably been left to bleed out on here long enough, and so you can archive it. At a certain point it just gets embarrassing. I do however want to sincerely thank Buidhe, Esculenta, Chipmunkdavis, A. Parrot and Nikkimaria for putting the time in to review this article, and I also want to sincerely apologise to you all for not being able to get it over the finish line. I started work on this article nearly a decade ago, initially translating it from the French article in 2013. I’ve never had any grand designs on getting it featured. (Once upon a time back in 2016 when I was, uh, not sober and not even really devoting much time to Wikipedia I nominated it at FAC… I knew not what I was doing… sorry about that.) But working on this article over the years has brought me a great deal of joy, and when an admin recently accidentally nominated it at GAN and the GAN reviewer strongly recommended I put it in for FAC I thought, why not? You only live once. I’ve enjoyed almost every minute of this FAC review process, and I remain in utter admiration of the editors, reviewers and coordinators that bring articles on this free website up to an almost-beyond encyclopedic standard. Although Tibesti Mountains won’t get its star, I believe that it is a very good article—especially now, after FAC. For an almost unexplored mountain range with very little media/research coverage in literally the farthest reach of Africa, only Wikipedia could thoroughly sketch it in such an accessible forum, and that I believe is something we can all be proud of. Brycehughes (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryce, this is the thing with spotchecks, I've been in Buidhe's position myself as a reviewer: if one finds specific issues and they're all addressed then that's great, but they are just a subset of all the references and there's the nagging doubt about the rest unless the nominator goes through all the other citations to ensure there are no similar issues, after which we'd want to run another spotcheck of a few citations that weren't part of the original check. If you don't feel you can invest that time then yes we should close this -- pls just let me know that's still the case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I suggest closing not based on the spot check nor due to time constraints, but rather this has been open for over two months now and has attracted relatively little attention. It lives, somewhat pathetically, at the bottom of the FAC stack. (Even a "Source review – Pass" wouldn't yet be sufficient for promotion.) Whether there's a star in the corner of the article or not has little bearing on the reader experience; due to the efforts of the reviewers, it is now a very high quality article and should remain that way; and I think there is at least some onus on my part to suggest we keep the FAC highway moving. Brycehughes (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for reviews certainly is no shame. It doesn't necessarily speak for the quality of an article, but often a subject can seem daunting to many reviewers (I've often waited weeks and weeks for reviews during FACs that eventually got promoted). I was considering reviewing this, and if left open, I will soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Christ... I already gave the concession speech ha. Alright, I suppose in that case I am somewhat obliged to keep this going. Thanks, FunkMonk. I'm looking forward to your review. (I also look forward to a time when I don't consistently humiliate myself on this website!)

So, given that I now need to tackle this source check, please see here on the talk page (esp. Buidhe... would really appreciate your input there when you get a chance.) Brycehughes (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

Some preliminary points first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Terms linked in the intro should also be linked at first mention in the article body, such as Sahara.
Stratovolcano, caldera, fumarole, and other such unfamiliar terms could be linked in the article body.

Hi FunkMonk, looks like this article still didn't cut it in the source check. Thanks for taking a look and I'll try to knock these points out in the future, after this is closed.

Ok, and feel free to ping me once this is nominated again. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Feel free to archive, and thank you again to everyone who's participated. This is a very fine process, and likewise I think we've built a very fine article. Brycehughes (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 April 2021 [10].

Mother 3 edit

Nominator(s): TheFallenMoon (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2006 Japanese video game Mother 3. I find this to be a very good article, but the subject itself is particularly notable in gaming communities for never being localized outside of japan. Criticism and ways to improve the article would be much appreciated. TheFallenMoon (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment: references shouldn't use all-caps and should instead use title or sentence case. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nom only edited the page once. (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

The FAC instructions state "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." As this does not seem to have happened, I am archiving this nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 April 2021 [11].

R. A. B. Mynors edit

Nominator(s): Modussiccandi (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those who have read the Aeneid or the poems of Catullus in Latin will probably have come across the name of Roger Mynors. He wrote the standard editions of these works and it is through them that I got interested in him as a person. Though he's mostly known for those books, he did interesting work on manuscripts and catalogued several library collections. What's more, he is unique for having been the senior chair of Latin at both Oxford and Cambridge.

I found this article as a start class last August and made it into my first Good Article with a very instructive GA review by Amitchell125. In the meantime, I left the article to work on similar topics but I returned to make Mynors my first FA candidate. The article has been improved via peer review comments from SandyGeorgia, Gerda Arendt and, again, Amitchell125. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

on the way to his country residence in 1989. "country residence is a bit of an WP:EASTEREGG link

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 1922, Mynors won the Domus exhibition, just link to exhibition, not Domus exhibition

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a scholarship to study Classics should "Classics" be capitalized?

I was under the impression that it should be capitalised here because it refers to the specify discipline of Classics as opposed to classics in the sense of classic books in general. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 1940, after a brief return to Balliol, British involvement in the Second World War led to his being employed at the Exchange Control Department perhaps a half-sentence on what the Exchange Control Department is or was would be good.

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and daughter of his former teacher and Eton headmaster Cyril Alington Cyril Alington → Alington since he was already introduced.

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epistulae (1963) when I saw that link I assumed it went to Pliny's specific work, not a general page.

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

which appeared posthumously in 1990 was published?

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He translated the correspondence of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus for the University of Toronto Press.[3] and maintained an interest in the nearby Hereford Cathedral, serving as the chairman of the Friends of the Cathedral from 1979 to 1984. comma instead of period

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As he left the building he was heard to say that he had had a good day. a bit of trivia that could probably be removed.

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The cathedral's Honorary Archivist later revealed that Mynors had on the same day expressed his delight about his own scholarly work on the death of the Anglo-Saxon saint and historian Bede sentence is confusing.

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The cathedral's Honorary Archivist later revealed that Mynors had on the same day expressed his delight about his own scholarly work on the death of Bede unclear if the second his is referring to Mynors or the Honorary Archivist. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I have added the Archivists name, Meryl Jancey, so that it's clear that both instances of "his" must refer to Mynors. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compare ref 25 to ref 20 for page numbers. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caption in infobox says the image is from a 1993 obituary but the image file page says 1991

I think I got confused between Winterbottom and Gotoff which both use the image. It's taken from Gotoff, so 1991 is the correct date. I've changed the infobox accordingly. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use |url-access=registration instead of {{registration required}} in the Bibliography

Done. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Gotoff, Harold C. in the bibliography use |url-access=registration? Therapyisgood (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise registration was needed but that may be because I have institutional access via my university's vpn. It's fixed now. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gen. Quon edit

“Mynors' academic career spanned most of the 20th century and straddled both of England's two oldest universities.” I think it would be best to explicitly state what these institutions are for folks not in the know. Right now it kind of feels WP:EASTEREGGy.

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Sharing the college with the literary critic…” ‘sharing’ seems like a weird word to use here; maybe something like “He attended college at the same time as…”

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Mynors became well placed to exhibit the virtues of both the British and the German tradition in his academic work” I feel like this could be said simpler. “exhibit the virtues” seems a little POVy to me.

Done. Thank you for raising this, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Though he cultivated leisurely pursuits, such as…” Maybe changed this to “In addition to more leisurely pursuits, such as…”

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Latinist Harold states that he was 'an extraordinary scholar’,” Is this a direct quote? If so, I think double-quotes should be used, unless I’m mistaken.

Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can any of the other publications be linked in the “Publications” section?
I feel like the title case of “Publications” is a bit wonky. Some are in title case, others in sentences case

They should now be in title case, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for my first pass. Let me know if there are any question.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments so far, Gen. Quon. The only one I wasn't sure about was the links in the "Publications" section. The version that was passed for GA had links for all his publications. All but one of them were to subscription-only websites. I decided to remove them when this was criticised by another reviewer. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. My thought would be that including them would be better than not. Right now, folks would have to hunt around for links, but with the links, they could at least purchase access (WP:PAYWALL). Either way, it's not a big issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a peeky at some of the sources in a bit if that's OK.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks edit

Article: "Among his four siblings was his identical twin brother Humphrey Mynors, who went on to become Deputy Governor of the Bank of England."
Source: "...his twin brother Humphrey. ... Sir Ernest Musgrave Harvey, Bt, who held, as Humphrey later did, the post of Deputy Governor of the Bank of England."

Article: "'He told me he was glad that he had translated for the Oxford Medieval Texts the account of Bede's death, and that Bede had not ceased in what he saw as his work for God until the very end.'"
Source: "'He told me he was glad that he had translated for the Oxford Medieval Texts the account of Bede's death, and that Bede had not ceased in what he saw as his work for God until the very end.'"

Article: "His mentorship contributed to Mynors' transformation from an amateur scholar to a professional critic of Latin texts. The two men maintained a close friendship..."
Source: "Although Mynors was already established as a personality and a scholar, he immediately saw that some- thing had been missing. And he himself dated the beginning of his scholarly life to his meeting with the man he called 'Uncle Ed.' ... It was by no means certain that the edgy foreigner and the impeccably mannered Englishman would hit it off. It is, I think, a tribute to both that they did."

Article: "Latinist Harold [Gotoff -- missing, I added] states that he was an 'extraordinary scholar'"
Source: "He was an extraordinary scholar"

Article: "In spite of its accomplishments, classicist Patricia Johnston has noted that the commentary fails to engage seriously with contemporary scholarship on the text..."
Source: "Mynors apparently did not have much use for recent scholarship, particularly that which had a literary orientation. The bibliography contains few works more recent than the early 70’s"

I did a random selection of five citations. All five of them match up, with no noticeable problems. As such, I have no problem voting Support for this nomination.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

Thank you for acting on most of my comments from the peer review, missing only two: Lead

read Classics or classics?
- I believe it's 'Classics' because it refers to the discipline rather than 'classics' as in 'classic books'. I've seen both spellings on and off Wikipedia (Even the Classics article says 'classics') but 'Classics' seems to me preferable. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I am not the one to tell, English not being my first language. To me, it's strange to see "classicist" but then "Classics", and I believe that in the context it is clear. He would not study Mathematics, but mathematics, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an embarrassing topic. I work in the Classics and haven't yet figured out how to spell the very word. According to this, Southern Illinois University don't seem to be sure either. For what it's worth, 'classicist' is rarely capitalised but 'Classics' sometimes is. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

Do we have to know who Bede is, or does it not matter?

I didn't add a proper introduction for Bede because he is mentioned in the "Academic career" section as the author of the Ecclesiastical History. Do you think it should say something like 'the Ecclesiastical History by the Anglo-Saxon historian Bede'? Modussiccandi (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten that he was mentioned, sorry. I may be the only one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor points, therefore I am ready to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

More than three weeks in and this nomination has attracted very little interest. If there is not quite a lot more activity on it in the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice, Gog the Mild. Is there anything that can be done to attract additional reviewers? I'm still new to the FAC process, so forgive me if this would be inappropriate. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Modussiccandi, no, it is entirely appropriate. There are a number of things you could do. Requesting a review of individuals or on projects where you believe there may be interest is one. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome? Who else has ever nominated an article in this general area?) Be careful of your phrasing, keep it neutral. "Could you review my nomination which you may find interesting" is fine. "I need some supports to avoid being archived" is not. If this has gone through PR you could appeal to anyone who contributed there. You could appeal for reviews on the FAC talk page - this goes down best if the editor appealing is known for have done reviews themselves. (Overt quid pro quo is frowned on as it can look like "my support in exchange for your support", but everyone likes an editor who does their hare of reviews and keeps the queue down.) You could call in any favours you are "owed".

Hopefully that is enough to give you the idea. [?] If this is archived, don't despair, use the two week wait doing some or all of the above so that next time you hopefully have a reviewer or two lined up straight from the off.

Did you go with this bit in the FAC instructions "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination."?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed, regardless of whether this FAC succeeds or not. Yes, I have sought the assistance of a FAC mentor. I should probably raise this issue with them, too. I'll try some of the measures you proposed and see if they advance things a bit. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in the Peer review, but don't feel qualified in this content area to opine beyond that. Perhaps Jenhawk777 would have a look? Please ping me again if content-area experts have looked in, and then I will be happy to opine; the article is in good shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612, Caeciliusinhorto, and Cynwolfe: I wonder if you all had any thoughts on this article?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Thank you for thinking of me, but I am going to decline the honor. I am not qualified to evaluate an FA as I have never had a successful one myself. I don't actually know anything about this individual, and I am currently swamped in both RL and here, on things others have requested that I am already behind on, as well as my own work. I'm sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Gen. Quon - I haven't been around wikipedia very much recently, but I will try to have a quick look through the article over the weekend Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but unfortunately I have very little knowledge of Latin poetry. That said, I haven't seen anything wrong in the article and I think it is of FA standard. T8612 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I wanted to let you know that Ergo Sum has indicated that they might post a review in the coming days. They have written a number of academic biographies, so comments from them might satisfy SandyGeorgia's wish for a subject specific review. I hope this and the above reviews are enough of an indication of movement for the time being. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will try my hand at a review tomorrow or the following day. Ergo Sum 23:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noswall59 edit

I am not a Latinist but I do know a thing or two about British academia, so I will present some general comments here. Firstly, this is a well-written article which does a good job of summarising the key facts about Mynors' life-story. Whether more detail could be teased out of the available sources, I don't know. The main concern I have is with the limited discussion of Mynors' contributions to academia; I think it is commonplace here to split articles about writers/academics/creatives into sections as so: (1) biography; (2) writings; (3) legacy/appraisal. What I think this article is lacking is an equivalent to section (2), where you would explain what Mynors' contributions to scholarship were, how they engaged with existing ideas or debates, how they were received in their own time, and how they continue to be received to this day. This would usually take a thematic approach; sometimes (2) might be split into two sections, one which goes into depth about the major publications, and another with explores their contributions to scholarship. To give some examples, see P. G. Wodehouse, Franz Kafka, Bernard Williams and especially Hilary Putnam and Alasdair Cochrane. I notice that Llywrch made similar comments at the peer review. Now, I don't want to shoot down your nom here; I am not a Latinist and others may feel that you have done a good enough job covering the available discussion about Mynors' work. But I do want to put my reservations on record. I should also say that I very much welcome your efforts to improve articles in this field. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Noswall59: Thank you very much for your comments. I have thought about this problem ever since Llywrch's comments at the peer review. I think the problem with Mynors' contributions is that they almost exclusively consist of critical editions which have never been overhauled (i.e. replaced by a rivalling edition). These editions don't interact with other scholarship as much as the publications of, say, a philosopher would. This is why the legacy section focusses on his Georgics commentary: this was his only foray into something other than critical editions.

The source situation is a related issue: classical scholars tend to be covered scarcely. This is particularly true of Mynors because of his field of activity. Since Mynors wasn't a prolific publisher and his books were "just" critical editions, I did not feel that I could reasonably carve out a detailed section on them in the way the Hilary Putnam article does. Instead, I chose to mention the editions in the biography section and write a more general section about the legacy of his work. Now, it would be possible to gather material for a discursive "publications" section; I'm just not sure it would contain much of interest to the general reader. By that, I mean that such a section is at risk of sliding into obscurity on matters of tetxual criticism. To sum up, I believe that everything the general reader would want to know about the merits of his academic work could be said in the "Legacy" section. Please don't feel that my comments are intended to coax you into supporting. Rather, I felt that I should explain why the article turned out the way it did. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Noswall59 wrote above, I am puzzled that a discussion of Mynor's contributions weren't more fully fleshed out. I appreciate that current conditions can hamper such research: not everyone has access to resources like JSTOR, & even then that tool does not include in its coverage all of the relevant specialist literature. However, some information can be added. For example, Mynor & Colgrave's edition of Bede's Ecclesiastical History was the first new edition of that work since Plummer's edition some 75 years prior; that fact in itself is noteworthy. (There is a Loeb edition, Latin text with facing English translation, but the goals of the Loeb Library series never included offering serious critical editions of their texts based on direct examination of manuscripts, & in this specific case the author of that Loeb book admits in his preface that the Latin text is a copy of an 1881 critical edition -- itself "practically" identical to the first critical edition published in 1722 -- with some additions taken from Plummer & a few other authorities. IIRC, Mynor & Colgrave was the first fresh comparison of manuscripts since Plummer.) Mynor also prepared texts of at least two major Latin authors -- Vergil & the Younger Pliny -- which mean no only were they reviewed in the specialist literature, experts consulting the texts for their publication would offer their opinions of his editorial readings in their articles & monographs. In short, the material is doubtlessly out there; it may simply be difficult currently to track it down & actually access it. (One would think that an organization that wants to "become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge" would enable such research for its volunteers. But my opinions are often wrong & irrelevant.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Noswall's and Llywrch's thoughts, I will endeavour to write an additional discursive section on Mynors publications. I have institutional access to most resources, so there shouldn't be much of a problem on this front. I shall ping the both of you when the section's been added. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further coordinator comment edit

With reluctance I am going to have to say that if that much work needs to be done on a nomination it seems clear that it came to FAC not yet ready and so I am going to call time on it. Can I urge involved editors to continue to work on this together, possibly at PR. If the additional work required is completed rapidly the usual two week wait will be waived. (But don't rush; take your time, get it right, get some additional reviewers lined up.) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2021 [12].

Matthew Axelson edit

Nominator(s): Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well researched, notable Navy SEAL that I feel, meets the mentioned requirements for this assessment. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am going to have to oppose this nomination.

There is a very large block quotation. I'm not sure why this has any use.
Several sources have doubtful reliability, for example [13] and [14].
The article does not cover the subject in depth. There are only a few sentences on his death, the event for which he is best known. The article is also only 769 words long. Whilst certainly longer than a stub or maybe even start class, I would generally consider this too short for FA-class.
There's a random Navy Cross on the article.

Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. Also the article gets basic facts wrong. I don't believe that the Navy Cross is not the highest US Navy decoration, it's the second highest since the Medal of Honor has a Navy variant. (t · c) buidhe 20:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and WP:SNOW close nomination instantly as the article would be considered C-class as most. There are obvious issues to someone not even versed in the subject or anything military-related: that insanely, insanely, insanely-long quote; incomplete citations (newspaper articles only have years instead of full dates and have no authors credited); questionable sources; and no representation from other existing sources like another author's book biography on him, indicating a non-comprehensive article. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'm not sure how the article achieved B-Class given the concerns noted above, at its current length one might try GAN after all the issues are sorted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2021 [15].

Suzanne Lenglen edit

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, a tennis player from the 1920s who had many lasting impacts on the game. The text was cut from 66kb when it was nominated last time down to 55kb this time. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Still can cut a lot more. WW1 hiatus is that really that relevant to have a separate section. All needs deleting and just say during the war she participated in charity matches whilst tournaments were not held. I see a load of detail in match of the century, 1919 wim final, the defaulted match and her last amateur match which all have their own article which is linked in here and therefore the descriptions could be slimmed down. Possibly a bit too much trivia on the first pro tour section. Games of the world (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

This seems to be attracting regrettably little interest. If it reaches the three week mark without considerably further contributions I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not attracting a consensus to promote, this is being archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 April 2021 [16].

House of Loredan edit

Nominator(s): San Marco Venice (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the House of Loredan, a noble house which played a significant role in the History of the Republic of Venice of the Republic of Venice, and was influential in various regions across the Eastern Mediterranean.

I believe the article meets the Featured Articles criteria because it checks out the attributes of a featured article, as listed on Wikipedia:

The article is well-written. It features excellent British English and a professional style of writing.

The article is comprehensive. It features virtually everything about the family, including its origins and cadet branches, history organised by centuries, genealogical tables, notable members, estates, as well as the influence it had, organised by regions).

The article is well-researched. It features around 100 sources, mostly books (many written by historians), but also websites and media articles. The research also included many hours of researching the genealogy and ancestry, as well as going through multiple family trees, to be able to write the paragraph about the genealogy of the family.

The article is neutral. It features both the good (role in the creation of modern opera, patronage of world-famous artists) and the bad (involvement in creating the first Jewish ghetto, exploitation of feudal subjects, corruption and the “buying” of political positions) sides of the family history.

The article is stable (it is not subject to edit wars) and is compliant with Wikipedia’s policies.

In terms of style, the article follows the listed guidelines: It features a lead (lede) which summarises the contents and gives an overview of multiple topics which are discussed further in the article. It follows an appropriate structure, with neatly organised paragraphs which describe everything significant about the family. It features consistent citations, and many sentences are followed by inline citations from multiple sources. The article also features a comprehensive infobox containing plenty of important information, as well as multiple tables, such as one containing the list of titles which members of the family have held.

In terms of media, the article features many paintings (such as portraits featuring its most important members), as well as a gallery of photographs of the family’s palaces. It also features a gallery of paintings of the family’s Venetian estates by great Italian painters. All photos feature an informative description. For instance, all paintings feature the name, artist, year (if known) and the museum or gallery where the painting is displayed. The end of the article features two galleries: one about the family depictions in painting, and one about depictions in sculpture.

In terms of length, the article is long but stays focused on the main topic, with the goal of being comprehensive and presenting everything significant about the family.

Oppose, and suggest withdrawal. There is considerable uncited text, the lead is not organized, there are MOS issues like MOS:SANDWICHing and MOS:OVERLINKing, the article is listy, there are excessive galleries, citations are incomplete, there is WP:CITATION OVERKILL, prose redundancies (“in addition ... also”), and Earwig copyvio tool reveals concerns. This article is not to the level of GA yet, and should probably not be rated B-class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oppose - A lot of work obviously went into this, but it's not ready for FAC. I'd recommend WP:PEER REVIEW and then WP:GAN as a starter, and then work up to FAC. There's a lot of uncited text in here - basically everything will need cited. The number of images in the galleries is too large, and there are some MOS:SANDWICH problems with image layout in places. Your inline citations to books will need page numbers. I hate to oppose this quick, as a massive amount of work obviously went into this, but it needs some more work before FA. I'd recommend peer review, where there's no time limit. Hog Farm _Talk 14:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 April 2021 [17].

University of Missouri School of Music edit

Nominator(s): Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the University of Missouri School of Music in Columbia, Missouri. This is the article's third nomination, previous nominations have failed to attract enough reviews. All previous concerns have been addressed. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass per previous FACs. (t · c) buidhe 19:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The history section is quite long, it would have improved readability if you inserted 2-3 subheadings at === level. (t · c) buidhe 19:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your fix looks nice is and exactly where I would have divided it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: did the source review at the previous FAC, do you feel that your concerns have been addressed? (t · c) buidhe 19:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Also pinging Therapyisgood, SandyGeorgia, and Hog Farm who commented on the last FAC. (t · c) buidhe 19:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will take a look soon. Might claim for WikiCup points. The previous FAC was the first FAC I ever reviewed, so I will likely have additional comments. Off-topic comment - I am rooting for Mizzou to beat Oklahoma on the 20th. Hog Farm _Talk 23:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know when in 1917 the department was founded? Beginning of the academic year, what would be considered the fall semester now, or is it not known?

I get the impression from the history there is no one day the department was founded, but the first classes were held beginning at fall semsster, I think it's best in general as that is what is in the source.

Was Quarles the first chair of the department?

He was the second, I have added that Pommer was first chair.

"and continues to the present day." - "to the present day" is inherently ambiguous. I'd recommend using an as of date based on the Budds source or even a more recent one demonstrating that it is still occurring.

Added a new source for 2021 series

"and august musical guest visited campus" - This should be guests, right?

Fixed

" Copeland conducted the University Philharmonic and narrated his orchestral work Lincoln Portrait" - There is no e in Copland

Fixed

I'm unsure about the appropriateness of referring to it as "the School" in the chronological bits before it was actually given the name School of Music; that seems like a bit of an anachronism to me.

Fix two instances of this.

"saw the appointment of its first woman director" - Would the Wikipedia MOS prefer "female" instead of "woman" here? I have no idea

I like female better. Fixed

Link KMUC.

Done

"The School of Music has a partnerships with four Brazilian institutions and a conservatory of music in Avellino, Italy --> "The School of Music has a partnerships with four Brazilian institutions ..."

Fixed

Belem is linked in consecutive sentences

Fixed

"The Mizzou Music Initiative has encouraged the creation of new music and composers such as Stephanie Berg who has seen her work performed by the St. Louis Symphony" - The only one of the refs that mentions Berg by name is an interview of her. I'm a little uncomfortable with only using a primary source associated with her to be the thing leading to her being called out by name in the article. It's a great accomplishment, but I think we need a secondary source for that.

Added NPR source.

"Faculty ensembles include the Esterhazy Quartet, the Missouri Quintet (woodwinds), Mizzou Brass, and DRAX" - Esterhazy is explained above; the Quintet is identified as to type, "Mizzou Brass" is obviously a brass group. But what's DRAX?

Added explanation.

Quarles is listed as a source but isn't used

My understanding of bibliography is that this should also include publications closely related to the topic, they don't necessarily have to be used as sources. But am willing to delete, if you still feel strongly.

Maybe move the unused ones to a Further reading section? So it's clear that they're not used as sources for the article content, but they're also included, since they're relevant? Hog Farm _Talk 00:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How bout if I add a line in the history about the publication of "University of Missouri Songs" and use that as a source, I kinda don't want another section with only one entry. Would that work for you?

Works for me

Done.

I'm concerned that some of the See Also links fail MOS:SEEALSO. The Columbia Chorale seems to be the only one with a really strong connection.

Deleted all but Columbia Chorale

After reviewing this, I think I need to recuse from entering into any declarations here. I think I probably have a COI with this one. I personally know several alumni, and I was involved in a couple high school events sponsored by the school. It's a rather light COI, but enough that I don't quite feel comfortable entering into a declaration on this. Hog Farm _Talk 04:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pending edit

Thanks for the ping Buidhe, I'm glad to see this back here. I'll take a look soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

refs 2, 3, 46, links should be marked as dead

Updated 2 and 3 with new urls, 46 marked dead but archived

I'm getting the sense that you're including the website URL for non-news web sources, this should be done for ref 41,

Done

ref 47 says February 1st for me

Fixed

Got to 47, more later... Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on ref 48 & 68 I get "Your connection is not private. Attackers might be trying to steal your information from www.sinquefieldcharitablefoundation.com" so... I guess mark the link as dead??

Done

refs 49–51 should be marked as dead, as should 53–54, 56–59, 62, 65 – I mean at this point, are you sure you even have the right links?

Looks like the school of music website made small changes to a bunch of urls, this will be fixable just need a bit to update these. I would rather update then mark as dead, even though there are perfectly good archives.

Shouldn't ref 70 have The Ann Arbor News as the work not publisher? Columbia Daily Tribune, USA Today and Fulton Sunas well I believe (the former needs a link like the others)

I'm having a bit of trouble, what parameter would the link be?

Oops yes I'm not sure what link I was referring to. But for the parameter thing, for example, in ref 27 you have |publisher=Columbia Daily Tribune but later you have |work=Columbia Daily Tribune; they should all be the latter in this case, since using "work" italicizes, which is what we want for news sources.

Fixed

Why include locations (Troy, Missouri & Cape Girardeau, Missouri:) for refs 74 & 75 (& 106), but no other web sources? I would remove these locations, for consistency's sake

Fixed

Boonville Daily News missing link

Added

97 should be marked as dead

Done

ref 109 just goes to the home page for me, so mark it dead, I guess?

Done

Reliability

Looks fine. Given the subject matter, I'm inclined to let what might be seen as primary sources be permissible, since I'm fairly confident much of the information they cover is not available elsewhere.

Verifiability

Seems fine, will do formal spotchecks below. Aza24 (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks – Pending edit

Will do soon, probably tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 Friendly reminder (t · c) buidhe 18:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
42 a - good
42 b, not seeing this
102–111 - good
can't access 59 (please add an archive link) but an archived version seems to cover the info here
58 looks good
61 looks good but needs to be archived as the current link is dead
other than 42 b, there's a lot of dead links, please go to "View History" and do "Fix dead links"—I would do it but the bot seems to be done at the moment—I would recommend checking the "add archive links to non-dead links". Aza24 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on prose edit

Oppose: Sorry this has had such bad luck finding people to review over the past couple of years. It has been a while since I have been involved in an FAC nomination, but my inclination is that this is pretty close with the exception of the prose, which strikes me as having a few issues, some relating to general tone (it's not exactly advertisement-like, but it doesn't strike me as "detached encyclopedia voice" to quite the extent we might hope) and others relating to phrasing. For that reason, I would be inclined to say it probably does not meet the prose criteria at this time and might benefit from a thorough copyedit. That said, a few specific observations:

"Music has accompanied life at the University of Missouri since the dedication of Academic Hall in 1843." Seems like an odd way to start? I don't know what it means for "music to accompany life" unless that just means the school of music was founded in 1843, in which case I think it should just say that?
"Although of that first venue only The Columns remain, music itself has since become a serious topic of study at the University." A venue is a singular thing, so I struggle with the construction here. Perhaps it would be clearer to say something like "All that is left of that original venue are its landmark columns" and then merge the remainder of the current second sentence into the third sentence that begins the curricular discussion.
"Instruction as part of official curriculum began" ... meaning the official university curriculum? Or official instruction that counted for academic credit? Needs clarification.
"The Department of Music as part of the College of Arts and Sciences was established in 1917, largely due to the efforts of Pommer, who would charir the department and continue to teach at the University until his retirement in 1922." First, there's a typo in "charir" (that I'll try to remember to fix when I'm done here), but second and more significantly, I'm struggling to follow the modifiers here. Does this mean that the Department of Music was established in 1917 and it was part of the College of Arts and Sciences? Or that the College of Arts and Sciences was established in 1917?
General comment: "Department" is capitalized a lot throughout the article. I don't think it's right for us to treat it as a proper noun throughout? Though I have not read the MOS on that issue recently ...
I am struggling to discern much narrative from the second paragraph of the "founding" subsection. At this point, was the department granting degrees? Teaching classes? (If so, in what?) It reads as just sort of a list of ensembles and concerts ... and if that's what it was at the time, it would be helpful to clarify that because I don't think that's how one might think of a school of music.
Phrases like "Growth came with a downside" are probably not appropriate ... they editorialize a bit and detract from the encyclopedic tone, I think.
In the academics section, some history on these degrees would be helpful. Have they always offered these two degrees? Also, I'm not sure listing all of the focus areas is necessarily necessary?

All of this is to say that, while this is certainly an informative article and provides some information that is useful for general readers (as well as prospective students, frankly), I tend to think it probably does not meet the FA criteria for quality of writing at this point and would benefit from a thorough copyedit or peer review to comb through some of that. I can try to help with some more comments on that front in the coming days if that's helpful. Go Phightins! 01:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Three weeks in and this nomination has picked up no general supports. Unless there are signs of a consensus to support developing over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that there is some way to go before achieving a consensus to promote and so I am archiving this. I suggest further work off-FAC, possibly with the editors who have commented above and/or possibly at Wikipedia:Peer review - courtesy ping to SandyGeorgia - with a view to a future resubmission. There will be the usual two week pause before a further nomination can be made. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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