Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2019

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations
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) 31 December 2019 [1].

Begotten (film) edit

Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Begotten is a 1989 experimental horror film written, produced, edited and directed by E. Elias Merhige. I have been working on this article off and on for about four years now and have recently gotten it passed as GA. In preparation for this FA nomination, I was assisted in doing copy-edits by fellow editor Pdebee. I am hoping to get this up to FA status as it is both extensively sourced and represents the highest tier of writing and standards of Wikipiedia.Paleface Jack (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BLZ edit

Fun topic! I'm somewhat acquainted with the movie and its lore but not at a deep level, so I can hopefully bring a good perspective balancing distance and familiarity. After seeing this nomination I rewatched the first 15 minutes or so. While I'm no superfan—for this flavor of spookiness, I personally prefer Eraserhead or Blair Witch—it does have an effectively mysterious air of mythic darkness. Forget "cult" film, heck this was the first kvlt film. Being more of a music buff than horror buff, Begotten strikes me as the filmic equivalent of a certain brand of dark, purposely lo-fi, quasi-ambient black metal with a ritualistic atmosphere.

Before doing a deep dive, here are some preliminary comments and recommendations:

  • The current "theatrical" poster used for the infobox seems to originate from a 2016 limited screening event in Seattle with a live score. The current caption "Theatrical release poster" suggests that this poster accompanied the original theatrical run—so at a minimum, I'd suggest revising that to something like "Poster for 2016 theatrical screening event". I understand why you chose this poster, given the apparent lack of a poster accompanying the original theatrical release. All I've seen by way of promo art for the original theatrical release is a newspaper ad for its Film Forum screening.
While it's unusual to use home video art for a film infobox, in this case I think it's actually the best representation available and I'd recommend swapping the 2016 poster for the iconic original VHS cover (or perhaps the similar-but-redder DVD cover). Normally a first-run theatrical poster would be preferred, but none seems to exist. This makes the VHS cover the first "official" artwork to visually represent the film, the function normally served by posters. Strictly speaking, the 2016 poster primarily represents the screening event rather than the film itself; it was designed by the third-party Broken Press and almost certainly commissioned by the theater. It's not "unofficial" per se, but it's not the best "official" or historical representation of the film. Plus, the 2016 poster design is derived from the same screenshot used later in the article, a somewhat duplicative move that misses an opportunity to showcase a different visual aspect the film. The duplication arguably weakens the fair use case for use of the screenshot: why is it strictly necessary to show a moment from the film already seen in the infobox poster?
  • You cite the film as a primary source for the plot section, which is usually deemed unnecessary because it's implied. However, the idea of citing a source for plot details here is interesting, because by its nature the film is abstract/allegorical and requires some degree of interpretation to unpack at a conventional "plot" level. Almost any secondary source that describes the film's plot makes this point. Because of the peculiar nature of the film, I'd suggest opening the section with a short preamble explaining the unconventionality of the "plot" as such and may even recommend citing secondary sources in the summary.
  • The Din of Celestial Birds section implies, but doesn't state outright, that the trilogy does not yet have a third part. This is the case, right? I would state this outright, and see if Merhige has ever expressed any plans or ideas for the third part.
  • In the lead, you say: "critic Susan Sontag, who wrote the film's most publicized review" and "Sontag's highly publicized review". But so far as I can tell, Sontag never actually wrote or published a "review" of the film—she just praised it and had that praised quoted/blurbed.
  • The "Sources" section could use some tidying:
  • Making the subheadings part of the wrapping columns is unusual, somewhat difficult to navigate, and possibly an accessibility issue; I'd strongly recommend keeping the subheadings out and putting only the citations in columns.
1. Restored the original layout, which didn’t have sub headers for ‘Books’, ‘Websites’, and ‘Newspapers’. Done, with my apologies for taking this unhelpful initiative. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 01:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pdebee: I apologize, I think my earlier comment was unclear. The subheadings themselves are good, it's just that they shouldn't be formatted into the same columns as the citations. To see what I mean, check out Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror (poetry collection)#Sources, which is my own work. The subheadings there break up distinct sections of columnated citations, rather than wrapping within the same columns as the citations. —BLZ • talk 01:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BLZ: Thank you for your most helpful clarification; I therefore reinstated the subsections and also ended the columns within each of them, thus also completing the action below. Done. Thanks once again. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 03:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. The action of putting only the citations in columns is now also Done. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 03:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No all-caps in source titles; switch to title case.
  • The Harvard-style naming/alphabetizing of some sources is confusing. For instance, this source is named and alphabetized as "Celebritarian 2005", apparently because the word appears in the title "Dramatic New Scenes For Celebritarian Needs: An Exclusive Interview With Marilyn Manson". It would be better to name it as "MansonUSA 2005" after the site that published it, but better still would be to use Template:Cite interview and give it authors, since it is an interview between interviewee Marilyn Manson and pseudonymous interviewer The Hierophant. Elsewhere, the naming of anonymous sources after publishers is fine for Harvard style, but it's still difficult to see why they're alphabetized where they are. For anonymous sources, I would recommend setting |author=Anon. then listing them all together at the start sorted by date; naming them after the publisher/site for citation/footnote purposes is still OK, but listing them under "Anon." makes it easier to navigate the "Sources" section itself.
  • Another example: "SFFSa 2018" is credited by name to an author, Kathy Geritz. Shouldn't it just be "Geritz 2018"?
  • This article from Fangoria (via the Internet Archive's library) probably contains some useful info. To pick just one interesting tidbit, it mentions that Manson kept Begotten on loop in the studio while recording the Antichrist Superstar album. —BLZ • talk 23:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copyedited the lead and the "Plot" section. For FAC reviews, my preferred method is to edit the page myself and then discuss or explain changes as needed. Feel free to let me know if I've made any mistakes or if you'd like to discuss any of my changes further. I directly save changes, rather than listing out every recommendation here first, simply because it's more convenient and time-saving. That said, I want to be clear that I make these changes in the spirit of open collaboration, not to directly impose "my way or the highway". I don't mean to step on any toes, and I fully acknowledge that I may make mistakes, that I may come up with stuff that's not actually an improvement, and that in any case further improvements are always possible.
With my disclaimer out of the way, on with the show. Here are some of the changes I felt warranted explanation or unpacking:
  • When referring to the artistic medium, I think it should be "theater" rather than "theatre" to conform with standard American English. Let me know if this is mistaken. This doesn't apply to formal names like "Theatre of Material" or "Music Box Theatre".
  • Done (6x). Also reworded existing content and replaced ten occurrences of 'the film', along with six of 'Merhige'. I also fixed a few remaining slanted quotation marks I missed in my earlier sweep. Here are all the diffs. Hope this helped a little more. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 11:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed "God" to "Godlike figure" for a couple reasons, mainly that it seems necessary to distinguish the character from the Abrahamic God. The plot takes inspiration from a variety of different creation myths, including some Pagan ones, not just Christianity and other monotheistic traditions. Naming the character "God Killing Himself", rather than just "God", suggests a different entity, or at least a specific incarnation/manifestation, which is not necessarily equivalent in all respects to "God" full stop, however that might be interpreted. In any case, whatever resemblance "God Killing Himself" has to God he's certainly a nontraditional/heterodox depiction to say the least. With that said, referring to the character as "God" on second reference seems fine.
  • I almost completely reworked this sentence: "In spite of Sontag's highly publicized review, the film was largely ignored by mainstream critics and is currently banned in Singapore due to its violence." First, I split the critical reception bit and the fact of the Singaporean ban into separate sentences because they are not logically connected. There's no reason that its banning in Singapore could have been prevented by a wider reception or should have been prevented by Sontag's enthusiasm, because it's a matter of the film's content and the laws of Singapore. Even after that split, I'd advise against the "in spite of Sontag" construction because it places the wrong emphasis on the effect of her endorsement. It should credit Sontag for the role she played helping the film reach the level of attention that it did, rather than suggesting her efforts actually failed to catapult the film to some hypothetical higher level of success that it did not. Anyway, I've combined the bit about being "largely ignored by mainstream critics" with condensed versions of the sentences about its attainment of cult status and subsequent influence.
  • Moving to the "Plot" section, I uncapitalized "He" and other pronouns when referring to God Killing Himself (other than when the words "God Killing Himself" appear together as his name, of course). Even if the film or secondary sources use capitalized pronouns, I'd still be reluctant to do so here. MOS:GOD specifies that "Pronouns for deities and figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures," and the argument to make an exception for a fictional character would be even weaker.
  • "instrumental to its eventual release" – In what capacity? What I mean is: the film had already seen "release" because it had screened at festivals. Does "eventual release" mean "wider theatrical release" and/or "release on home video"? Or does "eventual release" mean, in a more general sense, simply coming to greater attention?
  • "until approximately two years after editing was completed" – I'd like to see a year in this sentence, as well as dates in the "Distribution" subsection that it summarizes. Rather than "approximately", which to my ear sounds quasi-scientific, I think it'd be better to say "nearly two years" or "over two years" depending on which of the two is the case.
  • Should it be "the Son of Earth", or just "Son of Earth"? Is either considered to be wrong, or are both OK?
  • In the infobox, shouldn't the language be "English" due to the intertitles? The fact that it's technically English-language because of onscreen intertitle text rather than spoken dialogue could be clarified in a parenthetical or footnote.

More sources:

  • Internet Archive has the complete DVD booklet. Great choice for external links. The Scott MacDonald interview is probably the same as the one already cited.
  • I have the text of Richard Corliss's 1991 article in Time magazine, "A Happy Birthday for the Kids of Kane" (also available at Time.com with a subscription). Contrary to some other sources (e.g. this book), Corliss did not put Begotten on an annual list of the year's best films—that discrepancy alone may be worth a footnote. In actuality, his article highlights four recent films he considered "cult classics", the three others being Poison, Paris Is Burning, and Water and Power. The article also does not carry the (evidently apocryphal) phrase used as a blurb on some video packages, "Makes Eraserhead look like Ernest Saves Christmas", which frankly does seem more like a line from a film geek than Time magazine (in a good way). Anyway, happy to email the article to any interested parties, just ping me.
  • At JSTOR: From Film Comment, we have a 1991 review, a 2000 article by Michael Atkinson (mostly about Merhige's next film but with some good stuff about Begotten), inclusion in the Jan.–Feb. 2001 list of "Top 10 DVD Picks". From Cineaste, there's a review of Shadow of the Vampire that mentions Begotten only in passing; probably the only decent tidbit is a comparison of the film to Samuel Beckett, just another for the pile.
  • Another from the Internet Archive: Contemporary North American Film Directors: A Wallflower Critical Guide, 2nd ed., p. 374. There's a Buñuel comparison, an "early David Lynch" comparison (presumably Eraserhead plus the early short films), a rarer Alexander Sokurov comparison. Probably useful. (Though the abbreviation is missing from the list of contributors, the "JWo" who wrote the book's entry on Merhige is presumably Jason Wood, who's listed as JWo in another Wallflower Critical Guide) —BLZ • talk 18:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a heads-up: dates are formatted inconsistently throughout. Per WP:DATEOVERVIEW, dates should be formatted consistently and they should tend to match the dominant formatting style found in the subject's nation of origin, wherever applicable. In this case, an article on an American film should always use MDY ("August 30, 2018", with the comma each time) rather than DMY (30 August 2018). —BLZ • talk 00:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the proposal to delete the poster for Din of Celestial Birds: I think it would make more sense to split Din of Celestial Birds into its own separate article, since in the long term that's what should happen anyway. It is notable enough to stand on its own, even if it would be fairly short. The Begotten article could still have a subsection about Din, but it would be a briefer summary of the film and its relation to Begotten. —BLZ • talk 01:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Reply edit

Thanks for taking the time to review the article.

  • Looking over what you said about the current poster image not being the original one, that comes at a surprise to me but it figures since I really didn't add that image to the article. I looked around for a high-quality image of the original VHS Box art but have yet to find a suitable one for this article, something I REALLY want to find. That might take a while since I DON'T want to use that red box art. I changed the Celebritarian reference to MansonUSA as requested, and fixed a citation error for one of the newspapers.
  • I do agree with you on the plot section, what I might do with that is have a short blurb, if you can call it that, mentioning the director himself admitting that the film's plot is open for interpretation and the following summary being one of those interpretations. Or I have a subsection that details the open interpretation of the film's plot, which Merhige himself has invited. I will wait for your confirmation before doing this.
  • Now that I've read through the plot section for myself, I actually think it does stick to onscreen action enough that it is probably fine just relying tacitly on the film as its primary source, without needing to rely on secondary sources. It doesn't take too much interpretation to suss out that, for example, what you're seeing is a disembowelment, it's not exactly subtle. But an opening statement about the highly unusual presentation of "plot" could still be worthwhile.
  • Looking at the Sontag "review" you mentioned, I can understand what you mean by that. Though all of the sources I've researched have specifically stated it was a review, but NYTimes is not what it once was and some of the archives they have are incomplete so I don't know what to do with that.
  • Interesting; I don't even know which publication it would have appeared in. I half-suspect that what people mean by "review" is really shorthand for "very public praise and support", but imo it is a confusing word in this context (at least in literalist encyclopedic tone), since Sontag is known as a writer and I think it would be natural for a reader to assume that means a written review.
  • What you said of the Din of Celestial Birds does make sense as I have yet to see another film by Merhige that would fit into the trilogy he has been calling it. His most recent project Polia and Blastema might be considered part of it, though that remains unconfirmed. I might just list it as a "series" rather than a trilogy.
  • I mean, if he'd been referring to plans for a "trilogy" then it should be called that. I'd just be clear that there are no "official" plans for the third part yet.

Thanks again for the pointers. I will get to work on the other suggestions. Sincerely, --Paleface Jack (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found an image of the original VHS cover, let me know what you think: http://www.hippoquotes.com/img/begotten-movie-quotes/250full-begotten-poster.jpg --Paleface Jack (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey! Apologies for dumping more new comments before replying to you—I thought I'd hit "save" on those comments last night. I think that VHS cover works great, and I agree that it's better than the DVD art not only on an aesthetic level but also for historical reasons as the "original release". You can largely transfer the language of the existing poster image's fair-use rationale, just substitute "poster" for "VHS cover art" etc. —BLZ • talk 19:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I added the new image to the article, personally I am not a fan as it does not feel right as the other one did. (shrugs) Anyways, I looked over the Fangoria magazine and it IS very enlightening. I do want to include the bit where Merhige admitted to suffereng depression after completing the film due to him being so involved in the making of the film but I'm not sure where to put it. I also saw the Time Magazine Top 10 films of 1990 but I would have to pay money in order to properly view the article, which seems a bit much. Anyways let me know if there is anything else you want me to add/ work on.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not reviewing this as I already did the GA review but I wanted to announce that...I am the one that posted the "original theatrical" poster in 2017 (I think, after discovering the film) as a non-free use image after finding it on a website discussing the film, and I'm sorry that it turned out to be from the 2016 screening, as I legitimately thought it was the real deal. But I guess some things are sometimes just too good to be true! Thank you Brandt, for correcting my mistake. I've actually learned to use google image searches since then so I hope I don't make that mistake... -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 03:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it wasn't that big of a mistake. Thanks for letting me know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries NowIsntItTime! I mean, I think under some circumstances even a late theatrical release poster could be OK for an infobox, especially where there wasn't a poster for the original release—it could just be labeled as such in a caption. I was mainly concerned about the extreme similarity between the poster image and the still image included later, which seemed duplicative, but I don't think you made a "mistake". —BLZ • talk 01:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Nikkimaria edit

Oppose

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • Some issues with overly close paraphrasing, for example "prior to breaking it down into its physical elements" vs "then we would break it down into its physical elements", or "a core group that did everything together and knew each other thoroughly on both a professional and personal level. Wanting to achieve something similar" vs "a core group of people who... did everything together. They knew each other thoroughly and not just on a professional basis. That fascinated me and I wanted to achieve something similar".
  • Style/MOS edits needed: quotes of longer than 40 words should be blockquoted, don't include ellipses at the beginning or end of quotes, etc
  • "Her praise of the film became one of the Begotten's most publicized reviews" - don't see this in given source
  • "In its review, Episent.com..." is not cited to Episent.com, and I don't see this claim in the source that is given
  • "he wrote the film's script in six months" - source says six months was "from when you wrote the script to when you said, “Okay. I want to do this as a film.”" In terms of the actual writing it says only that he wrote it when he was 20 (which contradicts the claim just before this in the text)
  • File:Din_of_Celestial_Birds,_Sep_2006,_film_poster.jpg is tagged for deletion
  • Citation formatting needs cleanup for correctness and consistency - for example, the author of a newspaper article is not the publisher
  • Copyediting needed in places - for example, "Sontag, who set up a private screening at her home for some of her closest friends" is not a complete sentence
  • What makes Under Southern Eyes a high-quality reliable source? 13th Floor? Muzzleland Press? Scott Nicolay? Movie Habit? SplicedWire? We Are Movie Geeks? HighSnobiety? (not a complete list)

Given the issues with close paraphrasing, verifiability, and sourcing in particular, I think this might benefit from withdrawal to allow more time to work away from FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Response 2 edit

Looking over all the comments and concerns about certain points in the article, I am going to try and address them based on the user attributed to the. Feel free to let me know if I missed anything.

Brandt Luke Zorn In regards to your concerns and suggestions:

  • Fixed the all caps issue with some of the references, as well as the Geritz, and MansonUSA references have also been fixed.
  • Added DVD booklet to "Further Reading" section.
  • In regards to Time magazine, based on what is stated in the Fangoria reference you sent me, the Top 10 mentioning should be in the December 31st edition in 1990.
  • @Paleface Jack: I hadn't found that searching "Begotten", but I tracked it down and Begotten wasn't listed. Time's top 10 movies of 1990, listed alphabetically, were Cinema Paradiso, Cyrano de Bergerac, Dick Tracy, Edward Scissorhands, Goodfellas, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Internal Affairs, Misery, The Nasty Girl, and Postcards from the Edge. Here's the citation: Time staff (December 31, 1990). "Best of '90: Movies". Vol. 136, no. 28. p. 43 – via the Time Magazine Vault (subscription required). {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help) If I had to guess, I think Fangoria and that other source are just repeating the claim made by the DVD packaging, which puts "One of the Ten Best Pictures of the Year" above a longer blurb from Corliss's other article. —BLZ • talk 23:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I put that as a note stating that this was a mistake on the part of the authors? If so, how?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issues with Sontag's mentioning could be reworded to this: Sontag, who set up a private screening at her home for some of her closest friends, would become one of the Begotten's leading advocates and instrumental for its eventual theatrical release.
  • That sounds great. In the "Distribution" section, I would add that Sontag screened it for about 20 friends (from Merhige's "like 21" estimate in the HorrorNews source). —BLZ • talk 00:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking over HorrorNews.net's interview with Merhige, the director stated that it took 2 years to "get it out there". Other than that, it is not further elaborated. Any suggestions?
  • How about this: "Once the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years struggling to find a distributor willing to market it." I've already changed it in the lead, but you can adjust it as you like and adapt it into the body. I think this wording also conveys that Merhige was actively (if fruitlessly) pitching the movie, and that those two years didn't just pass idly. —BLZ • talk 00:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "Silent" in the infobox to English (intertitles).
  • Son of Earth is the official title of the character so I think both Son of Earth and the Son of Earth could be right.

Nikkimaria In regards to your concerns and suggestions:

  • I am a bit confused as to what unsourced information you are referring to when talking about the infobox. Could you elaborate?

Done. Found it in the end credits.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The paraphrasing issue might have been the result of copy editing, or my fault, I'm not sure which. What do you suggest I should do about it?
  • This article provides some guidance. As it indicates, you should compare the article to the sources used to see potentially problematic areas. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something I uncovered about the release date that maybe you can help me word it. The note I have states that some media outlets have mistaken the film's release date. I found another one in the New York Times that alternately lists the film as 1991. My thoughts on that were to rewrite the note to say: "Various media outlets have alternately listed the 1990 and 1991 film festival releases as the film's original release." I was just wondering if this should be more detailed or if this is good enough?
  • Looking over the quotes in the reception section, I kind of see what you are getting at. I have a couple of ideas to fix it, such as ones that continue the quote with "further stating" I can just redo that second part while leaving the first intact if that all works.
  • Currently working on resolving the issue with the Din of Celestial Birds poster.
  • Currently working on fixing formatting issues with citations.
  • Definitely still issues in this department. For example, look at your reference listings for the Shadow of the Vampire and Suspect Zero Rotten Tomatoes pages - similar source, completely different presentation. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed Episent citation error.
  • Fixed the issue with the director's age and the time it took to write the film (it turned out it was a small error in copy editing).
  • The issue of the reliability of the sources that you have listed are from secondary reviews of the film as almost all mainstream film critics refuse to touch the film. I can try and elaborate this in the section if need be.
  • Unfortunately the fact that "mainstream" sources refused to touch the film does not in itself make non-mainstream sources reliable. This essay has some pointers on how you can address this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be doing more changes later today. Thanks for all the input from BOTH of you.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from JM edit

I've seen the film; I'm a big horror fan (and I've spent far too long reading Nietzsche), but this is too artsy for me, if I'm honest. (Undeniably disturbing, though.) I think this is a great topic for a featured article, but I am not sure that this article is there yet. Taking inspiration from an ongoing conversation on the FAC talk page, I am going to frame these comments as an "oppose", though note that I genuinely hope this article can get to where it needs to be.

  • Is God Killing Himself really the father of Mother Earth? She comes out from under his corpse, but I'm not sure that's the same thing.
In the film, she just emerges from his corpse, implying his death "created her".--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but does that make him the father? I'm OK with it if you've got a source. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "Theatre of Material"? It's one word, isn't it? (Though I'm not sure how it would be appropriately capitalised.)
Sorry. That must have been a mistake from either me or the copy editor. Fixed it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics have identified several major themes in Begotten. In interviews, Merhige himself has acknowledged that he intentionally incorporated these themes into the film, while also inviting viewers to form their own interpretations of the film." This feels like OR, unless you have a source explicitly identifying these as the several major themes critics identify. Also, I am not sure we need to reassure everyone that the director deliberately put them there; it's enough that critics have identified them. (We can surely accept the death of the author in a film about the death of God...)
I have both things stated by the director in the same interview. Not sure how to reword it so it doesn't sound like an OR statement. As to the "Multiple critics have identified" statement, I was told I didn't need to cit that in that statement but in the following paragraph(s). Sorry.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with "multiple critics"; it's the "several major" I was worried about. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the mythology section is a tough read. Also, is the film referring to Christian creation stories in Genesis or creation myths generally? I thought your links a little odd.
Fixed (hopefully) and reworded to "various creation myths" as it is not just a single myth that the film references.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merhige himself has acknowledged that the film was deliberately arranged to appear as part of a mythology." As before. By all means talk about this in the production section, but perhaps leave the themes section for critical/scholarly appraisal?
That's a possiblity. It fits better in the themes section as it confirms the use of this theme by the film's creator. I could also add it to the development section as well if needed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm encouraging you not to worry too much if the film's creator has "confirmed" the use of the theme. It's not terrible there, I just think you should be focussing on third-party analysis. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The death of God, and the birth and rape of Nature, or God-as-Nature" Links?
MacDonald only states this but never fully elaborates on any specific instance that he is referring to. Should I still link it?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that these phrases will not be familiar to lots of readers. Right now, you're just listing abstract-sounding ideas, but the capitals suggest you're referring to something concrete. A link to death of god would be easy, but what do the others mean? Worst case scenario, direct quotes can take the terms out of Wikipedia's "neutral" voice. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above are some comments on the prose, but I didn't look through the whole article. I also made some fixes; please double-check these, but they may well be indicative of issues further down.

The main issue, for me, is sourcing, including how you refer to your sources, how you format your references, and the kinds of sources you're using. In short, your source formatting really is all over the place, both in the prose and in the bibliography. You're also leaning on some questionable sources. Here are some examples from the opening sections of the article:

  • "Movie Habit.com" Why not just Movie Habit or Movie Habit? If you're going to spell out the URL, at least make it one word! Not a great source, but OK for an interview, I think.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Episent.com reliable? It looks like a blog to me.
That one was previously pointed out to me by Nikkimaria. Although I am gutted about removing it as it gave some good information on Din of Celestial Birds. Removed the one for the "near-death experience" info as I found another source for that. What should I do about the Din of Celestial Birds one?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't have a decent source for a claim, the claim really has to be removed, unless it's completely uncontroversial. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Author William E.B. Verrone" He is/was a scholar of film and literature. That's more important than the fact he's an author. This is the kind of source we should be drawing them themes from - not Episent.com! It's a shame it's only cited a couple of times. The Google Books preview suggests it will be very useful. It would be great if you could get hold of a copy (if you haven't already).
  • Similarly, Scott MacDonald is a Full Professor of Art History. "Author" doesn't really sell it. "Art historian" might be better! (He's also easily notable, but our coverage of academics is patchy...)
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " authors Ernest Mathijs and Jamie Sexton" Again. The views of these people are worth including in the article not because they are authors, but because of their areas of expertise. (There are more.)
How about this: In their book Cult Cinema: An Introduction, University of British Columbia professor Ernest Mathijs and Northumbria University Senior Lecturer Jamie Sexton noted that...--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, but is it not more interesting to say what they do rather than their job titles? "film studies scholar", "literary theorist", "art historian"... Noting their job titles/place of work is probably a bit better than the rather useless "author", though. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You jump from citing a book called Aesthetics of Discomfort: Conversations on Disquieting Art published by University of Michigan Press to citing "10 Horror Movies Too Intense Even for Halloween" on ScreenRant. A nice example of the slightly confused sourcing - the former's great, but the latter is OK at best. Also a nice example of formatting problems; article titles shouldn't be in italics!
Not sure what you are meaning by this. Do you mean in the citations or in the article?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "jumping" is in the article - you move from a great source to a poor one. The formatting point applies in both cases. Article titles are in "Speech Marks"; book titles, magazine titles, etc. are in Italics. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And glancing at the bibliography:

  • You cite a lot of books that are (more or less) edited collections, meaning you should cite the particular chapter (and its author) and not just the editors/authors of the book as a whole. Examples include Film Out of Bounds, Contemporary North American Film Directors, and 100 Cult Films. There may be others.
How should I do that?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using {{cite book}}, use the editor= and chapter= parameters. Here's an example from one of my articles: {{cite book|author=Cochrane, Alasdair|year=2016|chapter=Inter-Species Solidarity: Labour Rights for Animals |editor1-last=Garner |editor1-first=Robert |editor1-link=Robert Garner |editor2-last=O'Sullivan |editor2-first=Siobhan |editor2-link=Siobhan O'Sullivan |title= The Political Turn in Animal Ethics|location=London|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield International}}. This results in:
Cochrane, Alasdair (2016). "Inter-Species Solidarity: Labour Rights for Animals". In Garner, Robert; O'Sullivan, Siobhan (eds.). The Political Turn in Animal Ethics. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Or you can do it manually. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of referring to websites - even well known websites - as things like "Rotten Tomatoes.com", "Turner Classic Movies.com", and "SpectacleTheater.com". Not only is this non-standard, but it is inconsistent, and often redundant to explicit mentions of publishers elsewhere in the reference. (E.g., Anon. (3 February 2007). "E. Elias Merhige's Power of Unflinching Belief - MovieMaker Magazine". MovieMaker.com. MovieMaker Magazine. Retrieved 13 September 2018. The name of the magazine is mentioned three times in a row, but never in italics with a wikilink - MovieMaker!)
  • Other formatting problems include listing authors as publishers. Example: Mottram, James (28 October 2014). "BBC - Films - interview - E Elias Merhige - Shadow of the Vampire". BBC.co.uk. James Mottram. Retrieved 23 July 2019. What's wrong with Mottram, James (28 October 2014). "E Elias Merhige - Shadow of the Vampire". BBC. Retrieved 23 July 2019.? On that note, shouldn't you be using American dates?
Changed the formatting a bit. Not sure I understand what you mean by "American dates".--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brits write 1 January 2020. Americans write January 1, 2020. You're inconsistent; you should really match your date formatting to your spelling/grammar. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questionable sources. Episent.com I've mentioned; efilmcritic.com? Horrorfreaknews.com? The Third Eye? These are examples; a full source review would be much tougher.
Episent is removed, however ThirdEye is also a Magazine published in the UK so it could be noteworthy. (Found the author and made changes accordingly).--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure I follow your separation between web sources and newspapers. Lots of your web sources are the websites of newspapers - which, if they're reputable newspapers, is fine.

I hope this indicates why I do not think this is ready for FA status, and what needs to be done before I'm able to support. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I can see the nominator is responding energetically to the issues raised but the sheer volume of those issues indicates the nom was under-prepared for FAC, and there's clearly still a way to go before everything is resolved. I'd like this resolution to take place away from the pressure of the FAC process, preferably while continuing to engage with the reviewers on the article talk page. When done, we should be in a better position for a fresh nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 January 2020 [2] CORRECTION: FACBot was late running. Ian Rose actually closed the FAC on 30 December, 2019[3].

James Humphreys (pornographer) edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An insalubrious character, James Humphreys was a peddler of mucky mags, a strip club owner and a pimp. In order to carry on his business in the 60s and 70s he spent thousands on bribing the Dirty Squad, as the the Obscene Publications Branch of the Met were called. Cars, cash, jewellery and holidays ensured the money kept rolling in from his Soho porn empire. Then it all went wrong and Humphreys used his records of bribes to get a shorter jail sentence after beating up his wife's lover. Thirteen bent coppers were banged up because of his evidence. This is a new article that's recently gone through GA. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that the article says his middle name was "Williams", but his death index entry on Ancestry gives it as "William" and I notice that Clarkson, Gang Wars of London (2010; no idea of its reliability) also gives "William". (FYI, it looks like his father was one James Sidney Humphreys (1911–1990), variously a drayman and a porter, and his mother Alice Mary Ann, née Fisher (b. 1910), but I can't see this mentioned in a secondary source). —Noswall59 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • Mea culpa: the source has him as "William" too. Thanks for picking up on it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • All sources are OK except some of the news sources. The amount of research that went into the article is impressive. Source checks TBD.
  • Evening Standard is no consensus for reliability. I would recommend backing up all info by a second source.
    • The current ES isn't reliable, but historically it is a different question. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunday People is a tabloid that hasn't been discussed at RSN. I question whether it's reliable.buidhe 03:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is in no way reliable in ordinary circumstances, but we are providing details from an exclusive exposé that brought him into the public eye. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • I'm not convinced that the newspaper meets the NFCC standard for contextual significance "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". What is it conveying that can't be indicated by text such as the fact that the story appeared on the front page of the newspaper, and the headline? Fair use newspaper covers are allowed, but usually only if the article is about the event reported in the news. This is different.
    • I think we're OK with this one: the impact of a front page is different from a a standard newspaper headline. As this is one of the key moments in his life (and in the breaking of the corruption in which he was involved), this needs to be in. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images OK. buidhe 03:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}—I don't think this is good practice per MOS:CURRENT. It sounds likely that the film is not likely to be made in the future, but if it were, we cannot guarantee that the Wikipedia page will stay updated indefinitely. Struck as resolved. buidhe 03:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can change to "as at 2019", if you prefer? - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I peer reviewed the article (offline – I forget why) and my few quibbles were duly attended to then. Only one new one: in the "Attack on Peter Garfath" section, "Virgo and Moody were both given twelve year sentences" really needs a hyphen after "twelve". The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, being a splendid read, well sourced, evidently impartial, and as well illustrated as possible. I hope to restore some respectability to the FAC page shortly with a much-loved Archbishop of Canterbury, but for now am content to support the elevation of this arrant scoundrel to FA. Tim riley talk 12:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim. Hyphen now added. Cheers for your spot here, and your PR comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN43129 edit

Ah, pornomiester out-raving Raymond. Excellent. Now for the revue  ;)

Ouch!! - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly surprised at the lack, per WP:REDYES, of a link to Kenneth Drury, one of the most infamous coppers of the post-war years.
  • In 1964 one of Humphreys's clubs was a target for arson Which one? So far in the narrative, we've been told of only two, at OCS (latter Macclesfied St), and the Queen's.
  • It's not clarified in the sources, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a redlink to him. There's enough around for a decent article I think. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The para Any sex shop opened in London by any pornographer... seems rather (generally) extraneous if you don't mind me saying. Lots of detail, none of it specifically about Humphreys. Except the last sentence. Of course, context is important, as I know I am far too keen on it myself.

Within the next three years Humphreys had between six and ten other sex shops operating. Any sex shop opened in London by any pornographer had to pay an opening bribe of between £500 to several thousand and a weekly bribe to the OPB, depending on the takings of the outlet The first three—opened on Lisle Street, Windmill Street and Newport Street—cost Humphreys and Silver £6,000 in payments to Moody. Between 1969 and 1972 Humphreys made £216,000 profit from his shops.{{fn=Some outlets, like one sex shop on Wardour Street, cost £150 a day in bribes...[through to]...as much as a purchaser was willing to pay}}

  • Done, but it makes for a very short para now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a coded message-any idea how? Telegram, word of mouth?
    Yep - now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a gangland figure annoyed at... Well, I'm sure annoying gangland figures went with the territory  :) Or something slightly more...emphatic? The kind of "annoyance" that results in one's leg getting done.
  • That particular map of Soho you use is annoying, "no higher resolution available", which is a shame when that means losing so much detail. Suggest swapping in this one, which shows the same area, the same level of detail, and which now—because it's well zoomable—is easily viewable.
  • He began a fundamental change of the force
  • Anything about this I need to do? - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gilbert Kelland's Crime in London discusses the Garfath incident over a couple of pages.
  • I think we've likely covered everything in the other sources used, but I've ordered a copy, which should be with me after Christmas. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was part of an escape attempt from the prison that November; four men managed to escape. Can we avoid either of these escapes?
  • Could link framed. Slightly US-centric, but gives a British usage and some non-US notable examples. Likewise, there's an opportunity for a link to conspiracy around here.
  • Any details on how he got cheated, States-side?
  • None at all. Not surprising, given it was an uncovered crime, but I suspect it was some drug-related thing. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the notes, do you need to link Consumer Price Index five times? Indeed, how about bracketing (CPI) on first use and then the for the others you can just say "per CPI" or somesuch.

Incidentally, I second your use of The Sunday People (queried above) as a major source; since it was their investigation that resulted in the biggest corruption investigation ever, failure to have done so would probably be a 1c affair! Cheers, ——SN54129 15:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers SN. Done most of these - will go through and clear the others shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thansk SN. Sorted them all, aside from the "fundamental change of the force" point (where you don't say what's needed), and the Kelland book, which I've ordered and will report back once it gets through the Christmas post. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Cat, happy to support this fine piece. With fundamental change of the force, I think that could be phrased better, but am not altogther sure how. At the moment, it rather impies (IMHO) a physical, or structural change, whereas I think what's intended is more of a "fundamental chnage in the Force's ethos" or something?
Incidentally, Tr's bolded support—combined with that in the section header—above has confused the bot  :) ——SN54129 15:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Support from Graham Beards edit

What a rogue, or should I say rogues? It's a pity that Drury − who literally got fat on his illegal earnings − doesn't have his own article yet. And it's a shame that the bot has reduced the Sunday People image to the point where the body text cannot be read, but ho hum. I have a few nitpicks:

  • Here: "about the payments to OPB" we have "the OPB" in every other instance.
  • Here: although in separate paragraphs, the repetition is clumsy "Rusty was released in late October.[67] In late October 1972, shortly after Rusty Humphreys was released from prison,"
  • There is an ugly fused participle here: "With corrupt officers being removed from Scotland Yard by Mark's actions," (not a big deal).
  • Here, this colloquialism might not be understood by some "Humphreys, tipped off that the police". In any case should it be "Humphreys, who(m) had been tipped off that the police".

Thank you for fascinating read and insight into what was going on a hundred miles down the M1 when I was walking my dog and dreaming about becoming an intellectual. Graham Beards (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Graham. All duly attended to with these edits, hopefully successfully. I'm always delighted to see your name pop up on my watchlist, and even more so when you're correcting my poor prose! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Graham Beards (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise edit

  • Strip club and sex shop owner: "became frequented by fellow criminals". To me, "became frequented" feels awkward. Maybe just "was frequented" would suffice? Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The journalist Neil Root writes that the couple "tolerated each other, perhaps became friendly for a time", but were wary of one another." I think here "couple" is referring to Humphreys and Silver, but it's more common for the word to be in reference to a romantic relationship. And to add to the possible confusion "Humphreys and his wife" is also mentioned right before this. Could "couple" be reworded here? Moisejp (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunday People investigation: "The SCS began a three-year investigation into the relationship between the OPB and the pornographers, of whom Silver, Humphreys and Eric Mason, an owner of ten sex shops, were key targets of the police." It may just be me, but I have trouble following how the second half of the sentence (starting with "of whom") relates to the first half. Could it be reworded? Moisejp (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attack on Peter Garfath: "there were some reports that she may have been threatening Humphreys with it at the time. Humphreys threatened to drop pornography over central London if she was not released, but did not follow through with his threat": Three instances of "threat" in short succession. Maybe consider rewording at least one of them. Moisejp (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was arrested because she and Humphreys rented a property in Greek Street to prostitutes." I would say "on Greek Street" here, but if this a case of regional differences of English, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers Moisejp, all done so far, bar the last one, which is formal British English. Thanks also for the copy edits, which are all on the nail. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The historians Roger Davidson and Gayle Davis observe that in the early 1970s there was a backlash against the permissiveness of the 1960s that included organisations such as the Festival of Light, the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association and the Responsible Society." I'm not sure whether "the backlash... included organisations" is as clear as would be ideal. Also is it possible the current wording could be read as meaning that the organisations were included in the permissiveness (i.e., were part of the problem)? Maybe relatively clear from the context, but might be better if the wording could be tightened to remove any grammatical ambiguity. Moisejp (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting and well-written article. I don't know whether I'll have time to get on Wikipedia again in the next few days or so, so I'm changing to support now, with the hope you'll have a chance to tweak the sentence I mentioned just above. The only other minor comment I have is about the paragraph that begins "The second trial of members of the OPB began..." I found the following wording just slightly repetitive: "He said... He told the court... Humphreys said... he stated". Maybe if the sentence order could be shaken up just a bit... although I don't have any specific ideas, so if you find this comment hard to address, it's not a deal-breaker. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Fowler&fowler edit

These comments concern only the lead, the first half, in fact. I have purposely avoided looking at the rest of the article, except the early life section. I may come back to finish the lead if I find the time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Williams Humphreys (7 January 1930 – September 2003)

  • Sentence 1: ... was an operator of adult book shops and strip clubs in London in the 1960s and 1970s.
    • "Operator" has the specific meaning of a person or (these days) a company that runs an enterprise. It is not clear who the owner was. That probably does need to be said.
      • That is one, rather narrow, definition; it certainly does not preclude ownership. But to keep the peace I'll change to owner-operator, although it's something of a backwards step for the opening line. - SchroCat (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course. It doesn't preclude ownership (e.g. OED: A person (professionally) engaged in performing the practical or mechanical operations of a process, business, ...Webster's Unabridged, "a person that actively operates a business (such as a mine, a farm, or a store) whether as owner, lessor, or employee;"), but there are important differences between those categories of operators. If he were an employee, the story would be a little different. The new version that I'm seeing now is much better. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Websters is an American dictionary, so can be happily ignored. I'm still not convinced that this is better than the original, but it'll just about pass. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 2: He was able to operate in business through the payment of large bribes to serving policemen, particularly those from the Obscene Publications Branch (OPB) of the Metropolitan Police Force.
    • "Operate," intransitive, is a confusing word to use here, so soon after "operator." It can mean "work," "survive," "carry on (an irregular way of life)" etc I get the humor of the sentence, but I think precision is more encyclopedic.
      • No change needed: it is clear from the context of the sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The new version that I'm seeing now is better. Thank you. It is using run (transitive). See below.
    • Or is the transitive version meant, i.e. "He was able to operate his businesses through ...?"
    • The main issue, however, is the coherence of the sentence. Not all readers will understand why the bribes were needed. If the link is suggesting that child pornography was involved then it should be stated clearly. Many readers will have no idea that child pornography was even an issue in the 1960s, which in any case is a decade, a long time.
      • ????? Child pornography? There is no suggestion anywhere in the article he was involved in that and I'm struggling to see how that impression is even remotely suggested. - SchroCat (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The link says, "The Paedophile Unit is a branch of the Metropolitan Police Service's Child Abuse Investigation Command, based at Scotland Yard in London, England. It operates against the manufacture and distribution of child pornography, ..." That is the confusing part. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because the unit has changed course in the meantime. As this is the lead (which summarises what is in this article), we're all good not to play around with adding extraneous detail. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The link to which you have sent the reader says in its history section, "The Paedophile Unit began life in the early 1960s as the Obscene Publications and Public Morals Branch, although the name was shortened in 1990 to the Obscene Publications Branch (OPB).[6] Its common name, however, even among the police hierarchy, was always the Obscene Publications Squad (OPS)" Why have you used the name used between 1990 and 1995? At the very least, you could have sent the reader to [[Paedophile Unit#History|Obscene Publications and Public Morals Branch]] or [[Paedophile Unit#History|Obscene Publications Branch]] (OPB) in keeping with the information in your link. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're basing this on information from a poorly sourced article that relies on a reference from Time Out? I'm not sure how that trumps all the sources in this article (including biographies of policemen written way before 1990) that refer to the unit as the Obscene Publications Branch or the Obscene Publications Squad. I have tweaked the link to the History section of article to try and get passed this. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have to understand something: you put a link in your article, in the second sentence no less. I am a reviewer. I read the sentence, and clicked on a link. It took me to something that didn't add up. I called you out on it. You are blaming me for not checking the full history of that page and for the less than steller sources being used? Seriously? It is your FAC. It is your responsibility to make sure that the links you have added are not meaningless. Not mine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You need to lose the battlefield approach on this: I have not blamed you for anything at all. I have changed the link as requested to the history section. End of. Enough playing "gotcha!" please. (And it is not my article: it is just an article) - SchroCat (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something along the lines of, "Although ... was illegal in Britain, he was able to survive in the business (or carry on in the business, or operate his businesses) through ... " I know this will kill the humor, but ...
  • Sentence 3: His meticulously kept diaries—detailing meetings he held with police officers, the venues of the meetings and the amounts of bribes he paid—provided the basis for the investigation by anti-corruption officers of the Metropolitan Police.
    • "detailing," which has the meaning of "describing minutely," is redundant after "meticulously," (i.e. "in a manner that is careful about minute details," or "precisely" (as opposed to "conscientiously"))
    • There is a tense issue. The verb "provide" is in the past. Keep the past perfect throughout within the m-dashes, if you choose to use them. I will give the examples below, though I grant you there is a wide variation in writing these days, and my versions might be seen as too old fashioned.
    • Were the diaries the "basis," i.e. the groundwork, the foundation, the spur? Or did they constitute the crucial evidence needed?
    • So, in my view, "His meticulously kept diaries, recording the meetings he had held with the police officers, the venues of the meetings, and the bribes he had paid, were to furnish the crucial evidence needed in the investigation by anti-corruption officers of the Metropolitan Police." or "would spur the investigation by anti-corruption officers of the Metropolitan Police." (If you don't like future-in-the-past, then just use "furnished," or "spurred." I think MOS prefers the latter.)
      • Re-worked, but not sure this isn't a backwards step in places. - SchroCat (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • m-dashes sometimes, when combined with participle phrases, can create tense issues. The new version, with which clause, doesn't fix the issue, but it shows it in clearer light. The detailing was done after the meetings. You need, either the past perfect (had held, had paid) or, as the meetings had continued over a period of time, the more pedantic: past perfect continuous (had been meeting, had been paying). Or you can use a simple noun phrase, "which detailed meetings with police officers, venues of the meetings, and amounts of the bribes." The latter from example appears here, somewhere below Jimmy Humphery's picture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's still a backwards step from the original, but nevermind. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 4: Humphreys became involved in petty crime early in life, and he was first arrested at the age of 15.
    • There is nothing wrong with the sentence, it's just that it is a tad generic and a tad vague (early in life). If you give more details, the reader will pay more attention. E.g. something along the lines of:
    • "Humphreys dropped out of school at the age of 14, drifting quickly into petty crime, and securing his first arrest, for housebreaking, the following year."
      • This moves into the overly cliched purple prose I'd expect to see in a red top tabloid, not an encyclopaedia; it is also a shade outside the sources. There are no details of note in the sources we can use to enlighten readers, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, if there are no sources, then our hands are tied. These issues, in any case, are more stylistic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 5: He became involved in increasingly serious crime and in March 1958 he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment at Dartmoor Prison after using explosives to open a safe and steal £8,260 of money and postal orders.
    • Note: at the end of the previous sentence, we are at age 15. So "March 1958," an actual month and year, comes as a bit of a jolt. The reader has to back-calculate to figure out his time bearings. Also, you don't really need the generic bit in the beginning. The reader knows his youthful past.
    • It might be better to say, "By the time of his 28th birthday, he had used explosives to open a safe and steal £8,260 of money and postal orders, and was awaiting a sentence of six years' imprisonment at Dartmoor Prison." (or whichever way you want to write it)
      • I don't see an advantage in the second version, which makes it look like he went on his break-in on his birthday. - SchroCat (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your resolution, "The severity of his crimes increased ..." is better. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 6: On his release he opened a strip club in Soho, the centre of London's sex industry.
    • This is a problem sentence. A 34-year-old man, who has been a criminal for the previous 20 years, doesn't just step out of prison and open a strip club. The reader is thinking, "Where did he get the resources?"
      • If you can find a source that explains it, I would truly be delighted to see it (the sources are all very thin on his early years, which is unsurprising, given he was a criminal who would have hidden most of his activities). One supposes he had enough pf his proceeds stashed away to start a business, but the sources just don't give any information. - SchroCat (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 7: To keep the club free from harassment Humphreys had to bribe the police.
    • The reader already knows about the bribes (even about his faithful records). You need to refer back to the early mention. I.e. something like:
    • "It was at this time that Humphreys first took to offering bribes to the police, to keep his club free from harassment." (or somesuch) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but "it was at this time" is a jarring construct that says nothing at all. We currently have the same information in a more elegant and efficient form. - SchroCat (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • What we have here, I think, is the familiar situation where two very good writers would write the same thing rather differently. On the whole I think that though the main author should of course consider any suggestions'for altering the prose, finally his or her choice should prevail on what one might call stylistic matters, as opposed to substantive ones. I’ve reread the lead very carefully in the light of Fowler&fowler’s comments and it seems to me fine as it stands. Tim riley talk 09:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree. Graham Beards (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • My comments concern issues of syntax, usage, or coherence that take away from better comprehension, not those of style. My suggestions, however, are not etched in stone. They constitute just one resolution, written in a hurry, without the perspective of viewing the changes in the paragraph as a whole. Pointing to stylistic issues ("backward," not "elegant" etc,) in them does not get the nominator off the hook fixing the problem. He has already done so in the first paragraph. He must be aware that I've pointed to some issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • So far I'm not seeing much in the way of improvements in terms of comprehension, and your recent edits have changed the meaning of what was there, while making one part of a sentence near gibberish, given the use of "rank". - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • @SchroCat: The use of "had to" in the lead follows directly from its use in the biography section. I'd like to see a quotation from the source for use of "had to" in "To keep the club free of harassment from the police, Humphreys had to pay protection money to Detective Sergeant Harold "Tanky" Challenor." (Note: "have to" OED: "Expressing something that is to be done or needs to be done, as a duty, obligation, requirement, etc. Frequently with to-infinitive;" Webster's Unabridged: "to feel compulsion, obligation, or necessity in regard to — used with a noun object followed by to and the infinitive" There's no difference in meaning between Commonwealth English and North American English. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • F&F, a couple of minor things here: there is no need to ping me to this review (although if I've obviously not picked up on a point, in which case, please feel free to give me a nudge). The second point is that there is no need to keep quoting dictionaries (particularly an American one) unless there is a real problem, and there isn't a real problem here. To answer you request, the quote, from Root, (although there is much the same in Morton too) is "Humphreys had to pay ‘protection’ to a corrupt policeman Det. Sgt ‘Tanky’ Challenor". When I use words in the lead, or the body, I use them carefully and correctly, in a different way from the source, but still keeping the spirit and meaning of the original, rather than trying to introduce florid prose of some dramatic tension that isn't there.
                  • And now an oppose? I do hope you've got some solid grounds for this, as from what I've seen, you seem to be objecting to stylistic concerns, rather than anything more substantive. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's an opaque quote. There is no indication of how or why he had to. Please give me a more extensive quote. Four or five sentences. Your disavowals, by the way, have no meaning for me. I am looking only at the text, not at your putative intent. The oppose is my assessment after quickly skimming the rest of the article. I'll be happy to go through the sentences that stood out. Soon enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No, the quote is crystal clear enough. If you are going to oppose, please specify exactly where and on what grounds you are doing so. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You are saying that the full quote in Root is: "Humphreys had to pay ‘protection’ to a corrupt policeman Det. Sgt ‘Tanky’ Challenor," that there are no antecedents mentioned in Root, and that you have paraphrased it as, "Humphreys had to pay protection money to Detective Sergeant Harold "Tanky" Challenor." Is this correct? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I think it's fairly clear what I have and have not said, and I think your re-wording here is deliberately misleading. If you really want to push the point I shall copy and paste the information from the two quoted sources, but you asked me about the use of "had to", and what we have in the article reflects the sources used. - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant pieces from Morton and Root are as follows:

Root: "Many have said that Rusty had a good business brain, and this undoubtedly helped Humphreys. Humphreys had to pay ‘protection’ to a corrupt policeman Det. Sgt ‘Tanky’ Challenor, later convicted and then certified insane. Challenor told Humphreys to move his club to Macclesfield Street, which he did. But once in new premises, Challenor reappeared and asked for more money, and Humphreys paid another £50 in total. It was then that Humphreys made a complaint to Scotland Yard, which was disbelieved, but which we now know was almost definitely true. Humphreys must have felt some satisfaction when Challenor went down."

and

Morton: "Just before Christmas 1969 he and Rusty met Commander Wally Virgo at the Criterion in Piccadilly. At the dinner Humphreys complained that Bill Moody would not give him a ‘licence’ to use his Rupert Street property as a bookshop. Word went down the line and within a week Silver told him arrangements had been made for him to meet Moody at another dinner in Mayfair. Over lunch the next day it was arranged that Humphreys would pay £14,000 for the ‘licence’ and that Silver would have a half-share in the takings. Moody apparently did not want it to look as though he was allowing newcomers into the fold. Humphreys also had to pay Moody £2,000 a month. No doubt he paid for the lunch as well."

The refs are as they appear in the article. It should be clear from these that Humphreys had to bribe the police to keep the clubs running. If you do not think so, I will add more references to substantitate what the weight of sources all state. No bribes, no clubs or shops. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's focus on the first: "Humphreys had to pay ‘protection’ to a corrupt policeman Det. Sgt ‘Tanky’ Challenor, later convicted and then certified insane." That is the source. Have you looked at the other sources?
  • I'm sorry, but are you taking the piss now? Of course I've looked at other sources. Is this still over the use of "had to", or are you playing a different card now? - SchroCat (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Sorry, the rest of my post got cut off.) Here's Campbell: "He had his early brushes with the police, paying over money, he complained later, to a detective called Harry Challenor. The policeman, for his part, denied taking the bribes but was to reappear in the annals of the underworld soon enough. Humphreys’ neighbour in his Soho club was Silver and it was Silver who was to be helpful when he ran into problems with expanding his empire, helping out with advice on the necessary bribes that had to be paid." That is much more nuanced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 1 in section 1.2: "On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed direction professionally and opened a strip club in Old Compton Street, Soho, which was frequented by fellow criminals."
    • In what encyclopedic register would a semi-habitual small-time criminal's coming out of a four-year served-term and opening, at some uncertain future time, a sex club, be considered a change in direction professionally? (Note: OED: Profession "An occupation in which a professed knowledge of some subject, field, or science is applied; a vocation or career, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification. More widely: any occupation by which a person regularly earns a living." I will quote from the OED or any other source that I think clarifies.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was trying to save you time by not having to quote, particularly as there is little in the way of clarification, but never mind. There is nothing wrong with "profession" in this sense ("any occupation by which a person regularly earns a living"), indeed it is perfectly correct usage: it's the reason why there is the phrase "professional criminal" (See "The Professional Criminal in England", William Douglas Morrison , International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Oct., 1902), pp. 27-40 (1902!) and "Professional Criminals", D Hobbs, 1995 ISBN 1-85521-414-8, just as quick examples. Please let me know if you would like me to produce more examples). - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not debating existence of the term "professional criminal." It is a well-known term. (See for example: Edelstein, Arnon (2015). "Rethinking Conceptual Definitions of the Criminal Career and Serial Criminality". Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 17 (1): 62–71. doi:10.1177/1524838014566694. ISSN 1524-8380.) I'm suggesting rather that Humphreys was not a professional criminal before he opened a sex club in the early 60s. (From Edelstein's table, p. 63 A professional criminal is someone who is not moonlighting, who has a full-time job in crime; who has a specialization in specific crimes; whose monetary gain is high and stable, and not low or cut off by imprisonment.) Humphreys, as I suggest was a semi-habitual small-time criminal. I'm sure I can dig up sources that attest to that. It is already clear from your description." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • And here's is Duncan Campbell (much cited in the article): "Humphreys, a crook but not a major one, was amongst the first to profit from the sixties’ boom in pornography." and elsewhere, "Jimmy Humphreys was a south Londoner from Old Kent Road who had spent time for minor villainy in approved schools, Borstals, and prisons, ..." That does not fit with the definition of a professional criminal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Enough of the playing "gotcha", please. I have not described Humphreys as a professional criminal either on the article or here. This is not a constructive review. There is a thread on the FAC talk page about people spewing out lists of petty prose points, and I am afraid that this is another example of one. Your style obviously differs to mine, but that does not mean that you get to be disruptive on every point where you may have phrased it fractionally differently. If you have any actual proper points to discuss, please bring to them to the table, because this is getting rather ridiculous now. - SchroCat (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • The sequence of logic is: 1) You stated: On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed direction professionally and opened a strip club in Old Compton Street, Soho, which was frequented by fellow criminals. 2) I called you out on using "changing directions professionally" 3) You replied: "indeed it is perfectly correct usage: it's the reason why there is the phrase "professional criminal," giving me two references 4) I explained the term with a more modern reference, and Campbell, that together seem to suggest he was not a professional criminal before he became a sex club owner. Well, what was he then? Did he change direction professionally, or not? I'm not playing anything, just interpreting the text. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Im sorry, but I just can't take this review seriously any more. You're taking the piss with this approach, and it goes to the heart of the problems with FAC reviewing at the moment, with people playing silly "gotcha!" games on stylistic points only. It sucks the last vestiges of enjoyment out of the writing process for no benefit to anyone. If one of the @FAC coordinators: could withdraw this before it goes downhill into further levels of stupidity, I'd be grateful. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Far from it, I'm making sure that the usage is correct. It is your hard work, your article, that is being tweaked, improved, buffed, ... so that it reads even better. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @FAC coordinators: Hello. Can someone tell me if he has actually withdrawn his FAC or am I supposed to wait for his return? I am not done. I've been fairly patient with his intemperate outbursts. We can't have a nominator accuse a reviewer each time of playing "gotcha," when all I am doing is insisting on rigor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                        • "am I supposed to wait for his return?" Well, yes. I was sleeping; it's what I do at night. I have asked for this to be withdrawn, and I am sticking to that request (I emailed confirmation to a co-ord who asked me by email to confirm I wanted to go through with it). You are not "insisting on rigor": you are being aggressive in demanding stylistic changes are done in a manner you would prefer, and taking narrow definitions of terms where there is a broader definition to be had. I do not see this situation improving, and would rather have no further part in it. I have asked for this to be withdrawn and I will be removing it from my watchlist and moving on to something where there is still a vestige of enjoyment to be had. - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Humphreys was in jail for 7 1/2 of 10 years before he opened the sex club sometime between October 1962 and May 1963. By no stretch of language, unless one is attempting to sneak in droll humor in the text, does that constitute a "change of direction professionally." I will therefore be taking out that bit of text. There is no evidence for that usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I have put it back in again. You have continually taken a narrow definition of terms where there is flexibility. "professional, adj. and n. Of a person or persons: that engages in a specified occupation or activity for money or as a means of earning a living, rather than as a pastime. Contrasted with amateur." - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished at the oppose. Fowler&fowler is an editor whom I much respect, and whose input I have, indeed, recently canvassed for a review of one of my own potential FACs, but in this instance we must agree to differ. Like the other five reviewers so far I am happy with the lead, and indeed the rest of the article. Tim riley talk 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I was being given a hard time for questioning the use of "operator," without any pre- or post qualification. Here is John Sutherland:

The big men of porn, like James Humphreys, were completely insulated from the business end of things by being ‘superior landlords’, and usually took no smuggling risk. (Thus, in June 1972, a Danish lorry-driver caught near Newcastle with half a ton of porn in his container lorry got six months in prison. Whosoever in London it was destined for got away scot-free.)

This is not any old John Sutherland, but the John Sutherland whose puzzles of Oxford World's Classics I have read and re-read for 20 years. He's very erudite and precise. Clearly, Humpherys was clearly not just an operator in the usual meaning of the word (someone who minds the practical or business ends of things). I'm not out to get the nominator in any way. I don't do many reviews, but those I do are more or less at the same level. (The Cactus Wren, or for that matter, Horologium (constellation) are no different. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as to "operator" it can have a range of meanings, as the OED makes clear. Sutherland's is fine, but is not definitive or exclusive. Our beloved Fowler expresses no view on the word. More generally, I of course respect your right to oppose, but I simply disagree in this case. I hope that won't put you off from (I hope) reviewing my Archbishop in due course, but that will be entirely your call, naturally. Tim riley talk 21:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:) I've been in the business for too long. I mean in the business of closely looking at texts, my own and others'. No worries about RD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto edit

I can't see any problem with this article whatsoever and I certainly don't see any of the issues that Fowler&fowler is complaining about. This is worthy of FA, in my opinion. CassiantoTalk 09:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fowler&fowler's proposed changes have done the article little good, in my opinion. It's not an opposer, but it can certainly be improved. I'll have a read through today. CassiantoTalk 09:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for not writing that in green. CassiantoTalk 20:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt edit

Support Seems good to me. I haven't looked at the sourcing. A few quibbles.
  • I think "owned and operated" is too clunky. Personally, I might stick with "owned". It's stated that he "ran" the businesses shortly afterward.
  • "he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment at Dartmoor Prison " Did the judge direct the place of imprisonment? That's how it reads.
  • Struck the reference to Dartmoor - not needed in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To keep the club free from harassment Humphreys had to bribe the police." Harassment seems an odd term there, but maybe it's ENGVAR.
  • sex shop could possibly be linked as appropriate.
  • " The first of two trials of those charged with corruption took place in court in November that year and involved Detective Chief Inspector George Fenwick," Do we need to say "in court"?
  • "by a journalist from The Sunday People who told him that the investigation into his conviction for Garfath was being investigated.[102] " Perhaps one or the other investigation/ed could be altered.
  • "The prosecution has estimated the couple's takings to be £100,000–£300,000.[111]" I might strike the "has".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having now gone back and read the FAC, or at least F&F's portion, I don't see anything to change my decision to support and tend to concur with Tim riley's characterisation re two very good writers. I had looked at the start of the comments before reviewing, reading the bit about "owned and operated" before deciding I had better read the article first. I hope the differences are on their way to being resolved, as it appears.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt; your comments all dealt with here, but please let me know if I've missed anything or you spot something new. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2019 [4].

Washington State Route 504 edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 06:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the highway that leads up to Mount St. Helens, which famously erupted on May 18, 1980, in spectacular fashion. Most of the road was destroyed by the lahar deposits, which tumbled down the Toutle River Valley at extreme speeds. Even today, almost 40 years later, the new highway snakes its way through a landscape that still has scars from the eruption. This article was promoted to GA last year and hasn't changed significantly, but I believe it is up to the standard I set with my previous road FAs. SounderBruce 06:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do intend to review the article in the next few days. --Rschen7754 04:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Maybe a bit nitpicky but you have two sentences starting with "The highway" right next to each other in between the first and second paragraph.
    • Fixed and took the opportunity to expand the second instance.
Sources
  • Should The Oregonian have the location indicated since it isn't in the title? Same with The Oregon Daily Journal, The Daily Chronicle, The Columbian, The News Tribune.
    • I would assume that local newspapers wouldn't need location information, as all four are well known in Western Washington. SounderBruce 04:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • San Diego Union-Tribune before 1992 was either The San Diego Union or Evening Tribune.
    • Fixed.
      • It is Evening Tribune with no San Diego in front of it. --Rschen7754 02:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • More later. --Rschen7754 18:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Route description
  • ascending - do we need a topo source for that?
    • I wrote this based off the terrain layer in Google Maps, but if necessary I can use a pair of USGS topographic maps that split this section of the highway.
  • The highway continues through a partial cloverleaf interchange - with what?
    • Fixed by adding the access road bit.
  • Is 2016 the latest data available for traffic counts? --Rschen7754 02:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WSDOT does not publish a traffic data report beyond 2016. The new portal doesn't have complete data and is harder to use, so I'd rather keep the old style as this route shouldn't have a drastic change in traffic counts.
History
  • and it began construction in 1959 - the state legislature? I assume not.
    • Fixed.
  • opened to traffic - the designation?
    • Fixed.
  • Preliminary plans for a new highway to the north side of Mount St. Helens were approved by the state government in 1986 - the significance could be explained a bit better. To replace the part of the road that was destroyed?
    • Added "replacement"
  • The state department of transportation - can we say WSDOT? --Rschen7754 02:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 05:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:WA-504_St._Helens_Bridge_after_1980_eruption.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unable to recover the original gallery link (as it seems the USGS has completely changed their website again), but did add an alternative link to the same image in a different gallery. SounderBruce 05:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

 Working buidhe 05:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SG edit

Glacing in, problems apparent in the lead.

  • State Route 504 ... is a state highway in southwestern Washington state ... It travels 52 miles Poor usage, the road is traveling, can be rephrased.
  • ... remained popular with loggers and tourists, Loggers took that route to work because it was pretty?
  • lahar in the lead-- don't require the reader to click out to get a basic definition ... lahar (mud and debris flow)
  • The state government rebuilt most of the highway from 1988 to 1997, ... well, the government contracts the rebuilding ... Most of the highway was rebuilt from 1988 to 1997 ... if state government is important, then explain why
  • ... "relocating it further north and connecting to new interpretive centers at Coldwater Ridge and Johnston Ridge." and connecting it ??

Skipping down to "Recent history" (a breach of MOS:DATED)

  • What is this trying to say? "The 7-to-17-mile (11 to 27 km) route, connecting Coldwater Lake to the existing Forest Highway 99 near Windy Ridge and beyond to Forest Highway 25"? Is it 7 from Coldwater to 99, and then 10 more beyond that? Confusing construct.
  • "WSDOT studied several options for the proposed highway, which enjoyed mixed public support, and estimated a cost of $18.5 million to construct one option and $44 million for another (equivalent to $25.6 million and $60.9 million, respectively, in 2018 dollars)." How can "mixed" public support be enjoyable? Re-cast the sentence to cut the length. Get whatever it is about public support into one sentence, cost estimates in another.
  • "An average of 50 vehicles use the road on a daily basis, according to annual daily traffic data measured by WSDOT in 2016.[23]" Daily usage averaged 50 vehicles in 2016, according to WSDOT?

These are samples only: an independent copyedit may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no response on the FAC, and one edit to the article since my comment of 22 December. The WP:FAC instructions say that nominators are expected "to make efforts to address objections promptly". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not responding to this one, it got buried in some of the other stuff I've been doing lately. Frankly, I don't think this one will survive through the process, so I'd rather withdraw the nomination. Thank you for your comments, I'll get around to hammering them out at another time. SounderBruce 06:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2019 [5].

Ghostbusters II edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ghostbusters II the sequel to the comedy film icon Ghostbusters. The sequel took years to be brought to life and it's creation was both rapid and tumultuous. The resulting film arguably killed the franchise, but damned if it isn't an interesting read! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an image copyright review by Stifle.

  • There are no copyright issues. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the poster image in the infobox.
  • The word "hit" sounds too informal to me in this part "Its soundtrack single, "On Our Own" by Bobby Brown, was a hit.". I would either say that it was commercially successful or briefly mention its chart performance to support this assessment instead. I have a similar concern about the use of "hit" in the body of the article.
  • For this part "Repeated attempts to develop a further sequel ended following Ramis's death", I do not think "further" is necessary.
  • Reference 12 seems to be used twice for this sentence: "In April 1987, Puttnam announced that Ghostbusters II would go into production in November that year without having informed Reitman, who had not yet reviewed the unfinished script."
  • For the caption for the "fairy ring" image, I do not believe "fairy" should be capitalized.
  • There are a few instances where I think image captions should have a period since they are complete sentences. These are for the image in the "Cast" section, the Dennis Muren image, the Peter MacNicol image, the Ivan Reitman image, and the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House image. Apologies for being super nitpicky with these image captions.
  • For this part "The Statue of Liberty in New York City was a prominent feature in the film's finale.", I do not think "in New York City" is necessary as I think most people would know where the statue is located.
  • Any reason why the characters are not linked in the "Plot" section? Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this sentence (After the massive success of Ghostbusters, a sequel was considered an inevitability although that film had been developed as a conclusive, stand-alone project.) is the first time the original film is named in the body of the article. I would recommend wikilinking it.
  • I have two questions about this sentence (The pair wanted to convey a message about the consequences of negative human emotions, settling on the idea of supernatural slime amassing beneath large cities as a result, which empowered malevolent spirits.). After reading the "Writing" subsection, I read the message as being more focused on negative human emotions particularly in cities rather than negative human emotions in general. I was wondering if there could be a way to better represent that? I also have a question about the "amassing beneath large cities" part. I have not seen this film (I have only seen the original and portions of the reboot, but I would rather forget that one lol), but does this film show supernatural slime amassing under cities other than just New York City? After reading the plot summary, it seems like it was localized to just New York, but I just wanted some clarification. Apologies for the long message on a single sentence.
  • For this sentence (Ray Parker, Jr. helped write an updated version of his hit song "Ghostbusters", which was co-written and performed by Hip hop group Run-DMC.), I am not sure if the hip hop music wikilink should encompass the entire phrase hip hop group. I think it would be better to limit it to just the hip hop part as the target article is about the musical genre and not about groups in that genre. I also do not think hip needs to be capitalized.
  • I have a question about the "baby stroller" wikilink in this part (Five remotely controlled baby strollers were used). Since strollers are first mentioned in this part of the "Plot" section (She turns to the Ghostbusters for help after Oscar's stroller rolls), shouldn't the wikilink be moved up there instead?
  • I have a few comments about this sentence: (Brown's song "On Our Own" was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 R&B / Hip hop music charts for one week in early August 1989 before being replaced by Batman's own hit song "Batdance" by Prince.). I do not believe the "Hot 100" should be in italics as I believe it should only be the Billboard part. I would rephrase this part (was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 R&B / Hip hop music charts) to (was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs music chart) to be more accurate as it was not a number-one hit on the general Billboard Hot 100. I would instead move that wikilink to the next sentence by rephrasing this part ("On Our Own" peaked at number two on the top 100 songs) as ("On Our Own" peaked at number two on the Billboard Hot 100 chart) instead.
  • For this part ( "On Our Own" spent 20 weeks on the charts.), I would clarify that you mean on the Billboard Hot 100 chart specifically as those are the citations being used. Given the previous sentence, I think you can specify this just by doing a minor adjustment to say ("On Our Own" spent 20 weeks on the chart.). I think it is an important distinction as you are not saying that it spent this amount of time on the Hot R&B/Hip-hop Songs chart (at least to the best of my understanding so feel free to correct me if I am wrong here).
  • Would a wikilink to Christmas season be helpful for this part (To take advantage of the Christmas season)?
  • I would add information about how the film was released on DVD. The home media section jumps from VHS directly to Blu-ray without mentioning the DVD release.
  • After doing some Google-ing, I found out that this film was released on LaserDisc. I would include that in the article.
  • I have a question about the Den of Geek sentence in the "Lasting reception" subsection. The article's prose uses Den of Geek while the citation uses DenofGeek.com. Is there any reason for this?
  • I have a question about these two sentences: (Others have defended the film as being as good as or better than Ghostbusters.) and (Some have said the plot of Ghostbusters II is arguably better executed than that of the first film, with multiple threads coming together in a "seamless" third act with a positive ending that works better with modern audiences.). The "Others" and "Some" word choices make me think that multiple reviewers have commented on this aspect of the film's reception, but I only see one citation/critic (i.e. the DigitalSpy.com citation) being used to support this.
  • This part (Discussion about a sequel took place during filming of Ghosbusters II) has a typo in the film's title.

Wonderful work with this article! I am not the best FAC reviewer, but I hope that my comments were at least somewhat helpful. Hats off to you for working on an article about such a well-known work, as I imagine that it is quite tricky/challenging to assemble and balance everything out. I have always worked on far more obscure subject matter (mainly because I am weird and enjoy doing the research on those kinds of things), so I definitely have respect for you for this. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope you are having an excellent day and/or night so far! I will have to check this film out sometime in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly review this article Aoba47. To your points:
  1. Done
  2. Done
  3. Done
  4. Done
  5. Done
  6. Done
  7. Done
  8. I didn't link the characters in the plot section because they're then linked in the cast section. I can swap it around if you prefer, I just don't agree with linking in BOTH plot and cast.
  9. Done
  10. I've rewrote the sentence about the slime. Their intent writing the plot was to basically represent negative emotions in places like New York and Los Angeles (which at the time, there's a reason New York was the subject of post apocalyptic stories). The film itself only features slime under New York (though if you play the 2009 video game, it's shown that the slime was specifically in New York for a particular purpose)
  11. Done
  12. Done
  13. Done
  14. Done
  15. Done
  16. NOT DONE YET - The home video stuff is a real struggle. You can google and find mentions of Laserdisc and DVD, but finding a reliable source I can include in the article is another matter. As GBII was not as big as Ghostbusters, it doesnt seem to get as much coverage. Bear with me on this one, I'm trying to find something I can use for the DVD/Laserdisc
  17. Same as above
  18. The Denofgeek.com is just confusion, every time I bring an article to FA reviewers always have a different standard they want applying to the references (literally, it's always a different thing because on the next article I employ what I was told on the last, and then at FA am told it is wrong). I think I did denofgeek.com because there wasn't a specific article at the time, or possible because at the Den of Geek article, the title isn't italicized. It's all very inconsistent, but I've changed it to Den of Geek.
  19. Working, I should be able to find more sources for this.
  20. Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ok I've reworded the Legacy section a little and added a few more sources, let me know if that works for you. The Laserdisc version, I've spent about 4 hours on and off googling and I can't find a reliable source with a release date. Wikis are the best I've come across. I don't think this is something I can complete with the available sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses to my comments. Your point about linking only the "Cast" section makes sense to me as it does prevent over-linking. I can understand your confusion about the source consistency as I had similar experiences in the past. I will leave that up to whoever does the source review as I am sure they would be more qualified to discuss that point than myself. It was just something that caught my eye while reading the article so I just wanted to bring it to your attention. There is a stray citation in the "Lasting reception" subsection, but that should be an easy fix. I have also tried to look for a Laserdisc source, but the closest thing I found was a mention in a LaserDisc ad in an old newspaper so that probably would not work. I should not be surprised since that format was never very successful in comparison to VHS. Once the point about the stray citation is resolved, I will be more than happy to suport this for promotion. Wonderful work! Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did find this WorldCat source (1) about a Laserdisc release for the PAL region, but I am uncertain if it would be usable here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be of any use as it isn't the American version. I know for definite that it was released in 1989 alongside the VHS and Betamax, but I just can't find any mention of it outside of fan wikis. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what I assumed, but I just wanted to check with you first. Since here does not appear to be any reliable coverage on this particular aspect of its release, then it is understandable why it would be absent from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for my super late response. I only have one last comment/concern. There is a stray citation in the "Lasting reception" section. For some reason, I thought I already pointed that out in my review, but it must have been an unsaved edit or got lost in the shuffle somehow. Apologies again for that. I cannot really comment on the coverage/comprehensive issues raised below, but I am focusing primarily on the prose already in the article for my review (as I think that is really the only thing I am qualified to do). Once this point is addressed, I will support this based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I took care of the one you meant. Thanks for noticing it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this. I support this based on the prose. Again, I cannot really comment about the coverage and sources, but I believe the prose meets the FAC criteria. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments from Laser brain edit

A lot of film FAs I've seen have a Themes section—can you explain why this article doesn't have a discussion of Themes? I did a lazy library search just now and found lots of references to this film in academic journals, including writing about the "beneath NYC" theme and its associated influences and cinematography. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine not every film is deep enough to require a thematic analysis. The subtext behind the slime is detailed in the article by the writers. Like the Ghostbusters FAC, if you have direct references you can guide me to I'm happy to read them, but I haven't come across anything on Google. I've done themes sections on films before but they're directly related to interpretations of things in the film, not abstract interpretations unrelated to the film which is all I found with the original Ghostbusters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, looks like academic work on themes has been done, so it's necessary to explore and include to be comprehensive. Research should be done outside of FAC, with the help of a librarian if need be so you can reference the proper film journals. Googling is complimentary to a library search, but it's not comprehensive. I'm afraid I must oppose on 1b and 1c and recommend withdrawal so the appropriate research can be performed. --Laser brain (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about the article do you feel is not well-researched and comprehensive, absent some university thesis on how ghosts can be seen as immigrants, written using the wrong character names? I've expanded this from 1666 words to over 10000 and it uses 173 different sources from the web, magazines and journals. I've done the research, I've done the work. If you want me to write a fluff paragraph about themes, direct me to the sources, because google scholar shows nothing either. Expecting someone to go to a librarian to research an article, when they've already given hours of their time to the project is an unrealistic and unfair expectation and its a moving of goalposts because theme sections are not demanded on every film FAC I've ever put forward. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 01:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The snark isn't necessary or constructive. My job as a reviewer isn't to do the research for you. Library research is necessary for any topic on which scholarly work has been done, period. --Laser brain (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So my job is to do all the work, and your job is to do nothing and say I've not done enough. So much for Wikipedia being a collaborative effort. Just withdraw it, I've spent over a month of my time on this article and I won't be able to find those sources and I'm not going library to library looking for random documents on how Tina thinks Slimer represents the bleak chaos inherent to the universe. I've already done more than enough. Thank you for your valuable input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 01:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for intruding on this discussion. I find a "Themes" section to be the most difficult part of an article to write. I agree that not all film articles require this type of section, simply because some films do not attract this level of academic discourse, but there does seem to be some analysis on this film. For instance, this book has an interesting discussion on how fatherhood is represented in the film. I have never put a film article through the FAC process, but I just wanted to try and help somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with user Laser Brain on this specific point. Ghostbusters received solid scholarly attention, but Ghostbusters II were largely ignored. The reason for that was in the mixed reception of the sequel, which discouraged attention of the scholars. User:Laser brain, if you are aware of a specific reference to this film in academic journals, please, gives us some links or titles here. My google scholar search only gives me hits for the 1st film. Which library did you search? Can you be more specific? Without these specifics, it sounds like you are just inventing flaws and omissions without giving ways or solutions to solve them.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I used a search tool provided by my academic institution that searches several databases. Given the responses and bad-faith accusations I've received here, I'm not inclined to participate further. --Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a particularly spurious objection that I hope does not invalidate this article’s acceptance if the rest of the material is up to snuff. Not every movie is significant thematically and an academic or two happening to discuss a movie does not a thematic section make. If there are well-cited academic theories regarding this movie that are widely disseminated in academia then yeah, that should go in. No one has provided evidence of this. We have a glut of PhD students, post docs, and young professors operating within a “publish or perish” academic culture that demands original thought, so many niche topics end up receiving a study. Does not make any of it important on its face. Indrian (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken my opposition so it doesn't hold up the nomination. As I said, I found a number of promising academic sources and I'm perfectly capable of filtering out inappropriate or peripheral sources. I'm aware of how to do library research. I can't work in the environment created by the nominator here, so I'm declining further involvement/help. --Laser brain (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by 3E1I5S8B9RF7 edit

A great article, with a lot more info about the sequel than I ever found on the Internet. I was surprised that User:Darkwarriorblake managed to find such a wealth of data. All the articles usually focus on the first Ghostbusters film, leaving this sequel in the dark, up until this point. I have no major objection worth mentioning in the article, it is comprehensive, neutral, stable and informative, enough to meet the criteria for a FA, in my humble opinion.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 3E1I5S8B9RF7, I actually found the second film more interesting to work on. THe first is a perfect storm of everyone just having fun and refining Aykroyd's wacky ideas but there's no real conflict behind it, it just worked and was a success, while the second film was a perfect storm of the opposite, noone having fun, reshoots and conflicts between the cast and crew. Plus the design behind it has more information available, and it being released in the Summer of Batman. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indrian edit

Its an interesting article, but I think it still has a few prose problems. I'll start with the first part of the article through the "development" section. I will add more as these get addressed. Indrian (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Set five years after the first film, the Ghostbusters have been sued" - Mismatch between the introductory clause and the subject. The clause refers to the movie, yet the sentence is about the titular characters.
Please see link below for changes -DWB
  • " The pair wanted to convey a message about the consequences of negative human emotions in large cities, settling on the idea of supernatural slime amassing beneath New York City as a result, which empowered malevolent spirits" - This sentence does not really explain how supernatural slime below New York links with the idea of negative emotions. I know we want to keep the lead from getting too complicated, but a tweak may be good here.
Please see link below for changes -DWB
  • Should Gozer be linked somewhere in the text? He does have an entry on a Ghostbusters characters page.
Good catch, thanks. - DWB
  • "Raymond Stantz owns an occult bookstore and works as a children's entertainer alongside Winston Zeddemore, Egon Spengler works in a laboratory experimenting with human emotions and Peter Venkman hosts a television show about psychics." - Run-on sentence.
Please see link below for changes -DWB
  • "with her now ex-husband" - I think now is redundant here.
Done, I think I was worried it would be confusing because she has got married and divorced between films, so the marriage didn't exist in the previous film. - DWB
  • "that film had been developed as a conclusive, stand-alone project" - I am not sure "conclusive" is really the word you are looking for here. I think you can probably just eliminate the word and go with "had been developed as a stand-alone project."
Done - DWB
  • "was reported to have been removed from his job" - That is a lot of "to be" conjugations in a small space. I think this can be more simply rendered. Also, I think the entire sentence gets lost within itself. Perhaps deal with the Murray and Ovitz issues in their own sentences rather than mashing them together?
Please see link below for changes -DWB
  • "Puttnam favored smaller films over big-budget blockbusters, greenlighting several foreign-language films by European directors and stating that he was making films for the "world market", and smaller budget films like the critically acclaimed war film Hope and Glory (1987) and the comedy film Bloodhounds of Broadway (1989)." - I think this sentence should be reworked. We talk about smaller films, then European films and the world market, and then go back to smaller films. I am thinking two sentences: "Puttnam favored smaller films such as the critically acclaimed war film Hope and Glory (1987) and the comedy film Bloodhounds of Broadway (1989) over big-budget blockbusters. He also greenlit several foreign-language films by European directors because he preferred making films for the "world market." You don't have to use that language exactly, but it gives an idea of what I see as the issue.
Please see link below for changes -DWB
  • "Reitman later said the delay in development was not Puttnam's fault and that executives above Puttnam at Columbia's New York branch had attempted to work around him to progress the project" - I guess I am not sure what is going on here. It starts with Reitman saying Puttnam was not the problem, but then goes on to describe how Puttnam's superiors tried to work around him, which implies an issue. So did Reitman say Puttnam was a problem or not? Maybe it should say that Puttnam was not the biggest problem?
The media reported as Puttnam being the problem and he was in part due to the aforementioned opposition to big blockbuster films. Reitman's statement is that other Columbia execs attempted to work around Puttnam because they believed he was the driving issue, but Reitman defended Puttnam by saying there were other issues also in play. The other execs definitely believed that Puttnam was a big issue because he had also upset Murray and Ovitz, but the way I read the source was that even if he hadn't made the relationship with Murray more difficult (as Murray was already difficult to work with), that the film wouldn't have gotten off the ground any earlier. Basically, I might not be summarising it well here but if you think it is still unclear let me know and I can try to rework it more. - DWB
Right, all of that makes sense. I think the problem here is that we are missing a qualifier that explains his superiors were wrong to try to end run him. As written, the article implies that even with the bigger issues, an end run around Puttnam was also necessary, which seems to contradict Reitman's premise. After reading the source, I would perhaps suggest changing some language so it reads something like: "executives above Puttnam at Columbia's New York branch had attempted to work around him because they thought he was holding up the project, but they discovered they could not get the production moving even after sidelining him." I think that captures what the article is saying.
  • "As co-creators, Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis all had control over the franchise, requiring unanimous approval to proceed" - incorrect wording, as "requiring" does not have a concept to latch on to. Perhaps change to "As co-creators, Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis all had control over the franchise, and their unanimous approval was required to proceed."
Done - DWB
  • "was replaced as its president by Dawn Steel, the first woman to hold such a high-level role in the industry" - That she was the first woman in the role is interesting, but does her gender have anything to do with the history ofGhostbusters II? If not, this should be removed.
I can see your point and you can read into the gender politics of it since she was positioned and then removed under hostile circumstances about 2 years later (That's not mentioned in the article because while there are sources saying Ghostbusters II might have been to blame for that, it's not as clear cut), I think it's a notable item that one of the most successful women in the industry was tied to getting the film in motion. I think it's worth including as it's only a small piece of text but I'm willing to discuss it. - DWB
Its a topic worthy of discussion for sure, but I am not sure the Ghostbusters II article is the place for it. I am not going to withhold support of the article over something so small and somewhat subjective, but I do feel it comes across as a little random to mention it here.
  • "their most profitable film in 1988, greenlit during the Puttnam regime, had earned only $14 million" - The entire paragraph is about how getting Ghostbusters II into production was an overriding policy goal in 1987, so using a 1988 film as an example in the middle of the paragraph comes across as a non sequiter.
Fair point, this was difficult because it's a good example of what Puttnam was producing, but it's also the only source I could find specifically tying a film to his regime. The issue is he started in 1986 and was fired by 1987, and the films he greenlit, due to production times, didn't start showing up until around 1988. Things like Me and Him and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen for example. I think it is important to establish how bad Columbia was doing in what was the dawn of the Blockbuster but I'm going to try and find a source that names a 1987 film so bear with me. -DWB
Actually I just removed the part about the $14 million. It's a nice piece of trivia but I can't make it work there. - DWB
  • "After this, the film was rushed into production for a mid-1989 release, aiming to start filming in Summer 1988." - That last phrase about filming is awkwardly tacked on. Perhaps "After this, the film was rushed into production, with filming scheduled for Summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release."
Done - DWB
Hi Indrian, thanks for taking the time to review this. I've addressed most of your issues at this link here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Indrian, did you receive my ping? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. Thanks for addressing things. I will continue the review in the very near future. Indrian (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on from where I left off with the writing section:

  • Aykroyd decided he wanted to counter the first film's move skywards, ending atop a skyscraper, by making a subterranean threat." Maybe connect this to material earlier in the paragraph: "He wanted to eschew New York City, set the film overseas, and provide a contrast to the first movie's climax atop a skyscraper by developing a subterranean threat." Its a little subjective, but I think the whole paragraph flows better that way.
  • "while still allowing them to explore beneath the city" - A bit of a quibble, but as written, this wording implies that in the original Scottish draft they were still going to explore underneath New York City specifically as opposed to going underground generally.
  • "As with Ghostbusters, Ramis partnered with Aykroyd to refine the script" - Again, this is really, really quibbly, but since the first draft was written by Aykroyd, would it not be more accurate to state that Aykroyd partnered with Ramis? As written, it implies that Ramis was doing the majority of the writing and Aykroyd was offering suggestions for refinement. If that is actually the way it was, then we need some kind of transition to note that shift.
  • "Ramis had conceived separately from the film a horror film concept about an infant who possessed adult agility and focus. He rejected the horror aspects but it inspired him to create the character Oscar." - These sentences are clunky and a little disjointed. Perhaps instead: "Ramis suggested the story focus on a baby because he had previously developed a horror film concept centered on an infant who possessed adult agility and focus. This inspired him to create the character Oscar."
  • "Ramis wanted to show that the Ghostbusters had not thrived following their victory in the previous film; he considered this to be a more original concept." - A more original concept than what?
Thanks Indrian. I've done all but the last one as I'm a little confused. In the source he just says its a more original concept than their victory having made them into heroes and them staying that way between films. Instead they're failures all doing back up jobs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is the missing piece then. Add to the end of the sentence "than remaining heroes" or something similar. Just to make the comparison clear without need for inference. Indrian (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next round:

  • The paragraph on Peter MacNicol feels disjointed. There should be a lead sentence introducing him rather than just moving straight to the accent, and it feels like the next few sentences are in the reverse order of how they should really go. In my mind, first comes the decision to make the character Carpathian despite it not being called for in the script, then comes the inspirations for the specific accent.
  • The last sentence of the last paragraph of the cast and crew section feels tacked on, as the whole paragraph is about other cast members up to that point. Is there anyway to flesh out some info on the crew to allow that to stand as its own paragraph?
  • "Medjuck noted that characters are often seen smoking in Ghostbusters but a societal change in the intervening years meant this was no longer acceptable; Ghostbusters II does not depict any smoking." - This sentence should absolutely stay somewhere as its a fascinating anecdote on changing society, but it just does not fit where it is, as its the only paragraph in the sentence that is not specifically about filming in Los Angeles. It comes across as a non sequitur.
  • "Following test screenings, it was realized there were issues with the film that had to be changed." - Passive voice. Who realized it. The director, the producers, anyone with two brain cells to rub together? Whoever it was, make them the subject.

We're getting there. I appreciate all your hard work. Indrian (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Here is a link to the latest changes. I've tried to move some of the content around per your request, I agree they were non-sequiturs but likewise I struggled to find an appropriate place for them. The test screenings note, I changed to the principal crew. One source is talking to Reitman, one talks to Medjuck who addresses the situation as "we" which could include Michael Gross as well but it doesn't specify, I didn't think it was appropriate to put "Reitman and Medjuck". I'm going to have a look for info on the crew to see if I can expand it but this was a thinner area this time around because they were just returning so there wasn't much interest in it appears. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Indrian, I forgot to ping you but the changes are above. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Indrian, sorry to pester you, I understand it's a busy season. Do you think you will be able to look at this further or are you too busy? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time does get away sometimes during this time of the year. I'll have another round up shortly. Indrian (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, things are going pretty smoothly in the next few sections. I have made a few small grammatical changes myself, leaving just a small number of issues:

  • "Editor Sheldon Kahn was responsible for the idea of the "Five Years Later" opening credit at the start of the film." - Nothing wrong with including this fact somewhere, but its a complete non sequiter where it appears now.
  • The "Design" section seems mislabeled, as that implies there will be info on production design, set decoration, costumes, etc. but this is mostly just special effects. Also, it feels like a topic sentence may be needed, as just starting with the story of Edelman's company being replaced by ILM just feels off. As this is a major section heading, we should open with something that summarizes the entire idea of the section briefly.
  • "The slime-possessed fur coat was achieved using four coats with parts controlled with servo motors. ILM considered using live animals for the segment but abandoned the idea." - Another non-sequiter since the entire paragraph is about Slimer save for this sentence.
  • "Ghostbusters II was originally scheduled for release in July 1989 but less than three months before release, it was postponed to June to avoid direct competition with Batman" - So the definition of "postpone" is to "cause or arrange for (something) to take place at a time later than that first scheduled." So we need a different word here.
  • "Approximately 2.8 million units of a promotional noisemaker toy called the "Ghostblaster", which was released across 3,100 outlets of the fast-food restaurant Hardee's, were recalled in June 1989 because of reports children were ingesting its small batteries." - Another non-sequiter that really has nothing to do with the topic of the section. If this stays in, it should be incorporated somehow into the merchandising section below.
  • I think the paragraph on the chart performance of the soundtrack songs should probably be moved. It just feels like the whole section is giving an interesting and cogent analysis of what went wrong with the movie, and the soundtrack stuff is just tacked on at the end.

That's it. Once these issues have been addressed, I should be ready to support. Indrian (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Indrian. I've addressed most of your issues here. I admit, I'm really struggling with the Sheldon Kahn one. I agree on its placement but I am having difficulty thinking where else it could go. It's a minor thing I know but it allows me to mention him in the article, and the abrupt "5 years later" is an interesting factoid to tie to a member of the crew outside the cast and Reitman. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Looking good - I have read this through and it reads well. The chronology is a bit laboured in the Production section but that reflects the fascinating and frustrating process of its development.

  • I note that the reviews flip from past to present tense (I reverted myself when I realised that - was that intentional?). I suspect it'd be better all past tense unless tehre is a specific reason for this.
  • Alot of themes get discussed in chronology, so i don't know what else theme-wise has not been covered. I will take a look (I have a university account so can get fulltexts) and return.

Overall though first impressions are that it looks good prose-wise and is fairly comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it but my general experience has been that it should be wrote about in present tense because it still 'is' and we only generally talk about real people/events in a historical sense. Some errors might have slipped through. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the reception section and changed it all to past tense. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has this article had a MOS review? On a VERY quick glance, there is an EMDASH that should be an ENDASH in the lead ($30—40 million), an incorrectly placed citation (folklore to fairies or witches—[21] ... citations go after punctuation except for dashes), and there should be NBSPs between instances of Ghostbusters and II ... this is a quick glance only, suggesting a more thorough MOS check should be done by someone who has the time. In the lead, "The film spawned a series of merchandise ..." is awkward ... can a film spawn, much less merchandise? Further, considering the indications above that a thorough literature review has not been conducted, it is necessary to Oppose until that is done. It seems that Cas has indicated he will look into that. Please ping me if that happens, and a MOS review is done ... who doesn't love the Ghostbusters !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from JM edit

Oppose. I do not want to start fights, but... I think the conversation with Laser brain above is worrying. Harrying of opposers is obviously a problem (whether it's a reason to oppose is an open question) but the apparent hostility towards the idea of incorporating academic analysis or seeking out scholarly sources is surprising for someone who chooses encyclopedia-writing as a hobby. It seems that Laser brain, Aoba, and I are all seeing potentially useful/interesting sources to add, but it doesn't seem like the nominator has any interest in drawing from them. As the nominator asked for example sources and may have missed any identified above, here are four further suggestions as examples.

  1. Baker, Janice (2016). Sentient Relics: Museums and Cinematic Affect. London: Routledge. (There's a whole section about the film in chapter 4; analyses Ghostbusters II but not Ghostbusters.)
  2. Van Riper, A. Bowdoin (2016). "'Who you gonna call?': The supernatural and service economy in the Ghostbusters films". In: The Laughing Dead: The Horror-Comedy Film from Bride of Frankenstein to Zombieland, edited by Cynthia J. Miller and A. Bowdoin Van Riper. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. (Analyses the two films together.)
  3. Clark, Zoila (2015). "Immigrants as aliens in the Ghostbusters films". Australasian Journal of Popular Culture 4 (1): 29-42. (Ditto.)
  4. Corcos, Christine Alice (1997). "'Who ya gonna c(s)ite?' Ghostbusters and the environmental regulation debate". Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 13 (1): 231-272. (Primarily about the first film, but devotes a section to the second.)

Normally, I think this would just be a question about where the nominator had looked, but given the conversation above, this is an oppose with specific examples of scholarly sources that may be worth incorporating. I am happy to withdraw my oppose if the nominator takes a look at these sources and incorporates them/explains why they should not be incorporated (and I/others may be able to help with access), but I will not be withdrawing my oppose in response to badgering. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with J Milburn, and as there have been no edits to the article for ten days, believe the FAC should be archived so it can be re-worked and brought back when ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eye roll emoji*. Oh, I didn't edit it on Christmas Day? I'm sorry I have three kids to look after SandyGeorgia. Even the government takes two weeks off ffs. I am collecting sources, I've put in a request at the ResourceExchange and I'm trying to fashion 'something' interesting out of this interpretive drivel I'm being asked to read, written by people who can't even get the character names right. Maybe consider the time of year before wasting the last 2 months of my life spent appeasing people. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you pinged me, I'd like to let you know that I watchlist FACs I comment on, so you need not ping me. I am going to ignore the rest of your aggression, but something about flies honey and vinegar comes to mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The 'honey' is the five months of free work done trying to elevate any article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure everyone who's contributed to this review is doing it for free, and several of them spend months at a time improving articles too -- neither you nor anyone else is being forced to do it. Anyway, I think this nom has been open long enough and, given the concerns still being raised at this stage, and the attitude shown towards those concerns, I don't see this gaining consensus for promotion anytime soon. I suggest continuing to work on the sourcing, preferably with further input from JM and Ealdgyth (and ideally Laser brain) if they're willing, before considering a re-nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

Taking off my FAC coord hat here to do a source review.

Some helpful advice on how to respond to queries in a source review is at User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe it or not, I actually did read our wikipedia articles on the sites I queried. They did not make me think they were enough to match the criteria, which is "high quality". For example - Film School Rejects explicitly states that it is "Film School Rejects is an American blog devoted to movie reviews, interviews, film industry news, and feature commentary". This does not make me think they are high quality - blogs are basically self-published. When using self-published stuff - we need to follow WP:SPS. Expedia is great for finding travel bargins, but that doesn't mean they are a high-quality reliable source for movie articles. Now, can we accept that I did in fact look at the wikipedia articles and start trying to show how all of these sources meet the FA criteria? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
after edit conflict, Darkwarriorblake, just to save you both time before Ealdgyth gets back to review this, and particularly on those with more than one article from the same site, you have to take care to look at each author on each source. In many cases that I checked, they are not on the list of staff at the site, so it is important for you to give an indication to Ealdgyth in some cases about what makes the individual authors reliable. On some of the sites, they indicate who is staff, but the authors aren't there. It is also helpful to link to any "About us" page from the sites that address their editorial policies, fact checking, etc. Hang in there, and keep going, but you cannot cite a Wikipedia article to indicate reliability. Give WP:RS a careful read about things that you do need to look for and provide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more pages that may help you provide information to determine reliability:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not the reference formatting, or multiple reliable sites citing the sites in question, it's now that the authors haven't been individually vetted.
      • Film school rejects - whether Twitter gives some user a blue checkmark or not does not have any bearing on whether they are a high quality reliable source in Wikipedia terms.
      • Den of Geek - https://www.denofgeek.com/us/content/about-us well, that just says they are backed by their OWN media company - the "Den of Geek World Limited" and "Deen of Geek US" are kinda a giveaway that it's their own company.
      • Beyond the Marquee - well, they are actively soliciting people to join them on their about page - that's not a good sign of a high quality source here.
      • Expedia - so ... he's not an expert in the subject matter (which is films)
      • MentalFloss - doesn't show any sort of reason on their about page to see that they are a high quality source ... nor does a listing of the articles on Mental Floss by the authors help in that regard.
      • Stereogum - "Stereogum is the world’s greatest music blog, founded in 2002." and I'm not seeing anywhere that they are backed by a media company.
      • Filmtracks - seems to be a one person operation - "It is solely owned and operated by veteran writer and webmaster Christian Clemmensen"
      • Inverse - this one at least has a reasonably size editorial team - but we're still not seeing how it's reliable - looks an awful lot like a fluffy listicle site to me.
      • TimeOut - okay, it's a free tourism magazine ... what makes that a good source for a film article?
      • AllMovie - well, that about page tells me nothing about their editorial policies or editorial team...and from their FAQ "Tivo prides themselves on accuracy, so please include your information source in your submission. Please do not contact AllMovie about the status of data corrections; we don't control which data is corrected or how long it takes to apply corrections..." that's not very encouraging.
      • AllMusic - from their FAQ on corrections "Factual information about credits, birthdates and birthplaces, charts, album covers, sound clips and music videos are on the end of our data provider, TiVo." and "Please do not contact AllMusic about the status of data corrections; we don't control which data is corrected or how long it takes to apply corrections..."
      • AtlasObscura - well, the about page is really pretty but has very little about editorial policies or anything like that. And the author page just lists the articles they've written for AtlasObscura, which doesn't mean much for establishing their subject matter expertise (and it doesn't appear they are a film expert from the titles of those articles)
      • ScreenRant - again, nothing about the editorial policies. And the author's page doesn't exactly show he's writing for big names either.
Sounds like you're just being difficult tbh. If those sources are not valid sources for this content then good luck ever bringing the majority of film articles, especially older ones to FA. These are all major sources and not blogs, I have deliberately not included information in this article, even when interesting if it came from a blog or other questionable source. You're seriously holding it up over TimeOut. Time fucking Out? "Expedia - so ... he's not an expert in the subject matter (which is films)" - it's sourcing locations. You've been deliberately obstructionist, making reasons up to hold this up and I want that on record here. Due diligence was done, but whatever, I assume this was just an attempt to derail this FA so congrats. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute joke. You can all start doing this work yourselves. So it'll never get done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 December 2019 [6].

Cyclone Taylor edit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considered the first true superstar in hockey history, Fred "Cyclone" Taylor was a huge name in the early 20th century. At one point making more money per match than any athlete in the world, he commanded a high price wherever he went, and having him around brought legitimacy to various leagues as they were establishing themselves. Outside of hockey he worked as an immigration official, and was involved in one of the most notorious cases in Canadian immigration history. An article I've been looking to bring to FA for years, I finally put the work into it recently and had it pass GA in September. All comments are welcome, and will work to address in a timely manner. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done.
  • Images hosted on Commons should include a tag for status in Canada, not just US
Done.
  • File:Komogata_Maru_LAC_a034014_1914.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Working on finding a definitive answer for that. If I don't have something by the end of the week will remove it. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to get a definitive answer, so have removed the image. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

(I took this, initially, to be a weather article! Ah, well...)

  • Spotchecks not carried out; however, I notice that the lead says born June 23, 1884, died 9 June 1979 which would be just before his 95th birthday. The Ottawa Citizen of June 11, 1979, states "just before his 94th birthday". Which is right?
As noted there is a discrepancy between his birthdate; most give the 1884 date, though some sources listed 1885. The Ottawa Citizen is apparently using the 1885 source.
  • Links to sources are all working.
  • Formats:
  • Notes: Is there any reason for using a different format to cite the information in "Notes"?
Not particularly, though as the "Notes" are more explanatory I felt it was logical to have a way to differentiate them from actual citations, but I'm certainly not opposed to alternatives
  • Notes g, h and i are unreferenced.
Fixed that.
  • Ref 59, Bowlby, pp. 2–30. Page range rather too wide - can it be broken down to cite more precisely the individual facts in the paragraph?
Clarified more relevant pages.
  • Quality/reliability. I don't see any issues here. Sources used seem appropriate to the subject, comprehensive, and meeting the FA quality criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the look through, even if it wasn't that weather-related. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several quick comments –

  • Early life: Was "in" meant to be placed inside "losing sudden-death overtime"?
  • I see $1500 in one section and $5,250 in the next. Pick one style (with comma, most likely) and stick with it consistently.
  • Vancouver Millionaires (1912–1922): I'm having trouble understanding this sentence: "He had five goals and one assist in the six games played, and the five games Vancouver played in the Stanley Cup Final against the Senators, recording one assist." Were the six games regular season games, or did they include the five Cup Final games?
  • Note b: "He concludes that the 1884 dates is likely the correct one." "dates" should be "date". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thanks for the comments. I've corrected everything here, and if you have anything else just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

Removed
  • "which was not a lot to raise five children on", this comes across rather informal and sounds more like opinion than fact. Is there something to compare this to, like average wages at the time or similar?
Added a bit more of a qualifier.
  • "He was given his first pair of skates and taught" > was taught?
Fixed
  • "to move to Toronto and play for the Toronto Marlboros", I think the first part could be dropped and simply go with "to play for the Toronto Marlboros".
Done
  • Did Hewitt give an actual reason for banning Taylor? It seems unlikely that he could simply ban him for not switching teams, I'm assuming he found a way to justify his actions?
Tried to clarify it a bit. The story has been questioned recently as to how true it is (which the note there suggests), but I've tried to explain a bit of how it would have gone
  • "as the team won the Portage won the 1906 league", doesn't quite make sense.
Fixed
  • "at the time few players skated this way, let alone score goals while doing so" > scored?
Fixed
  • "Having moved out West in 1910", West isn't capitalised in previous uses. Should this one be any different? There's a similar usage further on, try to stay consistent throughout the article.
No reason to be capitalized, and all mentions have been fixed.
  • "ten goals and 8 assists", avoid using a mix of numerals and words in similar context.
Fixed
  • "Vancouver finished second in the league and thus was unable to defend their Stanley Cup title", a singular or plural issue when dealing with team names. I would suggest it should be "defend its Stanley Cup..." when referring to the organisation itself.
Fixed
  • "He started the season strong" > strongly, perhaps?
Done
  • The Komagata Maru incident could do with more explanation as to why it was a controversial event. Was it because of the reaction when the ship returned home or becuase it was turned away by Canadian authorities? Right now, it sounds like a ship of immigrants illegally attempted to enter a country and were turned away, this doesn't really seem to justify the "terrible affair" quote.
I added a bit more detail, but at it was a quite simple issue: Canada didn't want non-Europeans to enter, and so refused to let anyone off the ship, forcing a standoff for several weeks. If you think it needs a bit more let me know, I'll see what I can do.

Here's what I picked out on a run through, hope this helps. Kosack (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: Thanks for going through it, have made the above changes. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now. Kosack (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet point comments Canada Hky (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, PCHA is abbreviated, but not used again (in the lead). The abbreviation can probably be removed, or other league abbreviations (IHL) could be added. Removed is probably better.
Removed it
  • In the second paragraph of the "Early life" section, there are a couple of really long sentences, that double up on themselves a few times - the 4th sentence uses both Mintos and OHA twice. The third and fourth sentences might need to be trimmed a bit.
Cleaned it up a bit. Let me know if that's better.
  • In the last paragraph of the Early life section - it is unclear if this refers to two consecutive seasons (03/04 ad 04/05), or just 03/04.
Clarified the specific season
  • In the "Portage la Prairie..." section - is there a reference for "...some had been covertly paid in Canada"?
Added
  • My grammar isn't the greatest, so take this with a grain of salt. In the second paragraph, should the parenthetical clarification be "[I]" instead of "[he]"?
Yeah it should be. I've restored it to the original quote
  • In "Ottawa Senators", can you offer clarification as to when the league changed names? The abbreviation ECAHA is used towards the end of his time there in the last paragraph.
Done
  • In "Vancouver Millionaires" - "...Eastern Canada to join the league, which included the offer of the NHA all-star team to tour in 1912" - "included the offer of" doesn't quite make sense - were they offering a spot on the team to everyone, or just that it existed?
I removed it as it really isn't adding anything there. It's also noted in the paragraph above, so nothing major is lost.
  • In this section, it appears that Taylor had his appendix out twice. After the first season where he had stomach troubles, and again during the 16/17 season.
Clarified it. The sources mentioned he was planning to wait, but then ended up not doing it until it became an issue in 1916.
  • In "Immigration officer" - In the second sentence - using "position" twice sounds awkward.
Changed word
  • In "Marriage and family" - is the "also" necessary when describing Joan's passing? I am guessing it refers to her mother, but those are mentioned fairly distantly in the prose.
Removed

This is what I noticed on a read through. Similar to my second bullet point, there are a lot of long, somewhat awkward sentences. I am not sure if this is rephrasing to avoid plagiarism, but a quick read through to look for those sentences with 2 or 3 commas and the odd semi colon might offer some opportunities for rephrasing to make the prose flow a bit better. I will pop in on this to check over the next few days, and feel free to hit me up with any questions. Canada Hky (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Canada Hky: Thanks for the comments. I'll be able to address everything over the weekend, possibly earlier if I can. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Canada Hky: Went through and addressed everything else. And regarding the writing, I think that's more a trait of my own style (I do have a habit of overusing semi-colons). I went through and removed a few, but if you have anything else you think should be addressed let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All of my comments have been addressed. Thanks for the effort! Canada Hky (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia edit

Not FAC-ready, suggest withdrawal.

I looked at one section only; that section revealed that an independent copyedit is needed. (I corrected one typo while I was there.)

  • Taylor had joined the Immigration Branch of the Department of the Interior in October 1907, a job that was arranged as an inducement to get Taylor to play with Ottawa.
    • Passive voice (was arranged) leaves reader wondering by whom.
  • He thus started out as a junior clerk, earning $35 a month.
    • Thus?
  • When Taylor moved to Vancouver in 1912 he initially took a leave of absence from his position.
    • We were never told what city the Immigration job was first in, so we don't know where he moved from.
    • After he moved from ??? to Vancouver in 1912, he took a leave of absence.
  • Frank Patrick would later use his close connection with Sir Richard McBride, the Premier of British Columbia, to get Taylor's position transferred west, and ultimately promoted to senior immigration inspector.
    • His position was ultimately promoted ? Or he was?
  • The Komagata Maru was a steamship of 376 Hindu, Muslim and Sikh immigrants ...
    • It sounds like ships can be built of immigrants.

This is one random section only; I have not attempted to read the entire article. I suggest the article is not ready for FAC, and should be withdrawn so that an independent copyedit can be performed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for comments. But seeing how the article has been here for nearly two months, I would like a chance to go through it in the next few days and attempt to copyedit it. If you (or anyone else) still feels it isn't good enough then I'll concede the point, but I'd at least like to be given a chance to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw how far back the backlog went (many FACs that are two months old), and started at the bottom of the page, trying to quickly give the coords at least some feedback to help reduce the backlog. Sorry I couldn't do more with the limited time I have. Best of luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll be finished by Sunday evening, North America time, so if there is still considerable issues found after then I'll not oppose a close/withdrawal. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Apologies for being a day late, but I've gone through and copyedited the article. If you would like to take a look I'll be happy to hear your thoughts. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed! As I don't like to be drug into line-by-line reviewing of entire articles, I will take two sample sections, beginning at Personal life, which is followed by Marriage and family. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opinion that this is unusual for hockey players needs attribution. "Raised a Methodist, Taylor never drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or cursed, which was unusual for hockey players."
  • Devout, according to dictionary.com, means "devoted to divine worship or service; pious; religious", "He attributed these values to his religiously devout mother" is redundant. Perhaps you could use "to his mother's religious devotion".
  • "His family were staunch supporters of the federal Conservative Party, which proved a delicate situation when Taylor was offered a position in the Immigration Department upon his move to Ottawa, as the Liberal Party was in power at the time and the officers he met were all Liberals." But we are given no idea how this "delicate situation" affected him or what the consequences were; the reader doesn't know why the statement is there. We suddenly transition to scouting.
  • "In the summer of 1908 Taylor helped found Scout troop No. 7 in Ottawa" needs an WP:NBSP to keep the No. and 7 together (NBSPs are needed throughout the article, this is one sample).
  • Known for his "way with words" and "admired for his easy, courtly manner," ... MOS:LQ, the last ," should be ", (check needed throughout).
  • Taylor also was known to be well-dressed throughout his playing career. Is this intended to make us think he stopped dressing well after he stopped playing hockey?
  • The citations link to an archive preview of Whitehead 1977 that does not always include a preview of the page cited. Linking a book to a partial preview is not useful; what can be done instead in these cases is to link in the page number parameter when that page is available in preview. (I am unaware whether the thinking in this area has changed since I was FAC delegate, but linking to book previews that did not contain the cited page was discouraged.)
  • embellished by reporters due to his fame from hockey --> due to his hockey fame may be simpler, not a big deal though.
  • League officials considered banning Taylor over the incident, however due to his ability to draw large crowds, they ultimately let him play the rest of the season.
    • League officials considered banning Taylor over the incident, but because he drew large crowds, they let him play the rest of the season.
  • This is what Tony1 used to call a "snake", in that it goes on and on and winds around :)
  • She was not impressed with Taylor, whose own background was of a lower social standing and did not like the idea of her daughter being with a hockey player, a feeling shared by Cook's six siblings (her father had worked in the Interior Department before his death).
It needs to be split into two or three sentences, and the relationship between the rest of the sentence and the parenthetical about her father is unclear.
  • Another sentence made overly long by the addition of a parenthetical; the entire thing might be recast as two sentences, putting how much he was earning first. Should there not be a comma after animosity?
  • Despite this animosity Taylor resolved to win the family over, and decided he would save $10,000 to prove his worth, a project that took him six years (at the time he was making a combined $2,800 between his two jobs).
  • Taylor married Cook ... she married him, too, so this construct has always struck me as somewhat sexist ... Taylor and Cook were married ?
  • Ugh :) Their honeymoon saw them go to New York, ... WP:OVERLINK on honeymoon, a common term, and how about, they went to New York on their honeymoon?
  • Change in tense mid-sentence: The couple would move to Vancouver after the series ended and spent the rest of their lives there.

Adding one from Legacy, that I saw when I closed the page, that has parentheses inside parentheses, and "snakes" as well:

  • Not noted for his physical stature (he was listed as being 5 ft 8 in (1.73 m) and 165 pounds (75 kg) during his career, an average size for a hockey player in the era), he was more known for his speed and creativity than anything else. How about ...
    • Listed as 5 ft 8 in (1.73 m) and 165 pounds (75 kg) during his career, he was an average size for a hockey player of his era; he was known more for speed and creativity than for his physical prowess.
But I find it odd to encounter this basic personal information so late in the article; perhaps it can be moved to somewhere within his career.

And in the lead:

  • In 1914 Taylor was the first Canadian official to board the Komagata Maru, a major incident relating to Canadian immigration.
  • The Komagata Maru is a ship; it can't be an incident. In a major Canadian immigration incident?

Your copyedit improved things, but there's still a way to go on prose and MOS issues. Giants2008 is a really good sports editor; perhaps he will help. That's all I have time for, good luck here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KM, I think it'd be best to look at an independent copyedit, and/or see if Giants can get involved, so we should close this. Given your earlier comment from 04:07, 19 December 2019, I'm happy to treat the closure as a withdrawal FWIW... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 December 2019 [7].

Coropuna edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the third-tallest mountain in Peru and one of the world's highest volcanoes. It began forming during the Pliocene or Miocene and its last eruption was during the Holocene in the last 2,000 years. It also has a large but shrinking ice cap, the largest in the tropics, and a major source of water for the dry surroundings. In addition to these natural science aspects, it was considered a holy mountain by the Inka, who built a large archeological site in its surroundings. Note that there was some prior discussion at peer review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the various ice diagrams
@Nikkimaria:I've added ALT text, but I did not succeed at increasing the size of the gallery images. They come from this publication; perhaps you know how to get larger versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about the possibility of reaching out to the authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I've never been good at contacting complete strangers with such requests. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:Upon thinking, I decided to screencap the images from the PDF file rather than extracting them, and have uploaded the copies to Commons. When/if the files appear here is probably a matter of the software updating. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

Doing...but it may take a little while, there's a lot to look at. Brianboulton (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is:

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Per MoS, page ranges requires dashes, not hyphens. See refs 46, 105, 167, 190, 193, 195, 196, 203, 218, and check for others.
  • Retrieval dates should be in consistent format. Ref 109 seems to be the odd one out.
  • Ref 1: retrieval date missing
  • Ref 72 has an oclc you can use: 458607359 Also, it's not clear who the publisher is.
  • Ref 109: You should give the publisher, not just the website address
  • Ref 161: retrieval date missing
  • Inconsistency over inclusion of publisher locations. Books listed in the References don't have them, but some (not all) listed under Sources do.
  • Some authors' names and occasionally other information in the References and Sources lists are rendered in caps, probably as a result of pasting. They should be de-capped unless their is some specific reason, such as INGEMMET which I take to be an acronym
  • Spanish sources: The language indicator is missing in ref 209, and in a number of the listed sources (Caldas, Campos, Fourtané, Galán, and others)
  • In the text, there are some overlong citation strings – in the "Elevation and size" section there's one eleven citations long, with two five-strings in the same section. These looks pretty hideous – try bundling.
  • Are the books listed under "Books" cited sources? If so, they should appear before "External links". If not, they should be retitled as "Further reading"
  • Who publishes the journal Names?
  • In the sources list, Thouret et al (2002) lacks publisher
  • Some publishers in the sources list, e.g INGEMMET, Instituto Geológico are wrongly italicized, as they are institutions not works or publications
  • Quality/reliability: No issues: all sources appear scholarly and meet the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brianboulton:I've punted the the dashes as my keyboard does not have them. #1 and #161 I don't recall the retrieval date but it was in March 2019. I've done the points listed before "inconsistency over inclusion" - I'll see to handle remaining format issues tomorrow if nobody else comes before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianboulton:I think I got everything. Regarding the journal Names, the source says "Published on behalf of the American Name Society" what would be the correct way to reference this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'd do is "work= Names", "publisher= "American Names Society". Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianboulton:Done. Any idea where the duplicate template argument that is being flagged by the category is? Preview does not show it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO edit

I will be posting comments here as I proofread and copy edit...any edits I make that appear overly bold are easily reversible.

  • The three image gallery is out of place. The one image with the date should be eliminated as we already have a satellite image a little further down. The remaining images should be reduced in size to standard thumbnail floating sizes.
    @MONGO:Removed the three file image, but I don't think the gallery works at thumbnail size; too small. I've done a thing at Commons that might enlarge some files, but whether that makes the files larger in thumbnail version I don't know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mainly discussing the three huge images in the "Surrounding terrain" section. I went and gave them float size and placed them within the article body.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Elevation and size section seems clunky. I tried to clean it up, but I noticed there are two different cite styles being used...this issue needs to be standardized with one style or another. I also do not understand why we need eleven (11) references for one claim. I would pick two of the best and leave them. The passage "In 1910 it was believed that the volcano was over 7,000 metres (23,000 ft) high and thus the highest mountain in South America ahead of Aconcagua.[72] A North American expedition in 1909 determined that Coropuna was not the highest mountain in Peru as it only found an elevation of 6,615 m (21,703 ft)" seems to be contradictory...why would it be consider the tallest in 1910 if a year earlier it was demonstrated it was not the highest? The last two sentences in the section are hard to comprehend what is trying to be conveyed...maybe go and make the names of the various peaks in italics or in quotes?
    @MONGO:This is going to be tough. The reason why it has 11 references is because AFAIK there is not one authoritative source that out-weights all the others thus I included all of them per WP:BALANCE .. but maybe you know of one that could be used. I've rewritten the contradictory sentence a bit and put the names into italics. Regarding citation style, I use that combination of sfn and ref tags whenever I am using sources with and without page numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I still think we can merely state that the precise elevations are not known, have merely few of the best quality RSs posted and leave it at that. Seems like a lot of text that can be more easily summarized.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I did consider doing this when I originally wrote this section but realized that there is no source for saying "the precise elevations are not known" and that most sources probably deserve about comparable weight. I think perhaps this becomes more readable if these strung-along references are bundled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bullet-pointed icecap size details can be greatly reduced and converted to a table of maybe 4-5 key dates (1955, 1975, 2000, 2014). Or perhaps incorporate into a paragraph but still reduced to key dates.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking perhaps that a graph might work as we have several ways to draw them, but none of the graph options I see allow one to show an error margin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Went and put selected dates in a table, but not sure how to edit that table so it will not be autoimatically hidden.--MONGO (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MONGO:I've removed the collapse, now it should display. I'll be looking for graphs anyhow, though; would a graph w/o error margins be acceptable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine of course. Thank you.--MONGO (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MONGO:Didn't find a way with wikicode, but one with R which yielded File:Coropuna ice cap extent 1950-2015.svg; do you think this would work as a graphical illustration of the past extent of the ice cap? Also notifying Nikkimaria as it'd be a new image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not sure I like that one...maybe a line graph would be better? I recognize it allows the symbols to related to the specific reference. I originally thought just putting the main dates in a paragraph with no table or grapgh, but not sure what to do now.--MONGO (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm. I don't think we can do a line graph with disparate datasets and a margin of error. I'd prefer this graphic as it fits into a smaller space and does not leave out too much information; I removed two sources because they were not clear about the date, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking, I've replaced the table with the graphic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the "Water source" section to follow the "Other glacial periods" section. Its current position does not seem to fit well and the water source IS the ice cap generally.--MONGO (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, moved the geothermal/baths subsection to "present-day status" although I am not sure if that is the best place for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flesh out the third paragraph in the lead to include a few more details on vegetation, etc. as covered in the article body per MOS:LEAD.--MONGO (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MONGO:Added some information on vegetation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Ice Cap", is the ice cap and average of 80 metres or is that something else. If average, add that.--MONGO (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MONGO:Added "average" and changed the source to a better one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Glaciers and periglacial phenomena, I am confused by the wording: "Some glaciers have been named; on the southwestern flank two glaciers are named Azufrioc, three Rio Blanco and six Tuialqui"...are two glacier named the same, three more share another name and six more another name? A couple paragraphs down is the wording "Gray, fresh moraines"...what is the Gray about, is that a color description? If so I would call it that, a color description.--MONGO (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the Mythology, religion and legends section I added a "confusing" boilerplate for cleanup of this section..can we add or clarify this section better?--MONGO (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MONGO:Depends; which section(s) is/are the issue? I've done a minimal rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have completed my copy editing. I try tpo not be too harsh but saw many issues with overlinking and more petty problems with formatting such as the preference to abbreviate numbers and equations after they are first mentioned and to have a non-breaking space between the number and years and similar. Some more very minor tweaks may be in order but I am finished for now and I:
    • Support promotion to Featured Article.--MONGO (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick Moyes edit

I'm sorry to' drive by' and pour a bit of cold water on this otherwise very good article, but I really don't think any article about a significant mountain can reach FA status without at least some attempt to add a reasonable section on normal accepted mountaineering routes.

  • The sentence "Since 1911, first ascents of other summits of the mountain have been reported intermittently, and the area owing to its rugged nature draws mountaineering." is far from encyclopaedic, and actually rather clumsily-worded.
    Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the statement in the article, Bingham was the first ascensionist (by reaching the highest peak on the Hale Peruvian Expedition, but both both he and Peck should probably be included in the Infobox.
    I am a little wary of adding that to the infobox as we really don't know whether they were the first people on the summit, given that Inka folk often climbed mountaintops as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For information on the 3-day ascent route, see Biggar's mountaineering guidebook which indicates that the W rib of the massif is the 'normal route', on the French adjectival climbing scale it is graded at 'Facile'. I don't this should source simply be included as 'Further reading' but used as a proper reference to expand the climbing section a little further.
    @Nick Moyes:Done, but I don't know what "RH" refers to. I've also added some other information from that source, reasoning that things like elevation data and caveats might also be reasonably sourceable from here. Note that Google Books does not show any pagenumbers so I left this one as an URL link to a page that shows search results. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An explanation of the External link to http://www.maucallacta.com/ would also be useful, plus an indication of the fact that it's in Spanish.
    I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also observe that many sources refer to the mountain as Nevado Coropuna, and so I'm surprised this isn't emboldened within the lead.
    I dunno, how should this be formulated? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't get a major source url to function. See Valenzuela Ortiz & Núñez Juárez 2001
    Replaced; they had redesigned their website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the Holocene section uses semi-colons in two places within it, yet it isn't a list. This complex sentence needs to be broken up into two or three shorter ones.
    Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I was surprised by the number of red-links in this article. I can excuse all the settlement names in red, but less so the odd term like semihumid or fissure eruptions. These could be addressed. I wonder what's wrong with using Fissure vent, or why unlinking semihumid isn't more sensible?

Hoping this feedback is of help. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes:Sort of a drive-by reply as I don't have much time ATM, but the problem I see with climbing routes is that every single source that could offer such info is self-published. Biggar's book arguably comes closest to a reliable source as it's been used by others; Brianboulton would that be acceptable at FA level? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely regard Biggar's guidebook as a WP:RS. It is clearly well-researched by an experienced mountaineer, who has published other books on S American high altitude climbing. As a mountaineer myself, it would be no understatement to say I would literally be prepared to stake my life on the contents of such a book, were I to plan to climb Coropuna. The info in that book can be verified against other user-edited or commercial sources which refer to undertaking the route, its difficulty level and base camp altitudes, etc such the user-edited but generally reliable Summitpost website (already used in External links), or commercial climbing tour companies offering guided ascents of Coropuna such as this and this. The  only likely change there might today would be in a slightly different grading level for the climb, possibly putting it up to PD as a result of climate change, but there's absolutely nothing that I can see in it that would be likely to be challenged that would make me doubt its reliability. Technical guidebooks to remote climbing areas are still often self-published, though less so nowadays as trekking and climbing becomes increasingly popular, and access to such areas becomes easier and cheaper, and that should not put us off regarding them as competent, incredibly well-researched sources of information. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In such circumstances I tend to accept the opinions of knowledgeable editors as to the reliability or otherwise of self-published sources. If, as in this case, the author is an acknowledged expert with wide credentials in the field, then I see no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now minded to support, but I still feel a bit of minor copyediting is needed through the article to give the page more coherence and a less clunky sentence flow. I've tried to work through some of the geomorphological sections where there are lots of cited facts, but sometimes a lack of coherence or logical flow, suggesting (rightly or wrongly) a lack of understanding of some elements, and more just a random gathering of statements. The random inclusion of a statement on the presence of "wetlands" on northern and southern sides of the mountain is a case in point, sandwiched as it is between sectoins about glaciation, so I have moved it (though I am still unclear how that information is derived from the cited geological map. Or is this meant to refer to fluvio-glacial deposits, which is another thing entirely?). I've tried address these issues by reordering sentences or by cutting down overly long, complex sentences by removing semicolons, and splitting them into two sentences. By contrast, there was a lack of semicolons in some paragraphs containing lists of things, where just the deployment of commas made it hard to work out what related to what. I've not checked the rest of the article for these issues, but I hope someone else will, as I am very time constrained right now. I feel this article is so nearly 'there' that it would be a great shame if the FA submission were to be closed too soon, before this last hurdle is jumped. My advice to editors would be to print off the article, stand up and read each section aloud, as if to an audience, listening to the flow of sentences as you say them, whilst also attempting to comprehend the contents. If you stumble, or sense a non-sequitur, then the contents probably still need further tweaking, especially the punctuation. Note that I have added one [clarification needed] template to one particularly unclear paragraph, which I've mentioned in my edit summary. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes:I've processed the tag and the couleé thing. Regarding the wetlands, the map mentions bofedales which are a type of wetland in the Andes. I'll see if I can do something about the prose this evening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thats a lot better. I think the mention of 'wetlands' (cited from the tiny Spanish language key of a geological map) is far too insignificant and too much like WP:OR to merit retaining, unless there's another source that talks in detail about it in detail. It would need to go in a habitats section, at any rate. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes:I've removed it. Regarding the prose, that's probably because I tend to read through a list of sources and add information to the article as I come across it in the sources, followed by a final copyedit to get the resulting compilation into a resemblance of a flow; sometimes stray facts are left behind that do not neatly fit into a particular place. Outside of these sections you mention the prose does not seem too bad ... but it's my writing that we are judging. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm beginning to see that, Jo-Jo Eumerus. The problem is, we can't have Featured Articles that are full of facts, yet aren't easy to read or logically arranged, so your writing style is really very important at this final stage. We need a real flow, not "a resemblance of one". I'll do what I can with the physical geography first - but the rest ought to be gone through by someone, too, if that's not already been done. Look out for any new "clarification needed" tags. I'll try and ping you from an edit summary if I  add them. I'm about to do that over "supra-tropical facies" and "partly man-made soils". Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Climate, what altitude does this sentence relate to? The summit, or the whole mountain? "Other reported precipitation values range between 700 mm/a (28 in/year)[3] and 1,000 mm/a (39 in/year)" Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Source does not specify other than by referencing Herreros et al. 2009 which doesn't specify either; that's why the passive voice "other reported" is used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Úbeda Palenque, José (2013). appears to contain a dead link
    Resolved; INGEMMET updated their website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temperatures I cannot make any sense of the second part of this paragraph whatsoever. It currently reads as follows:
Temperatures decrease upwards from an average of 12–17 °C (54–63 °F) at 2,000–3,000 m (6,600–9,800 ft) elevation over a mean temperature of 7.8 °C (46.0 °F) at 3,000–4,000 m (9,800–13,100 ft) elevation and 0–6 °C (32–43 °F) at 4,000–5,200 m (13,100–17,100 ft) elevation to below zero above 5,200 m (17,100 ft).[1] Temperatures fluctuate more over daily timescales than over seasonal ones when measured close to the glaciers.[2] Temperatures can reach 2 °C (36 °F) to up to 5,000 m (16,000 ft) elevation. During the Little Ice Age, at 5,000–5,200 m (16,400–17,100 ft) elevation temperatures decreased 5 to 7 °C (41 to 45 °F).[3] Southerly cold waves can sometimes reach Coropuna, leaving traces in ice cores in the form of southern pollen.[4]
I propose rewording the first half to:
Temperatures decrease with altitude, and at lower elevations around 2,000–3,000 m (6,600–9,800 ft) they average 12–17 °C (54–63 °F). Between 3,000–4,000 m (9,800–13,100 ft) they average 7.8 °C (46.0 °F) and at 4,000–5,200 m (13,100–17,100 ft) elevation they average 0–6 °C (32–43 °F). At altitudes above above 5,200 m (17,100 ft) they remain below zero.[1]
Swapped that part in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my thoughts (in italics) on the second half, which I simply do not follow at all:
Temperatures fluctuate more over daily timescales than over seasonal ones when measured close to the glaciers.[2] (Is this relevant?) Temperatures can reach 2 °C (36 °F) to up to 5,000 m (16,000 ft) elevation.(this statement makes no sense at all) During the Little Ice Age, at 5,000–5,200 m (16,400–17,100 ft) elevation temperatures decreased 5 to 7 °C (41 to 45 °F).[3] (Did they decrease by 5 to 7 degrees C, or to 5 to 7 degrees? This is not clear. I assume you mean that "During the Little Ice Age, high altitude temperatures (at around 5,000–5,200 m (16,400–17,100 ft)) were 5 to 7 °C (41 to 45 °F) lower than they are today" But I dare not make that change as I am not confident that was actually the meaning.) Southerly cold waves can sometimes reach Coropuna, leaving traces in ice cores in the form of southern pollen.[4] (What is the signficance of stating this? And what is 'southern pollen? Is this trying to say: Occasional southerly cold waves reach Coropuna, as evidenced by ice core samples revealing traces of pollen from species found much farther south"? Is this Ice Age pollen, or modern core samples we're talking about here?)
Rewrote this one a bit. Yes, the first part is relevant as in the tropics temperature variations are more by daytime than by season. "Southern pollen" here refers to present-day; I am not sure how significant the whole thing is though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Valenzuela Ortiz & Núñez Juárez 2001, p. 7.
  2. ^ a b Silverio & Jaquet 2012, p. 5878.
  3. ^ a b Forget et al. 2008, p. 30.
  4. ^ a b Schotterer et al. 2009, pp. 32–33.
  • "The Inca expanded preexisting irrigation and terrace systems which are in part still existing today,[216] including the highest irrigation system in the world[217] which was possibly constructed on Coropuna to allow the cultivation of bitter potatoes,[218] and built new constructions.[216]" What does "and built new constructions." and the end of this sentence mean? Did they built new structures and expand preexisting irrigation systems? If so, the sentence needs turning around, because clauses right at the end only serve to confuse, becasue the reader has by then forgotten what the first part of the sentence was saying.
    New constructions is supposed to refer to new archeological sites; I took it out as it duplicates an earlier part of that same paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surrounding terrain: Please would you check the statement Coropuna rises 2 to 3.5 km (1.2 to 2.2 mi)[1][2] above the surrounding terrain[1] from a base elevation of 4,500 m (14,800 ft).[3] As the mountain reaches 6,377 metres, adding two to three and a half kilometres to 4,500m would take it to between 6,500m and 8,000 metres!
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'other glacial periods' subsection, please clarify whether ...and old dates of 47,000 - 31,000 and 61,000 - 37,000 years ago could reflect even larger glacier expansions during marine isotope stage 3 or 4. refers to the Viraco moraines, or something else. If the former, I suggest phrasing it to say ...and other date estimates for these moraines, of 47,000...etc.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick Moyes:OK, now that it's daytime in Switzerland I can continue. I am not sure about some of your changes, e.g the splitting of the "drainage divide" sentence; to me it sounds like the parts are connected and would be better off as one sentence rather than two short ones. Thanks for adding some additional verbs, though; the (over)use of "occurrence" is something that bothers me. Also resolved the maintenance tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'd not realised you were based in Switzerland (I'll have to get you to join WP:ALPS!). I'll try and work through Geology when I get home tonight, and am happy to recheck any of my edits you're not confident about. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've taken out just under half the 19 uses of occur/occurs/occurrence, and replaced them with alternatives. Regarding the splitting of the 'drainage divide' sentence: Unless you're really unhappy, I would prefer to keep it in, please. My view is that sometimes we need to deploy short sentences, followed by a longer explanation, rather than maintaining one long and overly complex sentence which, for some users, can be quite challenging to follow, and is a writing technique that provides welcome light and shade to written factual content. A bit like taking a breath. My view is that a change of tempo in written content can keep the reader interested, though obviously this must never be at the expense of comprehension. For that reason I tend to deploy more commas than other folk, mostly to ensure that clauses within sentences are more, rather than less, apparent. Again, this is done with the with the aim of helping the reader better comprehend what is being offered to them. Having waded through trying to comprehend something long-winded, it can be refreshing to the mind to absorb something short and staccato for a change, don't you think? One final point before I 'set to' on the geology section: I think this edit of your has helped, though I am still a little bothered by the use of the term man-made soils, and I wanted to ask whether the citation genuinely uses this term, and whether a further explanation of past agricultural practices that led to the creation of these soils might be appropriate? If it's just a case that nutrients (such as animal/human dung) have been added over the centuries, then I'd like to be reassured that the term is still acceptable to use. In checking the use of the term online, I stumbled across Terra preta here on Wikipedia. Are we talking about this level of soil enhancement, I wonder? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes:Eh, I don't think I'll be writing about the Alps anywhere soon ... photos, maybe, and I have in my mind to write Engadine Line at some point.
Back to the Peruvian Andes, I am guessing this might be different expectations of what kind of sentence structure readers want. But unless someone else wants to weigh in I am happy to leave it as is.
WRT the "man-made", the source just says "anthropogenic" without any details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Oh, that's a shame. But maybe I'll have to get you to reciprocate when I bring Mont Blanc massif back for another go at gaining FA status. Like this one, I'd already done all the necessary hard work when it simply ran out of time and got archived whilst I was still working on it - maybe a bit like this one is in danger of doing! (I'd always planned to revisit it prior to going for an RfA, but I'm being pushed rather hard from certain admins right now)
Back to the Andes, as you say: Why don't we call them what they are, then? i.e. anthropogenic soils which I prefer to anthrosols. I can get my head around soils being man-influenced, but less so with 'man-made'. Must dash now - family is home. I'll remove the 'in use' template. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further queries:
  • The paragraph in Geology which states A major ignimbrite eruption took place about two million years ago at Coropuna; its deposits have been identified west of the volcano[10][11] and it led to the destruction of the edifice, which later re-formed on the remains of the old volcano.[8] seems to be a second attempt to describe the Coropuna I and Coropuna II stages, described quite well in the preceding paragraph. If I'm right, I wonder whether it is necessary to keep it? Either way, I wonder if using an alternative term than 'edifice' is worthwhile? Rightly or wrongly I tend to think of a man-made structure first, even if it is a valid use.
  • Can I query the logic of the following two sentences: However, one[68] or two tephra layers on a moraine close to the village of Viraco on the southern side have been dated to be about 41,000 and 30,000 - 31,000 years old. These ages correspond to radiocarbon ages of 37,370 ± 1,160 and 27,200 ± 300 years. It seems to me that one would either normally give the radio carbon dates first, then convert them to the corresponding real dates for the benefit of the reader, or simply not bother to give the radio carbon dates at all. (I also suggest a better wikilink would be to radiocarbon dating, rather than radiocarbon, should you decide you do want to keep this in.
In order:
  • Regarding "man-made", I used that because people w/o specialized knowledge will understand it better than "anthropogenic".
  • The problem was that it's not clear whether the ignimbrite eruption had anything to do with the Coropuna I/Coropuna II distinction. I know discussing "edifice" in the past with other content reviewers and the problem was that there is no other term that isn't ambiguous.
  • I don't remember the logic between that formulation.
​Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so I've now proof-read as far down as the start of the Climate section, and am pretty happy with it all as it now stands. I'll do a final read-through of the rest later tonight, if I can. Meanwhile, please don't stick with 'man-made soils'; there's sufficient other highly-technical phraseology in this article to keep an undergraduate unhappy for weeks! 'Anthropogenic' will be the least of their concerns, and is a far, far better term -honestly. In return, how about I let you keep 'edifice', assuming you don't like 'structure' or 'mountain mass'?
Finally, it might be worth mentioning that one of my current WP:AAU adoptees (BrucePL) is a retired university geophysics professor in the US. I'm sure he'd be willing to do me a return favour and cast an eye over the technical side of things for , if you wished? Regards, ​Nick Moyes (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes:If it can be done on short notice, sure. The impression I have is that I don't often run into professional geologists during my Wikipedia work, and by real-life qualifications I am a biologist not a volcanologist. And yes, I'll stick with "edifice" - "structure" and "mountain mass" sound a bit too ... abstract perhaps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Archaeology>Inca times: Could you clarify what 'preceding' means in this sentence: Inca sites are often found at higher elevations than the preceding sites. I take that to refer to the 2nd Intermediate Period, but it is a bit unclear. I did find mention of 'Late Intermediate Period online and in Periodization of pre-Columbian Peru, but nothing using '2nd'.
  • Preceding here refers to preceding civilizations, nothing related to the periodization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: OK - it's still a bit confusing, so perhaps you could tweak the wording there? Anyway, I've now completed my read through, and have finished editing the article. I must say, I'm exhausted by all that, so you must be totally knackered through your stalwart efforts getting it to this stage. Really great job. So...
I am now fully in support of promotion to FA Nick Moyes (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did a small clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • Seems this needs some more commentary to push it up the hill so to speak, would be a shame if it was archived due to inactivity. I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few duplinks, and I doubt whether snow even needs a link...
  • I agree with an earlier comment that images should spread throughout the article rather than dumped in a gallery. However, it seems odd that the image under "Lakes and rivers" doesn't show a water body, but the one under "Elevation and size" does. Maybe swap them?
    @FunkMonk:Removed a number of duplicate links and switched around images. With reference to the first sentence of your comment, I'll see if Nick Moyes and Iridescent have additional things to say as they previously commented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is another volcano in the Andahua volcanic field with the name Coropuna, however it is unrelated to the Coropuna volcano" This sentence is a bit awkward, as "Coropuna volcano" would in theory refer to both.
  • "however it is unrelated to the Coropuna volcano" What is meant by unrelated? You say the etymoogy of the word is unknown, so how is it known the meanings are not related?
    "Unrelated" in this case means that they are not the same volcano despite having the same name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could be clarified, since it is in the etymology section, it reads as if it is the etymology that is unrelated. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted a clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that come to Andahua" What is meant by this, the volcanic field, or the valley?
    Town, replaced it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stratovolcano is linked at second instead of first mention. I don't get an idea of what "glaciated volcanoes" are. Maybe these terms can be explained in-text, like you do for example lahar.
    Removed the mention as it's already linked in the lead. "Glaciated volcanoes" means that they feature "glaciers"; would a link help?
Yeah, it may seem obvious, but novice readers may think it is some technical term. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A sector collapse occurred on the southwestern flank" Any info on when?
    @FunkMonk:Not as far as I could find. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You name "Coropuna Este" in an image caption, but not in the actual paragraph that deals with named summits.
    Now it does. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a more recent estimate amounting to 0.5 square kilometres per year (0.19 sq mi/a),[103] with a brief slowdown observed during the late 1990s and early 2000s." Perhaps say "and" instead of second "with" for variation.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the past, before the first human settlement of the area" Is "in the past" recall needed when the rest of the sentence already makes it clear it is before human settlement?
    @FunkMonk:Not necessarily, as in many places humans lived during or even before peak glaciation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "9 centimetres per year" This is UK English, isn't the rest US (meters)? Also, you could maybe just abbreviate to cm, as you do with most other measurements. I see kilometres and metres too some places, should be consistent.
    Huh - I think I did deliberately write this to UK English standards and I don't see "meter" anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was not sure due to the mixed spelling of archaeo/archeo, and because this is an "American" subject. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plates in South America" Specify and link tectonic plates.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They define a calc-alkalin" What does they refer to? This is the start of a new paragraph, so it is hard to say.
    Specified that it's about volcanic rocks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flows were erupted during" Why "were"?
    To me "flows erupted" sounds off as a noun-verb combination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been erupted" Likewise, why "have been"? There is also "was erupted".
    I am pretty certain that "may erupted" is not proper grammar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late glacial is a red link, but it seems there might be articles it could redirect to?
    Not a clear cut one - Late Glacial Interstadial sounds like it's mostly focused on the warming stages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind; seems like I linked the term earlier in the article; changed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "temperatures range 51–18 °C" Range from or between?
    Between; corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only give in-text dates for studies under "Present day status", not really before as far as I can see, any reason why the dates are needed?
    "Present day" is a moving target, that's why I felt it necessary to have a more precise timing here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Birds such as the Andean condor and the vicuña occur in the region" The vicuña is a mammall but this is written as if both are birds.
    Corrected wording. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agriculture takes place here, including kiwicha, maize, quinoa and vegetables[207] on terrace fields." Can you say quinoa etc. is agriculture in itself? Isn't rather growing these things agriculture?
    No; thanks for pointing this out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say both archaeological and archaeological, should be the latter if this is US English.
    Standardized to UK English. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Inca expanded preexisting irrigation and terrace systems" Constructed by who?
    The source does not specify; my impression is that due to the lack of written records the chronology of stuff there is usually poorly known. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the southwestern flank of mountain" The mountain?
    Coropuna; appended the pronoun. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any photos of archeological subjects?
    Couldn't find any freely licensed ones on a quick search. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are onconsistent in whether you use the Spanish ñ. You both have "La Nina", "El Nino", but also "vicuña" and "Queñua".
    Standardized to using ñ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "honouring" UK English.
    Aye, probably better to stick it to that spelling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sometimes Coropuna is seen as a male God while Solimana volcano was seen as a female one" Unnecessary change of tense.
    Switched to present for both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Today, St Francis of Assisi is sometimes localized at the top of the mountain by pious people" Not sure what is meant by localized here.
    It's supposed to mean that they think it's there; the exact wording in the source is "alighted". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "61-year old Annie Peck and Hiram Bingham III" This reads as if they were both 61, and is the age even needed?
    I've removed it, not sure that it was necessary really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " will persist into the 2120s" The article body only says 2120.
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the mountain was considered to be one of the most important Inca religious sites in their realm and human sacrifices were offered to the mountain." Last mountain is repetitive, could simply be "it":
    @FunkMonk:Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looking fine to me now, I don't hope this gets archived before it gets its final support, there is still one un-concluded review above. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment to delegates from Iridescent edit

Can I ask not to archive this until I've had the time to re-review it. While I haven't yet had the chance to review the current version, I conducted an extensive peer review a few months ago. Assuming everything I raised there has been addressed this is likely to be a support from me so it would be a shame for this nom to drop off just for the want of one more support. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just working through piecemeal, doing one final copy edit, and questioning a few technical elements that  need resolving (see above). This is going to take me a couple more days or so, but the issues found should not be grounds for opposing promotion, assuming they're all addressed. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Final proofreading now completed. Am happy to support promotion to Featured Article. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: I'm looking at this to determine readiness for promotion. Should I expect comments from you at this stage? --Laser brain (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on your time scale. I probably won't be in a position to so anything substantive until at least the 15th. Work on the assumption that I'm a support as I raised all my concerns at PR stage. ‑ Iridescent 2 13:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really related to the topic of this header, but since it's the only one I've seen a coordinator post in, there are some comments on this article on this user talk page which were solicited by Nick Moyes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may help if I summarise the feedback on that other talk page: User:BrucePL is my adoptee, and a retired professor of geology. He commented: ""tight" as in no lose ends such as statements of fact without citations. High-quality article IMHO." Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support from Iridescent edit

Re-reviewing as if I'd never seen it before. This is the version on which I'm commenting. As per my earlier comments I'm taking the technical stuff on faith as I wouldn't know an ignimbrite from a gelifluction.

  • Regarding The mountain was considered to be one of the most important Inca religious sites in their realm, and human sacrifices were offered to it. The volcano also appears in legends., it should probably be clarified in the lead whether the legends are Inca, Spanish or Peruvian, and particularly whether the legends are still current or only known from dusty old records. A lot of people only read the lead, and this point is kind of left hanging.
    This is a hard one as the coverage of the mythology of Coropuna is so dispersed (that's why the pre-FAC version of that section was so bad). The worshipping still occurs today - which I've noted so - but the sources are often not clear about whether the legends were believed in the past or there are still believers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not wild about the laundry list of redlinked villages, but I think this is a legitimate use of them; if they're documented permanently inhabited places, then they're all legitimate topics.
  • I think I raised this before, and I'm aware that it's cited, but I'm still confused at how the ice cores taken from it date back 20,000 years if it's erupted repeatedly over that period, as surely the eruptions would have temporarily melted the ice?
    Yes, you raised it before. The thing is that Coropuna is a sizeable volcano and so is its ice cap and the last eruptions were apparently not large enough to impact its entire extent - for comparison Notre-Dame de Paris is much closer to the Louvre than the vents of the Holocene eruptions are to the site of the ice core. I dunno how to explain that in article as there is no sourcing discussing this aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formatting of the images in the "Recent area and retreat" section is playing havoc in my browser (see right); wrapping around the large right-aligned image means the centered images are each working on a different definition of "center" making the whole thing askew. It could probably do with a judiciously applied {{-}} after "largest such meltwater stream"; I've not done it myself in case there's a particular reason you want the images like this.
    I've attempted to fix the issue by removing the custom size from the large image, as it seems like even at Wikipedia-native resolution the trend lines are noticeable. Downsizing it on my screen did work, but it's my screen. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is young-looking aa ʻAʻā lava the correct term, or have you got too many a's somewhere along the line?
    No, that was too many aas, resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find the source online to check for myself, but IMO you need to explain what Today, St Francis of Assisi is sometimes localized at the top of the mountain by pious people means as it's confusing me. Do they believe that St Francis literally resides on the mountain, that he makes occasional apparitions there, or that prayers directed towards the mountain are somehow relayed on to him in heaven? Do we have any idea why Francis—an Italian with no connection to Peru—has become associated with it?
    @Iridescent:Ugh, I'd so love to exclude that thing altogether. The exact text from the source is Noteworthy in this vein is the fact that the pious among today's Peruvian peasantry believe that Saint Francis has alighted on top of an active volcano, the sacred Mount Coropuna, where the Poverello of Assisi awaits the souls of dead Andeans to fly into his paternal, do you know what "alighted" ~means? That same source is not clear on why the worship came to Peru from Italy, but I figure that Catholicism might have something to do with this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Alighted" could mean either that they believe he once paid a visit (either spiritually or literally) to the mountain and then set off again ("The Beatles alighted at JFK Airport and were met by cheering crowds", or that they believe he's taken up residence in some way. It might be worth prodding some Spanish-speaking editors and/or WikiProject Christianity to see if there's anything further about this, as from a non-geological perspective this is probably the most interesting thing about it. (Catholicism has a long tradition of apparitions, but neither myself nor Google has ever heard of anyone claiming an apparition of St Francis before.) ‑ Iridescent 16:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A third story states that Coropuna and Solimana castrated a hunter who had killed an animal that was leading a pack transporting precious metals for the mountains is awfully verb-noun-verb-noun-verb-noun, is there any way it can be broken up?
    I've attempted a rewrite, but it may be too close to the source text which is Once a vicufia hunter is said to have shot the leader of a troupe bearing precious metals for the supremely important apus Qoropuna and Solimana. They were so enraged on discovering the dead animal that they castrated the hunter from a distance.. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annie Peck and Hiram Bingham III reached several summits of Coropuna in 1911 implies they each reached multiple summits, but Annie Peck raised a banner saying "Votes for Women" on the summit she had ascended, which was slightly lower than the one reached by Bingham implies they only reached one each. Which is correct?
    The latter, by the looks of it; corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are all minor, and assuming the problem with the image placement is resolved I don't have a problem provisionally supporting this. I appreciate Sandy's point below about prose, but ultimately this is such a technical topic that somewhat leaden technical language is unavoidable; cataloging sedimentary layers doesn't lend itself to Brilliant Refreshing Prose. I'm not seeing any fail-worthy MOS violations. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready edit

Laser brain, I glanced at one section and saw that a MOS review is needed, and also have some prose questions. I cannot do a full review until Saturday. Perhaps a MOS person will get through it before I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

With a little more time, I've found several prose issues, and have MOS concerns as well. There is more than I can type up with a quick review; I can return on Saturday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also have some more time on Saturday, but I'll ask for this to be kept open 'til we have Sandy's comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Jo-Jo; I am hosting a party at my house with 200 invited, and really want to spend some time in here. Sorry for the delay, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:Eh, I can handle that, it's Christmas time so some IRL interference is to be expected. Now I'll confess that if I have to re-do the FAC again that would be a hassle, but let's see what issues you or someone else might find. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A re-do in unlikely; just things that could be addressed before promotion, and some aren't quick fixes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delay. Reviewing this version from December 6. The article is quite well sourced, and shows an impressive amount of research. But the prose is overly dense, at times choppy, and there are formatting and MOS issues. I must Oppose for now; these are samples only and I find more in every section. These kinds of prose problems are time-consuming to write up with examples. I have not yet even begun a complete run-through for cohesiveness or source checking, or to put together my thoughts on the lead. I want to get this part up so that you can begin to work on these smaller pieces; I have run out of time for today, but will continue tomorrow.

I highly recommend emailing and posting to the talk pages of Awickert and Ruslik0, as they are two trusted reviewers on volcano/earthquake articles. While the research and amount of work that goes in to an article of this nature is impressive, the prose can be pulled together so it will read less like a dense collection of facts, and be more of an article that will entice the reader to want to go to or learn more about Coropuna (more on that when I have time to talk about the lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MOS combined (because the MOS errors are yielding grammatical problems)
Prose redundancies (some samples, see the useful exercises at User:Tony1):
  • Overall is redundant: Coropuna is the largest and highest volcano in Peru, the highest mountain in the Cordillera Ampato(comma needed here) and Peru's third-highest mountain, overall.
  • Do not know what this "overall" refers to ... in Peru ?? Coropuna was considered to be the most important God (apu) of the region, the second-most important overall(comma needed) and a holy mountain; it was particularly important for the town of Cotahuasi.
  • Many of the instances of the word located are redundant (sample only): "the volcano is located 150 kilometres from ... Arequipa" is the same as "the volcano is 150 kilometres from ... Arequipa"
  • Several in total redundancies, along with unnecessarily complex prose, sample:
Compare:
There are so many thoughts in that passage; one gets lost in the factoids and misses the highlights. In total is almost always redundant (see Tony exercises). How about:
  • The volcano is part of the Central Volcanic Zone, one of the four zones of the Andean Volcanic Belt. This zone includes 44 stratovolcanoes—some of the highest in the world—and several volcanoes with glaciers.
  • This zone includes 44 stratovolcanoes[23] – including many of the highest in the world[22] – and several volcanoes with glaciers. Not an improvement; we ended up with includes ... including ... and a new note complicating an already convoluted sentence. Jo-Jo, I don't find it productive to go point-by-point on FACs, and will revisit and read the entire article once everything has been addressed with an independent copyedit. There is too much to be corrected here to go point by point on the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for another instance of "in total" ... :
Ice cover makes it difficult to discern its structure; in total, about six separate peaks have been counted as well as six not readily recognizable summit craters. In total is redundant. How about:
Ice cover makes it difficult to discern the volcano's structure, but six separate peaks and six not readily recogizable summit craters have been counted.
Done, although I wonder if "but" here might add a WP:SYNTHey quality to the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same paragraph has:
It has further been suggested that Coropuna overlies the margin of a buried caldera. Why "further"? Why suggested? How about ...
Coropuna may overlie the margin of a buried caldera, according to <who?>
The source itself uses passive voice and this weasely wording when referring to Noble 1974 ... I'll see if WP:RX has the underlying paper. eta: Found it, but it wasn't very helpful. Imma punt that sentence to a copyeditor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another indication that some redundancy-reducing could help make the article easier to read:
  • In the past, before the first human settlement of the area,[108][109] the ice cap on Coropuna was much larger than today, ...
    What does "in the past" add?
    It's supposed to add a quality of "long time ago". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But it doesn't, particularly since the sentence doesn't even tell us when human settlement occurred. It is redundant, and clarity is lacking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geology, geography and road articles (among others) can be very tricky MOS-wise, because of the density of text that discusses things that are measured, and the need for convert templates. A few things that need to be fixed throughout (and worth pointing out as these constructs are likely to appear throughout your volcano writing):
  • Seen from above, Coropuna has a pear-shaped outline and is a 20 km (12 mi) long ridge with an east-west trend that features four separate domes forming summits and broad saddles between the domes; in addition there is a dome north of the east-west trend. (I took out the convert so the punctuation error is easier to spot.)
It should be east–west ... think of it as running east to west, which indicates an endash, not a hyphen, is needed ... similar occurs throughout the article. A thorough read of MOS:DASH and MOS:HYPHEN may be useful for seeing the problem, and suggestions for how to fix them.
A 20-km-long ridge should be hyphenated. But correctly hyphenating the modifier while also converting from km to miles makes for a mess, and we end up with three hyphen/dashes in one phrase: Seen from above, Coropuna has a pear-shaped outline and is a 20-km-long ridge (12 mi) with an east–west trend that features four separate domes forming summits and broad saddles between the domes; in addition there is a dome north of the east–west trend. (An overly long sentence with a mess of hyphens and dashes.) One suggestion that helps in articles that involve so many numbers is to recast the sentence (and sometimes several sentences around them) to avoid having to hyphenate or dash. Recasting (not saying you should use my version, just a sample of how to re-cast to avoid the convert and hyphenization problem ... also avoiding "features" which is overused in general, and shortening long sentence):
  • Seen from above, Coropuna has a pear-shaped outline. It is a ridge that runs 20 km (12 mi), trending east to west, with four dome-shaped summits separated by broad saddles. There is another dome to the north of the ridge.
Fixing these incorrectly hyphenated modifiers throughout is non-trivial, as it often involves recasting sentences.
Just about that sentence, but I was a little wary of a three-way split as it seems like it'd result in two very short sentences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term lahar can be tricky in volcano articles, because we shouldn't force the reader to click out to get a definition, but we often need to define the term, as it is not altogether common. See how Nevado del Ruiz handles lahar (mud and debris flows) in the lead, getting a basic definition for the layreader out of the way. This article has an awkward flow in that lahars are mentioned before they are defined. The reader has to get well through a long sentence, possibly without knowing what a lahar is, hence what the sentence is about:
Also on the southern side, lahar deposits have been found in the Capiza River valley and appear to relate to Coropuna;[44] at least eight such debris flows have been identified[45] and some lahars have reached the Colca River valley.[46] Lahars are mixtures of water and volcanic rocks that descend the valleys of volcanoes, and are dangerous phenomena owing to their high speed and density, causing large scale destruction and fatalities.[44]
Can the flow be reworked here ?
I've attempted to mend the lahar issue by putting an explanation into a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When basic terminology and definitions are added to footnotes, that may be an indication that the flow is off; adding more notes make the article more cluttered, and the reader has to bounce around more. Perhaps aim for rephrasing with better flow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since this particular definition is only a few words long, I have implemented this. However, I think these terms will be a problem - leaving the term out altogether is not appropriate for an article on an academic project and explaining it in text will break the flow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these dashes are wrong: see MOS:DASH (samples only):
Glaciers retreated after the end of the last glacial maximum 20,000 - 18,000 years ago and then re-expanded. During the Lateglacial, a group of moraines formed between the position of the LGM moraines and the position of the recent moraines, with one lateglacial advance dated to either 13,400 - 10,000 or 13,900 - 11,900 years ago.
And these should not be hyphens (another prose issue found when searching only for MOS issues such as dashes and hyphens):
  • Geomorphologically, Coropuna lies at the edge of the Altiplano on the Western Cordillera; in the Central Andes this mountain chain is split into two ranges - the western and the eastern Cordillera - separated by the Altiplano. It is hard to know where to begin, but the entire thing should be rephrased. Altiplano is never defined in the article (and the first occurrence is not linked), so a non-Spanish speaker may not know which is the referenced mountain chain. How about something like this:
  • Coropuna lies at the edge of a high plain (the Altiplano), which separates the central part of the Andes into two mountain ranges: the Western and Eastern Cordillera. Much simpler. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be hard to formulate; punting to a copyeditor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See these articles on the overuse of however, which is a good general read. Your use of "however" is not inappropriate, but "however" can be a tipoff that other writing problems are lurking. Look at this passage with the aforementioned hyphenation problem:
  • A 8.5 km (5.3 mi) northwesterly lava flow occupies the Cerro Sepulturayoc valley. It is Coropuna's longest lava flow [144] and has been dated to about 6,000 years ago. However, more recent research has suggested it may have erupted somewhat earlier, during the Late Glacial period.
(Note the space after flow before citation 144 needs to be removed. The 8.5-km northwesterly lava flow needs a hyphen, making a number-dense passage even harder to read. How about something like this:
Coropuna's longest lava flow runs northwesterly for 8.5 km (5.3 mi) in the Cerro Sepulturayoc valley. It had been dated to about 6,000 years ago, but more recent research has suggested it may have erupted somewhat earlier, during the Late Glacial period.
Took a variant of this. That reminds me that when I break up overly long sentences or merge overly short ones, sometimes the break isn't topical - need to remember to keep it topical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A northwesterly lava flow which is Coropuna's longest lava flow[143] occupies the Cerro Sepulturayoc valley and runs for 8.5 km (5.3 mi) This is not an improvement ... repetitive text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Punting this to copyeditor I think; I don't see a particular effective way to make it un-repetitive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A different prose issue when examining other instances of "however" (so far, I am bouncing around just searching for common problems and have not read through the entire article in one sitting): "The Peruvian government is now making preparations ... " avoid the use of "now", "currently", "recently" etc on Wikipedia, as those become dated in a dynamic environment. Try, "In year x, the Peruvian government began making preparations ... please check throughout the article for all uses of terms such as "now", "recent", "current". MOS:DATED

To answer Iri above ("this is such a technical topic that somewhat leaden technical language is unavoidable"), these examples are to show that the prose issues are not unavoidable at all; it is the prose that is complicating the topic, and a copyedit is needed.

  • WP:OVERLINK, copper, gold, pasture, please check throughout, samples only
  • ... seracs occur on the glaciers ... don't make the reader click out to get a definition ... seracs (blocks of ice) occur on the glaciers.
    Is it a problem that the source does not explain this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have to cite basic definitions; it is to aid the reader so they don't have to click out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive
  • Birds such as the Andean condor and mammals such as the vicuña occur in the region. Is that it? Comprehensive concern. See Nevado del Ruiz flora and fauna, Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) tells us there has been limited study of flora, and Lassen Peak (only a GA, but see Ecology). Perhaps there is no further mention of fauna, but this is surprising.
    It's almost certainly not it, but comprehensive lists of species are sparse plus a lot of them are vague on which places they refer to~and, say, a list of animals which occur in the Colca Canyon would not be really germane to this article. I've added insects, but I dunno about what the best way of coupling this to the next sentence is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valley of the Volcanos: [8] seems to tell us the Valley of the Volcanos is significant ... it could be at least red-linked, and may need more mention in the article.
    Blue-linked it, but from reading the literature I did not get the impression that they have much more relation than being close volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also
  • Portals are usually placed in this section (per WP:LAYOUT), but if there is nothing else in See also, it is OK to put them in the next section (Further reading in this case). Your choice (to my eye, a See also section with only portals looks funny).
    'tweren't my addition, but I'll leave it for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, best at this juncture not to fiddle with that, considering some drama surrounding portals of late. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
There is a mess of numbers at Notes A, B, and C; they each contain a string of citations, but no actual source information listed. All of the sources need to be spelled out, or at least the publisher or name mentioned, rather than just a string of numbers. It is not clear why they are all needed; they seem to indicate an extreme controversy followed by a string of citations as seen in POV-plagued articles, and a need to justify "most commonly cited", but we have to click on each citation to determine veracity and see who claims what. Can it be simplified to the highest quality sources, naming them? A and B say it is X at the northwestern dome, while other sources like C and D say it is Y. Similarly spell the sources in Note D.
Oh, I was expecting a problem here. The thing is, that there are many many sources that have given diverging estimates and no clear way to tell which were more dependable nor any overarching source discussing them, so per However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. in WP:NPOV I ended up including most. That in turn created a footnote salad so it ended up becoming this format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However you solve the underlying issue of diverging sources, we are still bouncing around a string of numbers, requiring two stops for the reader. There are two issues here: the diverging sources, and the format in which they are presented. The whole mess might be better presented in bundled citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tried this, but Help:Citation merging apparently assumes that the bundled references are not used elsewhere in the article; is it reasonable to duplicate the entire citation information for the bundled reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Citations
Impressive list of sources. Citation issues, not exhaustive, just quickly saw:
  • You can use the parameter trans-title in citation templates to give English readers the article name (hence an idea what it's about).
  • Incomplete: "Coropuna". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. The date seems to be 2013, and there is no accessdate given. (I see Brianboulton had pointed that out, but it remains unaddressed.)
  • Is this 2001 or 2011 ?? Mariño, Jersy; Cabrera, Marquinho; Valdivia, David; Aguilar, Rigoberto; Manrique, Nélida; Thouret, Jean Claude; Edwards, Benjamin; Kochtitzky, Willian (201) ... I can't find the date on the map (too small to read!)
  • Mixed date formats on sources:
    • Bullard, Fred M. (1 December 1962) but Campos, Néstor (2015-12-30), and Menaker, Alexander (2019-01-03). Check all.
  • Why is WISE in all caps? WISE, James M. (2004).
    Got these, but to me an access date does display. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still mixed formats on dates. See User:SandyGeorgia/common.js for a script that you can install in your own userspace and can be used to fix these. Would you like me to run the script? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See above: would you like me to run a script to correct the dates? There are also hyphens in page ranges on citations that should be WP:ENDASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia:Yes, please. It doesn't seem to work for me. I think I got some of the endashes though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran the script to make date formats consistent:[9] please check over that edit carefully, as scripts such as this one can sometimes mess up other text unintentionally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a cut-and-paste of what shows (no accessdate). You are using a specialized GVP template, which may have an error. Perhaps you could generate your own citation template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f "Coropuna". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k Campos 2015, p. 2.
  • I don't get this; the citation templates correctly show the access date and the code at {{Cite GVP}} does not show any obvious bug... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I found (finally!) and corrected the error on the accessdate in the GVP template: [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ELNO, not include a link "that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." One is a book, not a link, so might be used in Further reading, if really needed, but since it is a guide for climbers, what does it contain that might be needed in the article? Some of the External links are student theses. What is order of these links (why not alphabetical)? What do all of these External links add that is not already contained in the article, and how can the article be comprehensive if there is that much information that is not covered? Same questions for Further reading; what do these provide that is not already in the article (particularly when in Spanish)? Ziólkowski listed in Further reading seems to be the same as used in sources, so should not be listed there.
Perhaps Awickert or Ruslik0 will be able to do some copyediting before I come back tomorrow. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I am too busy now. Ruslik_Zero 20:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, I just noticed above that Brian had pointed out the all caps in author names, but you missed those. I also saw your note that your keyboard did not have the WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH; they are right below the edit window, just above where you type in an edit summary. There is a line there that starts with "Insert", and the first thing after that is an endash, the next is an emdash. You just position the cursor and push the button. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:I've taken that advice and emailed the two editors you recommended. Beyond that I've stripped out some "located"s, "in the past"s and "overall"s and also did the dash issues using the dash templates, but MOS:DASH is far from easily memorizable so another look-at would probably be needed. Took out some "recents" and left others in places when we are talking about 10,000 years ago vs. 21st century and other such definitive time spans. Also dealt with some overlinking. Is there a way to quickly standardize the date formats? Sorry, can't get to the External Links and Further Reading section just yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that we edit conflicted, it might be that I overwrote some earlier addendums from you when I fixed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added back in one missing piece. On "MOS:DASH is far from easily memorizable"; the basic distinction between endashes, emdashes, and hyphens is not difficult and does not need to be memorized. (The text at the MOS page is long because of examples.) Understanding the difference is essential to writing an FA on number-dense topics such as volcanoes, earthquakes, roads, geology, geography. The main thing to realize is that a hyphen is not a dash; see also WP:HYPHENs, and going through all of User:Tony1's editing exercises may help. Alternately, you can find a collaborator who will help you by checking these before you approach FAC, but an experienced nominator should bring MOS-ready articles to FAC. The bigger problem is that the incorrect (missing) hyphens are a grammatical problem, obscured by the convert templates, and many of your sentences could benefit from re-casting to avoid the hyphens anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, WP:HYPHEN is much clearer than the DASH thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing ... still haven't done a complete read through, just searching text for common issues. "In addition", "also", and "as well" are often redundant. Searching on "in addition" produces one sentence with both:
  • In addition, the Upper Sencca ignimbrite, the Lower Sencca ignimbrite[154] and the Chuquibamba (Huaylillas[155]) ignimbrite[156] may have originated here as well; ...
  • A second "in addition" occurrence:
A number of towns could be threatened by lahars and, according to the 2007 census, 11,0481 people lived in the provinces that span Coropuna and lie downstream of it. Lahars could theoretically reach all the way down to the coast, although there is no evidence for past mudflows of such size. In addition, infrastructure such as roads, antennas and small hydropower plants are found in the general area. This can be considerably shortened with a re-write, and the flow is off. I cannot access full text of sources. How about:
Although there is no evidence of past mudflows of such size, lahars could reach as far as the coast, affecting a number of towns and infrastructure such as roads, antennas and small hydropower plants. According to the 2007 census, 11,0481 people lived in the provinces that span Coropuna and lie downstream of it.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did that rewrite, but the conjunctives I'll punt to a copyeditor - to me a number of sentences read like a concatenation of statements w/o them and that, to me, is often inferior flow/writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly copying text from Reidgreg at Talk:Beaune Altarpiece, in multiple instances, "consider using |spell=in in the convert template to produce: three metres (10 ft). We generally like to write-out numbers from zero to nine (MOS:SPELL09), but to use numerals with abbreviated units." For example, in the lead, "The mountain above 5 kilometres (3.1 miles) elevation is unvegetated, but below this altitude there are various vegetation belts which ... " Also avoid repetition ... How about something like, "there is no vegetation at the higher altitudes, but below five kilometres (3.1 miles) elevation, there are ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got some of these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this sample edit for another MOS fix needed throughout. The {{nowrap}} template is used to keep all of that from breaking across a line, and is easier to use than WP:NBSP in a plus/minus construct. This is needed throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fowler&fowler edit

Dear @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hello. I am trying to experiment with a critique written from the POV of a newcomer to the topic and focusing on the lead. For that reason, I have not read the rest of the article. Nor have I read other reviews. There may be existing conventions in WP Volcanology, Geology, or Geophysics (I'm not even sure such projects exist), so feel free to tell me when my suggestions clash with theirs. There may also be MOS conventions on using wikilinks instead of descriptors, whether single words or phrases, so please tell me about them as well. Today is a busy day. I will be critiquing a sentence at a time as when I find time. Please allow 24 hours to elapse for me to make my comments, and tweak them, and only then respond here. Thanks, and best regards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sentence 1: Coropuna is a dormant stratovolcano in the southern Peruvian Andes that lies within the Central Volcanic Zone.
    • When you present two separate links Peruvian and Andes, together, you create the expectation in the reader that in juxtaposition they have significant information about the Peruvian Andes. But they don't. The Peru section of Andes is just a list of peaks; the geography section of Peru is very general. (Compare with the Britannica article on: Aconcagua, which is very simply written.) You need to tell us something more basic and accessible in the first sentence. It is the same with a dormant stratovolcano. There is too much specialist information too early. We cannot trade narrative for a list of links. I cannot stress this more.
    • "Within," in current use, has the meaning of "not outside." What is so significant about the Central Volcanic Zone that a claim to lying in it in an entirety matters?
    • The definite article is certainly applied to unique or common geographical entities: the world, the ocean, the Andes, the countryside, and so forth; however, more generally, it is applied to nouns which are or have become, as a result of previous mention, part of the author's and the reader's shared world. That is not the case yet for "Central Volcanic Zone."
    • Could the sentence be changed to: Nevado Corpuna ("Nevado," Spanish, lit. "snow-covered") is a perennially snowbound volcanic complex, with several conical summits, in the Andes mountains of Peru?" (For that is what the links describe other than the dormancy and stratification, whose mention can wait until later in the lead. The "Nevado" adds an extra mention of snow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 2: It has several summits, the highest of which reaches an altitude of 6,377 metres (20,922 feet) above sea level.
    • This second sentence is another reason that the first should be changed in the manner I advocate. For as they stand, the second sentence, with a mention of several summits, after the first as mentioned a single volcano, comes as a surprise.
    • Could we change it to two sentences that combine similar themes from the lead: "The complex extends over an area of 240 square kilometers (92.6 square miles), its highest summit reaching an altitude of 6,377 metres (20,922 feet) above sea level. The complex is dormant, its current activity occurring exclusively in the form of hot springs?" More later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. I don't have the time now for a sentence-by-sentence analysis. I have rewritten some parts, but mostly re-arranged your lead, changing some of the links. At my level of understanding, I believe it gives it greater thematic and chronological coherence. You are welcome to accept some, many, or none of my suggestions. I will not be supporting or opposing as I haven't read enough of the article to form an opinion. If the 1850 date for the retreat of glaciers is incorrect, please correct it. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevado Coropuna ("Nevado," Spanish, lit. "snow-covered") is a dormant volcanic complex located in the Andes mountains of southeast-central Peru whose upper reaches consist of several perennially snowbound conical summits. The complex extends over an area of 240 square kilometers (92.6 square miles), its highest summit reaching an altitude of 6,377 metres (20,922 feet) above sea level. It is covered by a thick ice cap, the most extensive in the tropical zone, with several outlet glaciers. Below five kilometres (3.1 miles) elevation, there are various vegetation belts which include trees, peat bogs, grasses and also agricultural areas and pastures.

The Coropuna is a stratovolcano. It is composed chiefly of ignimbrites and lava flows on a basement formed by earlier ignimbrites and lava flows, some of which may have been formed by the eruptions of Coropuna itself. Coropuna has been active for at least five million years, with the bulk of the current cone having been formed during the Quaternary. Coropuna has had two or three Holocene eruptions 2,100 ± 200 and either 1,100 ± 100 or 700 ± 200 years ago which generated lava flows, plus an additional eruption which may have taken place some 6,000 years ago. Current activity occurs exclusively in the form of hot springs.

Coropuna is at a distance of 150 kilometres (93 miles) from the city of Arequipa, whose historical center was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2000. [1] People have lived on Coropuna for millennia. The mountain was regarded as sacred by the Inca and several archaeological sites have been discovered there, including the Inca sites of Maucallacta and Acchaymarca. The mountain was considered to be one of the most important Inca religious sites in their realm; human sacrifices were offered to it and the mountain is worshipped to this day. The volcano also appears in legends.

Coropuna's ice cap, which during the last glacial maximum had expanded to a size of over 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi), has been in retreat since 1850. Estimates published in 2018 imply that the ice cap will persist until about 2120. The retreat of the Coropuna glaciers threatens the water supply of tens of thousands of people, and interaction between volcanic activity and glacial effects has generated mudflows that could be a hazard to surrounding populations. Because of this, the Peruvian geological agency, INGEMMET, monitors Coropuna and has published a hazard map for the volcano. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ UNESCO (2000). "Historical Center of the City of Arequipa".
Very readable; that was a considerable effort. I was waiting for the body of the article to come together better, but had intended to ask a question about the lead once everything was in better shape. Coropuna is a Peruvian tourist site; many of the sources discuss what sorts of activities and sights bring people to the area. I would feel better about the lead if it gave me some idea of why I would want to know more about this volcano, as in, why do tourists go there, what do they do, what is special, etc. I am not sure this is well developed yet in the body of the article, but the lead focuses on geological factoids rather than giving me an idea of why this place is worth seeing and knowing about. I suspect the body needs to expand to cover more of this territory to satisfy "1c, comprehensive", and one sentence can be added to the lead when that is done. Some of the excessive external links might be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had no idea the complex itself was a tourist destination, though I suspected it because of the Inca sites. What you say sounds very reasonable. Yes, the geological factoids need the kind of rephrasing that is assessed to be accurate by an expert but makes the average reader keep reading. That may require a high-level understanding that I don't have. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia and Fowler&fowler:That proposed lead rewrite seems OK, although I'd leave the part about Arequipa being on the UNESCO list out. Regarding tourism, I guess the problem is that most of the sources on tourism and Coropuna are not reliable or mention the topic just in passing. That's not uncommon for this region; even for the better documented El Tatio#Tourism the section is not that good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the Peruvian government tourism page is ... not very well developed. Does the source mentioned in External links (Biggar, John (2005). The Andes: A Guide for Climbers. Andes.) ... which should be moved to Further reading, if justified here ... have anything? My searches so far have turned up lots of interesting verbiage and indications of what brings tourists and mountaineers to the area, but all in commercial sites or blogs. Can you get anything from this? It's not that I'm after tourism information per se, but even if you cannot turn up more sources that discuss and describe what attracts people to the area, I'd like the lead to give us more of a desire to, if not want to visit the area, at least want to read the rest of the article to discover more about Coropuna. For instance, Bryce Canyon National Park (which has an underdeveloped lead and could do much better on this, but ...) tells us, "The red, orange, and white colors of the rocks provide spectacular views for park visitors." Mount St. Helens has a "Climbing and recreation" section, but the article has the same problem I am trying to overcome (it focuses on the geology while other content is undeveloped). I am hoping, even if new sources can't be found, that whatever we do have can be used to entice the reader to read beyond the lead (WP:LEAD, "It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on.") These volcanoes/mountains are more than their geology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:The Biggar book does not have much information and that article seems to mention Coropuna just once. This one might have some stuff that you seek, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then Biggar should probably be removed from External links (which generally need pruning). Can you find anything here, or anything describing the physical in Annie Peck's description of her ascent? [11] And Incan name huaca is mentioned here, but not in the article, and there is some description. (It's not clear to me if huaca=coropuna.)[12] Only a limited preview is available here, but it possibly suggests that one of the attractions for mountaineers is that, although high, the mountains in the region are easily climbed. This has some tourism info; hanging bridges are enticing. Back to my earlier suggestion that Valley of the Volcanoes attracts people to the region: 1001 Natural wonders you must see before you die.

There is no need for you to respond to me on each of these possibilities: generally, I am hoping the lead can provide a glimpse into the <beauty, uniqueness, ruggedness, recreation> or whatever it is that attracts people to the area, and entices us to read further into the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from ComplexRational edit

I'm also new to this topic, and only have done a few GA reviews or provided talk page feedback, so this really is an outsider POV.

At first glance, sourcing looks good—the references look reliable and extensive—but in the first section alone after the lead, I already found several prose issues that need a full review before criterion 1a is fulfilled. These issues are certainly surmountable, but this FAC has already been open more than two months and these are not necessarily quick fixes, so I'm opposing to give more time to do a thorough review.

  • Perhaps most importantly, an WP:ENGVAR ought to be established and consistently applied, e.g. both "practise" (en-GB) and "localize" (en-US) are present in the article. This is also very important to establish consistent comma usage and copyedit. I see several places where commas belong in en-US but not necessarily other variants, but I will not insert them if the chosen ENGVAR renders them unnecessary.
  • The volcano can be reached on paved roads that come to the town of Andahua – needs to be rewritten, "come" does not work here (we are not in Andahua) and "go" is not much better
  • and is only 100 kilometres (62 mi) from the Pacific Ocean. – no need for "only" as it alters the POV
  • A number of villages surround the volcano, from northwest clockWise around the mountains these are: – clockwise is not written like this, and I do not understand why this list of miscellaneous villages is present at all, much less why they're ordered clockwise
All instances of "clockWise" fixed. ComplexRational (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • but mining of precious metals takes place with copper and gold being prospected. – this seems unnecessarily verbose and its relation to the previous clause is weak; it could be shortened to something like "but copper and gold mining are also..." or simply integrated into the first clause as another important economic activity.
  • Important volcanoes in southern Peru are from northwest to southeast – again, this listing looks indiscriminate: why are they important? why these? I think we're better off without this bit.
  • twenty km – per MOS:NUMNOTES, this should be in figures; the article should be checked to make sure this usage is consistent and correct
  • Also on the southern side, – as an example, I would insert a comma after also, but this is possibly subject to ENGVAR.
  • Lahars are dangerous phenomena owing to their high speed and density, causing large scale destruction and fatalities. – from this, readers unfamiliar with the subject still will not know what lahars are. I added a link, but a one-sentence explanation would be helpful here.
  • ClockWise around Coropuna, these include – another instance of "ClockWise" and a list without clear context
  • Coropuna rises two km – as above, should be figures
  • three point five km – I won't ask how this got in here, but it is really troubling to look at
  • such as the Chuquibamba landslide, which took place over the last 120,000 years in the form of multiple collapse events within a fault-controlled basin. – After breaking the run-on sentence, I'd recommend elaborating more on this. Are there more significant examples?
  • glaciers, [78] and – the extra space is really a minor thing by itself, but formatting errors such as these give me the impression that the article was not fully reviewed, copyedited, or prepared before this FAC
  • The ice cap also features ice falls and dangerous lakes. Mudflows (lahars) originated from the ice cap and left deposits at the bottom of valleys. – dangerous has a non-neutral connotation (so I recommend elaborating more neutrally or removing altogether), and this transition from present to past tense reads rather awkwardly (I'd reorder to something like "There are also deposits resulting from lahars originating from the ice cap...").

If you'd like, I could provide further comments (these are only from the first few sections), but judging from these, I simply don't think the prose of this article is up to standards yet. Perhaps give it a bit more time to fix or take it to GOCE before renominating – it would take considerable work and a much longer list of comments to ensure that the prose is ready in this FAC. ComplexRational (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational:Regarding some questions - bit late here so I can't provide any more - this is supposed to be BrEng I think; regarding the "clockWise" that's a typo and I can't find where it was added but it needs to be "clockwise" of course. A list of towns around a volcano seems like a reasonable piece of information to include, and a list of other recently active volcanoes is IMO also good context for a FAC. The spelling out of units or using figures ... that's something I was inspired of (probably mistakenly so) by SandyGeorgia's last comment two sections above ... I think that reverting back to the figure form is better.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: MOS:RETAIN would suggest en-US or en-OED (one of the first non-stub versions [13] uses "organized", but if there is no disagreement on how to proceed (seeing as an ENGVAR is not used consistently throughout and I don't think any has a strong tie to Peru), we can convert the whole article to en-GB. ComplexRational (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably settle for en-GB - there aren't any particular WP:TIES here - if there is no disagreement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if more comments would help here ... need to sleep over this, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, I do see considerable misapplication of WP:MOSNUM following my suggestion on the convert template. Perhaps you are not familiar with MOS:SPELL09? With ten or so FAs, I assumed you were, or I would have been more specific: in Wikipedia's manual of style, we usually spell out numbers between 0 and 9. It looks like you converted all numbers to words rather than digits. To write in a number-dense topic like volcanoes, it is helpful to be familiar with WP:MOSNUM (it's impossible to keep up with all of it, but spelling out 0 to 9, unless there is a list where consistency applies, is a starting point.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this time I think they are correct. I'll admit, the MOS clauses are so long and so full of irrelevant fluff that I find it hard to follow them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to continue this edit

So I've somewhat obliquely asked this question here as well, but as this is the FAC page it's probably better to ask it here: ComplexRational and SandyGeorgia, do you think that the prose problems you've raised here can be fixed within the course of a FAC, or do you think it'd be better to withdraw and renominate when they are resolved? MOS issues (usually) do not take much effort to fix and the sources Sandy presented above would not need much work to incorporate, but I am not so confident on the prose aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have made good progress on the MOS issues (and I regret that no one pointed out those common MOS items before, as they are so necessary in number-dense geology and geography articles). (Although the first three items in Brianboulton's list from 20 October were not addressed until today, after I pointed them out again.)

I agree that my comprehensiveness concerns can probably be easily addressed. It is still surprising that there is no better content in the flora and fauna department, and no more information about the tourism, recreation and mountaineering aspects as opposed to the geological-- more exhaustive book searches may turn up more information. The extensive (WP:ELNO) list of External links is still quite a concern, and it is incomprehensible to me that no reviewer pointed this out: all of those links need to be checked to see if anything there aids in 1c, Comprehensiveness; if not, they should be pruned from the list.

But I have not even attempted a full read-through to address prose issues like the samples given by ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler and me. Fowler&fowler appears to have not looked beyond the lead, and I am unsure that his new, experimental reviewing method will help you become a better FA writer, as he did the lead for you without commenting further on prose issues. ComplexRational provided samples from only one section.

So, I fear that the answer to your question is apparent on the page: even though a number of editors reviewed, it seems that earlier reviewers did not fully engage, and later reviewers would have to do too much work to pull all of the prose up to standard.

I don't know what to suggest except to note that many of the past successful geology FACs had multiple nominators. Collaborating with other editors who are good at fixing prose and MOS issues, to complement your incredible sourcing and research work, is probably a good way to go, and ComplexRational has offered to work off-FAC with you. You can post to my talk page anytime you need MOS fixes (I hate those pingie thingies), but I am not always around; if I am, I am always willing to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded text above, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SandyGeorgia and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I did the lead because I was under the impression that there was a hurry to make a final decision on the article, and I was strapped for time myself. There was another problem: the issues weren't necessarily those of syntax within a sentence but of content organization. I can certainly do the sentence by sentence analysis if Jo-Jo can wait a little. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Your question, "do you think that the prose problems you've raised here can be fixed within the course of a FAC, or do you think it'd be better to withdraw and renominate when they are resolved," bears the marks of sound moral principle. It demonstrates not just attention to producing something of quality, but also a willingness to slow down one's personal ambition for a bronze star in favor of speeding up the FAC process. All too often when, in the past, I have advocated that a page be withdrawn, worked on further, and renominated in a month's or two's time, I have heard from the nominator that the comment is not actionable. I am happy to quickly skim the article to answer your question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awesomeness Award to both of you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have skimmed the article. I think it needs work. As @SandyGeorgia: has remarked, you have done excellent sourcing, but the article lacks an even, consistent, narrative voice. It seems as if different portions are written by different people. In many parts of the article, there is little narrative, only a list of blue links. There are also redundancies that confuse the reader.
I think you should withdraw the article and work on it further. One of the first things you should do is to rewrite it in your own voice and in your own understanding of the sources, and not worry too much about prose (which can be fixed easily later). There are two general principles that I follow: (a) start first with an outline that is derived entirely from tertiary sources, such as scholarly encyclopedias or companions, well-worn textbooks, and review articles. This ensures that your narrative is WP:DUE, (b) Now expand the article by using these previous sources further or secondary sources (journal articles, monographs, news media). But don't stray from the outline. In your writing, replace lists as much as you can by general descriptions interspersed with examples and vignettes. That is the best way of ensuring that you have understood the material and are summarizing it in your own words. An encyclopedia necessarily creates a precis of the source material at a level that is comprehensible to an educated layperson. The article is not there yet. But you have already mastered the major difficulty I refer to in my previous post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Jo-Jo Eumerus, SandyGeorgia, and Fowler&fowler: I stand by my original comment that an off-FAC collaboration is probably the best way to proceed, so as not to drag this FAC timewise or lengthwise and hopefully get this article through FAC2 with minimal concerns. I understand that there is considerable work to be done, and I am still willing to further engage and review the article's prose (with Fowler&fowler) and structure section-by-section once all the heavy content work is finished. Small MOS tweaks can come later, but we should at least make sure that nothing in WP:SMOS (which I believe condenses only the most important MOS points) needs attention. ComplexRational (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for the offer, Fowler&fowler,. SandyGeorgia Regarding the external links, that's mostly theses which as noted in WP:SCHOLARSHIP are difficult to handle as sources, as much of the stuff in them is not necessarily thoroughly vetted info.
@FAC coordinators: Based on the comments here, it seems like this FAC probably cannot be brought to promotion-ready within a reasonable timeframe and thus I'd like to ask for a withdrawal/archival if possible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, tks Jo-Jo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 December 2019 [14].

Leonardo DiCaprio edit

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo DiCaprio does not really need an introduction unless you have been living under a rock for the past 25 years. He starred in that long-forgotten film about that ship that sank, those films in which he constantly loses his shit, or those ones where plays a character playing a character. He is the actor that hasn't gone wrong with a single role choice (well almost). Anyway, I hope you enjoy reading his article. FrB.TG (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson edit

Looking through this, I'm not a big fan of the sourcing, especially as this is a BLP. Of the 255 references, only 15 are to book sources. Quite a few are from E! and the Oprah network, which while not bad per se seems like something that could be replaceable with better sources if possible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost inevitable from fans, but very difficult to avoid all the same. ——SerialNumber54129 20:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DiCaprio's notability almost entirely lies in the internet era and his career is in popular culture so that's where we're going to find the most information about him. All relevant facts about him are available online, which has been the case for many of my and others' FAs about modern artists (see Kate Winslet for example). We are lucky enough that a good biography is available which I used for some information. Other than that, everything is available online.
I have replaced the one from Oprah, I don't see any problem with sourcing E! though. FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is all fair enough, and none of the sources seem awful (no Daily Mail, for example). The article looks good as is, but I'll have to look at it some more when I get time to make a final judgment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FrB.TG about the sourcing. With book sources, you'll mainly see a lot of self-published material, trivia material, and other poor material. You'll see stuff like "The Leonardo Dicaprio Handbook - Everything You Need to Know about Leonardo Dicaprio." There are solid book sources here and there, but that's here and there. And this goes for the vast majority of celebrities. Take a look on Google Books.
Anyway, I alerted WP:Film to this nomination for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about putting this off. I've looked at the article and it appears to be in good order on my front, so I'll support this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Some of the portraits are quite similar - not convinced we need all of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review. I have added alt text to all images now and removed one of the portraits. FrB.TG (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise edit

I'd like to try to review this. I just need to finish off the current one I'm reviewing and fit in some time. Give me a few days to try to start something, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The "In the 2010s" sentence in the third paragraph feels long (especially since each film is preceded by its genre, which soon begins to feel repetitive). Do you necessarily need that many examples from the 2010s? Or if so maybe there's a way to rejig the sentence to make it feel less repetitive. Moisejp (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have removed two films, one from 2010 and 2013, as he had another release each of those years, which were more successful so I think they should suffice. -FrB.TG
Great, it reads a lot better now. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and acting background:

  • "DiCaprio and his mother lived in several Los Angeles neighborhoods, such as Echo Park and Los Feliz, while his mother worked several jobs." Maybe replace one of the instances of "several" to avoid repetitiveness. One idea: "multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods".
  • "When he was two, he went to a performance festival with his family where he went up on stage and started dancing, which entertained the crowd and he loved the attention." The "and he loved the attention" ending feels a bit run-on and awkward. I don't have any immediate suggestions for the best way to fix this, but if you need ideas I can try to think about it more. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded it a little. Hopefully it reads better now. FrB.TG (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titanic: (Minor comment) "DiCaprio initially refused to play the character". For me, "refused" feels a bit strong for this context. Maybe "declined" or "was not interested in" (if the source supports this) would work better. Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with "had doubts about". FrB.TG (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my speediest review, but I'll get in some more comments soon. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You probably know, and did you consider adding that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker? [[15]] Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DiCaprio's performance, although well-received, was overshadowed by that of Daniel Day-Lewis' according to most critics." If there's any chance that "most" may be too strong, it could be safer to change this to "many". (I would strongly support this change, unless you're very confident "most" is justified.) Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was interested to find "out of the box" material from an actor's perspective and develop it that way from the original source work." Should this be "interested in finding"? Also I'm not exactly sure what "develop it that way" means here. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All done. FrB.TG (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your changes look good. More from me soon. Moisejp (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After narrating the 2019 global warming documentary Ice on Fire,[174] DiCaprio returned to acting after four years in Quentin Tarantino's comedy-drama Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, " Better to avoid repetition of "After... after" if possible. Moisejp (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few days later, possibly influenced by this meeting, the Pope said he would act in a planned faith-based charity film, Beyond the Sun, whose profits were donated to charities in Argentina." I have mixed feelings about this sentence. While it is one example of DiCaprio's great notability in that he could influence the Pope, it's possibly a little confusing in that it's in the environmentalism section, but the Pope's charity does not seem to be environmental-related. Every other sentence in the section is about environmental promotion—including raising money for the environment—but this sentence is about raising money for something else, so it could be confusing. I'm not saying necessarily to take it out (again, it is a very notable event in DiCaprio's life), I'm just noting here that I have mixed feelings about its current location. Ideas could be to keep it as it is, to move it to elsewhere in the article, to put it in a footnote, or to find a way to make it extra clear (in case it's not clear enough) that the pope's charity is not environmentally related. Apologies if this comment is kind of wishy-washy. Moisejp (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it to footnotes.
  • "DiCaprio is agnostic." Feels out of place in its current location, tagged on at the end of the first sentence. If there's nowhere else to put it, so be it, I guess. One idea, though, if there is enough info in your sources, would be to possibly flesh it out into a short paragraph of its own? Just a thought.
I have added another sentence before that which I think connects the whole paragraph well.
  • "In June 2017, DiCaprio returned an Oscar won by Marlon Brando, together with other artifacts he received from business associates at Red Granite Pictures as his 38th birthday gift, to the US government amid an investigation into the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal." This is confusing. It feels like there is a whole lot of unstated background here, and the context of what DiCaprio's action means is unclear. I suggest possibly removing this sentence or finding a way to make it clearer.
I have added some more background info which I think should now help with understanding it better.
  • "DiCaprio has described his relationship with the director as "pretty much a dream come true for me", and admires his knowledge of cinema, crediting him for teaching him the history and importance of cinema." Maybe good to avoid repetition of "cinema" if possible.

OK, I've finished my first read-through. Will try to get a second read-through in soon. Moisejp (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have resolved these ones as well and look forward to your second read-through. FrB.TG (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last batch of changes look good. Moisejp (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting second read-through:

  • "His parents separated when he was a year old; while he lived mostly with his mother, his parents agreed to live next door to each other so as not to deprive DiCaprio of his father's presence in his life.[10][11] DiCaprio and his mother lived in multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods, such as Echo Park and Los Feliz, while his mother worked several jobs." Did his father move around to be next door to them in each of the multiple neighborhoods where DiCaprio lived with his mother? (It seems unlikely (?), but it's not clear from the present wording.) Moisejp (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should be okay now I think. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my second read-through and support on prose, and from having spot-checked a number of sources. (One minor thing is I don't think ref 18 mentions Ellen Barkin—unless I missed it—but that should be easy to find elsewhere.) Moisejp (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I believe Parenthood is a sitcom not a soap opera so I would change this sentence (In the early 1990s, he played recurring roles in various television series, such as the soap opera Parenthood.) to better reflect that.
  • I believe it should be "at that point" for this part (which became the highest-grossing film to that point).
  • I would clarify that Greensburg is a documentary series in this part (and the television show Greensburg (2008–2010)).
  • I am not entirely certain about what you mean by "a brief setback" in this part ( After a brief setback, DiCaprio starred in two critically acclaimed films in 2002). Could you provide some explanation?
  • I am not sure about using the category "American male soap opera actors" when he has only acted in one episode of one soap opera. It does not seem like enough of a defining characteristic for inclusion.
  • I think the Hallstrom image caption should have a period as it is a full sentence.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Later that year, he became a recurring cast member on the successful ABC sitcom Growing Pains). Is there any reason to include ABC in the description? You did not refer to the networks for the descriptions of the previous television shows DiCaprio appeared in so this one seems out of place to me.
  • It is not required, but it might be nice to put the references for this part (DiCaprio is considered one of the most talented actors of his generation.) in numeric order.
  • I do not think "late" is needed for this part (Late film critic Philip French).
The reason I included "late" is because I have used present tense for the most part in that paragraph, and here I use past tense as the critic is dead. I thought it would explain the usage of past tense.
Thank you for the response. I would still recommend removing it though. You do not put this descriptive phrase in front of Roger Ebert, who is also dead, and I would argue that the word "late" goes against Wikipedia:Euphemism. I think everything in that paragraph should be in past tense for consistency with the rest of the article where past tense is used to talk about critics' views and reports (like: Roger Ebert praised DiCaprio's "fully-realized, subtle and persuasive performance, hinting at more than Hoover ever revealed, perhaps even to himself."). Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although I prefer using present tense when describing a general overview of an actor, I don't like to justify using past tense in prose ("late film critic") so I have done as you suggested. I have now used past tense where appropriate. FrB.TG (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being a pain about this. If other editors prefer the present tense, then feel free to revert the article back to that. I do not have much experience with these types of articles. I primarily disagree with "late" due to Wikipedia:Euphemism and I just do not find it particularly helpful, but that is just my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Like I said, I also didn’t like to use late just to justify my usage of past tense. To be fair, late doesn’t sound too encyclopedic either so I do agree with your suggestion. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is included in the Vegetarians category, but I do not see any mention of this in the actual prose.

I hope my comments are helpful. I have noticed the above points during my first read-through. You have done a wonderful job with the article (as expected given your track record). Once my points are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to see if I can find anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba. Your comments are most appreciated - I have done as suggested for the most part except where I have noted otherwise. Looking forward to your next read-through. FrB.TG (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I can help. I will read through the article again sometime tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this sentence (He is known for starring in biopics and period films, and for playing unconventional roles.). I am assuming that the first part about the biopics/period films is referring to this sentence (He is drawn to parts based on real people, and stories told in specific periods.) in the body of the article. I am uncertain if that really supports the statement that he is known for appearing in these types of films. I read the sentence from the body of the article as referring to his personal preference, not what people (critics or the general public) connect him with as an actor. Apologies if I am missing another sentence that supports this.
  • It may be helpful to update the part about the eco-friendly Belize resort. For instance, according to this article from BBC News], the resort is set for a 2020 opening.

These are the last two things that I have noticed after re-reading the article. Once both comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the lead which is now more in accordance with the main body, and also added the Belize resort. Thank you again for your comments. They have been most helpful. FrB.TG (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the prompt response. I have two more quick comments/questions: Belize is not wikilinked twice in the article. On the same topic, wouldn't it be more cohesive to have all of the Belize information in one spot as they are all referring to the same point? Right now, the information is split between two sections. Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should be okay now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "and he has ranked eight times in annual rankings of the world's highest-paid actors." ranked/rankings. I would say "placed" perhaps rather than "ranked".
  • "His films have earned $7.2 billion worldwide," do we want to put an "as of year" in there?
  • "DiCaprio subsequently earned nominations " I might delete "subsequently" since the parenthetical years make it clear all this is later than 2002.
  • "DiCaprio is the founder of the production company Appian Way Productions, which has produced some of his own films" I might consider striking "own".
  • "DiCaprio's father is of Italian and German descent, and the actor is hence conversant in Italian." I would strike the "hence". People often don't speak the languages of their ancestors.
  • The sentences about his maternal grandparents could probably be combined.
  • The first few sentences of the final paragraph in "Early life" could use some dates.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have mostly done as suggested. As for your last comment, sources unfortunately do not state when exactly it happened that he was asked to change his name or that he was jobless for years. FrB.TG (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " One of the stunts he performed on the show was going fishing in a small pool of water by catching the fish only with his teeth." I would change to " One of the stunts he performed on the show was fishing in a small pool of water, catching the fish using only his teeth.
  • "A teenage DiCaprio was cast by the producers to appeal to the younger female audiences, but the show's ratings did not improve and he left it soon after.[34]" I would change "A" to "The". And what does younger mean in this sense? Too young for Kirk Cameron?
  • "he film grossed only $0.34 million against its €6-million budget.[44]" I don't see figures expressed as "$0.34 million" so often (the leading zero with the million). I would suggest "$340,000" with an "about" if needed.
  • "DiCaprio initially had doubts about playing the character," I would suggest "DiCaprio initially had doubts about accepting the role of Jack Dawson" with "role" changed to "part" or similar later in the sentence.
  • "and favored the lead role in The Beach instead.[67] " Suggest "took" for "favored".
  • "a young leader of the Irish faction," maybe "A young leader of an Irish-American street gang"? Or similar?
  • "he was interested to find" maybe "he was interested in finding"
  • "Both the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild nominated DiCaprio twice in the Best Actor category for both of his 2006 features" You could probably get rid of the word "twice" if you changed "both" (following "category for") to "each".
Through the start of the 2010 section. More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All done. FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "collaborative streak" Sounds not very encyclopedic.
  • "He played Edward "Teddy" Daniels, a U.S. Marshal investigating a psychiatric facility located on an island, but comes to question his own sanity. " I would change "but" to "who"
  • "drew toward the project" Not sure what this means.
  • " Filming proved to be a traumatic experience for DiCaprio, as he had nightmares of mass murder during production.[117] " This seems a bit of a non sequitur (I imagine it has something to do with the plot)
  • " which means he receives money coming directly off the top of ticket sales. maybe "meaning he received a percentage of cinema ticket sales."
  • " This risk paid off, as DiCaprio earned $50 million from the film to become his highest payday yet.[126]"" I might change "This" to "The" and omit "to become" in favor of "becoming", with a comma right before after "film".
  • "In 2012, DiCaprio starred as a plantation owner Calvin Candie in Quentin Tarantino's spaghetti western," either omit the "a" or put commas either side of "Calvin Candle"
  • "extenuate" A word that is a bit simpler perhaps, to aid in understanding.
  • I'm seeing enough surplus or missing articles (such as "a" that you might want to give the article a look-through to see if I've missed anything.
  • " He also learned to shoot a musket, build a fire, speak two Native American languages (Pawnee and Arikara) and ancient healing techniques.[160] " I think you need "apply" or a synonym before "ancient" in the final clause, because what you have been using in the clauses is "learned to" and "learned to" doesn't fit "ancient healing techniques".
More soon. Sorry about it being piecemeal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Take all the time you need to finish your review. I have done all the things suggested above I think. I will look for more unnecessary or missing articles as I read through the article again. FrB.TG (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Because of his active involvement in these causes, DiCaprio has received praise from environmental groups,[194]" is the portion before the comma really needed? You've just spent several sentences setting forth his credentials on the subject.
  • "large yachts has attracted criticism due to their large carbon footprints.[197]" I would strike the second "large". We get it.
  • "He chaired the national Earth Day celebration in 2000, where he interviewed Bill Clinton and they discussed plans to deal with global warming and the environment.[199] " I might change "where" to "during which".
  • "at Russia's tiger summit." If this was a specific event, and I gather it was, should not caps be used?
  • muzhik" should this be italicized?
  • "In 2011, DiCaprio joined the Animal Legal Defense Fund's campaign to free Tony, a tiger who has spent the last decade at the Tiger Truck Stop in Grosse Tête, Louisiana.[204] " "has spent" is probably the wrong tense. Personally, I would consider "free" a bit overstated unless a return to the wild without human supervision was in the offing. Same issue with tense in following sentence, I imagine the art auction has concluded.
  • "In 2015, he announced on behalf of himself and the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation to divest from fossil fuels.[208] " Could be better phrased.
  • "A photograph of John Kerry (left) and Leonardo DiCaprio walking" This seems a bit uninformative for an image caption.
  • "A few days later, possibly influenced by this meeting, the Pope said he would act in a charity film.[b] In July 2016, his foundation " The pope's foundation? I imagine not, but Francis is the last "he" mentioned. Also, this paragraph bounces around a bit chronologically.
  • "In 1998, DiCaprio and his mother donated $35,000 for a "Leonardo DiCaprio Computer Center" at the Los Feliz branch of the Los Angeles Public Library, the site of his childhood home." As written, this says his home has been converted into a library. I might phrase the ending as "... at the library in Los Feliz, the site of his childhood home", with a pipe to LAPL.
  • " During the filming of Blood Diamond, DiCaprio worked with 24 orphaned children from the SOS Children's Village in Maputo, Mozambique, and was said to be extremely touched by his interactions with the children.[217]" The second half of this is a bit POV. Also, why is this under philanthropy?
  • "an organization which promotes the image of LGBT people in the media.[219]" I don't see this in the source. All I see is that it's called a "gay rights group".
  • Why does the first paragraph of "Personal life" (other than the first sentence) have anything to do with the topic?
  • "Wilson was sentenced to prison for two years.[227]" More usual would be "Wilson was sentenced to two years in prison".
  • "In 2016, DiCaprio endorsed Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential election.[234]" You could probably rephrase to avoid one of the 2016. He give any cash?
  • "In June 2017, when The Wolf of Wall Street producer Riza Aziz was involved in a money laundering scandal, DiCaprio returned an Oscar won by Marlon Brando, together with other artifacts he received from business associates at Red Granite Pictures (co-founded by Aziz) as his 38th birthday gift, to the US government.[235]" This sentence tries to do too much in my view, and it would not be "returned ... to the US government" unless they had it before.
  • "beauty lists" I gather from context what this means, but is there a more commonly used term that can be substituted?
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a thorough review. It really helped improve the article a lot. I have attempted to resolve your remaining concerns as well. Let me know what you think. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to touch all the bases.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DAP edit

Going to give a look at this later this week. DAP 💅 12:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No significant setbacks. The only suggestion I have is to change the informal ‘fame industry’ in “DiCaprio played a self-mocking role in a small appearance in Woody Allen's caustic satire of the fame industry, Celebrity (1998)” to ‘the tabloids’, ‘tabloid journalism’ or something to that effect. Otherwise, happy to support. Fantastic work. DAP 💅 13:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

  • Experienced and trusted nominator, spotchecks not carried out.
  • All links are live and working according to the tool.
  • Ref #3 "Leonardo DiCaprio meets Pope.." needs author details.
  • Ref #4 "Poverty and family split.." needs author and original publication details.
  • Ref #8 "Catalano 1997, p. 7–15." Should be "pp" not "p".
  • Ref #11 "Wight 2012, 141–148." Needs "pp". Same with refs #16, #17, #24, #27, #33, #34, #53, #244 for the same source (some need a "p", not "pp".)
I have used Kindle to access some of those books which don't have page number but "loc" (which display as "p"). So some those sources are really "loc" and not the actual page numbers.
Okay, that seems reasonable. Harrias talk 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #38 "This Boy's Life movie review.." link Roger Ebert as the author, and tidy up the title.
  • Ref #47 "Total Eclipse (1995)" needs publisher details.
  • Ref #54 "Titanic. Man Overboard" does not need page numbers.
  • Ref #60 "Love story that won.." correct the title.
  • Ref #69 "American Psycho.." needs author details.
I failed to find the name of the author for this one.
Nisha Gopalan; the Guardian often use odd bylines, here it starts "Nisha Gopalan traces the troubled passage of Bret Easton Ellis's novel from page to screen". Harrias talk 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #74 "A glimpse of Leo.." needs author details.
  • Ref #76 "Catch Me If You Can" swap the links, as the original just goes to a landing page.
  • Ref #84 "Leonardo DiCaprio: Ranking.." needs author and date of publication details. Note that these differ between the direct url and the archive.
  • Ref #93 "Leonardo DiCaprio's ten.." what makes The National Student a reliable source?
  • Check through to #120, more to follow. Harrias talk 13:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #125 Empire is missing a title.
  • Ref #136 "Leonardo DiCaprio talks Django.." add a publication date of December 18, 2012.
  • Ref #137 "Quentin Tarantino's 'Django.." need author and date of publication details. The Hollywood Reporter should also be listed as a website or news source, not publisher.
  • Ref #146 "The Great Gatsby Review." Be consistent about the publisher; this uses "RogerEbert.com", while previously it has just been "Roger Ebert".
  • Ref #150 "Toldja.." needs author details.
  • Ref #152 "Leonardo DiCaprio Talks.." needs author details.
  • Ref #155 "Golden Globes 2014.." needs author details.
  • Ref #160 and Ref #162 both seem to be the same. "Leonardo DiCaprio, Alejandro G. Inarritu Open Up.."
  • Ref #164 "Review: 'The Revenant'" needs author details.
  • Ref #168 "The Revenant" needs author details.
  • Ref #169 Why do this and ref #192 have ISSNs?
  • Ref #171 "DiCaprio-produced.." need author and date of publication details.
  • Ref #172 "This Is the Most Important.." needs author details.
  • Ref #173 "Before The Flood.." add a publication date of October 28, 2016.
  • Ref #187 "Leonardo DiCaprio to star.." needs author details.
  • Ref #191 "Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin.." needs author details.
  • Ref #195 "Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation" needs both a title and a publisher, even if they are the same.
  • Ref #199 "Furgang, Kathy, and Furgang, Adam." Is this a book? It needs more details.
    • The short link for this needs fixing. Harrias talk 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #201 "Leonardo DiCaprio gets the keys.." needs author details and the title fixing.
  • Ref #202 "DiCaprio's Hypocritical.." needs a date of publication.
  • Ref #203 "Leonardo DiCaprio has spent.." needs author details. What makes Ukula a reliable source?
  • Ref #209 "Leonardo Speaks Out.." needs author and date of publication details.
  • Ref #214 "Leonardo DiCaprio Warns.." needs author details.
  • Ref #215 "Days After Meeting.." needs author details.
  • Ref #217 "Leonardo DiCaprio's Foundation.." needs author details.
  • Ref #220 "Madonna Delivers Surprise.." needs author details.
  • Ref #226 "Leonardo DiCaprio, the.." needs the author to be reformatted as Last, First.
  • Ref #228 "Gisele Bündchen on.." needs author details.
  • Ref #229 "Leo and Bar.." needs author details.
  • Ref #231 "Green, p. 12." To be consistent, this could do with a year.
  • Ref #232 "Leonardo DiCaprio, model.." needs author details.
  • Ref #238 "Hollywood Gives Hillary.." needs author and date of publication details.
  • Ref #239 "Leonardo DiCaprio turns over.." I can't see why this has "hermesauto"?
  • Ref #245 "Successful Hollywood.." If we are going to list staff writers, then a lot more of the references will need details adding. I would recommend removing it from here.
  • Ref #251 "Q&A: Leonardo.." needs author details.
  • Ref #253 "The 100 Sexiest.." needs author details.
  • Ref #255 "A Powerfully Complex.." needs author details.
  • In the book sources, be consistent about whether you list the location, and link the publisher or not.
  • More detail is required for Green, Matt. Celebrity Biographies.
  • Only a year, not a specific date is required for book sources: Wight, Douglas (April 2, 2012). Leonardo DiCaprio.

That's the lot. Harrias talk 15:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, thank you for the source review. I have attempted to resolve all of them. FrB.TG (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. A couple outstanding still, or I have queried further. Nothing major. Harrias talk 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! These ones should be okay now as well. FrB.TG (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good work. Harrias talk 07:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: can we close this please? It’s been open for so long; I’d like this to wrap now. FrB.TG (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia edit

Scorsese, on his part, has said, "Leo will give me the emotion where I least expect it and could only hope for in about three or four scenes. And he can do it take after take."
This is not:
  • Of his success, DiCaprio says, "My attitude is the same as when I started. I feel very connected to that fifteen-year-old kid who got his first movie".
Please check throughout; there are other instances.
  • I re- checked a few instances of logical quotation, and found them to be OK now. I don't have time to check every instance, so will leave this unstruck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two quotes in blue quote boxes might be more effective/enduring if the reader had a date associated with the comment.
  • It does not appear that reviewer above checked for reliability of sources used.
The reviewer did in fact question the reliability of some dubious sources which I quickly replaced. FrB.TG (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? He ended the 2000s by producing the psychological horror thriller film Jaume Collet-Serra's Orphan (2009) -- >> He ended the 2000s by producing director Jaume Collet-Serra's psychological horror thriller, Orphan (2009)
  • Ugh, "subsequently". DiCaprio's parents met while attending college and subsequently moved to Los Angeles. Moved to LA after college? After they met?
  • Caton-Jones has said DiCaprio did not know how to behave on set; he subsequently applied a strict mentoring style and was satisfied with how DiCaprio changed after filming finished.
    • DeCaprio changed after filming finished? What does "subsequently" add? so he applied a strict mentoring style? And said after filming finished that he was satisfied?
      • Caton-Jones has said DiCaprio did not know how to behave on set so he applied a strict mentoring style and saw improvements in him. --> Perhaps: Caton-Jones has said DiCaprio did not know how to behave on set; he applied a strict mentoring style that he said resulted in improvements in DiCaprio's behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose redundancies, and repetitive wording, check throughout, samples:
    • When he was two, he went to a performance festival with his family where he went up on stage and started dancing to a cheerful response from the crowd, which he loved. Went to, went up on ... try to vary the wording. Went on stage and danced ?
      • Now we have: At the age of two at a performance festival, he went on stage and danced spontaneously to a cheerful response from the crowd, which he loved. At ... at ... "loved is non-specific" ... still awkward. If you could put a quote here of what the source says I might offer suggestions. When he was two, he went on stage at a performance festival and danced spontaneously; the cheerful response from the crowd ... started his interest in performing? ... foreshadowed his later interest in acting ? Something better than "he loved". SandyGeorgia (Talk)
    • When his older stepbrother Adam Farrar earned a check of $50,000 for a television commercial, DiCaprio, fascinated with this, also decided to become an actor
      • The redundancy is now removed, but could we not hear he has a stepbrother earlier in the section (is that his mother's or father's son) when the parents are introduced. Does Adam Farrar meet notability? If so, he should be red-linked; if not, why is he named? Can we say earlier that he has a stepbrother, his (mother or father's son), who also is/was an actor (??), and does he need to be named? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure mentioning earlier that he has an actor stepbrother would necessarily add anything. The mention of his stepbrother was simply because the fat amount of money he earned for an ad was the cause of DiCaprio's determination to become an actor as well. It could've very well been anyone else. He does not necessarily meet notability and so, as you say, does not need to be named. FrB.TG (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But we have to mention his stepbrother to introduce the $50,000, and at the point we introduce him, the reader is left wondering where he came from. It seems that at least his name may not be needed, but that he exists should be mentioned earlier, so the $50,000 story works. (Please leave lines between each major point to help out my old eyes :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After pleading guilty in 2010, Wilson was sentenced to two years in prison --> Wilson pled guilty and was sentenced in 2010 to two years in prison. (Unlikely she was sentenced before she pled.)
  • DiCaprio dated German fashion model Toni Garrn from July 2013 until December 2014, and briefly reunited in 2017. They briefly reunited?
Not sure what's odd about "reunited", but revised. FrB.TG (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a benefit "11th Hour" fine art auction he organized in 2013, he raised nearly $40 million towards his foundation. --> he raised or the benefit raised? towards his foundation or for his foundation? The "11th hour" fine art auction he organized in 2013 raised nearly $40 million for his foundation?
    • Now we are beginning a sentence with a number: "11th Hour", a benefit fine art auction he organized in 2013, raised nearly $40 million for his foundation.
      • Now we have faulty punctuation: A benefit "11th Hour" fine art auction he organized in 2013, raised nearly $40 million for his foundation. How about: He organized a 2013 benefit, "11th Hour", that raised nearly $40 million for his foundation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NBSP needed between 40 million. Similar everywhere. Also between 11 and academy awards, samples only, NBSP work needed.

Enough for now, these are samples only. I had intended only to look for MOS compliance, but just scanning the page looking for MOS things to check, I am finding too many prose issues. This article is not ready for promotion, and should have a thorough copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to reduce some prose redundancies mainly in these edits. FrB.TG (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have had time to address the other issues I raised (NBSP, Logical quotes, subsequently) let me know and I will re-read the article. On my first pass, I did not read the article-- only highlighted prose issues I noted when checking for MOS compliance. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I forgot to mention that I’ve tried to address other non-prose issues as well. FrB.TG (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks; I will read through tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See MOS:CURRENCY. Presumably, all $ mentioned in this article are US$. There is one instance of US$ in the body of the article, but it should be defined on the first occurrence (which is in the lead), and removed from the body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table of contents:
2.1 1991–1996: Major projects and breakthrough
2.2 1997–2001: Stardom with Titanic and subsequent setback
2.3 2002–2009: Success with biopics, dramas and producing
2.4 2010–2013: Inception, Django Unchained and further films with Martin Scorsese
2.5 2014–present: Documentaries, The Revenant and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
MOS Layout says, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." FA crit 2b calls for "appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings".

Major projects seem to be all films, so not sure what that wording adds. I am not sure "subsequent setback" is justified, necessary or helpful-- most performers get some negative reviews, and the idea this was a "setback" is not well justified by the text. While "Stardom" is well justified by the sources, I am not sure the "Success with" adds anything, and it sounds POV-ish. Biopics, dramas and producing (noun, noun, verb) is awkward. I am not sure that section heading captures the essence of that period. Naming individual films (other than Titanic, which launched him) is adding length. What do you think about something like:

2.1 1991–1996: Film career launched
2.2 1997–2001: Titanic brings stardom
2.3 2002–2009: Move into film production
2.4 2010–2013: Collaboration with Martin Scorsese
2.5 2014–present: Emphasis on documentaries
I am not tied to any of this wording, rather offering a look at ways you can think about shortening the lengthy section headings.

I re-visited only some of the items above, and will continue tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have implemented your suggestions almost exactly, as I like them better than mine. I'd be interested to know if this can be further improved within the scope of FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working; I have not suggested this nomination needs to be withdrawn, if that is what you are asking.  ?? More tonight, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I was concerned that my suggested headings not lead to a need to move some text between sections; hope you checked that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, I don't like "Film career launched." Sure, "Major projects and breakthrough" isn't much better, but "breakthrough" is used in the heading of some of our celebrity biographies (including GAs and FAs). Maybe go with "Start of film career" or "Beginning of film career"? Also, "Stardom with Titanic" will make readers think that the whole section is about Titanic. So "Stardom after Titanic" crossed my mind. But the stardom did begin with Titanic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, juggling headings at this stage is bound to raise issues like this; again, please don't think my suggestions needed to be taken literally-- they were just ideas for how to shorten convoluted headings, but careful consideration rules over getting it done quickly. How about Titanic and stardom, to avoid the after, brings, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think “Titanic and stardom" could better work for the Titanic subheading. How about “career beginnings” for the 1996 subsection? FrB.TG (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to both. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, DiCaprio and his mother later moved around to multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods, such as Echo Park and Los Feliz, while the latter worked several jobs. (What is wrong using "she" in place of "the latter" here?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cumbersome: DiCaprio was named Leonardo because his pregnant mother was looking at a Leonardo da Vinci painting in the Uffizi museum in Florence, Italy, when he first kicked. How about:
    • DiCaprio was named Leonardo because his mother, then pregnant with him, first felt him kick while she was looking at a Leonardo da Vinci painting in the Uffizi museum.
  • Why is the Appian Way hatnote at the top of the Career section when it is linked in the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failed verification: "The film grossed only about $340,000 against its €6-million budget,[46] but has been included in the catalogue of Warner Archive Collection.[47]" I went to the source to try to figure out why we have a mix of $ and Euros, but cannot find the budget there. Since we are switching currencies, would it be helpful to the reader to convert the Euros to dollars as of the budget date? Can we avoid the hyphen plus multiple currency by saying "compared to a budget of €6-million ? The reader is given no idea how the second clause relates to the first, or why the "but". Tell the reader why it is significant that it was included in the catalogue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highly anticipated, the film was released to positive reviews and became one of the highest-rated wide release films of 2006. Released ... release ... try to vary the prose to avoid using the same word twice in one sentence. Shouldn't wide-release film be hyphenated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose redundancy: The film earned a total of $357 million against its $90-million budget.

OK, here's where I stand overall. I was asked by Ealdgyth to do a MOS review here, and agreed to do so because the article already had five full supports, and I assumed the prose was ready. And still, everywhere I look to check MOS compliance, I am instead finding prose issues. I really do not want to get involved in a line-by-line prose-fixing FAC. It does not seem fair to lodge an Oppose (because much more deficient prose than what I am finding here is getting through FAC every day now), but I would rather leave this review now for the Coords to decide what to do next. I will return in a few days to strike anything that I have raised that has been addressed, but I don't really want to go through the entire article when spotchecks are revealing this many issues. Best of luck here, and I do suggest that future nominations would benefit from finding a collaborator to copyedit, and perhaps another for MOS review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. I wasn't expecting a line-by-line review anyway; it's an extremely time-consuming process. It wouldn't have been unfair to oppose if you feel it doesn't necessarily meet 1a, and it's sad that FAC is filled with badly-written articles. I am very much glad that I drastically improved this article, which was is terrible shape before and which I had been meaning to expand for years. It was indeed a fun project to take on after two years of inactivity on FAC and Wikipedia in general. I don't think it makes sense to keep this FAC running anymore. (@FAC coordinators: !) What I wish would have gone a little differently though was if this review came earlier and not at a point where I was expecting closure. Anyway, I will try to resolve your remaining points as well. There's no reason why this cannot be further improved even if it's not at FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please post to my talk page if I can be of assistance in the future. I am not always around, and I hate those blooming pingie thingies, but even when I am not around, there is a better chance I will see a talk page post than a ping. I am always glad to help if I am available; your hard work to bring this article to an overall good standard is worth it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 22 December 2019 [16].

Bengal famine of 1943 edit

Nominator(s):  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Revised nomination statement]: Somewhere between 2 and 3 million people in India perished in 1943–44, and their suffering and the ends of their lives were arguably preventable. I have labored for three full years now, from February 2016, because I felt keenly all that time that their deaths deserved to be explained in full, or at least as fully as any ordinary citizen can do – including the very complex array of (possible) causes, the tragedy of their suffering, the response of many others at the time and later. Some inquisitive high school or college student in Melbourne or Vancouver or Bern or wherever who wishes to take the time to read it should be able to quickly access a completely free, one-stop resource that uses a stringently neutral and consistently meticulous approach. The article at least attempts to unpack the manner that several complex forces can interact in genuinely terrible ways. The goal was to avoid making an article that is splashed with shrieks of blame, while not avoiding potentially uncomfortable facts. The article should look at every aspect of the issue from all available angles, and explain the relative weight that scholars attach to those views in retrospect. That article is now up for FAC review for the fourth time. I welcome all comments.

Changes since the last FAC include but are not limited to:

  • Trimming the footnotes by 1/3. [And readers who do not like footnotes are always very free to ignore them anyhow].
  • Adding women journalists to the Media etc. section (still searching for more)
  • Specifying that the Provincial Government of Bengal was largely composed of Muslims. [The (British) Government of India laid the blame on them for the famine]
  • Paragraphs about prioritised distribution re-inserted.
  • Added mention of Wavell as among those who repeatedly practically begged for grain shipments (full details should rightfully be added to Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell)
  • Reordering of some sections
  • Various trimming and copy editing, etc.
  • Promotion to GA and nearly immediate review at GAR (for technical reasons, I'll explain if requested). Excellent review by Vami IV
  • Other things I don't remember at the moment.
  • As a small note, I think the breathless pace of my replies in the previous FAC was distracting. I hope to move at a steady, measured pace. Your patience is appreciated.

Prenomination FAC Support by Fowler&fowler edit

    • Pre-nomination, Fowler&fowler wrote on the GAR page (see diff here: "I would like to add that I'll be taking a vacation from Wikipedia very soon. After this rigorous GAR, I expect the article will go to its well-deserved FAC. I won't be here, but please consider this post an expression of my Support for promotion to FA. The article has seen major improvements since I opposed it at an earlier FAC. May I take this opportunity also to express my thanks, admiration, and congratulations to Lingzhi2 for persevering with this article through thick and thin. All the best, Fowler&fowler.
@Lingzhi2: I am on vacation. Someone emailed me, so I am making this post. My earlier post elsewhere, which I stand by, expressing support is a general expression of support born of intuition and experience. It is not one arrived at in a formal FAC review. I would be more comfortable if you changed its heading to "Pre-nomination support by Fowler&fowler," or simply refer to it with a link in the nomination note. Speaking of the nominator's note, I am a little disappointed that for it you have copied a post of mine (verbatim), without attribution. Please fix this in some fashion. Finally, you have replaced the infobox image I had supplied File:Dead or dying children on a Calcutta street (the Statesman 22 August 1943).jpg with the previous one, File:Statesman j.jpg (size 387x257). I understand that the licensing for my image is incorrect. As I have pointed out, my image has more detail. By magnifying the image you can see the details of the sari border which you cannot in the previous image; the child's face is a little more discernible. Also, the fringe object on the left is now absent in my image. I have further reduced my image to size 386x254. If @Nikkimaria: and others knowledgeable about images feel my image has more encyclopedic value, then the thing to do would be to upload it on Wikipedia as a fair use image and replace the previous image with it. I will not be here to respond to any queries. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the inconvenience. I had already asked Nikkimaria what to do about the images, but her reply left me with numerous options, all of which seemed to require either switching the license (wasn't sure I could do that, licensing issues can be tricky) or bothering you (didn't want to do that, since I have a full measure of respect for your wish to have a wikibreak). As for your comment which I copied, I apologize and will now delete (not strike through). I am sorry that someone felt it necessary to bother you with this. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to Fowler's image was with regards to the licensing, which I don't believe to be correct; either image could be used under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) OK. This gets complicated. Fowler&fowler's img is/was on Commons, so no Fair Use rationale can be used. Moreover, this img is also already in use on another WP article... so... I did the best I could. I selected "Upload a new version", uploaded Fowler&fowler's cleaned version to my WP img file, changed the rationale to mention Fowler&fowler's source (not mine), rename/moved my WP img to Fowler&fowler's file name (simply so it would be obvious that we are using that file), and nominated Fowler&fowler's Commons version for deletion. I hope this is satifactory. As I said, I did the best I could. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Serial Number 54129 edit

Support by Vami edit

  • Support. Full disclosure, I was the GAR reviewer. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Your support is appreciated. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question One of the reason previous FACs failed was due to a lack of support for the changes to the article and the nomination by other editors who are working on the article. Is there now consensus support among these editors that the article is of FA standard? No such discussion seems to have been started on the talk page before this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed F&F's rather detailed Support above, which explicitly states that he changed his mind about his past Oppose. F&f is among the most respected of editors in areas related to India that Wikipedia has on hand. You could at least make a reasonable case that F&F is the most respected editor in this area (I won't say that unreservedly, out of simple respect to other very admirable editors). Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A number of editors have been involved in this article. Do they also support the nomination? @SlimVirgin: do you have views regarding this nomination? Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, re Is there now consensus support among these editors that the article is of FA standard?....of course not yet, though major editors and those most closely involved (not me, I'm just a copy editor) view it now ready for FAC. Is it perfect? No. Is it ready for our best and most astute minds to help and pick over? Yes. As such, can you engage, and also, would like to ping @RegentsPark: for input and help. Note as Lings friend I won't be supporting or otherwise, but for me, having been benefited in the past from her (and F&F's) reviews of FACs I helped put up, a view or review from Sarah would be hugely valuable. I do appreciate the less than sterling past history here, but given the significance of the page, and its potential, I hope that people can one again roll up the selves and work towards improvement. Obviously, Fowler's opinion is held by all in great stock; until Lingzhi appeared here, he was alone in covering southern Asian famines - these are among his other India related achievements. But to be clear, he indicated that it should be reviewed, NOT that it should be passed. There is a great distance there, which Nick, is where we need you to come in. Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following the article and monitoring the changes for a bit and am generally supportive of putting it through the FA process. However, the article is an important one, is also long and complex and contains many references, and it needs to be put through the wringer to make sure that statements in references are not cherry picked or removed from proper context (if I recall correctly, the methodology used in identifying sources was an issue in the previous FA iteration). There is also the, admittedly difficult, issue of whether the article is missing important content but Fowler's support above is reassuring on that count. The point I'm trying to make is that this could easily be one of our finest featured articles, but we won't know that unless it is thoroughly reviewed. I'm mostly a gnome these days but will try to do my bit with some leg work over the coming couple of weeks. --regentspark (comment) 15:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely appreciate your time and trouble. I still have the vast majority of the resources on hand. Email any requests... Thank you again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

Note, am involved as a copy-editor, so wont be supporting or opposing or otherwisee. IMO the article needs to be less polemic; some claims are reasonable and obv true on their face, but stated harshly and with an obv POV that could be removed without the meaning changed. i see this as actionable and within the scope of a FAC. Ceoil (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ceoil, for bringing up the topic of WP:NPOV.
My first line of argument against accusations of POV concerns what is not on the page. If you search through talk page history, you will find that I again and again and again deleted that "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?" quote of Churchill's. I consider its use a polemical anti-UK tool, spoken by a man who was under unspeakable pressure, who may have been racist and was probably drunk. Ditto for recent research.. crappy research IMHO... that drew the polemical conclusion that its findings constituted "proof" that the famine was man-made. You may recall in the previous FAC that one early commenter made emotional anti-UK comment "there is no question where responsibility lies... It feels like Ireland all over again." diff but I gently requested that the editor delete it or strike it through diff (edit summary: " May I ask you to strike through the last two sentences of your reply?"). I recently added a bit about nationalist female journalists. What I did not choose to include was a quote from one of them: "The dead men, women and children of Bengal make short work of the so-called democratic fairy tales of Churchill and Roosevelt," or mention the accompanying cartoon of Puran Chand Joshi pouring the blood of Bengal into a chalice held by a British officer. I seem to recall the tone of Churchill's Secret War, which I cited many times, being relentlessly anti-British. [IIRC, she had a few kind words for Wavell, mainly because Wavell hated Churchill]. Yet when I quoted her anti-UK, anti-Churchill sentiments, I did so by explicitly calling them nationalist, and framing them as only one (POV) voice among many. Time does not permit me to list all the anti-UK quotes I did not use. Oh wait, speaking of Wavell, here's a Wavell quote I did not use: "...the vital problems of India are being treated by His Majesty's Government with neglect, even sometimes with hostility and contempt". But as I said, Wavell hated Churchill... So to be honest, I have bent over backwards to avoid a polemical, anti-British stance.
My second argument against POV is to ask where the POV is. "Scorched earth", for example, sounds harsh, but our WP page defines it as "A scorched-earth policy is a military strategy that aims to destroy anything that might be useful to the enemy when retreating from a position. Any assets that could be used by the enemy may be targeted. This usually includes obvious weapons, transport vehicles, communication sites, and industrial resources. However, anything useful to the advancing enemy can be targeted including food stores and agricultural areas, water sources...". Which is exactly what the denial policies did... That's an example. Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont doubt you, and am only bring up matters of prose. Obv (given the above statements to Nick) I see the article as a significant feather to the project as a whole. My recent edits have mostly sorted out what I was on about. I dint detect POV in terms of pro or anti, say imperialism, more so that the wording is emotional at times. Obv, how could that not come through after deep research, but its all mostly now sorted into detached ency language. I am conflicted but if was a neutral editor, IMO yes this should be an FA, though I look forward to further input. Ceoil (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up both maps
    • I tried upright=1.5 .. does that look OK? Will sort out other issues in a few hours, tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • I did the best I could; suggestions welcome. I am uncertain about one image, so queried on talk pages of RegentsPark and Winged Blades of Godric. I also skipped the Gandhi image, because its usefulness is currently under discussion. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Map_of_Bengal_districts_1943.png should include a tag for US status
    • URAA licensed. Published in The Government of India's Famine Commission Report (1945). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't that have the copyrighted expiring after the URAA date? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, this one's OK: "Text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports are free from copyright." This would be "other government reports" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Chittaprosad-Hungry-Bengal-sketch1.jpg: I don't see that this particular image is discussed in the article - am I missing that?
It's at the end of the "Media coverage" section, "A contemporary sketchbook of iconic scenes of famine victims, Hungry Bengal: a tour through Midnapur District in November, 1943 by Chittaprosad, was immediately banned by the British and 5,000 copies were seized and destroyed.[341] One copy was hidden by Chittaprosad's family and is now in the possession of the Delhi Art Gallery." I put it in the "Sanitation and undisposed dead" section because it depicts undisposed dead ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gandhi_writing_1942.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been looking. I've established that it probably really was by Kanu Gandhi, as the image info says, see [wayback]. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh. I found this photo in the Library of Congress here, with an ugly copyright notice here. I wonder, how on earth can GandhiServe Foundation claim copyright on an image taken in India in 1942 when "Photographs created before 1959 are in the public domain 50 years after creation, as per the Copyright Act 1911... no wait, that act was repealed in the UK in 1956.. no wait, never repealed in India? .. no wait, how does it apply to 1959 when the act was from 1911 and repealed in 1956... So you see, this is why I feel hopeless whenever I try to look into images... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • People claim copyright on public-domain stuff all the time, but for this case unfortunately none of those links answer the question. What is the first publication of the image that can be ascertained? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not believe this information is retrievable. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. The URAA tag relies on it being published by a certain date; if we can't ascertain that, the image cannot be used with that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Should I tag it for deletion then? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • At this point we don't have enough information to determine its status either way - perhaps the LOC might have more information? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) LOC no use. The Internet says historical archives etc. related to India are a shambles; difficult to find any kind of attribution for anything. I did find a Life magazine cover from 1946 that has the same Gandhi spinning image we have. Can use? I mean the one without LIFE written across it. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are we still talking about this 1942 image, or a different one? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was talking about a different one, which was on the cover of Life in 1946, and which I saw in Commons (but can't find again at the moment). But hey, can I just use our "Valued Image", File:Mahatma-Gandhi, studio, 1931.jpg? The reason I didn't go with this one from the beginning is because it's from 1931 and we have others dated much nearer the famine. In a previous FAC, people were complaining about images from 40 years before the famine.... images of rural scenes, boats, etc...Better yet, here's one in Noakhali (a district of Bengal) in 1946 File:Gandhi in Noakhali, 1946.jpg This one is both geographically and chronologically better. It's a still from a filmstrip I think. I might wanna crop it and upload as a new copy if the licensing is OK.. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it's missing a tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am tracking down info on this image by contacting its uploader, who is an admin on Commons among other things... I think this image might be URAA-able. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found all the necessary data. This image is URAA-able. Published for public use in a museum circa 1950. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wouldn't that have copyright expiration after the URAA date? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Nikkimaria: I think I got everything covered. Do things look OK? Tks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: OK, as I noted above, I think the map above is OK because it is a government work. As for the Gandhi photo, after puzzling out the URAA small text, it seems to me the photo needs to have been published before 1937. I have swapped it therefore for File:Mahatma-Gandhi, studio, 1931.jpg, published in 1931. Please let me know what else needs to be done... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image description for the new Gandhi image states it was probably published in the US around the time of creation - if that's the case the URAA tag would not apply. Any more specifics available on publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I am now on the verge of completely giving up trying to find any public domain photo of Gandhi. I may simply remove it and be done with it. Here is my last grasping-at-straws attempt: I found a handful of news stories with identical text. There are three or four specific photos of Gandhi that the Indian govt has approved to be placed in all Indian govt offices. The descriptions are 'The GR says the Government has approved the photographs received from three agencies, namely Rex Photo Studio, Bombay, bust size 16 – 22”, Vanguard Studio, Bombay, size 14” – 17” – Dandi Kuch upright position and Associated Photo Service, Delhi bust size with folded hands size 10” – 12”.' Since these photos are in every govt office in India, does that get me any kind of get-out-of-licencensing-limbo-free card, assuming I can find one of those photos? Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it wouldn't get you out of US licensing limbo - any idea when those were taken and when they were approved for distribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Nikkimaria: To answer your question, the relevant govt resolution was June 2 1949. the photos.. one mentions Dandi Kuch, which would be the Salt March from 12 March 1930 to 6 April 1930.... However, I just flat gave up and deleted the Gandhi image. I await your comments. Thank you for your time and trouble. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SC edit

I have only a general knowledge of the subject and have done no proper reading into it. This review—per my standard caveat—is only on the prose element of the text and a brief check of the formatting of the sources for any glaring errors. It does not include a review of the literature used or a check on other sources, or on if the text reflects the reliable histories etc.

You should be commended for taking on this rather mammoth subject and making such a good article out of it. There are some niggly little prose issues, but these should not take too much effort to out right. As it's a big article, I'll review in bite-sized pieces.

General
  • According to MOS:DATERANGE, years should be 1942–1945, rather than 1942–45: it's a stupid rule, so I don't mind if you ignore it or not.
  • There are numerous examples where the closing quote marks are outside the punctuation. Per WP:LQ, the punctuation should be outside quote marks, unless it's a full sentence.
    • I think I found/fixed all these. Tks.
  • You have both World War II and Second World War – best to be consistent with just one.
    • I think I've fixed these, tks.
  • You have a mixture of en and em dashes – against be consistent with just one style (and make sure the em dashes always unspaced or the en dashes are spaced, whichever you chose)
  • There are a few examples of duplicate links which should be looked at.
    • Done, as far as I can see, except for one dupelink to Churchill... but those two links are really far apart. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the serial comma in some place, and don't in others - and there doesn't seem to be a logic in where it's been used. Personally I would do without it (which is probably the most favoured course in BrEng), but there's no harm using it if you prefer - just as long as it's consistent
    • Ack this will be hard to find and fix, will probably do it programmatically but busy at the moment... tks...
  • You have page ranges as pp. 108–9, pp. 284–85 and pp. 300–301. These should all be consistently done as the MoS-advised format pp. 300–301. There are also a couple of pp for single pages.
    • Got them I think. A dozen P/PP errors are false alarms. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "Cormac Ó Gráda writes": you need to introduce who he is so we know what weight to give his words. "The economic historian Cormac Ó Gráda writes…" would suffice (and you should delink his name in the Historiography section too)
    • Got it, tks

Done to the top of "Pre-famine shocks and distress": more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1942–45
Military build-up
  • "100 tons of warm clothing" – you should provide a conversion on all weights and measures
March 1942
Denial policies
  • "British military[T]" I am not a fan of notes or citations after a word or two in the sentence – they have no sense or logic and completely stop a reader in their tracks. Best moved to the end of the sentence
Mid-1942
Prioritised distribution
  • "as much as 80% of the armament, textile and heavy machinery production used in the Asian theater". There isn't anything in this quote that cannot be re-phrased outside a quote
  • The two quotes in the last two paragraphs should be attributed inline to the authors – although the second of them could probably be re-written in WP's voice.
Civil unrest
  • "The war grew resentment and fear": not the right word. "escalated" would work, as would "produced"

Done to the top of 1942–43: Price chaos. I've been doing some minor tweaks while I've been going on – minor stuff, partly EngVar, partly MoS bit. - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 1942
Natural disasters
  • "cattle; while rice": this should either be "cattle, while rice" or "cattle; rice".
    • Ha ha yes. I teach freshman composition classes. I need to deduct points from my own score. Where's my red pen when I need it?
  • In the block quote 1000 and 3000 should carry commas (even if not in the original, we can alter them in such a small manner).
October 1942
Unreliable crop forecasts
  • The opening few sentences are just repetitions of the closing ones of the previous section.
  • Overall this para could be a bit more polished, I'm not a fan of listing in prose as "First", "Second", etc, and the "Moreover" jarred as I thought that was the third point until I got to "Finally", at which point I stopped reading and went back to counting the points to get a sense of what was happening.
    • I hope I have addressed these points all in one whack. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Air raids on Calcutta
  • "The Famine Inquiry Commission's Report of 1945" could be "The Famine Inquiry Commission's 1945 report", which would make it smoother. You should ensure that here and in a couple of other places the "report" is given in lower case, as it's not a full title.
    • Done
  • "as a causation" jars. "as a cause" is better, but grammatically speaking you need to say of what it was a cause.
  • 'the shortfall was "2 million tons"': this doesn't need to be in quotes, and you should add a conversion too
@SchroCat: I am very embarrassed to admit I am a bit slow here... do you know how these should be converted? Long? Short? Metric? I am embarrassed to say I do not know how to do this. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1942–44
Refusal of imports
  • "less than three weeks before The Statesman's graphic photographs of starving famine victims in Calcutta": this is kind of sprung on us. This is the first mention of the publication. I know you have a media section further down, but as this is how the news was broken to the wider world, you need more about it here otherwise we're just groping in the dark.

Done to the end of the "Pre-famine shocks and distress" section (are we sure that's the right title to use for this? Having completed the section, not only have we dealt with part of the famine, I'm not sure about the shocks or distress either.

More to follow. (Overall this is very good from a prose point of view). – SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Famine, disease, and the death toll
  • "they resembled "living skeletons"" As this is a quoted opinion, I'd add "according to ..." at the end, just to clarify it's not WP's voice (regardless of the quote marks)
    • Attributed
  • "Statistics for smallpox and cholera are probably more reliable": that's an opinion, so you need to say whose it is

Attributed

  • "excerpted": Not, as far as I am aware, a word in British English
    • excerpted --> derived
Social disruption
  • I am not sure that "valorised" is the right word, and if it is, it's too obscure for people to grasp. (The OED has it as "To raise or stabilize the value of (a commodity, etc.) by a centrally organized scheme; gen. to evaluate, to make valid. ")
    • Valorised --> "highly valued"
  • "There were cases recorded of parents abandoning their children by the roadsides or at orphanages." That repeats the first sentence of this paragraph
  • "the fate of these women and children was an immense social cost of the famine". Again, I'd use "according to ..."
    • Copy edited this paragraph for clarity, tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Economic and political effects
  • "When compared to the base period of 190–41," needs fixing
    • Got it tks
  • "galvanized both the Nationalist struggle in India" Again, I'd add "according to ..."
    • reworded to remove direct quote, thanks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the start of the Historiography section. More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – and a strong one at that. This is an excellent article, and one I will strongly Support on prose. This is a huge topic, complex in the number and variety of disparate viewpoints and difficult to summarise without losing context and nuance. I think Lingzhi has done an excellent job here. Sorry Nick-D, but I don't see a problem with the "attitude" here. Lingzhi has accepted nearly all your suggestions, even when he has disagreed with them (I have disagreed with one or two of the, too, but I don't have a dog in this fight). I hope some agreement can be made with regard to the sourcing (I've not gone through the full discussion there); I think that can be sorted, and I hope both Lingzhi2 and Fiamh can continue discussing matters in a constructive manner to overcome any remaining problems there. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fiamh edit

  • Formatting issues:
    • Bowbrick 1985, Devereux 2000 and Osmani 1993 are incorrectly formatted according to your tools.
    • Some books are missing publication locations; for example Ó Gráda 2009 and Mukherjee 1987
      • I did find one book that was missing a location, thanks. As for the two you mentioned, I believe there's a rule that you don't need to include a location if the publisher is a university and the name of the university includes the location: Cambridge University Press is in Cambridge, Princeton University Press is in Princeton, etc. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have never heard of this rule. I don't really care either way as long as it's consistent. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 04:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is consistent: it consistently omits the location when the name of the university press contains the location...and not under any other circumstances... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've selected three sources at random for spot checks: Weigold 1999, Ó Gráda 2008, and Mukherjee 2015, based on this version. All of Weigold and Ó Gráda was checked as well as the first ten references from Mukherjee. I'm not listing checks where source supported text.
    • Weigold 1999 Addressed
      • ref 105: The article text is However, evidence that fraudulent, corrupt and coercive practices by the purchasing agents removed far more rice than officially recorded, not only from designated districts, but also in unauthorised areas, suggests a greater impact. The most similar thing that I found in the source is: The purchasing agents bought coercively, draining the area of rice and radically altering the food position in the delta area. To the end Pinnell believed that government instructions were followed, that the amount of rice deposited in government stores was all that was removed. But maybe it is supported by the other two references?
        • Thank you for your comments. it may take me a while to cover them in detail; I'm busy in real life for the next couple of weeks.... In my opinion, Weigold in fact covers most of that quote already (and I will cover the other quotes below). Both the Weigold quote and the Wikipedia sentence in question are about the purchasing agents. Weigold's "...bought coercively" covers Wikipedia's "coercive practices" and Weigold's "draining the area of rice and radically altering the food position in the delta area" certainly covers Wikipedia's "suggests a greater impact", given that that sentence relates to/negates the previous sentence in our article, which is "Official figures for the amounts impounded were relatively small and would have contributed only modestly to local scarcities"... The other sources for that quote are J. Mukherjee 2015, pp. 62, 272; Greenough 1982, pp. 94–5. Greenough covers "corrupt". he goes through a few details about the purchasing agents on page 94 and concludes on p. 95 "...make it more than likely that the popular suspicion of fraud and rapacity was correct." Mukherjee p. 62 states "Charges of corruption were also rampant, and not easy to dismiss", then goes through a discussion of details, esp. purchasing from unauthorised areas.n Page 272 discusses Greenough's comments about corruption... but as I said, Weigold is valid for the main points of that quote. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ó Gráda 2008, p. 20
      • ref 77: Article text is Particularly in Bengal, the price effect of the loss of Burma rice was vastly disproportionate to the relatively modest size of the loss in terms of total consumption. I was not able to verify this, but there is a second source. Addressed
        • O'Grada quote covers half of the Wikipedia quote. O'Grada says "The usual supplies of rice from Burma, albeit a small proportion of aggregate consumption, were cut off." This certainly covers Wikipedia's "the loss of Burma rice was... relatively modest size of the loss in terms of total consumption". The other source listed, Bose, draws the connection: "The Japanese occupation of Burma in March 1942 cut off this supply, but more importantly had a vastly disproportionate effect on food prices in a disorderly market." I can send the source if you wish. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • ref 377 references Ó Gráda 2008, p. 39. There is no page 39.
        • @Fiamh: The sentence in question: "Some sources allege that the Famine Commission deliberately declined to blame the UK or was even designed to do so". Many, many sources hit this point. The Osmani source in that set of cites very exlicitly states that the Famine Commission report was "designed to exonerate the administration from any blame for the famines; and by attributing famines to the stinginess of nature, the FAD view fitted nicely in this design”. But you're asking about O' Grada. Obviously I have somehow gotten the page number wrong. Let's see what we find in the source: "... the Report on Bengal failed to point the finger at any representative of HM Government" (p. 24 note 78); "Aykroyd, a member of the Commission, was much more critical of the British government and of Amery and Linlithgow... than the Report had been. It would be naive to suppose that the wartime context did not influence the composition of the Famine Inquiry Commission and its Report on Bengal." (p. 32, note 123). Oh, in the other O'Grada source we have on page 179 a somewhat-more-to-the point quote:" By the same token, the war accounts for the muted, kid-glove tone of the Report on Bengal and its refusal to criticize the authorities in London for leaving Bengal short. It would be naïve to think that the wartime context did not influence the composition of the Commission and its final report." The bit about "muted, kid-glove tone" covers Wikipedia's "deliberately declined to blame"... My vague memory is that "kid-glove tone" is exactly what I had in mind when I (inaccuately) cited O'Grada.. Would you like me to change the details (page number etc) of the O'Grada quote, or delete it entirely? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would cite the other Ó Gráda source if that's what best supports the content. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 10:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • J. Mukherjee 2015. I started to check this, but I realized that the copy of the source I had access to (a pdf) had a different isbn—9780190209889—and the two versions have different pagination. I did notice that the source is referenced in adjacent refs 52 and 53, which support the same text. Shouldn't they be combined?
    • Instead I'm going to check Brennan 1988, again the first ten citations excluding notes.
      • 110: Brennan does not support compromising the livelihoods of boatmen and fishermen, although maybe the other source does. Addressed
      • The full quote here is "severely disrupting river-borne movement of labour, supplies and food, and compromising the livelihoods of boatmen and fishermen." Brennan supports the first half explicitly by saying "...the 'denial' policy had crippled boat traffic near the coast while the roads and railways were clogged with military traffic" and the second half implicitly with "boats were surrendered by their owners, who received in return the market value of the craft along with a sum equal to three months' average earnings when the boat had been used as sole means of livelihood. The crew received a month's wages" .. those are paltry sums when your sole source of income has been destroyed. The other source (O'Grada"states on p. 154 "This ‘boat denial policy’ compromised the livelihoods of two of Bengal’s most vulnerable groups—fishermen and boatmen—and increased transport costs. " ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 174: Maybe this is splitting hairs, but Brennan says nothing about "atmospheric conditions", he only says that the cyclone increased the incidence of malaria.
        • if I recall correctly, the way it did so was by making everything wet. Mosquitoes breed more in wetter conditions etc. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, Brennan says nothing about mosquitoes or wet weather increasing malaria. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 06:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Speaking purely for myself, however, I am not at all sure I would consider this "atmospheric conditions" cite to be a cite failure. In fact, I hope this isn't impolite, but I would say that it definitely is not a cite failure. As you yourself state, "Maybe this is splitting hairs, but Brennan says nothing about 'atmospheric conditions', he only says that the cyclone increased the incidence of malaria." The source says cyclones increased the incidence of malaria; Wikipedia says "It also created local atmospheric conditions that contributed to an increased incidence of malaria" ... I would suggest that the Wikipedia text is an acceptably synonymous restatement of the source, since a cyclone [and its direct, weather-related consequences] falls within the subset of "atmospheric conditions". Wouldn't you agree that it is within that subset?... I would suggest that it seems quite reasonable to say so. In that case, this is not a cite failure... Having said that, I think I saw a source that said the wetness after the cyclone increased malaria. I will look for it. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's original research to insert "atmospheric conditions" as the reason why the cyclone increased malaria. That's why you need to reword or change the source here. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 03:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Fiamh. Ah. Apparently I need to go back and carefully re-read WP:OR..OK, it says, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Source directly related to topic of article? Yes, the article's title is "Government Famine Relief in Bengal, 1943". To put it bluntly, it siomply could not be more directly related. OK, "source directly supports the material being presented"? Absolutely yes. The only condition under which the source does not support the wikitext would be if a cyclone [and its weather related consequences] are not "atmospheric conditions". Would you like to argue that a cyclone is not an atmospheric condition? That would be splitting hairs at best and simply wrong at worst... I know I am being very blunt here, and please do forgive me! But if I, in the name of politeness and deference, say, "Oh sorry, please let me fix that" I would be saying for the record, during a FAC that this cite is OR – which it very emphatically is not. A synonym is not WP:OR. In fact, if you read Wikipedia:These are not original research the very first thing that is not OR is "paraphrasing", and the very first example of that very first point is "synonyms are not OR". Unfortunately, you put me in a strong bind when you invoked WP:OR; now I cannot change it unless you agree that it is not WP:OR. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] (←) There's no other mechanism by which a cyclone can increase malaria. However, i can look for someone else who says the same thing... perhaps I'll find one. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Additional checks: Famine Inquiry Commission, refs between 100 and 150. Same version of article as above.
      • ref 119: These barriers reflected a desire to see that local populations were well fed, thus forestalling civil unrest I was not able to verify this, perhaps I missed something?
        • I think you might have caught a bug. It seems the topic changed from trade barriers to price controls, and price controls were put in place to forestall uprisings etc. The barriers section mentions "emergencies", or something similar I think, but does not specify what kind of emergency. I will look into this further.. I do have a quote from Churchill's secret war, p. 108. "It is only human nature that if you give a province power to prevent grain going out of its border, that province will look to its own safety first". I will continue looking. Is that quote useful, in your opinion?.. Ah, the Minutes by M. Hussain, around pages 190-94 or so, has several mentions of provinces protecting their own citizens by trade barriers. But still no clear reference linking trade barriers to unrest...OK, after reflection, I'm gonna change "civil unrest" to "local emergencies" (which is a direct quote from the page after one that was originally cited). I think it is quite possible that my eyes saw "local emergencies" and my mind thought "civil unrest" when I wrote this a couple years ago. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would just cut "thus forestalling local emergencies". It's obvious why the local governments would be looking after their own interests and starving to death is clearly an emergency. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 04:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • ref 125: This is presented as a direct quote from the famine inquiry, but it isn't. Specifically, the famine inquiry committee quotes an anonymous source on one view on the famine; it isn't said in famine-inquiry-voice. Fixed
        • Thank you. I have added, "As one deponent to the Commission put it". ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall there is a significant issue with failed verification. If a source does not support a given contention it should not be listed, even if the other sources do support it. I don't think the problem is as bad as it first appeared. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 20:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I have to second Nick-D's comments regarding the notes (I know how hard it can be to cut down) and the overuse of the Famine Inquiry Commission source. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 04:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To avoid duplication, I will reply to these two points in Nick's section. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Situation with notes has been much improved! However, I still think note B ought to go. It's distractingly cutting up the very first sentence of the article. Readers who want to know where Bengal province is will click the link and for details of affected areas read the whole article. Removed Fiamh (talk, contribs) 04:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally, I'm satisfied with the improvement in notes. Further discussion should center on individual notes and what they're adding (or not) to the article. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 23:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Fiamh:, Long-ish post, sorry... Thank you for your excellent comments. I hope this won't seem too much of an imposition, but for the sake of this discussion, I'd like to share my past experiences with you. On two occasions now in the dim past I was participating in a FAC (once as a reviewer on someone else's FAC, and once as nominator) when the FAC coordinator(s) rather abruptly slammed the door shut and turned out the lights on that FAC while someone was in mid-sentence. I'm sure the coordinators must have been busy with many other FACs when that happened; it's quite understandable. At any rate, though, given my past experiences, I hope you'll understand if I make a very gentle suggestion or request: If at any time (and I am not at all suggesting that you do it right now) you personally feel that all of the issues have been resolved to your satisfaction, I hope you'll consider going ahead and putting in a +Support !vote. It just seems that it might be somewhat unfortunate if you were thinking, "Oh I'll support..." but then didn't get around to doing so, and the garage door came down... the two issues you previously mentioned were notes and use of FIC as a source. I went through a detailed discussion of the text of WP:PRIMARY below (see "very explicitly allows the use of Primary sources"). I hope that explanation plus the deletion of many footnotes (what was it, maybe as many as 20 now just since this FAC has started) has satisfied your requirements. Thank you again for your time and trouble. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly, however, I was only referring to the notes which have been resolved to my satisfaction. If you look up there are outstanding issues, and I think I ought to do more source checks too. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 02:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, sounds good! I'll look to see if I accidentally overlooked anything. In fact, I see one about cyclones and malaria... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something weird going on with this note: "{{efn-ua|See Greenough (1983, p. 375)"Fiamh (talk, contribs) 03:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional checks

  • Bowbrick 1985, p. 57 does not "forcefully defend" the FIC report; he acknowledges the report's shortcomings. It would be more accurate to say that he forcefully denounces Sen's analysis.
    • Regarding "Bowbrick defends the FIC as a cite error, page 57". Without trying to give offense, you are mistaken.
      • Even on the cited page (57), Bowbrick states: "In my opinion the Famine Commission wrote an excellent report. They sought the truth rather than evidence in favour of their hypotheses. They entered into their study with no preconceived ideas as to whether it was a FAD or a distribution famine and they reached aconclusion that was not in accordance with the official view." I would suggest that, given the criticism the FIC has come under, to call it an "excellent report" with "no preconceived ideas" is a forceful defense, even on the page cited in Wikipedia... but there are more instances (below)
      • Page 57 is already sufficient support. However, another page is even stronger. Page 18 in a section very prominently titled "Why the [FIC] report is considered to be honest" quotes Stevens, “The Famine Commission’s report is as complete, painstaking and balancedan account of what happened and why, as will ever be achievable.” (Stevens, 1966). Sounds forceful.
        • Stevens' opinions should not be attributed to Bowbrick. Your edits here are not an improvement.
      • Page 29, "It must be concluded that the Famine Commission provides by far the most satisfactory explanation of price rises both before and after the cyclone." ["By far the most..." sounds forceful.]
      • At several points... again and again... Bowbrick states that the FIC is right and Sen is wrong, e.g., "The difference is that where the Famine Commission gives ten pages of argument and facts in support of theircarry-over explanation, Sen gives only a sentence or two in support of his explanations." And so on. I consider the source as originally cited to be a completely fair and accurate characterization of the source. However, merely to add more weight to an already sufficient statement, I will add the two pages cited above. Thank you for looking into this. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The relevant passage reads in part, their economic analysis was naive or even wrong in parts. In view of this it is surprising that they should have made few major errors and that they should have been broadly correct in their conclusions. Certainly their analysis had more depth than Sen’s. In spite of the deficiencies of their market analysis, I would not be ashamed to have written such a report. To me that is a qualified rather than forceful defence.
  • Could I have a copy of Mukerjee 2014, "Bengal Famine of 1943: An Appraisal of the Famine Inquiry Commission" for source checks?
  • Unfortunately, I have to second Nick-D's oppose. While I appreciate all of Lingzhi's hard work on the article, the discrepancies between text and sources demonstrate a lack of care towards verifiability and indicate a systemic problem that cannot be addressed via FAC. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 09:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D edit

This article seems considerably approved at first glance since the previous review. I continue to have serious concerns about the process through which it was initially developed (with other editors being actively discouraged from participating) though. I'll probably spot-check the article rather than read through it again. To kick things off, I have the following comments from my previous review and an initial scan of the article's, including its notes and sources:

  • The number of notes has been trimmed a bit, but remains much too high. Many simply repeat in a wordy fashion what has been summarised in the article so add no value, others simply add more sources for already sourced material and some contain material which should be in the body of the article.
    • Everyone sees things differently. If something is in the notes, it is because it seemed to me that it added to the text, and did not seem to me that it would fit properly within the body text. As for being much too high, I see things differently again. Notes are skippable. Don't wanna read 'em? Don't read 'em. There is almost no such thing as "too many" because you are simply not required to read even one of them... Having said that... I can try... to move some into body text and delete a few others. But please bear in mind what Fowler&fowler has said, that the topic is deep and complicated, and explication of details is more necessary here than for the majority of other Wikipedia articles.
      • @Nick-D and Fiamh: I believe we have deleted or moved 13 or 14 footnotes just since the beginning of this FAC. We are now down to 2620. My head doesn't live in a universe in which 2620 is an excessive number for a topic of this complexity, but perhaps yours does. I will look again to see if there may be 1 or 2 left that could be banished. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's still way too many. A number close to 0 would be much better. The current large number is not in accordance with the goal of keeping articles as short as sensible, or the advice at WP:SUMMARY to not try to cram too much into single articles. I don't intend to comment on the large numbers of notes one by one, but here are my views on the first few: the material in note A is very important and should be in the body of the article (I found a table a good way of presenting similar data succinctly in the Air raids on Japan article), note B is discussed in the body of the article, notes C, E and G are probably OK but inessential, note D is unnecessary, note F is UK-centric and odd to modern eyes (why compare the size of bits of India with the UK?) and note H is irrelevant given that three of the four types of land ownership noted were not significant. I note that by note H readers are only up to the start of the second sub-section. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • (Chipping in, while I'm reviewing) I fundamentally disagree on parts of this. There is no bar on the number of footnotes that should or shouldn't be in an article. This is a big and complex subject that needs a lot of background for readers to understand the whole. In most cases the article body would be too bloated if the information were included in the body, and if they are removed then entirely the information in the article is unclear. - SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • While I respect your view, I think that the approach here isn't helpful to readers. Some important information is being made hard to find (especially note A), and other information is simply irrelevant (note H) or close to trivia (note F). I can't recall other FAs on social or history topics with so many notes, and the importance of the topic isn't a good reason to not keep the number of notes down (from some random checking of FAs on big topics, only Middle Ages has more, going up to note AI. As some other FAs on other major social topics, the FA on Canada has four notes, that on Australia twelve and Barack Obama none. As some articles on complex history topics, Sino-Roman relations has 11 notes, British Empire one and Oklahoma City bombing and Ancient Egypt none. Of articles on scientific topics where notes are more frequently used, Earth has 21, most with no references, Venus two, and Moon gets up to note M). At 77kb of text in the body of the article, this is already larger than recommended at WP:SIZERULE. The notes should be included in this calculation given they include so much content, which makes the article really quite large. I'm certainly not opposed to the use of notes, but my concern here is that many are unnecessary, it should be possible to get the number down to something pretty modest and readers would be better served by doing so. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • And there are also Siege of Sidney Street: 7, Spaghetti House siege: 6, Tottenham Outrage: 10, Operation Bernhard: 14, Great Stink: 13, London Beer Flood: 10. The Bengal famine is a huge topic – on its own it is nearly too big to be encompassed in an encyclopaedia, and there is always going to be a lot that needs to drop out of the main body to keep it uncluttered, yet needs to be immediately available in a bite-sized chunk to give sufficient background/context/explanation. I am not commenting on the individual ones yet, but what I have seen in general terms is not a cause for concern. Everyone's mileage differs, but I do not see a major problem with the general situation. (I also disagree with incluing them in the article size: they are out of the article for a reason, and we just don't ever include them.) – SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I ran a quick little research project, and just for the sake of discussion, please consider MILHIST FAs: Balfour Declaration (80), Ulysses S. Grant (67), Ian Smith (35), Henry I of England (36), Henry III of England (34), Battle of Hastings (28), USS Nevada (BB-36), Dreadnought, Battle of Prokhorovka, SMS Derfflinger...OK I cut out a few more. We're down to 2220, but now I am really finding it harder to find things to move or delete. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's still no mention of the relief effort organised by the communist party, which Srinath Raghavan states was of a large scale, effective and had post-war political consequences in his book India's War
    • yes all political groups, not merely or even primarily Communists, engaged in voluntary relief. The Communists were praised for their work, most by the Indian govt I assume.. they were also referred to as "stooges of the Empire" etc etc etc. That's the way politics goes. I will put in a sentence or maybe even two about voluntary relief. I hope to be able to do that in the next hour or two... As for Raghavan, Fowler&fowler called into question his scholarship/reliability...OK I have beefed up private relief discussion and mentioned many groups. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The book is a major history of India in World War II written by an academic expert in this field and published by the Penguin Group. What other sources were ruled out on the basis of what editors thought of them? This kind of response raises real concerns about how well the article reflects the literature on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see one paragraph in Raghavan hailing the relief work of the Communists. It doesn't say the results in terms of feeding people were substantial; it says they gained followers... which is not the focus of this article. The Communists did good things with relief work, it's true, but so did everyone else (as our article notes). Honing in on one political group when many contributed significantly would be textbook WP:UNDUE... Additionally, as for Raghavan being a major author who has been omitted, I feel that this article covers the field extremely well. The list of major works cited in this article include [Author Name & date, Google Scholar as cites at the time of the previous FAC; the numbers are probably a bit higher now]: A Sen 1981a (11,383 Google Scholar cites), A Sen 1977 (299 cites), Ó Gráda 2009 (191 cites), Mukerjee 2010 (112 cites), Knight 1954 (95 cites), Maharatna 1992 (89 cites), Bayly & Harper 2005 (65 cites), Mahalanobis, Mukherjea & Ghosh 1946 (58 cites), Iqbal 2010 (58 cites), S Bose 1990 (47 cites), Ó Gráda 2008 (40 cites), Greenough 1980 (35 cites), Tinker 1975 (31 cites), S Bose 1982 (22 cites), Brennan 1988 (18 cites), Islam 2007a (16 cites), Siegel 2018 (printed only a year ago, and already cited by 11), etc.. Plus Fowler&fowler questioned Ragahavan's accuracy on several points... If for some reason you want me to find something in Raghavan to cite, I could try to do so, but it would be WP:UNDUE to emphasize the Communists... Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The book states that the Communists "undertook extensive relief work in central and northern parts of Bengal" and organised meetings which criticised the lack of action from the government with this leading to them gaining "a major following among the poor peasants and sharecroppers" which had post-war political consequences. This seems pretty significant, and I'm not sure why you're so strongly arguing against following up on this (if other RS don't give much/any weight to the Communists, fair enough, but this source appears to be arguing that this was a significant part of the relief effort). I'm not asking for this to be included as part of a quixotic attempt to push this or similar, but as it's emphasised in one of the few books I own which discusses the famine I'm genuinely curious as to why it's not in the article, especially given one of my concerns in the previous FAC was that the article was structured around a particular narrative which was focused on the role and failings of the British authorities. It's again of concern that this RS is being dismissed based on the views of a Wikipedia editor. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The proportion that things are emphasized in this article is, to the very very very best of my understanding, precisely the proportion that they are emphasized across the entire breadth of the literature, taken as a whole... Oh... I just now typed in a fairly long explication of that assertion here, but then I remembered that people said I talked too much in the previous FAC. Mmmmm, let's give it a one-sentence summary: Academic consensus suggests that the famine was "man-made", and even critics/naysayers of that consensus explicitly admit that it's the consensus. As the article states, the consensus suggests it was brought on by inflationary financing of the war, while other sources (typically Nationalists) assert racism etc. But the "man-made" voices heavily outweigh the others.... This RS is not being dismissed on the concerns of an editor (though that clearly weighs against it). It is unused because he says nothing original, and more oft-cited sources are used instead. Raghavan very strictly toes the line in following Sen's account of the war's causes! [I have to run now.... more later...] ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'cloth famine' section is more focused, but over-long. The material on the amount of cloth India produced and where it went is not necessary: this topic could be covered much better in a single para.
    • I disagree. This is clearly a salient point. Shouldn't there be lots of cloth? If not, why not? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Girls were also prostituted to the military" - still incorrectly claims that the military was purchasing the services of prostitutes. Individual military personnel were doing this.
    • OK I changed "the military" to "soldiers", and I added a "cited in" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material on how Bengal went straight from a disastrous famine to a record rice crop remains very modest, and hidden away in a note with a simplistic explanation (the earlier sections of the article note a range of structural reasons why land was not available for farming and other issues which contributed to the fame - issues such as how were these problems were so rapidly addressed, where the workforce came from given the starvation, whether the Army helped with bringing the crop in and distributing it seem relevant).
    • Added: "Survivors of the famine and epidemics gathered the harvest themselves,[324] though in some villages there were no survivors capable of doing the work.[325]" Moved out of footnote: According to Greenough, large amounts of land previously used for other crops had been switched to rice production..." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table in the 'Famine, disease, and the death toll' is much better and very useful, but what the 'rate' is isn't defined (presumably this is deaths per some number of people?)
    • @Nick-D: In blockquote below is the original footnote/explanatory text. Do you have any suggestions about how we should handle it on Wikipedia? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: 1) All cause-specific death rates are based on a constant denominator - being the enumerated population in the 1941 census. 2) For the period 1937-41, figures in the parentheses [which are in % column in Wikipedia's table] are the respective percentage shares to total average annual deaths, while for both 1943 and 1944 they are the percentage shares to total excess deaths. The excess deaths from each of the above diseases were calculated over the respective average deaths registered during 1937-41. Sources: Government of Bengal, Health Directorate, Bengal Public Health Report. Alipore, Government Press, various years.

      • That's a somewhat unusual way of calculating death rates, and doesn't seem to make sense - does this mean, for instance, that there were only 0.73 deaths from Cholera among the total population on average each year between 1937 and 1943? I presume that the table is actually using the standard calculation of deaths per 1000 people per year (as noted in our Mortality rate article) - the numbers seem to make sense and align with the facts presented in the article if it's deaths per 1000 people. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given there's a huge scholarly and popular literature on this topic, I don't understand why the article relies so heavily on the 1945 Famine Inquiry Commission report - this is a primary source, which pretty much all subsequent authors have drawn on and discussed. The historiography section notes that some experts believe that it was systematically biased.
    • That's an interesting question. One reason this article relies so heavily on FIC is because all other sources (even the bitterest critics) always and everywhere rely heavily on FIC.... In short, everyone, even the most most vehement and even vindictive critics, trusts most of FIC's explication of the details of the events (except.. maybe.. it never mentioned shipping? not sure, will double-check). What many people do not trust is the eventual conclusion that His Majesty's government was mostly blameless, except for kinda maybe failing a little on some points. The FIC blamed the (Muslim) Govt of India; that's the bit many people take issue with. A second point is that many of the FIC cites in this article are supported by cites to other sources... But.... having said all that... Would it make you and Fiamh more comfortable if I tried to comb through every FIC cite that says something like "Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a, pp. 23–24" and tried to modify it to "Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a, pp. 23–24, as cited in AuthorName Year pg.xx"? That would take a while and as I said I am facing Midterms... moreover, I think it is completely unnecessary, since all sources trust FIC's explication of the facts... but I could try to do so. Do you wish to to try to add as many "as cited in..." as possible?
      • Please replace these with secondary sources. There's no need to note whatever it is the secondary sources happens to cite. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree on several counts. I actually strongly disagree that this is a Primary source, but am afraid that topic can be argued forver. So let's just stipulate that FIC is primary. You cannot blanket ban a source because you feel it is primary. WP:PRIMARY very explicitly allows the use of Primary sources. That is , "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." As I said, you cannot blanket ban a primary source. You will need to go through on a case-by-case, cite-by-cite basis, present an individual cite to FIC, and establish that that cite to FIC is used to draw an interpretation rather than to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have listed it in the sources as being a primary source... I am not suggesting a blanket ban on the source, but do not see any reason for it to be so heavily used given the vast secondary literature should be capable of covering pretty much all the points it is being used as a reference for. Secondary sources are obviously preferable to primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually (this is a point of lesser importance, but...) I didn't put it in Primary sources, nor did I even have a Primary sources in my all-100%-Lingzhi version (which is here). Someone else created those sections and put FIC in Primary. I would have done neither. But I just didn't want to argue... And much more importantly, please do bear in mind that all of the secondary sources you wish to insert are themselves drawing the very strong, clear majority of their basic facts from FIC. It would be half-illegitimate to attribute them solely to those secondary sources. If you wanna bring them in, it would be far better IMHO to say "FIC p. xx, as cited it SecondaySource p. yy"). And thirdly... the task you're asking is simply unnecessary. It goes far beyond what is required! I can try to put in a Good Faith Effort to do it to as many cites as I can easily find, but the only reason to do so is to make you feel more comfortable. I must repeat, even if we agree to consider FIC as a primary source, using a primary source for basic facts is absolutely 100% explicitly and clearly permissible in Wikipedia's policies etc. If you want to really argue a point, you must establish that it is an interpretation and not a basic fact. But I can append "as cited in" to some relatively small number of them. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • It should not be necessary to use it often as a reference for facts given the size of the secondary literature (and I don't see the point in saying what references secondary works cite). Relying on such an elderly source for facts is also problematic given that there are over 70 years of subsequent research which may have either improved upon the report or found problems with what it presents as being factual. The report is also frequently used as a citation for analysis (as two examples selected purely at random, the current refs 83 and 84 both use only this report to cite analysis and claims which are likely to be contested regarding the performance of government policies and the parts of India most affected by the war - I would have thought that the areas which were in the frontline and then invaded in 1944 would have been more affected, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been reading up on it and it seems that there has been some criticism of FIC's statistics. According to Tauger 2003, p. 63: "Describing these data as ‘harvests’ is analogous to reporting as a football score the bookies’ wagers made the day before: there is a chance they might be correct, but they are not in the same league as the actual results". A large part of Mukerjeee 2014 is devoted to "Suspect Numbers" and "Discrepancies" in the FIC report. All the more reason to use secondary sources. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 06:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fiamh: Still categorically disagree. The FIC is used for much, much more than statistics here. It describes events. It describes background data. The events and data were a matter of public record at the time, but the newspapers etc are hardly retrievable now. Find the bits that Mukerjee 2014 disapproves of, and see if they are cited in the article as if they are facts. In every instance that is true, I will modify the text to not Mukerjee's disapproval. Meanwhile, no reason to kill the entire orchestra if one of its instruments is wobbly. As I said, WP:PRIMARY explicitly allows use of primary sources (tho I disagree this is one; Wikipedia's definition is over-stretched) to supply background facts etc. If you can show the article uses FIC's info to draw inferences, 'especially about the cause of the famine (the FIC has been accused of being pro-UK), let me know... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of a primary source for the statement that "in late 1943, entire boatloads of girls for sale were reported in ports of East Bengal" also seems avoidable and weakens this material: have historians confirmed that this happened? (as seems horribly likely). "Boatloads" is a somewhat de-humanising term BTW - "entire boats" does the same thing, without the implication that these young women were nothing but cargo.
  • There's surprisingly little discussion of the wartime and post-war political consequences of the famine. Lizzy Collingham notes that these were surprisingly modest, possibly as the key Congress leaders were in jail at the time and didn't see the famine's consequences first-hand, but Srinath Raghavan notes local issues which arose from it. Nick-D (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • the article does mention that the famine had political ramifications. If you wish, I can try to beef this point up. I personally see this as beyond the proper scope of the article. But I can beef it up, perhaps, if I can find such info. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{ping}Nick-D}} as per Nick's request I have beefed up the "politic al impact" section. Please let me know if it meets with your approval. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if I'll review sections of the article in detail given the above, but the recently-added statement that "As Field Marshal William Slim observed, this directly reduced levels of care available to the general population, and "milked the hospitals of India to the danger-point" is problematic. While the quote and page number are correct, Slim does not note in the book that the transfers of medical personnel to the military "directly reduced levels of care available to the general population" as claimed or link this to the famine in any way so this is OR (his concern here is the inadequate medical support for his army). As an autobiography, the book is also obviously a primary source so should not be being interpreted. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two works by Mansergh should be listed as primary sources, as they are compilations of British Government documents. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shifting to oppose given my concerns over the article's sourcing and the nominator's attitude to this (per this post). The article is certainly much improved, and has much to recommend it, but I am not confident that it has FA-level sourcing or that the previous problems around neutrality have been fully addressed. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I sorta hope the FAC coordinators will take a moment to note that you are very explicitly requesting a shift to a more pro-UK POV, as in "...one of my concerns in the previous FAC was that the article was structured around a particular narrative which was focused on the role and failings of the British authorities". But. It's a bit unlikely they will. Thank you for participating. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC) [Striking through direct quote.] ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That kind of battleground mentality is really unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nick-D: I suddenly recalled why your concerns about the "hospitals" quote are at least somewhat misplaced. That is because The Wikipedia text states exactly what you want it to state. You want it to state that meidical care improved under Wavell (that is, when the army took charge, as it is stated somewhat near the quote you have questioned.... It just does so in a different spot in the article. PLease see: "In particular, grain was imported from the Punjab, and medical resources[328] were made far more available.[329]" That assertion fits very logically in the context where it is placed. That context is "When Wavell arrived..." If you would like me to duplicate that cite in the offending position, I will gladly do so. The duplication would be... a duplication.. but if it will adress your concerns, then no problem.... as for battleground, I'll strike it, even tho it is merely a direct quote of your words, and as for your concern tha the UK is too harshly treated ("structured around a particular narrative which was focused on the role and failings of the British authorities"], I believe the expert opinion by Greenough (below) may disagree with that assessment. All concerns are thus addressed (unless you want me to duplicate the cite I just mentioned.]  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ykraps edit

  • Why had Bengal's rice production been declining for decades? I assume that "Land quality and fertility had been deteriorating" is partly trying to explain this but in the very next sentence it says "Rice yield per acre had been stagnant since the beginning of the twentieth century". One would expect the yield to fall if the quality of land was deteriorating. I suppose it could mean that there was less land to cultivate because much of it was infertile but this seems an awfully convoluted and ambiguous way of saying so.--Ykraps (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yield per capita, not yield per se, was falling. Yield per acre/hectare/whatever was more or less stagnant. No industrial revolution, no increases in productivity. Past increases in total yield had only been obtained by bringing new land under cultivation, and the amount of available new land was getting very small. Perhaps a few details from the full-length version might help clarify things. I will take a look at it later... OK, in the end, all I had to do was move the last sentence of the paragraph up to the beginning, and suddenly everything seems more clear, at least to me... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did agricultural expansion damage the natural drainage courses? Is this simply because water was being drawn off for irrigation?--Ykraps (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agricultural expansion and deforestation was messing up the drainage in different ways, including especially (but not limited to) silting up the rivers and the channels that fed into rivers. I clarified that silting was the main issue. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the caption in the image, isn't buffalo both plural and singular?--Ykraps (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cambridge dictionary says both are OK. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does undeveloped mean in, "cultivating undeveloped lands"? Does it mean previously uncultivated? If so, it's probably better to say utilising uncultivated lands because undeveloped commonly means not built on and suggests that the shortage of land was due to building.--Ykraps (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undeveloped means uncultivated. I guess "cultivating uncultivated lands" sounded odd/redundant and "bring uncultivated lands under the plough" sounded indirect and almost poetic..
      • You could say propagating, utilising, employing or simply using.--Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed it to "cultivating unused scrub lands" Hope this is OK. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the sentence, "Although imports were a small portion of the total available food crops, this may have been accompanied by a decrease in average consumption levels; it was estimated in 1930 that the Bengali diet was the least nutritious in the world" mean? What has the proportion of imported rice got to do with nutrition?--Ykraps (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote this years ago and my memory is very fuzzy, but I think what I was trying to indicate here is that one shouldn't be deceived by the relative smallness of the percentage of rice imports compared to overall consumption. That doesn't mean the overall problem of malnutrition was small. The change from net exporter (surplus amounts) to net importer (insufficient amounts) had very real-world consequences for the rural poor... As Islam (2007) points out, the problem of malnutrition was worsening through time on both sides of the equation – supply and demand of rice. It wasn't like, "rice supply is not meeting demand, but that's OK, it's only a small deficit, everything is OK, we've got plenty." The rural poor were already living at near-subsistence levels, and they were forced to cut back consumption even further.. The diet of the poor rural population actually worsened (or at least, the experts believe so) during this period... I will try to think of a way to word this more clearly. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed After careful consideration, I have decided that I am not entirely sure what Islam was trying to say. Offending bit about "decrease in average consumption" removed. Noreover, Bose's point about "least nutritious" actually includes the scant amount of food eaten, so included that. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think decrease in average consumption levels means that on average people were eating less. It was the linking of import levels to nutrition I was objecting to but this seems to have been rectified.--Ykraps (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says that the Bengali diet was the least nutritious in the world?--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iqbal (2010, p. 177) cites Bose (1930):" Chunilal Bose's observation in the 1930s that the Bengalis received the least nutrition in the world clearly pointed to the decreasing consumption of ecologically embedded foodstuffs...". Looking at Bose, I see on p. 92 that the Bengali diet is the worst in India. ... mmm same thing on pages 2–3 "...our present Indian diet is defective and ill-balanced and is directly responsible for the progressive deterioration of physical health of the people, particularly of Bengal..." Bose discusses the deficiencies of the Bengali diet in detail on pages 92-110. there's a table on page 96 which compares bengali protein intake unfavorably with other nations in the world. If you believe Iqbal has misquoted Bose, we can quote Bose pages 2-3, 92, 96 thusly: "it was estimated in 1930 that the Bengali diet was among the least nutritious in India and the world, and greatly harmed the physical health of the population". Is that satisfactory? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • An attribution is probably needed (According to.....)--Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What caused the population explosion between 1901 and 1941?--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ironically, if I recall correctly, it was the success of the Raj... in... was it in curtailing wars.. or... what? I don't remember offhand. I will try to look it up and add it if you wish. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was really talking about whether it was due to migration, increase in birth rates, people living longer etc.--Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked for an hour, and all I found was that the population increased due to "greater stability during foreign rule". I really do believe I have a recollection of seeing a quote a couple years ago to the effect that the Mughal empire had frequent bloody battles etc,. which all stopped during the Raj. People just killed each other much less frequently under a sort of Pax Brittania. In the twentieth century the main cause of soaring population was probably immunization... again by the Raj. Would you like me to continue searching for that quote & put it in the article? I have just now requested a relevant doc from WP:RX. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • A short sentence about how peace and stability allowed the population to flourish, is fine.--Ykraps (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was wrong, at least according to the relevant source. And our Wikipedia article on the British Raj completely and radically misquotes that source. Apparently it was mainly due to natural increases in immunity. I will research further to verify. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fixed "Declining mortality rates, caused either by the pre-1943 success of the British Raj in famine reduction or by a natural process of increased biological resistance to prevalent diseases, caused its population to increased by 43% between 1901 and 1941 – from 42.1 million to 60.3 million.
  • How relevant is all this discussion about malaria and cholera? Were some of the deaths attributed to disease and not famine?--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very much so. In famine-related literature, "famine deaths" includes deaths brought on by diseases that were themselves a result of famine or famine-driven social disruption (poor hygiene, eating rotten food, crowded refugee camps, etc.). Even malaria is considered famine-related in this case (though it is directly caused by mosquitoes), because the people were so weakened by malnutrition that their natural resistance was greatly diminished. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know you've received criticism for the number of foot notes but I believe an explanation of what's included in famine-related deaths, is needed. Particularly as they appear to include diseases which are likely to kill, whether one is mal-nourished or not.--Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Resolved, I believe. I think there may already be a paragraph in the "Famine, disease, and the death toll" section which offers the information you have requested. Look for this sentence: "The two waves – starvation and disease – also interacted and amplified one another, increasing the excess mortality". It is the last paragraph of that section (thus the paragraph immediately before the "Social disruption" section). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are famine-related deaths (note A)?--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. Essentially, starvation and/or disease. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many of the 500,000 refugees from Burma made it to Bengal? How much of this section is relevant? While an increase in the population due to migration is pertinent, deaths occurring outside Bengal and not related to a food shortage, probably aren't.--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we had a figure once for how many made it, but I have forgotten. I can try to look it up. Meanwhile, this section is relevant because the relevant literature says it is relevant. I didn't say that on my own... The refugees influenced the course of the famine in several ways. Their presence added to the growing feeling of unease and panic that Bengalis felt, which drove later behaviors such as (possibly) hoarding and (definitely) erecting provincial barriers.. Their presence added to the total demand for food and other necessities. They even brought disease, though if I recall correctly, I may have had to delete that bit because a previous reviewer in a previous FAC found it dubious and/or offensive. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I say relevant, I'm thinking about whether the article is focussed as the FAC criteria says it should be. I would have thought that a sentence saying somethimg like, 'The Japanese invasion of Burma resulted in an influx of refugees and allied troops, increasing the population further, leading to hoarding...' etc, would be sufficient. Perhaps a bit more than that is needed but I really think that that section can be heavily trimmed.--Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Resolved, I believe. I suspect the reason why it seemed it as though could be heavily trimmed is that the connection between these facts and the famine was not made strongly enough. I have bolstered that connection. Along the way I deleted one quote about British soldiers pushing refugees aside. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to explain how the railways were important for famine relief otherwise the relevance of them not functioning properly, is lost.--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • People lived way out in the middle of nowhere. There were two ways of getting them supplies: boats and rail (And rail was far less relevant in the monsoon season). I can try to add a phrase to clarify that... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand perfectly how important they were but others might not so perhaps a very short explanation is needed.--Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed "For decades, rail transport had been integral to successful efforts by the Raj to forestall famine in India." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "....the price effect of the loss of Burma rice was vastly disproportionate..." Is it not Burmese rice?--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the pointless links to inter-provincial trade barriers and failed government policies.--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, you mean the internal links... i actually don't considetr them pointless at all, but...I can delete them... will do as time goes on. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see they are internal links but they don't move the page on. Clicking them does nothing for me.--Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry that they do nothing for you. I have removed all 11 internal links. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think we're at cross purposes here. I have no problem with the other links, just the two mentioned above. Because they link to the very next paragraph, the page doesn't move and it looks as if they're not working. I think this would be hugely confusing for some readers.--Ykraps (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed. I believe I have deleted the two which you requested. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • When I get an opportunity, I'll check this and some other 'non-working' links on another computer.--Ykraps (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I think you can put these links back. This appears to be a problem with my computer/operating system. My apologies for wasting your time with this.--Ykraps (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does increased public expenditure lead to higher inflation?--Ykraps (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed This is actually explained in detail a couple paragraphs later, i.e. the "method of financing". Since the sentence in question is a bit redundant, I simply deleted it. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What caused the capacity constraints and how did they drive up inflation?--Ykraps (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. In the interest of brevity, I think it's probably enough to simply refer to it as "generalized war-time inflation". I deleted the "productive capacity" bit.  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What occurred in 1943 to drive up inflation so dramatically?--Ykraps (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. This is explained in further detail in the "Price chaos" section, further down in the article. I added an internal link to that section. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did the US fly 100 tons of clothing into East Bengal?--Ykraps (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Source does not specify date, added "between October 1942 and April 1943" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The trouble is, it now sounds like an immediate and successful response. The end of the year to October doesn't sound like much time for the locals to endure the "hardships of a severe cloth famine". If you need to make this sound like a failure to act, you're going to need some proper cited dates that do this. Or you could rewrite the sentence to say, "The hardships that were felt by the rural population through a severe cloth famine were alleviated when military forces began distributing relief supplies between October 1942 and April 1943".--Ykraps (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed OK, I'll take your suggestion. @Ykraps: At this point I think I have resolved your points so far, but you may have further thoughts. Please look at the "Resolved, I believe" points and see if my explanations are sufficient for your requirements. Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Military barracks were scattered around Calcutta. Perhaps a thousand homes, including entire villages, were requisitioned for military use and at least 60,000 occupants expelled". I would be inclined to say, "Military barracks were scattered around Calcutta and perhaps a thousand homes, including entire villages, were requisitioned for military use". There is no need to mention the 60,000 occupants expelled from their homes as these are already included in Greenough's estimate of 150-180 thousand. Otherwise it looks like you are trying to artificially inflate the figures.--Ykraps (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I deleted Mukherjee and kept Greenough. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The policies' wider impact – the extent to which they compounded or even caused the later famine – has been the subject of much discussion". Firstly, among whom, and secondly, what is the later famine? Are we not still talking about the 1943 Bengal Famine? If so, I suggest changing to "...the degree to which they compounded or even extended the famine" if that's what is meant.--Ykraps (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed Changed "later famine" to "famine that occurred one year later"; internal linked "much discussion" to the Historiography section. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ykraps: I believe I have addressed all your concerns up 'til now. I have marked them either "Fixed" or "Resolved, I believe", depending on how sure I am that I have accurately addressed your concerns. Thanks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as much as 80% of the armament, textile and heavy machinery production used in the Asian theater". Is this a direct quote from Mukherjee's book?--Ykraps (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is, that's why it's inside quotation marks. I note however that SchroCat flagged this too and said it should be reworded. I shall try to do so. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was wondering about the American spelling of 'theatre'.--Ykraps (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are compass points not hyphenated in Indian English?--Ykraps (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • the article is in british English. Some UK Wikipedians have gone over it before. Would you like for me to ask someone this question? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Compass points are definitely hyphenated in Br Eng and I'm reasonably confident they are in Ind Eng too.--Ykraps (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also the MOS says they ought to be hyphenated in Br Eng.[[17]]--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, gave you the wrong link. Here's the correct one [[18]].--Ykraps (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed, I think I only found two. Did I miss any? But I think I got them all. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsidized or subsidised?--Ykraps (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British acted to suppress the movement, arresting tens of thousands and killing some 2,500". Tens of thousands is quite vague. Is there a more accurate figure? Also, how were the 2,500 killed? It sounds as if they were executed.--Ykraps (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In all 66,000 were convicted or detained, of whom about a quarter, including most of the Congress leadership, were still in jail in 1944. 2,500 were shot dead." That puts about 16,000 or so "still in jail in 1944"; no clear idea how many were in and out of jail prior. How would you like this to be worded? It seems fairly accurate to me, unless you want me to change "killing some 2,500" to "whereas 2,500 were shot dead" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ykraps: I believe Bayly misquoted the source he cited. Both are available via Google books preview. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ykraps: OK with excellent help from WP:RX I found the source Bayly&Harper cited, and so have changed our article's text accordingly: "he British acted forcefully to suppress the movement, taking around 66,000 in custody (of whom just over 19,000 were still convicted under civil law or detained under Defence of India Act in early 1944). More than 2,500 Indians were shot when police fired upon protesters, many of whom were killed.(Brown|1991|p=340)... Is that satisfactory? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • "It felt then its duty lie in maintaining confidence..." Duty lay?--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After describing horrific conditions he witnessed..." After describing the horrific conditions he had witnessed.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...while rice paddy stocks in the hands of cultivators". 'Whilst', I think.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning around December 1942 – January 1943..." January 1943 seems redundant here. 'Beginning around December 1942' will do or perhaps even, 'As early as December 1942'.--Ykraps (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed thanks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning, "When such shipments did begin..." immediately follows a sentence about a refusal of shipments from other nations which suggests that the modest shipments which began in late 1943, were shipments from other nations. Is that was is meant here?--Ykraps (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short answer: Yes definitely foreign grain, and probably grain from other Indian provinces as well. Long answer: Re-reading FIC carefully, there are explicit mentions of foreign shipments at the ports. "Australia and Karachi" are singled out by name, though there may have been others. These shipments are arriving at an increasing rate beginning around October 1943. [This is exactly the time Wavell took charge.] The amounts they carried were relatively modest, given the scale of the crisis. However, the whole adminstrative system of Bengal was direly under-manned, under-supplied and in a chaotic shambles at that time, and the relatively modest number of shipments seemed like a tsunami (my term, not FIC's) that completely overwhelmed their ability to receive/transport them... This is presumably why Wavell soon started using soldiers for distribution... I say "probably from other provinces as well" as an assumption, because the passage also mentions shipments received by rail, without stating where they came from. I am assuming no foreign shipments would arrive by rail. I don't think that is a major point, however... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...no demographic or geographic group was completely immune to increased mortality rates – but deaths from starvation were confined to the rural poor". I assume this means that deaths among other demographics were caused by disease but this isn't immediately apparent and the sentence at first appears to contradict itself. Perhaps this can be made clearer or moved to the next paragraph where this is discussed?--Ykraps (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • added "caused by disease", thanks...
  • The definition of 'excess deaths' needs to be moved to the first mention of the phrase.--Ykraps (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added to first use of term. It's now defined twice, but I think the mentions are somewhat far apart. Plus the second mention is within a discussion of mortality rates etc.
      • If you think it needs to be restated later as well, I won't argue.--Ykraps (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are the death rates in the table calculated? Per 100K/pa?--Ykraps (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid this question has been asked before, and alas I don't have an answer. The source doesn't say too clearly. I will reproduce in full (just below this) the explanatory Notes from that page of the sorurce:

Notes: 1) All cause-specific death rates are based on a constant denominator - being the enumerated population in the 1941 census. 2) For the period 1937-41, figures in the parentheses are the respective percentage shares to total average annual deaths, while for both 1943 and 1944 they are the percentage shares to total excess deaths. The excess deaths from each of the above diseases were calculated over the respective average deaths registered during 1937-41. Sources: Government of Bengal, Health Directorate, Bengal Public Health Report. Alipore, Government Press, various years.

      • I'm not sure that answers my question. Death rates are usually calculated by dividing the number of deaths in a year by the population total and multiplying by 100,000 but this doesn't seem to have been done here.--Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ykraps: I could not find the answer in Maharatna (1992), so I emailed Maharatna. [I know personal communication is not WP:RS, but I'm just trying to finsd an answer to your question]. His reply: "Death rate is total number of deaths in a year from all causes per 1000 mid-year population. Death rate from cholera for example is total number of deaths just due to cholera per 1000 mid-year population."... OK, based on this email I searched the whole document and did find sinilar explanations scattered throughout, though not near the table in question. Forex, table 5.4 on page 227 has similar notation, and for table 5.10 on page 257 we have "Notes: 1) All CDRs and CBRs (expressed per 1000 population) are calculated on the respective estimated mid-year populations."... If I may ask, why does it seem wrong to you? I am not doubting you. I am not familiar with this statistical procedure. Given the answers immediately above, does it make more sense? Thank you for your patience... I have added the "per 1000" explanation to our article and sourced it two pages which show that procedure... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • They seemed wrong because if they had been multiplied by 100K, they would have been tiny numbers. Might I suggest that you add the definition of 'death rate' to the table, in the form of a footnote. As an example of what I mean, see this table here. Note how Dorset is defined as not including the UAs of Bournemouth and Poole at the bottom of the table and how it is linked.--Ykraps (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ykraps: I believe I have provided at least some answer to your questions (above). Thank you for your close reading. Please do continue your very excellent review; you've improved the article in several spots. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...food relief and medical rehabilitation were supplied too late, while medical facilities across the province..." 'Whilst' again, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed
  • "...eating undigested grains out of a beggar's diarrheal discharge". If this is a direct quote from an American author's book, fair enough. Otherwise the spelling is 'diarrhoeal'.--Ykraps (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Madhusree Mukerjee is Indian, but the book has it spelled as "diarrheal". American editors, or quote from an AmerEng source but fogot to use quotation marks...(?) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our article describes her as an American writer which would also explain her spelling of theatre in an earlier quote.--Ykraps (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "India produced 600,000 miles of cotton fabric during the war, from which it made two million parachutes..." Is this actually what the source says because parachutes were normally made from silk?--Ykraps (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ykraps: It's what the source specifically states in at least two passages, one of which appears to be an indirect quote of military sources.. I googled "cotton parachute" and discovered they do or did exist... In one potentially telling passage of the book that is cited here in this article, there is a discussion of the UK using India's silk for "man-dropping" parachutes. This leads me to wonder whether parachutes for equipment may have been cotton.... AH yes, that's it. The discussion of cotton parachutes goes on to say they were used to drop supplies. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that seems logical.--Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The robbing of graveyards for clothes, disrobing of men and women in out of way places for clothes ..." I'm confused by this quote, which appears to be attributed to a 1946 book, because it is written in the present tense. Was this going on in 1946 or is this a quote within the book which should be attributed to someone else.--Ykraps (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have looked at source after source after source over the years and not one, not one anywhere, ever tries to give any sort of conclusive date for the end of the cloth famine. Some say Wavell helped it, which may have led me to belive it ended then.. but... I have just during this FAC come to the conclusion that the cloth famine probably went on for at least a few years after the food famine. The Natarajan source we are discussing here says "From the year 1942-43 onwards..", and its first printing was in '46. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source attributes that quote to Swami Sambudhanand, president of the Ramakrishna mission in Bombay (Mumbai). He made that statement in July 1943, which is why it's in the present tense.[[19]] This needs to be attributed by adding this info in brackets perhaps?--Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, excellent catch. I attributed it to Swami Sambudhanand, President... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here the death rates rather than per cent as reveal the peak in 1943". I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean, 'Here the death rates, rather than per cent, reveal the peak in 1943', or something else?--Ykraps (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Fixed, just a typo "per cent as" = "per cents"
  • "Corpses littered the streets of Calcutta". Not sure about the use of littered here which seems a bit colloquial. I don't have another suggestions as yet.-Ykraps (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pick a quote:\ from among these temporarily at User:Lingzhi2/sandbox ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it a quote then because there is no indication that that is the case?--Ykraps (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ykraps: Oh, no, it isn't. I was paraphrasing. I seem to recall I got this again from Natarajan: "People died like flies on the pavements and the second largest city in the British Empire was littered with the dead and dying." Now that I have listed all those quotes, I actually am considering adding one or two of them. Some time soon I will alter "littered" either to delete it or attribute it to Natarajan. as I said, I may also add another quote or two. That might be tonight or maybe tomorrow, bnut will be soon. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Ykraps and Fowler&fowler: I have re-oredered and tidied the "Sanitation and undisposed dead" section as per your suggestions. Please let me know if it's satisfactory, or if there's more room for improvement. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would be reticent about adding anymore quotes. There is already an excessive amount, in my opinion, and most are sensationalist rather than encyclopaedic. In other words, they are not adding information to the article. I would also be wary of adding quotes from unknown eyewitnesses particularly if they come from a single source.--Ykraps (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Ykraps:I see what you mean, thanks. I won't, then. So does that section look OK now? [Oh I added one line about "charnel house", but it seemed a reasonable summary, and I needed a line of text below the blockquote so the latter wouldn't be hanging there at the end of the section.] ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We couldn't bury them or anything. No one had the strength to perform rites. People would tie a rope around the necks and drag them over to a ditch." Another quote without attribution. It can't be from Madhusree Mukerjee because she wasn't there to bury the dead.--Ykraps (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was just an informant who was a survivor. I will give attribution soon ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "....grain given as gratuitous relief, and "test works" that were essentially work camps". Worryingly, only Madhusree Mukerjee appears to hold this opinion. Bhattacharya doesn't share this view at all, although attaching a citation from him to the next sentence infers that he does. He makes no mention of 'test works' nor 'work camps' and views the work opportunities provided as just that, opportunities to work for the unskilled for which they were paid a wage in addition to other benefits.
"The benefits offered took the form of free food, money (in addition to any arrears in pay on return to the village), medical attention, and free transport by train and bus (private bus operators were assigned stocks of petrol for the purpose) to 'roadside places nearer their homes'". (Quote from Bhattacharya)
No mention of starving Indians forced to do hard labour for food or left to die, which is the image Mukerjee is trying to conjure up with her references to work camps. Bhattacharya notes only the continuing misery of the unfortunate who were outside the scheme's ambit and doesn't suggest that such schemes were in any way detrimental.
Bhattacharya 2002a should instead be Bhattacharya 2002b, which is where the mention of stone quarries etc. is found... Plus I don't think "starving Indians forced to do hard labour for food or left to die" is the img Mukerjee is portraying -- just that it was deliberately made hard to see if anyone would accept it, and if they did accept it, that meant they were deperate (in famine conditions). I have found others who make the same assertion... But as I said, I am digging. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted the wikilink to labour camp (the Wikipedia article's sense of the word may not even be what Mukerjee intended). Left the explanation (for now). I have found other sources which give the same "hard work low pay to see if famine has come" definition, (forex Greenough 1982 p. 60), but am still digging into it... Maharatna seems to suggest that the "test" was the size of the works, not the intensity... he seems to suggest they were deliberateltey small-scale to see "how many" people came... Still looking.. Thanks for pointing this out. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ykraps: The problem with discussing "test works" is that the brief mentions in literature I've found so far discuss various points relating to a time span starting in the latter half of the 19th century and there were also variations in implementation between Indian provinces. I really haven't found any source that says, "In Bengal in the mid-1940s the test works were...." followed by a detailed explanation. Moreover, there seems to be a distinction between "test works" and "relief works". Both of them seem to involve difficult work, but the former was apparently somehow made worse. [Note that the BHattacharya quote seems to be about the latter, or at least uses that terminology, so it might need to be deleted.. but... perhaps the work was the same...(?)] The only labor I have found (at this point) specifically tied to test works is "stone-breaking"...] In general, as an Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) paper by K.S. Singh states, "The objective of test works is not to relieve famine but to test its presence by laying down stringent conditions for labourers seeking admission to relief works and restricting payment of wages strictly by results; no gratuitous relief is given and no relief is provided for dependents. There is no rest allowance." And from Greenough we have, "The whole aim of means test and of exacting work in exchange for food, of course, was to keep at bay those who would apply for relief whether they 'deserved' it or not, to distinguish ordinary beggary from crisis destitution. A further aim was to allow an efficient, drawn-out distributon of limited relief resources, in contrast to open-handed charity which was too quickly exhausted." But these were wholly British ideas; Bengali culture resisted the basic concept of test works and of distinguishing between the relative needs of the merely poor versus the genuinely starving. The Bengali idea was that in a time a crisis you give to anyone who shows up and asks... So where does all of this leave us? At least I think it is safe to say that the literature I have seen so far supports the text as I have recently modified it (see immediately above). Please do let me know whether you agree or disagree. Thanks... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article makes out, and you seem to agree, that the stone quarrying and metal-breaking spoken about by Bhattacharya in the reference given [[20]] were some sort of punitive labour camp. They weren't, they were valuable wartime industries, particularly in that area, where a massive road building program was in operation. Further more, Bhattacharya doesn't make that connection nor does he speak about test-works. Why Mukerjee wants to think this is obvious but I'm struggling to find sources that specifically mention test-works during the 1943 famine. I believe there were test-works during the Great Famine of 1876–1878 but this was part of the Victorian philosophy; test works were also used on British subjects in the United Kingdom at the time. Do we have sources that say recruitment to these industries was some sort of a test?--Ykraps (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ykraps: This recap is rather long, and I apologize, but there are sevral points under discussion. I beg your indulgence and patience as you read... To recap the discussion on test works: 1) Yes, we have several specific mentions of "test works" that involve some sort of labour very specifically for the 1943 period: most authoritatively, FIC on several pages, esp. 225–226 & 235–236; also Brennan 1988 several mentions; Maharatna 1992 (pp. 236–237) and of course Mukherjee, who used the unfortunate term "labour camps". 2) I am not at all sure that when Mukherjee said "labour camps" he meant the sort of penal camps that our Wikipedia article on that topic discusses. Mukherjee never elaborates on his use of the term. For that reason, I have deleted the term "work camps/labour camps" from our Wikipedia article. 3) The Bhattacharya passage which you have quoted above is from Bhattacharya 2002a. The relevant text in our Wikipedia article ("stone quarries, metal breaking units, [water] tank and road building schemes") is from Bhattacharya 2002b. [The two articles actually have the same lengthy title, except 2002a is "Part I" and 2002b is "Part II"] Yes, it was originally incorrectly written as 2002a in our Wikipedia article. It was a typo. I have corrected it. You are quoting from the wrong article because of that typo. Sorry. 4) I am not at all sure if the terms "test works" and "relief works" were used interchangeably in any sources, or if they are in fact always treated as different but related species of "wages/food for physical labour during food crises". The Singh article which I mentioned above very clearly and specifically explains a difference between the terms. The FIC, however, does not, and neither does any other source. I would have expected the FIC and other sources to do so, if there was an important distinction to be made. The reason why this point is possibly noteworthy is because Bhattacharya 2002b uses the term "relief works" when describing "stone quarries, metal breaking units" etc. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I have read both parts, they are available online here [[21]] and here [[22]] but I don't see any mention of test works. 'Relief works' are not the same thing. If J. Mukherjee and others specifically mention test works in relation to these industries we can say Mukherjee suggests they were text works. If there is proof that they were test works, or some admission that they were test works, we can say they were test works. My other point was that it wasn't a term used by Bhattacharya.--Ykraps (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Ykraps: As I mentioned, several sources including FIC says there were test works in the 1943 famine. We do not need to delete the mention of test works. Meanwhile, the only info Bhattacharya adds to the the Wikipedia text is a deescription of exactly what labor was undertaken. I will delete the Bhattacharya text now. That removes the details. We are left with "it was prohibitively hard labor", and nothing else, but you know, maybe that is enough. Does that meet your requirements? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Lingzhi2: I think you've taken my comments the wrong way. I am happy with the wording if that's what the sources say. My main issue was with the term work camp, which has now been removed but I was also checking for WP:SYNTH because it appeared to me that two sources had been put together to arrive at one conclusion. If that's not what's been done there's no problem.--Ykraps (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for overlinking. I have noticed 'Indian Railways', 'British Raj' and 'Quit India Movement', and I haven't started looking yet. On the subject of linking, please also note my comments above.--Ykraps (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ykraps: Thanks. I unwikilinked Winston Churchill, Briti Raj and Quit India Movement. I don't see others, even using the duplink finder script, but my eyesight is not the best on the planet. I also didn't notice double linking for "Indian Railways", tho of course I may have missed something.... Have I covered all your points, or did I overlook something? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Economic and political effects, and the table within that section. What's the evidence that the land was sold due to poverty and/or starvation and not some other reason such as fear of a Japanese invasion?--Ykraps (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ykraps: The striking surge in land transfers is overwhelmingly attributed to famine rather than fear of the Japanese. Mahalanobis, Mukherjea & Ghosh (1946) have a very finely detailerd analysis, but this point is emphasized in many sources for example Chaudhuri (1975) p. 139 "The greatest disaster, however, for the peasantry was the famine of 1943, when according to an estimate of the Indian Statistical Institute, 2.6 lakh families out of 65 lakhs owning paddy land had completely lost their land and 9.2 lakhs had to sell part or whole of their holdings" ... oh here's a relevant quote in Ó Gráda (2009). p. 172: "Evidence on land transfers during the famine is also of interest. In 1940 Bengal contained 16.4 million landholders. In the wake of the famine, 2.7 million sales of whole or part-occupancy holdings were recorded. The sales, which dwarfed those of the pre-famine period, and involved mainly peasant smallholdings, were disproportionately concentrated in east Bengal. A micro-survey of land transfers in one village in east Bengal found that as many as 54 families out of a total of 168 disposed of part or all of their holdings in 1943. While some of the land was transferred in order to repay old debts or to buy land elsewhere, 39 of the 54 transfers were prompted by ‘scarcity and food purchase’." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you particularly attached to the table and preceding sentence? Because it immediately follows discussion about selling land for food, one assumes the figures refer to those forced to sell for that reason. The table in fact shows the total number of all sales for all reasons and that's why it appears contradictory to Mahalanobis, P. C.; Mukherjea, R.K.; Ghosh, A (1946). Even using O'Grada's sample of 72% (39/54*100), I can't make the figures agree. Is it enough to say, "As the famine wore on, nearly 1.6 million families – roughly one-quarter of smallholders and dwarfholders – tried to save themselves by selling or mortgaging their paddy lands, thus falling from the status of landholders to that of labourers" and leave it at that do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This question will take a little time. I need to compare all info. More later. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ykraps: I am pretty attached to that table. I will need to offer only a partial answer right now, howver, and give further thoughts later, because I need to think more about whether the various sources in question are apples and oranges. So consider this reply "Part One of Two Parts". [Actually, my mea culpa below might resolve your concerns and remove any need for further adjustment to that article text, read on...] Right now I need to state, however, that you have caught a genuine and substantial error/misinterpretation in the MM&G sentence.. I substantially misinterpreted MM&G, and I am at fault. Rather than explain here, I'll just link to this diff. The changes are self-explanatory. Mea maxima culpa. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still thinking about the table which I still think, confuses the issue at worst and adds little at best.--Ykraps (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Visual aids are profoundly useful for a number of obvious reasons. Land sales went up due to distress sales. This is common knowledge in academic sources, repeatedly discussed and repeatedly affirmed. The jump was huge. I have already provided sources to support this. I can readily supply more. One source said the jump was huge. I can find that source too. I am not sure how the table confuses anyone. Could you please explain? I believe you are putting forward an argument that is rather at odds with the preponderance of academic sources. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's confusing because it isn't made clear what it indicates and is not useful for precisely the same reason. It immediately follows a section which describes how millions had to sell their land in order to survive, and it is likely that readers will assume this is what the table shows. It doesn't. These are the total number of sales for all reasons and will even include multiple sales by the same landowner.--Ykraps (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) You habve described its contents correctly. Not all sales were distress sales, of course. And some plots were sold more than once in that period, of course. And yet the table still misleads exactly no one. The trend is the key point, and the trend is exactly as stated: a huge surge in land transfers during the famine period, due to distress sales. That is what all scholars assert. If I may direct your attention again to Ó Gráda (2009, p. 172): "In the wake of the famine, 2.7 million sales of whole or part-occupancy holdings were recorded. The sales, which dwarfed those of the pre-famine period, and involved mainly peasant smallholdings, were disproportionately concentrated in east Bengal." [Note that east Bengal was hardest hit by the famine]. It's true the trend had been rising beforehand, but the bump during the famine is like an antelope in a python's belly. Again you find yourself adopting and defending an argument that no scholar takes up....Someone might say i could qualify it a little by adding "Not all sales were distress sales". I already have. I added the bit about "Some did so to profit from skyrocketing prices, but many others were trying to save themselves from crisis-driven distress." If you want, I can list at least one and possibly two other reason(s) plots were sold (to consolidate holdings, forex). But the table is valid and clear and misleads no one. Deleting it would be going against all relevant scholarship. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to be clear, the position I am defending is that of the Featured Article Criteria. I am questioning whether the table has any relevance so I might make an informed decision about whether the article is, "...focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". With respect to Ó Gráda he has an entire book to fill and no criteria dictating what he can and can’t fill it with.--Ykraps (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two points: first, discussing this topic is crucial to fulfilling FA criteria 1b (comprehensive). The third and fourth sentences of our WP:LEDE preview the discussion of the famine's extended negative economic impact. The topic of distress-driven land transfers is given seven pages by Paul R. Greenough (1982, pp. 198–204). Greenough states (p 198, as his discussion of this topic begins), "It is the loss of land however which best illustrates the extent of material losses during the famine" (my emphasis). Ghose (1982) [a less-known scholar whom I didn't cite but perhaps should have) summarizes Mahalanobis, Mukherjea & Ghosh 1946, "After-Effects of the Bengal Famine of 1943" (hereafter MM&G) by saying "The Bengal famine of 1943 left in its trail the following changes: (i) a general deterioration in the conditions of the rural poor, (ii) an increase in inequality of the distribution of land and other productive assets, and (iii) an increase in the proportion of land controlled by the non-cultivating classes." The distribution of land is central to the after-effects of the famine. The surge in land sales is central to the discussion of the distribution of land. Second point: the positive correlation between distress-driven land sales and the Bengal famine of 1943 is extremely firmly established in the relevant literature. The table we are discussing was compiled by Sugata Bose, but the same phenomenon is discussed in the same manner by the paper whose principle authors are P.C. Mahalanobis and Ramkrishna Mukherjee (MM&G, around pages 339-340). We have already mentioned Paul Greenough and Cormac Ó Gráda. I also have several other papers by less-well-known scholars that discuss the same topic to some extent, most of whom are summarizing/discussing MM&G (as for example Ghose, mentioned above... Google scholar says MM&G has been cited 59 times). Sorry this post is long but such extensive supporting evidence requires many words to describe. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In answer to your first point, I am not asking you not to discuss it. I am talking about a single sentence in entire section and table which is confusing and questionably relevant. In answer to your second point, I'm not doubting the correlation between distress-driven land sales and the famine but what we are talking about here are transfers that are not driven by distress. You have already talked about the 1.6 milliom families who sold their land (not all distress-driven) adding a table showing 4,370,000 land transfers raises a number of questions which are not answered.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am totally confused. I am not saying that sarcastically; I mean it literally. One bit of info is about families, the other about land transfers. Why even attempt to make them jibe? They are apples and pink grapefruit, so to speak. You yourself have noted that a given piece of land might be sold more than once. Moreover, a given family might make more than one sale (though that would intuitively seem less common/frequent). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • My argument is this: If the table relates to distress-driven land transfers, how exactly does it relate? If the table does not relate to distress-driven land transfers, why is it relevant?--Ykraps (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Explanatory text for the table singles out distress sales: "The wartime subsistence crisis, especially the great famine of 1943, occasioned land alienation on an alarming scale. Figures from a Revenue Department source, presented in table 5.2, show, that during the years 1940-1 to 1944-5, 43.7 lakh of transfers took place out of a total of about 164 lakh of occupancy holdings in the province. The government was forced to take the unprecedented step of passing a Land Alienation Act in 1944 to enable small owners to repurchase their holdings. The alienees did not, however, find it difficult to circumvent the law, and little of the land lost during the famine was restored." If you won't take Bose's word for it, then the Wikipedia model breaks down... By the way, the table immediately before that one shows the trend going back to 1929. This table I think is summarized in a couple sources (I seem to recall). So.... would that one seem better to you? It also shows the antelope in the python's belly, although we do see a rising trend through time, mainly caused by the Great Depression. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is not a question of taking Bose’s word for it; it is a question of understanding what Bose is saying. According to Bose, the table shows, “…that during the years 1940-1 to 1944-5, 43.7 lakh of transfers took place out of a total of about 164 lakh of occupancy holdings in the province”. That’s it, full stop, period as you might say. It does not, as you seem to think, “…single[s] out distress sales”. What Bose has done is state three facts and clump them together, and you have interpreted them in a way which fits your point of view. Bose gives no explanation as to how the table precisely relates to distress-driven land transfers and with that in mind, where is the value in it? Yes it's important to talk about distress-driven land sales but you have done so already. Yes, it's important to talk about those who were displaced from their land through other reasons such as military requisitioning but you have already done so. Adding a table and a sentence about unexplained land transfers seems utterly pointless to me.--Ykraps (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Tables add informational value by helping readers comprehend text more fully and readily. They bring much-needed visual salience to key points (such as this one) that might otherwise get lost in a sea of words... It's hard to argue that land transfers are not a key point, given the strong emphasis that Greenough (and many others!) have placed on them... If you're arguing against the content of this particular table, then as I said earlier, there is another table on an earlier page, and I will post that one below. Before doing so, however, let me summarize this thread for the record: This is a table from a book published by Cambridge University Press, an impeccable WP:RS. The book was written by Sugata Bose, the Gardiner Chair of Oceanic History and Affairs at Harvard University. The book has been cited 59 times, according to Google Scholar. We are discussing the trend of a table, and Bose very clearly and very explicitly describes the table as showing "land alienation on an alarming scale", which he very clearly and very explicitly attributes to "[the] wartime subsistence crisis, especially the great famine of 1943". His statement is very readily WP:V, it's right there in the book (on p. 152). It's not WP:UNDUE to add some salience by adding a table, because Paul Greenough says that land alienation "...best illustrates the extent of material losses during the famine". And for the record, you are arguing against its inclusion, saying "Adding a table and a sentence about unexplained land transfers seems utterly pointless to me" (my emphasis)...OK then, moving along, now that we have summarized this thread for the record, here's another table (below). I'm extracting it from Table 5.1 in Bose, "Land sales and mortgages in Bengal 1929-1943". I am deleting the mortgages, which actually are important, but land sales may be enough to present the trend to the reader. this table is clearly less informative than the current one, in my opinion, but I am trying to be accommodating:
Year Number of sales
1929 79,929
1930 129,184
1931 105,701
1932 114,619
1933 120,492
1934 147,619
1935 160,341
1936 172,956
1937 164,819
1938 242,583
L939 500,224
1940 502,357
1941 634,113
1942 749,495
1943 1,532,241
  • Does this table seem more acceptable to you? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, this is where I am: The article is extremely large and Wikipedia guidelines suggest it should be split up. You and others have pointed out that it is an extremely complex subject which warrants a long and lengthy explanation. I totally accept that but there is a lot of repetition and excessive detail which I think can be trimmed. I thought we might be able to do some trimming in this section by getting rid of the table which in my humble opinion doesn't add any value. Yes, "Tables add informational value by helping readers comprehend text more fully and readily. They bring much-needed visual salience to key points that might otherwise get lost in a sea of words" but not when they don't relate to the text. Also, what sea of words? I can see that you are stuck on keeping this table because presumably you think it emphasises a point. If it does, the point is completely lost on me. Land sales went up during the war; so what? During the war, 25% of the entire land area of the United Kingdom was transferred to the military causing quite an upsurge in land sales there. If you want to keep the table then you are within your rights to do so but I think it weakens the argument of stress-driven land sales not strengthens.--Ykraps (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The land sales are important because they impoverished very large numbers of people. Those with fewer than 2 or 3 acres or so (that is, most of them) often sold all of their land. They became landless. Being landless, they were far more susceptible to the death spiral of debt described in earlier sections. They had no plot of land to grow rice to feed themselves, and so were totally under the power of market forces. During the BF43, market forces were horribly ruthless murderers. Even those with somewhat more land lost lands they could ill afford to lose. The land sales also represented a huge shift toward even greater income inequality than before. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that isn't what the table shows. All the table shows is that there was an increase in land sales at a time of intense military build-up and as I alluded to earlier, that is wholly unremarkable.--Ykraps (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • thank you for making this point. First, our Wikipeia article imports this table into a discussion of famine as a self-contained component without laying out finer details of occupancy and ownership. In that sense it is in fact offered deprived of much of the greater context. Bose, in contrast, is rather at pains to unpack the relationships between such entities as "de facto khas khamar, land held in direct possession by proprietors and tenure-holders, and de facto raiyati, land held by cultivating peasants". As a further example of context-awareness, he draws a distinction between information sources (Land Revenue Administration Reports and Registration Department Reports), stating that aggregate figures drawn from the former " provide a rather distorted picture of temporal and spatial trends" while the latter are "fuller and more reliable in this respect". The point I'm getting at here is that Bose's discussion demonstrates that he is context-aware. One would assume that the Registration Department Reports that he draws on as an information source would also be uniformly context-aware. To speculate that both would miss (or worse, deliberately elide) the distinction between private sales and military requisitions/sales... well nothing is impossible, but that would be an incredibly huge miss on both their parts. Second, as a quote I offered above mentions, the Bengal Government felt it necessary to pass a Land Alienation Act of 1944 which "provided for the repurchase of holdings alienated during the famine... through the civil courts". This rather eloquently testifies to the fact that the sum total of these alienations was perceived as significant by all involved. Again, if military lands were involved, the legal processes and their subsequent discussion in Bose would be configured rather differently. In all... if Bose made this mistake and none of the scholars subsequently citing him caught it... then in all seriousness, you should be awarded Bose's job. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said at the beginning of this thread, the table shows all transfers for all reasons so yes, it includes transfers to the military. It includes stress-driven transfers as well of course but as we don't know what percentage, is it worth clagging up the article with it? With regards to Bose's neutrality; would being related to, and a huge admirer of, a famous anti-British agitator affect what he chose to highlight as the reason for the increase in land transfers? I don't know. What do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • As regards to neutrality, I have no idea where Cambridge University falls in that spectrum. Being from the UK (according to your user page) you might very well know that better than I would. But I would hope CUP would treasure their academic prestige enough so that they wouldn't try to fob off POV material as NPOV. They published this same research twice, if I'm not mistaken (which I may be), once as a separate book, and once in a volume of "The New Cambridge History of India" series. Similarly, I would also hope their editorial staff would catch an oversight (or overstatement) as huge as the one you suggest. What do you think? I should hope they would. But please let's take a step back here and look at the wider context of our discussion: do we really believe it's within the purview delimited by WP:RS, WP:V and WP:WIAFA for Wikipedia editors to say that a very explicit statement in a book published by CUP should be omitted because we Wikipedians believe it doesn't really describe what it purports to describe? ...In my humble opinion, if we wish to discount the reliability of a given statement within such a rock-solid WP:RS, we would need to support our assertions with a suitably clear countervailing statement in a different WP:RS. Someone would have to publish and say, "Bose is exaggerating" or "Bose neglects to consider the impact of..." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • That was a rhetorical question, but okay: Firstly, CUP doesn't care about people's point of view.[[23]] Outside Wikipedia, people's opinions and points of view are perfectly valid. Wikipedia recognises this which is why it asks that you present all opinions. But what I'm really questioning here is your interpretation of the source. As I said earlier, Bose has presented several separate facts and left you to draw your own conclusions. I am saying that the conclusion you have drawn is incorrect. This is not the first time you have misinterpreted something you've read [[24]][[25]][[26]] and as a further example, I now feel the need to point out that living in the UK is not the same as coming from the UK.--Ykraps (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I'm open to the possibility that I have misterpreted the text. Again, the text is "The wartime subsistence crisis, especially the great famine of 1943, occasioned land alienation on an alarming scale (etc)." What part did I botch? Was it "subsistence crisis"? Or was it "the great famine of 1943"? I have made mistakes before, and will make mistakes again. but which bits of those words have I misunderstood... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The action alarmed the public..." Which action?--Ykraps (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The boat denial policy ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is confusing. It's safe to assume most people won't think you're talking about Ghandi's vehement editorials but the other action in the previous sentence is opposition to the boat denial policy. I don't think you mean that the opposition alarmed the public. Or do you?--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to "The denial of boats alarmed the public" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " An Indian National Congress resolution sharply decrying the destruction of boats and seizure of homes was considered treasonous by Churchill's War Cabinet, and was instrumental in their later arrest". Who was arrested? Every single member of the Indian National Congress?--Ykraps (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "...in the later arrest of the INC's top leadership" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The famine has been portrayed in celebrated novels, films and art". 'Celebrated' sounds a bit peacocky.--Ykraps (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source says panicky responses by the colonial state which to me means the Bengal government. Why say panicky responses by the British?--Ykraps (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very next sentence says, "These were intended, ultimately, only to allow the smooth mobilization of the war-effort at the expense of all other competing administrative concerns. " It was the British who wished to mobilize the war effort, as the following sentences state plainly. The sentences after that mention the actions of Government of India again and again and again, and say they were intended to garner support for the war effort. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I misread the source slightly. The colonial state, which I still think refers to the colonial government, was caught unawares. The panicky responses are not attributed to anyone in particular. I disagree that only the British wanted to mobilise for war; over two million Indians fought in WW2 and I seem to remember reading that they volunteered. To be on the safe side, I'd be inclined to follow the source and not blame anyone in particular for the panicky responses.--Ykraps (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ykraps: I changed it to "colonial state". While I was at it, I took out another couple of references to the British government. I sincerely hope that meets with your approval. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meanwhile, he repeatedly and rather forcefully favors its analyses over Sen's". Favours --Ykraps (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the crisis began, morbidity rates were driven by a series of cultural decisions..." Morbidity or mortality? I'm asking because the sentence finishes "These abandoned groups had been socially and politically selected for death.--Ykraps (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning to the Military build-up, inflation, and displacement section. "Farmland purchased for airstrip and camp construction..." Does the source specifically state farmland because this seems odd to me.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the refusal of imports: Do your sources go into more detail about the reasons? For example I believe an offer of help from Canada was turned down because it was thought unnecessary, as a shipment of grain from Australia was due to arrive. Also it wasn't just the British who refused to send aid because of a lack of shipping, although the article currently suggests otherwise, the Americans also wouldn't or couldn't help and cited exactly the same reason.--Ykraps (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. I have to go to work soon and won't be able to look into these for at least six hours. Meanwhile, though, it's at least possible that some copy editing removed explanatory details for some but not all of your questions. If you wish to do so, you could look here to see if any of your questions find their answers in the original uncut full-length version of this article. But you don't have to if you don't want to. I will be back later to try to respond. Thanks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No rush. More to come and I'm off to bed soon anyway.--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deleting or adding "as cited in" to FIC cites edit

  • Placeholder. temporary working page here ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted six FIC cites. Marked four as "don't need to find a secondary source". Cited one to a secondary source... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D and Fiamh: Deleted five more, but there are no interpretations being drawn here. This is excessive. This goes above and beyond what is required in WP:PRIMARY. Do we simply ignore what WP:PRIMARY says? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean by 'double tapping'? (killing?). From checking one of the uses of this reference (ref 274, to page 138 of the report) chosen purely at random, it doesn't support the claim that "Conditions did not improve for those under medical care" at all. It actually says that the relief effort led to improvements to the standard of hospitals, though progress during the worst part of the famine was much too slow and conditions were terrible. The next page of the report discusses when and how the situation in the hospitals improved, and notes that part of the reason for the high death rates was the condition people arrived at hospital in, as well as the inadequacies of the care they then received. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 274 supports a direct quote, "Conditions in certain famine hospitals at this time ... were indescribably bad ...and the lack of adequate care and treatment", so fine. I agree this does not imply anything re conditions "under medical care". Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am away from my computer for 3 or 4 hours, so cannot copy/paste the full page. Internet archive has it online. It strongly supports current Wikipedia text, saying they increased spending but "results were meagre" and conditions were appalling. Please read the text online. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it says that, in the Famine Inquiry Commission. It seems that strict, blanket removal of primary sources is introducing other, unintended, problems. I think we need more nuance and balance. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it already it nuanced and balanced. In fact, it is (or at least was) extremely nuanced (note the large number of footnotes was explicitly done to add nuance) and balanced (the article very strictly follows academic consensus...) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be clear, I mean, nuance in allowing primary sources. You should cite the FIC here. Ceoil (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • My concern is that you are cherry picking material from a primary source here, with the primary source not even supporting what is being claimed given that it states that the hospitals were bad and then got somewhat better. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No cherry picking here. Even the FIC, which if anything at all is in some clearly defined aspects PRO-UK, explicitly says the benefits of increased expenditures (not sure at the moment how big the increase was, will look later) were meager. "Meager" is less positive than your description. Many if not most famine hospitals were revolting. The text is clearly extremely negative. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Para 21 on the page you cite states that the famine hospitals were better than what was previously available. Para 22 states that the early results of the hospital program were meager though, with the quote which is currently in the article illustrating this. Paras 23-26 on the next page then describe how the situation improved, which the article doesn't cover with its statement only that "Conditions did not improve for those under medical care". Para 32 provides a useful summary of the medical situation, noting that it improved from a dire situation but was never satisfactory. The report seems somewhat contradictory though. We should also not be needing to discuss the interpretation of a primary source at FAC, especially when it is being used to cite analysis: I think that this illustrates my concerns with the use of primary sources (and, again, I'd stress that I chose this reference to check purely at random). Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I restored "Particularly in the early months of the crisis," which some copy editor deleted. In fact, we do not need to discuss this primary source. You are fairly broadly misinterpreting the text, repeating your misinterpretation here, and stating that your misinterpretation proves there are problems. Conditions were horrific until Wavell came along at the tail end of the famine, and even then just began to improve. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm shifting to oppose. You have just partially corrected an obvious error after arguing that there was no error. You are still claiming that there was no error and there's no need to further discuss the matter or stop using primary sources. Combined with the other sourcing problems, I simply do not trust how you have used sources here: while most of the spot checks are fine, too many are not and this case is particularly worrisome. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • A copy editor deleted it, see [[here] ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. I'm not sure Nick's is a reasonable or collegial oppose, its not in the spirit of improvement, nor do I think his view reflects consensus on the article. Ceoil (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I feel that I'm banging my head against a wall here, with the above exchange being the straw which broke the camel's back. Not opposing at present given my concerns would not be respectful to the nominator, other involved editors and other reviewers IMO, as it would imply that I think that the FAC can pass with a modest amount of work and that I don't harbour serious reservations. I think that I've tried to explain what these reservations are, and would be pleased to do so further if there is interest in responding to them in a constructive way (and this doesn't mean I expect to be agreed with necessarily). Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • From my point of view your opinion carries significant weight, and I think your input here is greatly improving the article. Just surprised you choose this matter to oppose over; when it seems clear that the error was introduced by (a) your request to remove all primary sources, (b) a copy editor. wrt point a, the article text needs to be allowed to catch up. I sincerely hope you stick with improving the content, albeit, yes this is a stressful review (ps I also though 'double' tap was ott). Ceoil (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • (edit conflict) I'm not sure what you mean by point a) given that this issue was present in the article prior to this FAC [27], and seems to have been present since at least 2017 from the diff Lingzhi2 provided above: it's not my fault. Just to note, I don't think that it has been addressed, as the reference for what is analysis remains a primary source and the text fails to capture the argument made in the primary source (e.g. that the hospitals were bad to start with, remained bad despite attempts to improve them during the worst part of the famine and then improved but remained unsatisfactory once the Army moved in, though paras 21 and 32 of the report seem somewhat contradictory). I don't particularly want to litigate each of my comments point by point, which again is one of the reasons why I've shifted to oppose. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expert opinion: Two brief excerpts from email exchange with Paul R. Greenough edit

@Nick-D:@Fiamh: I corresponded with several of the principal scholars cited in the article, to various degrees from three-sentence exchanges to weeks of correspondence. One of those is Paul R. Greenough. We corresponded relatively little, only two or three emails total, but his remarks regarding the Wikipedia article were clearly positive. [He even sent me a pdf file of his book, for which I am extremely grateful... as did another author cited in the article.] He also recently agreed to let me repeat those remarks. Below are very brief excerpts from two exchanges, one recent and one not so recent. The recent one is from today:

In the short-run, it's simplest for me to say that I stand by my earlier praise for your Wikipedia article on the Bengal famine of 1943. It's the best short introduction I know to the event and the scholarship to date about the event, and I have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone who doesn't know about the famine period. You can repeat whatever the lines you want to whomever.

— Tue, Nov 12, 2019 Greenough, Paul R

I must admit that you've done a wonderful job weaving together many threads of argument and evidence in the scholarship about the famine in your latest Wiki version. The visual materials are excellent--I hadn't seen several of the photographs and copies of ms correspondence before--and your notation and citation practices are careful. Thus I find the article, just as it is, a lapidary account that students and others should absolutely turn to as a first resource to discover what happened in Bengal in 1943-44.

Your Wiki article also, it must be said, relentlessly focuses on certain kinds of facts (or on debates about such facts) that surround a subsistence crisis as seen through the analytic lens of political-economy. (Not Marxist political-economy, rather more orthodox market-based analysis.) You are even-handed in the sense that you aggregate, weigh and cleanly arrange competing views, but these views refer primarily to matters of quantity, extent, price, timing, as well as to breaks and junctures in the command-and-control information flows between "below" and "above" and between "out there" (Bengal) and "home" (London). This is the divided factual terrain on which the modern economic science of famine has consistently been examined, and the events of 1943 are typically said to form the indexical or paradigmatic case... [Describes the socio-historical perspective outlined in his book].... [However] I should tell you that modern Bengali historians, on the whole, have not been not impressed by moral-economic arguments about 1943, preferring to stay in the interpretive mainstream defined by Amartya Sen and other development economists.

— Sun, Mar 10, 2019, Greenough, Paul R
 ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't address my oppose which is mostly based on the verifiability of the article's content per FA criteria 1c. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 19:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This also isn't relevant to my concerns. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your concerns are that pages 139-40 of FIC (IIRC) weren't covered. They were covered, but just not in the place where you were looking. I duplicated them to put them in the place where you were looking, but bear in mind, they had been in the article all along. The source was adequately utilized, cited, etc. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concerns regarding references is that far too many are primary sources, too many spot checks have failed WP:V and the responses to comments pointing this out have been combative and unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah I see. As to #1, I assure you, it would be completely impossible to write this article in any meaningful way without very frequently referencing FIC. The information just can't be found, and even if it could, we'd be in danger of WP:OR if we grabbed things from articles not directly related to this topic... Moreover, FIC is used in a way explicitly permitted by WP:PRIMARY. As for #2, have you actually counted? I think.. one actual bug..and one half-bug.. and many many many false alarms? As for #3, please bear in mind, this is Featured Article candidates, not Featured Nominator candidates. The personality of the nominator is neither a valid nor an actionable reason to oppose. All of your reasons, then, are... not valid reasons to Oppose. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Clearly there is no consensus for promotion. Verifiability is more important that than prose issues, (which are usually the last to be addressed at FAC). And the attempted involvement of the ARBCOM undermines the authority of our FAC coordinators, without whom we would not have a FA process at all. That the nominator has to take recourse to such manoeuvrings makes me most unsure with regard to the FA quality of the nomination. Graham Beards (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not maneuvering. No. Not. I was innocently following SN's suggestion, thinking it was protocol for confidentiality. I. Have no desire to undermine anyone. Read the thread at WT:FAC. My first post says, "I will send it to a FAC Coord". Please do WP:AGF. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This FAC has been tainted by suspicions of subterfuge, noncollegial responses to valid criticisms and doubts about the interpretation of sources. It is not only the quality an article that justifies its promotion to FA; it is the consensus reached during FAC - sadly, this nomination has been found wanting. Graham Beards (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Graham, I hope all is well. I'm not sure there was any subterfuge here. Lingzhi was following the advice given by a third party at FAC Talk. The 'use' of ArbCom was only to verify that the source of the emails was as has been claimed. I am hoping that the sources issue can be overcome if both parties continue to discuss things. It's a strong article and strong nomination, and I think it should be given the opportunity to progress further. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I value your opinion very much. I have struck my oppose and I will follow the discourse and perhaps comment later.Graham Beards (talk)
        • The concerns about this article's verification are far overshadowed by its overwhelming accuracy. Ask your reviewers; they will probably admit for every one cite that needs tweaking, there are 50 or 60 that are spot on... When I say "overshadowed" I do not mean any given cite can't be discussed and perhaps altered; I am only adding a sense of perspective. I am extremely willing to work with these. Are we looking for every cite to be perfect? Have we ever had any article held to that standard? Nope, it's 10% checks as SOP... As for "noncollegial", why is it noncollegial ro say "You're simply wrong, you've misinterpreted the page [on this isolated point]?" That's not saying [insert insults here], it's saying you're wrong. Am I not allowed to say someone's wrong? If that's the case, I must always accept every change that every reviewer requests. Have we ever had any article held to that standard? .. I'm sorry I did not catch that a copy editor removed a key phrase that placed one statement in chronological context. The article is freaking huge and the copy editor removed entire freaking sections. I had to re-add stuff repeatedly. I missed a prepositional phrase. I am human. I am sorry. I re-added it without complaint when I spotted that it was missing. This article is freaking huge. I missed a phrase. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fiamh: Please refresh my memory. Precisely which cite(s) would you like to re-examine? Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lingzhi2: Look above. All the comments that have been addressed have been struck. But there are still outstanding points: search above for Ó Gráda 2008, p. 39, Brennan 1988 re. atmospheric conditions, Bowbrick 1985. My estimate is one in ten or twenty citations are not verifiable against the content, which seems unacceptably high. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 01:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for clarifying. I will look at the other two you just mentioned within the next few minutes. [Snip sorry I'll move this bit of the reply to a spot further above] Thank you for your time and trouble. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fiamh: OK, with all due respect and hopefully without sounding impolite, of the three you list immediately above, two are very clearly not cite failures. I hope you will forgive me for speaking plainly, but alas I must. As for the other, I addressed it above. Thank you fo your attention. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Break to recap all points edit

  • @Nick-D:@Fiamh: People have told me I talk too much. I'm genuinely sorry. But... I have to explain/defend... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too many uses of (arguably) "Primary Source" FIC
  • Currently 70/ 615 = 11%. I am trying to add "as cited in..." [See here. You have me against the wall on this point. We apparently have profound differences of interpretation of WP:PRIMARY. Use of primary sources is perfectly legitimate, sanctioned and allowable, according to WP:PRIMARY, "... only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Moreover, primary sources cannot be used alone, without a secondary source to make an interpretation of the text. To the very best of my knowledge, each and every use of FIC fits these two cases as described.I would not be shocked if someone found a clear exception, but I am not aware of any. So then we come to the point of having "too many". If each and every instance is individually allowable within WP:PRIMARY, how can you say there are "too many"? Too many things which follow the rules? How is that a problem?... I can, in the interests of collegiality and cooperation and so on, make at least some effort to go through and delete some FIC cites. I have already deleted ten or so during this FAC, and added "as cited in" to another. But please be aware that we are very rapidly approaching the upper limit of what is even possible in that regard. If I deleted every FIC cite, or even most of them, the article would cease to exist, and its content would not be in any way recoverable. It cannot be written without citing FIC extensively. I do not think it is the role of FAC reviewers to make a judgment call on how many is "too many"; WP:PRIMARY is silent on the matter. I'm not sure it's appropriate to use our opinions or personal preferences to write where nothing official is written, and expect others to follow our opinions as law...
Cite verification failure
  • Eight points have been considered cite errors. I count one full bug, one half bug, one that is debatable between a full and half bug, and five false alarms. Bear in mind that your reviewers have mentioned that many of the cites (the number isn't specified) were spot on...
  1. Weigold 1999 ref 105 [Fiamh]
    False alarm
  2. Ó Gráda 2008, p. 20 [Fiamh]
    False alarm
  3. Ó Gráda 2008, p. 39. ref 377 [Fiamh]
    Yes, I totally mangled that one, but other cites in that sfnm accurately covered the text. Repaired. That's one bug.
  4. Brennan 1988 ref 100 [Fiamh]
    False alarm
  5. Brennan ref 174 "atmospheric conditions", [Fiamh]
    The reviewer hasn't had time to strike through this one yet, but it is a false alarm.
  6. Famine Inquiry Commission ref 119 [Fiamh]
    At first blush I thought this was a total miss on my part [I should go back and strike through that comment], but after thought it seems I mentally interpreted "local emergencies" to mean "civil unrest". I did change the text in light of this review, however, because the two are not necessarily synonymous. But I'll give this one only half a bug.
  7. Famine Inquiry Commission ref 119 [Fiamh]
    Really neither a bug nor a false alarm, just needed attribution "As one deponent stated"
  8. Bowbrick 1985, p. 57 [Fiamh]
    False alarm. Oh... additionally.. I just now noticed the comment, "Stevens' opinions should not be attributed to Bowbrick. Your edits here are not an improvement." That comment misses the mark, sorry. I didn't quote Stevens in Wikipedia text, only in discussion during this review. The point of showing the Bowbrick quote of Stevens is that Bowbrick is citing Stevens approvingly, which adds weight to the stated Wikipedia text's assertion that Bowbrick forcefully defends FIC. As does all the other text I added, and I could add more if you wish. Reviewer later adds, "...To me that is a qualified rather than forceful defence." No sorry again. Bowbrick states that the economic analysis was faulty ONLY in light of decades of hindsight. He forcefully defends FIC again and again, as I explicitly noted but the reviewer did not notice. And what's more, does so even on the one page that was originally cited: "they... made few major errors and [were] broadly correct in their conclusions. Certainly their analysis had more depth than Sen's." [Note that Sen won a Nobel prize for the analysis that is allegedly not as good as FIC's]. He also, again, on that same page says the report is "excellent" and "without preconceptions". No, sorry, no way I could consider conceding this point. Bowbrick forcefully supports FIC. I am sorry to be so blunt.
  9. FIC ref 274, to page 138 of the report. [Nick-D]
    Nick-D says that the stated text is correct in so far as it goes, but it omits text that occurs on the next page. Text on the next page runs contrary to text on cited page, i.e., "the hospitals were horrible" (cited page) "but improved" (on next page, not cited... at least not in the section of the article where Nick was looking). But considerably later, maybe a day or two, I suddenly remembered that the text which Nick wanted cited actually was cited. It was just cited in a later section (the "Wavell came and everything got better" section). I just... had a section about the bad conditions and a later section about how they later improved. So... is this a bug? I'll certainly give it half a bug at least, since yeah, I copied the "things got better under Wavell" text (already present in the article, down below) that Nick wanted to see and duplicated it up in the "things were bad" section. Is it a full bug? A matter of opinion. I am sure Nick would say yes. I think.... it was a mental error, as I was trying to organize the article. I fixed the mental error. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi is non-collegial
  • Completely, totally, utterly irrelevant. Not actionable and not valid for Oppose. No one in the outside world reading the article (hovers around 1,000 views per day) knows or cares whether or not I am Mr. Congeniality (nor do they need to know or care). No one in Wikipedia should be unduly influenced by having been told they're wrong. Process is important, but product more so... Besides, this is all a bit overdone because I haven't been rude anyhow. I have just said, "Sorry, you're simply wrong." I must be allowed to do this, for the process to function correctly.  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lingzhi, no one said you are rude. I certainly did not. As for the other points, I don't object to your defenses but it would be helpful if you tried to keep them shorter for future. I am wondering if you think it would be better for me to leave the source review to someone else and let FAC coords decide what to make of my objections. Regards, Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh. I was answering all stated objections by all reviewers at the same time.. Yes, you've never said or suggested that I was rude, but in fact two other reviewers essentially have. As for "let FAC coords decide what to make of my objections", I'm not sure that would work... Neither you nor I actually knows whether any given FAC coord is brave enough to reject an Oppose that he/she disagrees with, given that the discussion has been lengthy. I would only suggest that you put things in perspective/consider the big picture: do you think the points you disagree with me on, and the potential for other such points, is/are strong enough or frequent enough to distort the truth or mislead the reading public? If so then you must keep your Oppose. Do you think these are points that may be debatable and would not materially mislead the reading public? Then you should, in my opinion, strike your Oppose. Even further, do you think these points are actually minor, and the whole article is sound? If so, then in my opinion, you should not only strike your Oppose but then actually Support. That's my only suggestion: take a step back and look at the big picture. Thanks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I would suggest you do is go back and systematically check your citations and make sure each matches the content. That's what's recommended to do before FAC nominations, especially since your last one failed in part due to failed verification. As for FAC ccords weighing supports and opposes, that's what they have to do on any contentious nomination. I would like nothing more than to support this nomination but I cannot at present. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 00:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Fiamh: I still do not accept that these were bona fide cite errors... not in the slightest ... but I will change them to meet your desires... For "atmospheric conditions" I deleted "atmospheric conditions". It now reads "It [that is, the cyclone] also contributed to an increased incidence of malaria." For the text,"... Bowbrick forcefully defends the report's accuracy, twice describing it as excellent, repeatedly favoring its analyses over Sen's, and stating it was undertaken without any preconceptions", I changed it to "...Bowbrick defends the report's overall accuracy, stating it was undertaken without any preconceptions and twice describing it as excellent. Meanwhile, he repeatedly and rather forcefully favors its analyses over Sen's." Is that acceptable to you? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's definitely an improvement in the first case. In the second, now it matches the source but it sounds awkward. Anyway, I wish you best of luck with this FAC. I have renamed my section so that you can get a comprehensive source review from a second editor. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Fiamh: Thank you for your help. I was wondering, did you mean you keep the text above that says, "Unfortunately, I have to second Nick-D's oppose"? If not, it might confuse a FAC coord. Thanks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • A single comment I noticed this diff, for the change, "Corpses littered the streets of Calcutta, ..." to "Corpses were stacked on the streets of Calcutta ...," and citing as rationale a description of Janam Mukherjee:"... stacks of corpse that began accumulating on the streets and by-lanes of Calcutta." (here) A stack is a pile arranged in an orderly fashion. Corpses typically can't be arranged in stacks. Corpse boxes, i.e. coffins, can; but there were no coffins there. It is more likely that the corpses lay littered, i.e. lay about in a disordered fashion, throughout the city. They may have been then piled up here and there before being carted away. In my view it is better to write: "lay about scattered throughout the city." I'm sure there are sources that attest. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nomination support by Fowler&fowler edit

  • I have carefully read the article. Although I had criticized it earlier, and not a few times, I believe it now meets all the FAC criteria, and then some. What little nooks and crannies there are of disrepair will continue to be restored, I have no doubt, after it is promoted. For such is the interest in this topic. For @Lingzhi2: this has been a long labor of love for which he has my envy and my admiration. I venture to predict that the article might even become a benchmark for those who want to write articles on important, vital, topics, genuinely encyclopedic ones, requiring sifting, assessing, and summarizing wide-ranging views of thoughtful people. This latter group, in this article, includes not only, P.C. Mahalanobis, W. R. Ayckroyd, and the members of the Famine Inquiry Commission of 1945, Amartya Sen, Paul Greenough, Mufakharul Islam, Iftekhar Iqbal, Christopher Bayly, Tim Dyson, A. Maharatna, and Cormac O Grada, but also those who much earlier were responsible for crafting these words in the Report of the Indian Famine Commission of 1880:

    "The first effect of a drought is to diminish greatly, and at last to stop, all field labour, and to throw out of employment the great mass of people who live on the wages of labour. A similar effect is produced next upon the artisans, the small shop-keepers, and traders, first in villages and country towns, and later on in the larger towns also, by depriving them of their profits, which are mainly dependent on dealings with the least wealthy classes; and, lastly, all classes become less able to give charitable help to public beggars, and to support their dependents. Such of the agricultural classes as possess a proprietary interest in the land, or a valuable right of occupancy in it, do not require as a rule to be protected against starvation in time of famine unless the calamity is unusually severe and prolonged, as they generally are provided with stocks of food or money, or have credit with money-lenders. But those who, owning only a small plot of land, eke out by its profits their wages as labourers, and rack-rented tenants-at-will living almost from hand-to-mouth, are only a little way removed from the class of field-labourers; they possess no credit, and on them pressure soon begins."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your generous words and your kind support. I genuinely appreciate both. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Fowler&fowler: @Ykraps: @Lingzhi2: I have the sense that you are increasingly talking at cross purposes. If I am correct in my assessment, please try to keep your comments on-topic. Anyway, here are a few clarifications. About your query, Ykraps, Sugata Bose says (in the discussion accompanying the table):

    East Bengal was worst hit by the wave of distress sales of peasant smallholdings. Eleven out of the fourteen subdivisions ‘very severely affected’ by the famine were in the four east Bengal districts of Dhaka, Faridpur, Noakhali and Tippera. According to an Indian Statistical Institute survey, 12.5% of all families in subdivisions within this category sold land between August 1943 and April 1944, and 3.9% had to sell off all their paddy lands.52 The strata of peasantry which had started lending on usufructuary mortgage in the 1930s were the principal beneficiaries of the land sales of the 1940s, but some talukdars made gains too. An enquiry in a Faridpur village revealed that 40.5% of the alienated area was purchased by ‘cultivators’, 17.9% by ‘zamindars’, 15% by ‘office employees’, 10.1% by ‘traders’, 7% by ‘jotedars’, 5.4% by ‘moneylenders’ and 4.1% by ‘priests and petty employees’. Yet, land alienation in east Bengal in the 1940s did not swell the ranks of landless agricultural wage-labourers <sic, he forgot to put a comma here> who were ‘either reverting to sharecropping — sharecroppers with no land, no cattle, or migrating tothe cities, or simply dying out’.

    I don't believe he talking about land requisition by the government during the war. I noticed some earlier concerns about the population trends of the period 1901–1941. That is probably not the best timespan to consider. The period 1871 to 1921 had intervals in which death rates were high and these affected the average mortality. They were caused by the Great Famine of 1876–1878 and the Indian famine of 1896–97, the plagues of 1896-98 and the influenza pandemic of 1917-18. It was only in the period 1921-41 that the population began to increase stably. The reasons for it have been much debated by historical demographers, although there is a better understanding now. Here is Tim Dyson in A Population History of India OUP, 2018:

    "... much of the lower average death rate of the 1920s and 1930s reflected the elimination of major calamities. Epidemics and food crises still occurred, but they were smaller and more limited affairs. Famine was declared on at least twelve separate occasions between 1921 and 1941, and there were many individual ‘scarcities’. Nevertheless, these crises tended to affect districts that were known to be particularly drought-prone—such as Bellary, Bijapur, Satara, and Sholapur behind the Western Ghats, and Gurgaon, Hisar, and Rohtak in the vicinity of Delhi. Consequently, given a degree of administrative awareness and preparation, and transport improvements, deaths on the scale of previous times were avoided. ... Further, the different disease ecologies associated with the drier conditions of the north and the west, and the moister conditions of the east and much of the south, became better understood. In the 1920s and 1930s, there was also an increased understanding of the contribution of inadequate nutrition to deaths from diarrhoeal and respiratory diseases. <Dyson, Tim. A Population History of India (p. 179). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.>

    The claim that the population had developed natural immunity to some diseases seems to be discounted now.

    "In short, with respect to TB and other diseases, there is little reason to think that the mortality improvement of the 1920s reflected a change in the population’s immunological resistance. Dyson, Tim. A Population History of India (p. 160). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition."

    There was also the British enactment of the Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870, the Age of Consent Act, 1891 whose combined effects of limiting female mortality, and maternal mortality, had begun to give demographic dividends by the 1920s. I hope this helps. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the problems is that the table doesn't support or add anything to the text. The table just shows total land transfers. We could put it in the Military build up section and it would be just as relevant/irrelevant there.--Ykraps (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ykraps: Sugata Bose says pretty clearly, "The strata of peasantry which had started lending on usufructuary mortgage in the 1930s were the principal beneficiaries of the land sales of the 1940s," That is a pretty general statement, about Bengal, not just a district or division. It suggests that in his view the principal land transfers in the 1940s were made to money lenders, not to the government for tis war-time needs, that they constituted a plurality, if not the outright majority, of the sales. In that case, giving the overall land sales figures does give the reader a feel for the magnitude of distress-driven transfers. Putting that table in the military build-up section would be deceitful, as those transfers constituted a minority. Also, your comment about Sugata Bose's neutrality, even if it is a rhetorical question, is unfortunate. For the record, the drafts of the book were read by three historians of South Asia, Christopher Bayly (his former thesis adviser in Cambridge), David Washbrook and David Ludden, all highly experienced reviewers of the literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ykraps: Your final comments below include the statement,

          I have just started looking at neutrality but already have some concerns. The areas the British failed in are made clear but the article is less obvious about where they got it right, and the extent to which the natives contributed to the problem is glossed over. There is no mention, for example, of how difficult it was to inoculate against disease because of suspicions about western medicines.

          Do you mean inoculation, which had a long history in India, or vaccination? The major British investment in vaccination in India was against smallpox, and to a lesser extent against typhoid and TB. You are right about Indian reluctance. (See here) However, the major disease burden during the famine was malaria for which there were no effective vaccines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I found it. Ykraps has pulled two or three of his/her talking points from Bhattacharya, Sanjoy (2002b), which he and I had discussed earlier... It mentions both "military had to distribute food" and "enticing with food for medicine".. Mmmm on the first point, Bhattacharya doesn't directly say the military had to distribute food because of corruption, but says there was corruption that never stabilized until the military began distributing food... On the second point, this phenomenon occured only in famine camps, where the principle malady was malnutrition.. the people wanted food, not medicine... This seems to have been limited in scope, since this is the only article that mentions it, and it limits it to famine camps.. The article does not draw a link to that as a significant cause of excess deaths or any such thing... the tone of the single paragraph dedicated to this point actually comes across more like it was a mild annoyance, a source of mild criticism.. so it seems a stretch to point to one article as evidence that the pro-British POV has been sady neglected in our article. I am glad Ykraps has scanned/read the article tho. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

Commenting here as coord without making any remark on the weight of the comments (that's for reviewers to consider) but I've confirmed over email that the remarks attributed to Greenough above about the article are indeed from him. --Laser brain (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-coordinator comment, but: SchroCat I see you added this FAC to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests#Image/source check requests as needing an image review but there was already an image review by Nikkimaria, a few sections above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted Jo-Jo Eumerus! I meant source review, and I've tweaked the request as appropriate. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • All links are live and working according to the tool.
Formatting
  • Ref #9, missing page numbers for A. Sen 1976 and A. Sen 1981a.
    • Sen's entire thesis – the thesis for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize – is that the famine was a crisis of "entitlements" that was largely if not entirely the result of human action and inaction. it is the cornerstone of his academic reputation. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #10, missing page numbers for Bowbrick 1986 and Tauger 2003.
    • Bowbrick and Tauger's arguments are that Sen is wrong, and the famine resulted mainly from a deficit of grain. Perhaps the chaos of war made things more difficult, but the main cause was a decline in food availability. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #13, missing page number for Chaudhuri 1975.
    • The process described here is a main thesis of Chadhuri's paper, as seen in the title, "The Process of Depeasantization in Bengal and Bihar, 1885–1947". For example, page 106 gives the thesis statement for the entire article: "The compulsion under which peasants sold their holdings was mostly caused by the 'permanent background' of their indebtedness." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #46, missing page number for Mukherji 1986.
    • The cited sentence reflects the main topic of this entire paper. The first sentence says, "The main purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of change in the forms of credit or capital supply in Bengal agriculture through the 30s and 40s of the twentieth century, which were ultimately reflected in changing methods of land control and management, as well as in the forms of labour employment. " Two pages later we have, "In the following pages, there will be occasion to examine what the authorities in different districts had to say about the willingness of a new class of land grabbers to acquire all kinds of new rights in land." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #56, missing page number for Ram 1997.
    • You know what, this ref is used only once in the entire article, and it the third of three supporting that statement. Meh, just delete it. So I did. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #64, odd formatting for "citing McClelland (1859, pp. 32, 38)", inconsistent with the rest of the referencing. Different variations in refs, #108, #121, #140, #166, #181, #275, #278, #289, #299, #300, #337, #413, #423; make them all consistent.
  • Ref #125, missing page number for Iqbal 2011.
    • The discussion is largely about boat denial. Boat denial is the topic of Iqbal 2011, "The Boat Denial Policy and the Great Bengal Famine". ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #171, missing page number for Ó Gráda 2015.
    • Changed to "A. Sen 1977, p. 50; Ó Gráda 2015, pp. 55, 57". I put Sen first because he makes the assertion more succinctly and forcefully, i.e., "The ineptness of the propaganda drive was exceptional." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #210, "p." should be "pp."
  • Ref #235, missing page number for S. Bose 1990.
    • Thanks this is actually a typo of sorts. There actually is a page number there (p. 701) , but you can't see it, because I accidentally used sfnm instead of sfn. Fixed typo. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #257, inconsistent formatting for "Derived from Maharatna (1992, p. 243, Table 5.5)"
  • Ref #276, missing page number for Das 1949.
    • Deleted. It is actually preceded by a direct quote anyhow so the first source is clearly the preferable one. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #301, missing page number for Greenough 1982.
    • Again a misformatted sfnm. I had loc=chapter 4, which didn't display, so I have changed it to Greenough 1982, pp. 221–223, 177–178, 155–157. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #311, missing page number for Brennan 1988.
    • It's actually repeatedly discussed from different angles in several places across several pages, since relief aid (and it slowness/inadequacy) is the main topic of the article. That's why I didn't add page numbers. However, two places where it is summarized clearly are 547–548 and 562–563. I added those pages. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #326, missing page number for Siegel 2018.
    • This is yet again another sfnm --> sfn typo. Corrected. Thanks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #346, missing page number for Greenough 1982.
    • This is another "it's everywhere in the book, where do I begin?" thing. It's especially salient in the anecdotal evidence of (again) chapter four and again throughout chapter 5. Page 184 gives a thumbnail sketch, so used that, but it would be better to say "Chapters 4 and 5". ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #352, missing page number for Ghosh 1944.
    • Deleted. My pdf copy is non-searchable, I am tired & we already have a source. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #357, missing page number for A. Sen 1977.
  • Ref #358, Baltimore Sun is the work, not the author. This also needs a date of publication.
    • I didn't add that reference; someone else snuck it in when I wasn't looking. That's why the formatting is so entirely hosed up. But I suppose the factoid is somewhat useful, so I'll fix instead of deleting. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs #371, #374; be consistent what short name you choose; the first uses publication and year, the second the title.
  • Ref #379, missing page number for Bowbrick 1986.
    • Again, the entire paper is pretty much about this. However, it's discussed at length in pp 111-114 so I'll add those.
  • Ref #380, missing page numbers for Padmanabhan 1973 and Tauger 2003.
    • Again, these papers are pretty much about this. However, Padmanabhan has a famous quote on pp. 11, 23. Tauger is famous specifically for unearthing Padmanabhan. However, he kinda hones in on the brown spot on pp 65-67. So I'll add those. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #382, missing page numbers for A. Sen 1977 and A. Sen 1981a.
    • Nobel prize
  • Ref #383, missing page number for A. Sen 1977.

Nobel prize

  • Ref #400, missing page number for Law-Smith 1989.
    • The cited sentence summarizes the whole paper. I suppose I can add a page number from the conclusion section.... p. 64
  • Ref #402, missing page number for Hickman 2008.
    • Added |Hickman|2008|pp=238–240
  • Ref #421 needs the publisher listed after the title, not before.
    • Sorry, there's nothing I can do about that. It's the output of an inflation conversion template...
  • Das, Tarakchandra (1949) needs an OCLC number, as you provide it for other sources.
  • Famine Inquiry Commission (May 1945) is not a PDF.
  • Is there any detail on who published "The Pinnell Archive on the Bengal Famine: Evidence to the Famine Inquiry Commission 1944"?
  • Because you listed locations for your other references, you should add the location for Wavell, Archibald Percival (1973) too.
  • Grehan, John; Mace, Martin (eds.) needs a year of publication.
  • Arnold, David (8 January 1991). Just a year is sufficient for books.
  • Bhattacharya, Sanjoy (September 2013). Same.
  • Bose, Sugata (11 March 1993). Same, also needs a location.
  • Bose, Chunilal (1930) needs a location.
  • Brown, Judith Margaret (1991) also needs a location.
  • Callahan, Raymond (14 October 2011), the location includes the state abbreviation, which isn't consistent with other references (you could alternatively add it in to those missing it.)
  • Churchill, Winston S. (1986), is there an original year of publication for this?
  • Dewey, Clive; Hopkins, Anthony G. (eds.). The Imperial Impact: Studies in the Economic History of Africa and India. Needs year of publication, and ideally an OCLC or ISBN as appropriate.
  • Dyson, Tim (27 September 2018), just a year is sufficient, plus location.
  • Greenough, Paul R. (1982) needs a location.
  • Islam, M. Mufakharul (2007b) same.
  • Khan, Yasmin (2015) same.
  • Knight, Henry (1954) has state abbreviation.
  • Maharatna, Arup (1996) needs a location.
  • Mukherjee, S. N. (January 1987), just a year is sufficient, plus location.
  • Ó Gráda, Cormac (2009) needs a location.
  • Ó Gráda, Cormac (2015) needs a location.
  • Panigrahi, Devendra (19 August 2004), just a year is sufficient, plus state abbreviation.
  • Roy, Tirthankar (2019) needs a location.
  • Sen, Amartya (1980) needs a location.
  • Sen, Amartya (2011) has state abbreviation.
  • Siegel, Benjamin Robert (26 April 2018), just a year is sufficient, plus location.
  • I didn't identify each as I went, but why do UK and US locations just list the City/City and State, while Indian locations have City, Country? Make it consistent.
  • Reviewed formatting to the end of the "Books, book chapters". Will continue later. No verification checks have been carried out yet. Harrias talk 11:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vernon, James (2009) has state abbreviation.
    • @Harrias: Thank you for your detailed comments. I'd like to clarify, however: when you say a given source is missing a page number, do you mean "it might be possible to add page numbers to some of these, and if it is possible, then doing so would be an improvement", or do you mean "you must add page numbers to these"? To my mind at least, and I believe I could probably find examples in published sources, listing sources without listing page numbers is an extremely acceptable practice. It generally means that the point at hand is one which is salient in the source... and as for all the missing locations, when the name of the university press includes the city in which it resides (eg., Bose, Chunilal (1930). Food. University of Calcutta" which is located in Calcutta) then the name of the university itelf suffices. The article should be consistent in this regard, unless I missed one or two. Thanks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: page numbers: FACR 1c requires that "claims are verifiable". WP:CITEHOW explains that "This information is included in order to identify the source, assist readers in finding it, and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found." So in essence; if you are happy that if I choose a selection of the claims supported by those references above, I will be able to (relatively) quickly and easily be able to verify them without page numbers, then no page number is required. However, if that is not the case, then they need page numbers to meet FACR 1c. I would expect that the lack of page numbers would be very much the exception, but I have not yet looked at the references in context of the article, only from a pure formatting point of view so far. Harrias talk 21:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: locations: I can live with that, but do check it is consistent. (There is at least one case of "Oxford: Oxford University Press".) Harrias talk 21:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: I think I may have answered all or almost all of your questions, but it's late so I may have missed some. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just seen this on my watchlist. It didn't ping me for some reason, but no matter. I'll take a look over your responses and changes as soon as I get a chance. Harrias talk 14:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note 2 edit

Coord note: @Fiamh, Nick-D, Ykraps, and Harrias: I need to get a feel for where these reviews are. This review has been open 2.5 months and it's gotten quite large and bloated. I'm not seeing that a source review has been actually passed. I see some concerns from Ykraps about the size of the article and interpretation of some of the sources. I see Nick's oppose on comprehensiveness and not containing other points of view. I'd like to see this wrapped up quickly, and if that can't be done ... I suggest that it be worked out amongst the various editors above on the talk page rather than here at FAC. Where do we stand, in other words? If I could have brief summaries from the various folks who appear to have issues, that'd be great, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been monitoring this nomination, and remain a firm oppose for the reasons noted above in my review. I didn't closely review the article's text due to my concerns over sourcing (extensive use of primary sources and a much too high incidence of sources not supporting the text when checked), and the many issues noted in Ykraps' review raise further concerns regarding content. As I noted in my review, the article is much improved on when it previously came to FAC, but I don't think that it's of FA standard. Nick-D (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harrias: promised to do a source review, but he/she seems to be busy. Supports (including, implicitly, Paul Greenough, who gave a glowing review) heavily outweigh opposes. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ling, with all seriousness, I can still read and count, I didn't need the recap, unless you think I'm not capable of reading this. I didn't ask you your opinion, I asked the folks I pinged. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for my part in bloating this review but this is partly to do with it being such a large article.
Is it too large? I have to say that it probably is. I accept this is a large complex subject but I think there is room for some trimming. The section on the fall of Burma for example could probably be reduced to a few sentences.
This leads me to question whether the article is focussed. The article repeats itself quite a lot. I realise that some repetition is probably necessary because of the length and the need to put things in context but the repetition is in my opinion, too in depth and excessive. The cloth famine is discussed in multiple places, as is the disintegration of families, child prostitution, population displacement, disposal and non-disposal of the dead.
I'm not entirely convinced that everything in the article is wholly relevant. The quotations are excessive and sensationalist, and don't appear to add extra information to the article. I still question the relevance of the land transfers table and whether it supports the text.
I have just started looking at neutrality but already have some concerns. The areas the British failed in are made clear but the article is less obvious about where they got it right, and the extent to which the natives contributed to the problem is glossed over. There is no mention, for example, of how difficult it was to inoculate against disease because of suspicions about western medicines. The British overcame this somewhat by refusing to issue food and clothing unless it was accompanied by treatment. Greedy Indian grain merchants artificially inflating prices isn't discussed and although communal and political wrangling among the Indian middle-classes is, the scale of the problem is downplayed. In fact the situation was so bad that the British Army had to take over grain distribution to ensure that food meant for general distribution wasn't kept by well-off Indian civil servants who intended to profit from the misery of their own people. The situation improved greatly after. This isn't a problem with cherry-picking sources, worryingly these things are in some of the sources used but didn't make it into the article. The article points out the British refusal to send food and questions the lack of shipping excuse but the Americans also refused to send shipments for precisely the same reason and this isn't mentioned. As I said, I've only just started looking at neutrality.
I also think that parts of the article are going to be confusing to those without specialist or in-depth knowledge. As a quick example, the term British appears to have been used interchangeably to describe the British contingent of the colonial government, the UK parliament and the British military.
For my part, this review isn't going to be over any time soon.--Ykraps (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ykraps: Do you think the article as it stands now, without further review from yourself, meets the FA criteria? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without further review? I still have things I want to discuss so I have to say no it doesn't at this precise time, and it gives me no pleasure to so. I do understand that this nomination can't sit here forever however and a decision needs to be made.--Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have zero, exctly zero, and no more than zero proof that military transfers are included in the table, It's your word against Cambridge university and Sugata Bose. For. The. Record. This fits right in line with your other extremely confident assertions below, for which you have Zero proof, and several of which were verifiably false/wrong (and I showed the wikitext with sources to prove it). Everything you've said.. zero support in ANY sources.. All you have is your own words and nothing else. Did you cite anything? No. Never. Thanks. And again for the record: If this nom fails, the Wikipedia WIAFA model functionally holds that WP:V is completely irrrelevant, and any editor can make any unsupported assertions, and those assertions weigh more than OUP and CUP etc. That's the simple truth. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several rebuttals: Hopefully without starting an argument, the Americans did not send food because the British explicitly rejected the offer... I would be happy to add that, after looking it up, if it seems relevant... [Our Wikipedia article already says, "The Cabinet also refused offers of food shipments from several different nations.[18]" ...Specifically, IIRC, the Americans offered to transport grain, but the British refused the offer because they believed (perhaps correctly, I seem to recall) that military transport would be re-tasked and thus directed away from their present military supply goals, rather than having the grain transported by ships that were not presently tasked... But the end of the story is that the UK said NO... I have been reading for 3 years now and have seen no mention of people refusing inoculation. I can look again, but...Greedy merchants and war profiteering are mentioned repeatedly in our Wikipedia article and are discussed with a devastating quote: "...nearly a thousand rupees ... of profits were accrued per death". There isn't an extended discussion of them because I never found an extended discussion of them [I have found anecdotal evidence...]. That in turn makes sense, because they were private citizens and thus better able to keep their actions undocumented. ... Speaking of the military taking over grain distribution, yes of course they did, but the picture the FIC paints is not that they did it to forestall profiteering (which did exist), but because the necessary administrative systems were in near total collapse. No equipment, no personnel, nothing to move grain with, and the grain that began to arrive was piling up in the Botanical Gardens and other places. It was just chaos and and an utter lack of transport ability, so the military very efficiently and effectively took control..Ah yes our article mentions this: "However, a second problem emerged: the Civil Supplies Department of Bengal was undermanned and under-equipped to distribute the supplies, and the resulting transportation bottleneck left very large piles of grain accumulating in the open air in several locations, including Calcutta's Botanical Garden"... Back to the topic of people declining vaccinations, the FIC repeatedly asserts that the level of vaccination was woefully inadequate until a very decisive change very late in the famine (precisely the same as the food distribution situation). The FIC never explains why the earlier situation was so inadequate. Now, you have to bear with me: I strongly believe that if there had been widespread rejection of medicine, the FIC would have said so. I seem to recall that they were careful to explain, for example, about how some people declined to eat or were reluctant to eat certain unfamiliar or unpreferred types of grain. Rejections of medicine would have been a similar case, with dire consequences, that would almost certainly have been mentioned.... Ah the FIC doesn't say people declined unfamiliar grain, it says they didn't know how to cook it, and the resulting digestive distress was potentially fatal. But the analogy with medicine distribution still holds, because the unfamiliar food detail is mentioned several times.... Sorry this is scattered but... back to corruption.. yes corruption is mentioned again and again and our Wikipedia article mentions and cites it again and again. It doesn't give details. I have been looking again and found a few anecdotal things, especially about "purchasing agents".... but these don't draw a connection between corruption and the military taking over distribution of grain, as Ykraps suggests...AS for Nick-D's Stong Oppose, if you read the sea of words above very, very carefully, you'll discover that Nick is resting his strenuous oppose solely on a single sentence which he believes was missing, but which in fact actually always was in our article, just not in the section where Nick was looking. I then duplicated that sentence in the section where Nick wanted it. I then told everyone that it was already there, and that I had duplicated it anyway... Nick declined to search for further evidence of failure to fulfill WIAFA, and declined to retract his oppose even after I explained the above. Nick's comments mirror those of Ykraps in feeling that our article over-emphasizes the role of the UK in all of this. I can only say this: my job is to comb all sources, and repeat what they say. I have made some errors. But Good God, I have hundreds of sources. I believe I have reflected then faithfully.... As for anti-UK bias, to be honest, as I stated far above, if the article can be accused of any bias at all, it is understating the content of the sources. For example, Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen, who is very very far from a polemical nationalist, states (and I do not believe I quoted him in the article) that the UK government is culpable for not doing enough to provide food. I will find this quote soon...got it, Sen, Amartya (1981a). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. pages 78-79. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My oppose obviously isn't on the basis of a single sentence. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • All these things need to be discussed but this is not the section for discussing them.--Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ealdgyth: Unfortunately, Christmas is getting the better of me at the moment. During my initial source review I had a lot of concerns about missing page numbers for book sources; I can see that the nominator has responded with regards to this, but I have not had a chance to go back through properly, though I can see that most still don't have page numbers for various justifications. I can't comment on the validity of those justifications at the moment. The lack of page numbers leaves me concerned about verification, which is an aspect of the source review I have not yet managed to get to. I honestly can't promise that I'll be able to get anything done before Christmas Day. Harrias talk 13:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note edit

It's pretty clear that although this article has a number of supports, there are also a number of editors opposed. There still isn't completed source review, with the previous source reviewer appearing to have withdrawn for various reasons. At this point, the FAC has gotten so unwieldy that it's a serious drain to try and figure out what's going on. It's been open two and a half months - and it's still having new issues brought up. The opposes have weight, as they are not just prose concerns, but concerns with the content of the article. Whether or not a historian backs the article isn't much help, because we do not know whether or not they have taken sides in this particular historical dispute. I strongly strongly suggest that the editors involved in the nomination work with the folks who are opposed to come to some agreement before bringing this back to FAC.

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 December 2019 [28].

Ultralight Beam edit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the song by rapper Kanye West. It was released as the opening track to his 2016 album The Life of Pablo. I brought this to GA a while ago and has since been expanded more by multiple editors. It underwent a much-needed copy edit earlier this month and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. This is my first attempt at a FAC (I'm a regular over at FLC) so I'm sorry if it is not up to standards yet, but I'm more than willing to do whatever it takes to improve it. I'm looking forward to reading all of your comments and concerns. Happy editing :-) – zmbro (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Kanye_West_Ultralight_Beam.ogg: FUR is incomplete and needs to be strengthened. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria I believe I've taken care of it. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. – zmbro (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, but think the "purpose" in particular needs some more expansion. What do readers gain by having this sample as opposed to the article simply saying it has elements of gospel? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • Hi, with only an image review after three weeks I'm afraid this is a bit of a non-starter, so I'm going to archive it. Given the lack of commentary, it'd be within FAC guidelines for me to give you leave to re-nominate immediately, without the usual two-week break, but I'd strongly recommend as someone new to FAC that you try Peer Review first, and/or the FAC mentoring scheme. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2019 [29].

Elizabeth College, Guernsey edit

Nominator(s):  Formula One wiki 21:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Elizabeth College, a single-sex independent school in Guernsey. It is the oldest school in Guernsey, and one of the oldest public schools in the British Isles. I believe an article with such significance to the island should reflect that significance in the article's standard.  Formula One wiki 21:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Passing comment: "places at Russell Group universities as well as Oxford or Cambridge". Oxford and Cambridge are members of the RG. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SchroCat, I have replaced 'as well as' with 'including'. — Formula One wiki 22:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why separate them out at all? The RG is a prestigious group in toto, and Imperial constantly beats one, other or both in rankings tables. Just leave it was RG, with maybe a footnote to list the members. - SchroCat (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I think the link to the RG page will suffice without a foonote. — Formula One wiki 23:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Elizabeth_College_Guernsey_crest.png: the given tag is for governmental seals. Who is believed to be the copyright holder? Same question applies to File:Elizabeth_College_logo.png
    • I believe I uploaded it correctly in accordance with the instructions at WP:WPSCH/AG#IB, so forgive me if it was used inappropriately. Is this to say that guidance is wrong? —Formulaonewiki 23:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    • Scratch that last, I've clearly misread the guidance. I've corrected the licence and the supporting rationale/summary information for File:Elizabeth College Guernsey crest.png. As the image I've just mentioned is supposedly being used as the 'primary' means of identification for the school, that probably undermines any justification for having File:Elizabeth_College_logo.png also; perhaps it should be removed and deleted. —Formulaonewiki 23:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rambles_Among_the_Channel_Islands_by_a_Naturalist_Jean_Louis_Armand_de_Quatrefages_de_Bréau_dd.jpg: suggest amending the description to reflect the fact that this is not own work. Same with File:Rambles_Among_the_Channel_Islands_by_a_Naturalist_Jean_Louis_Armand_de_Quatrefages_de_Bréau_ee.jpg
  • File:The_Royal_College_of_Elizabeth,_Guernsey,_Channel_Islands._L_Wellcome_V0012715_-_CROPPED.jpg: source provides more information on the image's provenance that should be included in the description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

  • This has been open around four weeks without attracting substantial commentary so I'm going to archive it. I'd recommend before re-nominating that you give Peer Review a try (hit and miss though that can be, admittedly) or, given you're new to FAC, investigate the FAC mentoring scheme. Best, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2019 [30].

The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra edit

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is, at least in my opinion, a truly fascinating little film, and an underappreciated one despite its influence on American avant-garde cinema. It's less than 15 minutes long and is available to view on YouTube if you're interested in checking out the movie itself... — Hunter Kahn 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good for FA on a quick look, perhaps a video file of the whole film could be included if it is in the public domain, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would I go about adding it? It's on YouTube but I assume I don't just post it from there? — Hunter Kahn 01:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like the version you've linked above includes elements still under copyright protection - if a version entirely out of copyright could be located it could be uploaded directly. Otherwise you could use {{external media}} to provide a more prominent link. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Quote in the lead should be cited there, even if repeated later
  • Given that the premiere appears uncertain, suggest omitting it from the infobox, or at least indicating the uncertainty there
    • Changed it to just the year, since that much is not in dispute. Does that work? — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article text does not currently indicate that the year is not in dispute - if that's the case that should be specified. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source for runtime?
    • I was under the impression this information didn't need a source since the film itself serves as a source of the information? Most FAs on films don't have a source for this. But if I'm wrong here I can try to dig one up... — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Runtime will depend on version - for example the YouTube you've linked is longer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox lists a cast member as George Voya; article text lists Voya George. Which is correct?
    • Should be Voya George; made the fix. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's your source for the budget after inflation?
    • The source is just for the budget and the original year; I assumed that was enough information to apply to the inflation template. Do we typically need a source for this? — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The inflation template uses a particular source for that calculation which should be cited, as using a different source would give a different answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN14: source link gives a different page number
    • Fixed. (This is now FN15 because of the citation for the quote in the lead.) — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN64 is a dead link
    • The page still existed but the URL was changed; I've updated it. (This is now FN65 because of the citation for the quote in the lead.) — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
    • I think it looks OK, unless I'm missing something? — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link provided for Allen goes to the record for a different article, and issue is missing
    • Are you sure? It's looks right to me... — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, I'm sure. The Allen article is listed on the page under Related articles, but the actual record is for a different source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dixon's name has a double Dixon?
    • Nope, that's a mistake. Fixed it. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes DVD Talk a high-quality reliable source?
    • It's been discussed at WP:RS/N and it seems to have been considered reliable there, and the sources and information at its own Wikipedia article seem to indicate it's a reliable source used by industry professionals. I personally still probably wouldn't rely on it for a great deal of article content, but as its used only for one brief mention of a DVD release, it seems OK to me. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the journals cited include publisher and location, but Movie Makers does not - why?
    • An oversight, I guess. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Giovacchini title is missing a couple of 'The's
  • Jacobs: source lists Smoodin before Martin as editors
    • I think I just put Smoodin first to alphabatize by last name, but I switched them. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • James 2001 is missing editor. Same with Moritz, check for others
      • Moritz is still missing editor, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • James 2001 link goes to the Taves 2001 chapter
    • Fixed this. I set it to automatically go to the page in the chapter where he discusses this film in particular, but if necessary I can make it just go to the beginning of the overall chapter... — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Krinsky's first name doesn't match source, and should include full date here
    • Oops, yeah, it was listed as "Tamar" but should've been "Tamara." Fixed that, and added the full date. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merritt link returns 404 error
    • It seems the preview for this book is no longer available, so I've removed the URL. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wollstein link goes to the general section page rather than the direct source
    • Yeah, there had been a biography on the NY Times page, but it seems to be gone now, and the Internet Archive didn't capture a snapshot, unfortunately. Since this source was only reinforcing a fact already cited by two other sources, I've just gone ahead and removed it altogether. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zecević is missing the accent, number listed as volume is actually issue

Quite a bit of cleanup work needed on citation formatting here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the feedback, Nikkimaria. Happy to respond to anything else. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

  • I'm afraid that with only a source review (vital though that is, thanks as always Nikki) after almost a month, it's time to archive this. Given the lack of other commentary, I wouldn't object to waiving the usual two-week waiting period before a re-nom, but I wonder if a shot at Peer Review mightn't be preferable first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2019 [31].

Donald Forrester Brown edit

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Donald Brown, a New Zealand soldier who was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War. He was only the second New Zealand recipient of the war. Although not a particularly lengthy article, it comprehensively covers its subject and has been through GAN and a Milhist A-Class review. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:DF_Brown,_VC.jpg: not clear to me whether the given tag is meant to apply to the scan or the image itself, but given this is a pre-1924 publication suggest adding a US PD tag anyways
  • File:Warlencourt_British_Cemetery_-4.JPG: technically since France does not have freedom of panorama this should include an explicit tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working. per the checker tool
  • Formatting: all consistent and MoS-compliant
  • Quality/reliability: No issues that I can see.

A clean bill of health. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Sorry but this FAC has stalled so I'm going to archive it. Given the relative lack of commentary, happy to waive the usual two-week waiting period for re-nomination -- if you do that pls note up front that image and source reviews were carried out with this nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2019 [32].

Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa edit

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a really old Venezuelan film! There's not much information, given the collective lack of info from Venezuela in general and the age of it, however, I have covered everything that is publicly available and there are not dramatic areas of lack (very little information exists on the production, to the point there's no solid idea of the director). It has been worked on and improved a lot since the last FAC, which was rather quickly closed for needing better prose - it's had two ce's since, and I would love any and all constructive criticism on how to improve it even more. I feel now more than the last time that it's a good candidate for FA. Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson edit

Just a few preliminary observations/comments:

  • Whatever happened to the Hotel Europa? Does is still exist, or has it been demolished, and if it was demolished when?
    • At some point between 1898 and the 1950s, the hotel was rebuilt as the Hotel Zulia, changing ownership; in 1956 it was demolished to build the Maracaibo municipal council building at the site. Diccionario General del Zulia Kingsif (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel like that should go somewhere in the article, as a single sentence, but I'm not quite sure where. Perhaps in "Production and director", although maybe also in "Modern critical views." – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a sentence to the bottom of the Film content section; tell me if you feel it fits elsewhere/could be better written. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Duran brother is which in the photograph?

I'll almost certainly think of more stuff later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at some more stuff later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Looking through this article again I see no further major issues and support promotion of this article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Frame_from_"Un_célebre_especialista_sacando_muelas_en_el_gran_Hotel_Europa".jpg: if the author is unknown, how do you know they died over 70 years ago? Same with File:ZPA_image_of_dental_extraction_1890s_Zulia.png, File:Newspaper_clipping_announcing_the_showing_of_films_in_Maracaibo,_January_1897.png, File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png
  • File:The_Hotel_Europa_in_Maracaibo,_c._1897.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images are from videos, or, in the case of the hotel image, a higher quality version that is discussed in one of the videos (included in article sources). It's explained that they're from the 1890s, which puts them in the PD in terms of Venezuela, which should be fine. For extra security, we look to PD in the US: regards the author, that would be the director, since at the time that vaguely meant 'person with the recording device'. The only proposed directors are Manuel Trujillo Durán and Gabriel Veyre, both of whom died over 70 years ago, so no matter which it was, he died long enough ago. As a note, the images were also released before 1924, but since they were not released in the US, I wouldn't know if that version of PD-old applies.
    • If you have suggestions for how to improve the descriptions etc. on the commons image pages, I'd appreciate the help - I tried some improvement a little while ago re. commons file pages but couldn't think of much to do. Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • For each of File:Newspaper_clipping_announcing_the_showing_of_films_in_Maracaibo,_January_1897.png, File:The_Hotel_Europa_in_Maracaibo,_c._1897.jpg and File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png , the image description indicates at least doubt that these were included in the film. Venezuela PD status depends on publication, not creation, which is why the use of PD-Venezuela requires inclusion of publication details. Publication date will also impact US status - the pre-1924 tag applies only if we can verify a publication before that date. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, more detail and finding maybe the images' archive entries, or moving to fair use if there's no solid evidence, would be the way to go? Kingsif (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absolutely: more information would be very helpful in determining if there is an applicable PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added more information to some of the descriptions, and a rationale hidden by the PD Venezuela tags. I feel the video of the reconstruction, which was created by the Venezuelan Association of Film Exhibitors, holds some authority - info from that video and its description added. I wonder what to add for the newspaper clipping - it is an image of a newspaper from 1897, that much is obvious (it wasn't in the film) does it count as 'other visual work'? Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now updated all files. Kingsif (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • The newspaper image would be covered by the pre-1924 tag with regards to US status. With regards to Venezuelan status, it's not clear to me whether "broadcast" is intended to be limited to audiovisual works or any media; if you speak Spanish, might you be able to interpret the linked statute? Also, not seeing more information added to File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Nikkimaria: re. image Yes, I was debating that image. The full image of it is featured in the Historia Viva episode about Manuel (at about the half-hour mark), and it is instead stated to be from the brothers' home collection, suggesting it was taken in their studio. Given the lower quality of the image and the apparent lack of connection, I was wondering what to do with it; I've now replaced it with a different image, of only Manuel, but which has a clear history; it was featured in an article about the brothers in 2013, where grandchildren are interviewed and explain that image's background. The image is better quality and the provenance clearer. re. PD-Ven there is an English breakdown at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Venezuela#General_rules. Relevant parts are probably For photographs and also reproductions and prints obtained by a comparable process rights expire after 60 years following the disclosure of the work, or 60 years after having been made if they have not been disclosed during that period. Such periods are counted from January 1 of the year following that of disclosure or making, as the case may be. and The copyright in anonymous or pseudonymous works expires after 60 years counted from January 1 of the year following that of the first publication thereof. – 'broadcast' seems to mean either published or created for whichever expires first, and works with unknown authors can be counted by only publication date. Kingsif (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129 edit

Sup Kingsif, nice one. Refs could do with a tidy: inconsistency with publication location, pp for chapters, etc., also sync your sfns with your sources.
Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit new with the sfn, but I can do the other clean-up. Any pointers on how to sync with sources? Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Schweet, Kingsif, no worries. I've adjusted them with this edit, see what I changed. The basic principle is that whatever's in the {{sfn| has to match the harvid in the source; that includes using only the year in the former, for example, but it's not a problm here as the |date= parameter holds the full date for you. It does become slightly more problematic when you have multiple sfns from the same author and year, but cross that bridge when you come to it! It took me a while to get the hang of it too when i first started using them, but it's well worth, methinks. All the best! ——SerialNumber54129 16:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Along with below, refs cleaned up. Now consistent throughout. Kingsif (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

The majority of the sources are in Spanish, so I'm not in a position to assess them on the basis of quality/reliability, but on the face of it I see no reason to doubt them. The review is chiefly concerned with format issues:

  • General point: be consistent about including publisher locations in book sources
  • No publisher is given for the "International Bureau..." source. I presume that this is a US government publication, since it's printed by the Government Printing Office.
  • News: the link in the El Nacional source is returning a 404 error
  • Videos: Güerere source: the "translation" in the square brackets doesn't seem to be a translation! Also, one video has a retrieval date, the other not; one has an "event occurs" indicator, the other not.
  • Web sources: One has a translation, the other not.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I have a few minutes, I will go over and improve the consistency of the sources, thanks for the specific points! Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brianboulton: These have been addressed (yay) except for some of the Videos notes. The Güerere translation is accurate, based on not translating the title of the film and the only other text being '21st century' even if it looks odd, and it doesn't have an event occurs time because the info it is sourcing is contained in the narration that lasts the entire video and the accompanying video description, too. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review #2 from a Spanish speaker edit

  • Vice Versa doesn't list their editors or state their editorial policy. However, the author would qualify under WP:SPS, so it's fine.
  • Other Spanish language media is OK with the caveats in Brian's review.
  • Given that Sultana del Lago is a print-on-demand outfit, what makes Semprún et al 2018 an RS?
  • Semprún is a professor of Zulian history and a member of the Academy of the history of Zulia state, and everything in his various encyclopedias of the area are sourced via bibliography in the book. Most of these sources, though, are physical-only in archives, so I cannot access to cite them directly. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine; can you link a page that gives information on Semprún so I can confirm it? Thanks. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • S.A. de C.V —try not to use abbreviations like this, I have no idea what it stands for.
  • Resolved this; the book listing had that, but I went on worldcat to see what it meant and have updated. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fiamh: I have given responses above and edited the sources accordingly; in addition, the contributor at Vice Versa is Arturo Serrano, a film history professor and researcher from Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I would recommend using ALT text for the infobox image.
  • Apologies if this is incredibly obviously, but what does this part "though the technology of the screening may have been lacking" from the lead mean?
  • I am uncertain about this part from the lead: "Although the subject suggests an early horror film". When I first read it, it seemed like the film itself was pushing this horror angle, but after reading the article, it seems like a scholar (Robert Gómez) had interpreted the film in this manner. I am wondering if there is a way to clarify that in the lead?
  • I would recommend moving the Lumière wikilink to this part "Jesús Ricardo Azuaga García called the film stylistically similar to Lumière films (possibly emulating them)" since that is where they are mentioned for the first time in the body of the article.
  • I would move the Maracaibo wikilink to this sentence "As suggested by its title, the film depicts a "celebrated" surgeon pulling a patient's teeth at the Hotel Europa in Maracaibo." as that is where it is mentioned for the first time in the body of the article. The city is also linked twice in the body of the article when it should only be done once.
  • Since dental extraction is wikilinked in the lead, I would do the same in the body of the article for consistency. Same for Hotel Europa, Baralt Theatre, and Venezuelan film.

Great work with the article. I hope my comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: Wonderful - taken suggestions, including clarifying both parts in the lead, do they read better now? Kingsif (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the message. I am still uncertain about this part: "though the technology used for the screening may have been insufficient". If it is referencing this line from the body of the article, "The reviewer noted that the projection speed of the films was initially irregular and the theatre lighting was too bright for films.", then I would recommend breaking it up into its own sentence and rewording it to be a little more specific/exact. Other than that, everything else looks good, and once this part is addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, yes, I really want this to be as clear as possible so thanks for picking it up! I've changed it to its own sentence, For this screening, a review notes that the technology used may have been insufficient for the purpose of showing films. What do you think? Kingsif (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is better, but I am still uncertain. The review was pretty exact with his statement so "may have been" does not seem right for this context. How about A reviewer criticized the screening for its inappropriate projection speed and theatre lighting.? Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added that, it suffices well, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with the review. I support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with the nomination, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia edit

I looked in after Brian's source review, and found the citations so inconsistent that it was too time consuming to try to verify content, check reliability, or do a paraphrasing check; the citations seem to be cleaned up now, but I have still done none of that (very necessary work for a first time nominator). I started a review, fixed a few minor MOS issues, and typed up a list of prose concerns, which I lost to a server error. I don't know if I will find time to re-do it, but I don't want to leave the impression to Ian or Laser that those minor MOS adjustments were all I had. For now, a small but fixable issue is that the article interchangeably uses spaced WP:ENDASHes and unspaced WP:EMDASHes-- please pick one for consistency. There are also double quotes in several citations; perhaps use a single quote mark inside the double quote inserted by the cite template. (Example: López, Ana M. (2003). ""Train of Shadows": Early Cinema and Modernity in Latin America".)

I will try to come back to re-type my prose examples, but no promises because of holiday travel. My main concern is that too much of the article and lead focus on commentary about other films, it isn't always clear whether critique was of this film or the other films, the lead spends too much time on the other films, while there is content about this film that could be included; also there is a statement attributed to a university student thesis about "some" considering it to be Latin America's first film, but that thesis (a marginal source) gives no idea even of who these "some" people are, so it seems undue to mention it (are there other named reviewers who claim it to be the first film, in fact, it is unclear attribution on it being the first Venezuelan film), and there are some grammatical issues or awkward constructs. Perhaps someone else will find the time to revisit all of this before I do. Very nice start, Kingif; so sorry the internet did not cooperate with my review. Long story short: citations are better now, but prose needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you! I will try to clean the dashes and quote marks soon, and I await your further comments when the internet becomes more kind. I can also try to cut down on reference to other films where gratuitous; some of this was added in response to previous prose suggestions, so I may try to strike a balance. Your input is greatly appreciated! Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: A question on the dash issue: m-dashes are used throughout for page numbers and in an instance where it is separating a sentence clause; n-dashes are used throughout for terms connected by a dash ('black-and-white', 'B-movie'); is this standard/correct? Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to give context vis-a-vis the other films in the body of the article, but doublecheck that you specify which criticism applies specifically to this film, and please try to work more of this film into the lead. Not all of the other film stuff is needed for the lead.

I think you have the dashes a bit mixed up :) WP:ENDASHes (not em) are used on date ranges. But in the body of the article, you have a mix within text, e.g.:

  • unspaced WP:EMDASH here: … saying that whilst it fit the mold of the actualité—a short film demonstrating actual events—audiences were quickly numbed
but
  • spaced WP:ENDASH here: … there may be a rich trove of hidden independent films – such as the works of Edgar J. Anzola – which have been missing for decades …
Either works, but pick one :) Some people's eyes have a hard time seeing them, so you may not know that you are using both. Also, you may be confused on the terminology … hyphens are used for black-and-white. They are neither endashes nor emdashes. The endash and emdash are the first things in the bar just below the edit screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I was mixing them up, that's been a very useful lesson :) Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Since I haven't replied for a while, I thought I'd update you - I believe I've fixes the dash problem (a find and replace function helps there!) and the quotes in refs problem. Still working on the prose. Thanks again. Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: This is where I ask for more attention again, if you're free; I've gone through and tweaked some parts to focus more on this film, but I think that the critical section would need a lot more care in this regard, are there any specifics you have here or should I just try to rewrite? Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite busy for a few days. If I don’t respond by early next week, pls post on my talk to remind me. I give up trying to keep up with that dumb pingie thingie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry for the lengthy delay, Kingsif. Beginning anew:
  • Why are the literature sources not alphabetical?
  • I cannot find any Wikipedia guideline addressing this, so you or the coords could ignore this comment, but your short-form citation style strikes me as odd. When there is an author, your short form uses the author. But when there is no author, you use the publisher rather than the name of the article. When the reader looks at the sources list, the first thing that appears is the name of the article, and I believe it is typical in these cases to use the article title for the short form citation. Also, what happens in articles where you have more than one article from that publisher (e.g., El Nacional, which was once one of the two main newspapers in Venezuela); using the article name instead of the publisher makes for easier short-form citations.
  • Thanks for fixing the lead to now be more focused on this film, rather than others. I see you've also fixed dashes and hyphens.
  • WP:ENGVAR, Venezuela uses American English: Venezuelan government to capitalise ... etc ...
    • I think that was the only example, fixed and added Am Eng at the top. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Notes" are dense reading because of the translations. If you were to put them side-by-side, Spanish-English, in a table format, they might be more digestible.
    • Yes, looking into this. They were split into paragraphs before a peer review said that was against MOS. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dictionary links to words like "celebrated" are not needed. If you feel the word is not understood in common English, then it might be rephrased, but an FA shouldn't send the reader looking for basic definitions.
    • I didn't add that, and no reason was given, but I assumed it was because the adjectival form is being used, which might have confused someone? Removed, though. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " ... and cited only three examples". The three examples might not be essential for this article, but it would be considerate to include their names in the footnote just in case the reader is interested.
    • I've added a simple note with these. I could also possibly link La Misa... to the Venezuelan cinema in the 1890s page, where some detail of it is given, but would like to ask if it's appropriate to link to such a page (i.e. broader topic than the linking text) for FA? Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produced reconstructed versions of Un celebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa (English: A celebrated specialist pulling teeth at the grand Hotel Europa) and Muchachos bañándose en la laguna de Maracaibo (English: Kids bathing in the lagoon of Maracaibo)" ... the full names and English translations are already given in the lead. (And why the colloquial "kids" instead of children?)
    • Someone mentioned repeating the names and translations for the first body instance... I use "kids" because I feel it's a more accurate translation of muchachos (more 'young people' than 'children'), no? But I'm open main to change to 'children', I have nothing against the word! Any recommendation on the repeats - I know that it's typical to repeat wikilinks from the lead to main body, but not sure on full names? Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The association collected frames ... " Association refers to a proper noun, should be uppercase.
    • I've done this, but similarly have a question on this: in instances like this, where the word ("association") is acting as a pronoun (instead of "It collected frames...") or a common noun (i.e. "The association, called the Zulian Association..."), but is the same as part of the proper noun, always mean it is treated as a proper noun? Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Emiliano Faría directed the effort, with Abdel Güerere writing and producing." Change in tense, and "the effort" does not refer to the film, rather the restoral. Perhaps, to maintain the same tense in the sentence and make the referent more clear, Abdel Güerere wrote and produced the restoration, which was directed by Emiliano Faría".
    • How does one get credit for writing a reconstruction of a previous film? What did this fellow do?
      • Changed the phrasing, not sure on credit for writing - my guess is there were blanks and he filled them in? The article on it suggests that the restoration was not a complete one. I could actually perhaps expand on this - other people are credited with e.g. graphics. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Separately, in 1991, an image of "the pulling of the tooth" and reference to the film were included on disc 3 of a DVD history of Venezuelan cinema, possibly with other images from the film." It is unclear why this is tacked on to this paragraph (Content), and the construct is awkward; why the quotes? I suggest trying something similar to this (but still not sure why this is mentioned in this para-- is this not part of Legacy?):
    • A 1991 DVD history of Venezuelan cinema referred to the film; the DVD included an image of the extraction, and possibly used other images from the film.
      • Move the "Third disc" to the footnote, and why "possibly"? Tell the reader why there is doubt.
        • To answer the queries, it was tacked onto the information about the restoration (being another modern use of images from the film) and gulot stuck with it. "The pulling of the tooth" is in quotes because that is how it is described in the source. The 'possibly' is because the source mentions an image of Hotel Europa, but doesn't specify if it's from the film or not. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have rewritten per suggestion, but not moved for want of a more appropriate place. Tell me if the phrasing is awkward re. the images; I want to get across there is only one image of each subject, but worry it may sound unnatural. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific dentist featured in the film is unknown. See User:Tony1's user page for redundancy reducing exercises, check throughout. Why not, "The identity of the film's dentist is not known."
  • The Diccionario General de Zulia identifies Vicente Toledo as the only well-known late-19th-century dentist in Venezuela.[7]
    • Lots of hyphens there ... how about something like "the only well-known Venezuelan dentist in the late 19th century"?
      • Have written something similar a bit more concise, tell me if you like it? Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fraternidad Odontológica del Zulia (English: Zulian Orthodontological Organization) ... odontologia is dentisty ... why not just say that? Also, Zulia is used throughout the article, without ever telling the reader that Maracaibo is in the state of Zulia.
    • ... will admit to a brain fart on the Dentistry, I was trying to think of a word ending in '-ological'. Added mention of Zulia in lead. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hotel Europa, of which the interior and exterior are showcased in the film, was sold and remodeled as the Hotel Zulia in 1913, then the Hotel América in the 1930s, before being demolished in 1956 to be replaced by the Maracaibo Municipal Council building.
    • ACK! The sentence is a run-on, and the grammar is awkward. I could try to fix it, but at this point, it may be best to stop and suggest that a good deal of prose work is still needed here.
  • Less than six months after the first Vitascope was brought to Venezuela, national Venezuelan film became public ... became public? Owned by the government? Went public"? No idea what this means.
    • Was changed to this back at peer review. Original wording had been along the lines of "...brought to Venezuela, the Venezuela film industry began...", which I'll admit wasn't great, but definitely makes more sense. I think peer review argued that the industry couldn't logical only take off when films were screened, and changed it. Any suggestions warmly accepted here! Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammatical problem: "reports suggest the public reception was somewhat intrigued at the moving images, but indifferent to the films themselves"
As I continue reading, I find a lot more of same. The flow in production and director needa a lot of work. There is no explanation for why pro-Maduro publications would trump up the claims. So, Kingsif, unfortunately at this point, my recommendation to Laser brain is that the previous Supports were premature, did not engage the criteria, and the fastest route now to eventual promotion is to withdraw this FAC and rework the article off-FAC, after gaining additional eyes and feedback. My suggestion is to email User:Steve. He is, IMO, Wikipedia's finest film editor and wrote the Venezuelan FA The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film). He is not around a lot these days, but if you email him and tell him "Sandy sent you", he might be willing to peek in. You've done a great amount of work here, but a bit more experience and polish is needed to bring this over the line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia. You have done a lot of work here, but as I go through I find a lot of stuff which is not quite there, and which is difficult to make an actionable recommendation on without either virtually telling you what to replace it with, or being so vague as not to be helpful. You have certainly been more than willing to engage with suggestions for improvements, but I think that the article needs some FAC experience, rather than your quite evident enthusiasm. I don't wish to pre-judge, but at the moment I consider it likely that you and I will both put more work in and I will oppose anyway. If you could gain the multiplier to your enthusiasm of someone with experience of taking film articles through FAC, I believe that this article could be improved to meet the criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia and Gog the Mild: Thank you Sandy for the extensive comments! Thanks both of you for looking into this – if you feel this would take more work than can be achieved in this FAC (or by myself alone; it seems hard to please the full criteria!) I will happily withdraw. Any more advice would be wonderful, but your comments seem thorough. The experience of the FAC so far has given me lots of thought when writing articles, and hopefully I'll be hitting the nail on the proverbial head soon, glad to have your input! If I may ask: how would I go about creating a table in the footnotes (for translations) without it looking awful inside the scroll-over box? Sandy, are you suggesting split into columns? Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can force it to two columns, so that they end up side-by-side, that would work too. I guess the scroll would be messed up by a table, not sure, I can experiment. That is more of a suggestion than an FA requirement, though ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revert this if you don't like it, but I put the English version first (to preference English for the reader on en.wiki), and put the original Spanish on a separate line. It hovers fine. I changed one instance of "kids" to "children" (muchachos); we should avoid colloquial language on Wikipedia, unless some source specifically says to translate it that way. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SandyGeorgia: I like it! I'm also looking at the redundancy and trying to edit throughout to be concise. I have no idea if this will make it worse, but let's hope for better prose at the end of the day! Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hooray! (I am more concerned, though, that the "Production and director" section does not flow well, and may need a complete reorganization. That kind of work is sometimes done best after taking a break from the article.) Keep reading and reviewing at FAC-- that is the best way to improve your FAcwriting skills. And go to User:Tony1 and go through everything on his page. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

@Kingsif: This has been lingering for a while without attention or the necessary support for promotion. I've added it to the Urgents list but it will need to be archived within the next week if it doesn't receive some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man :) Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: For your benefit, I'd like to withdraw this per the advice of experienced reviewers and the view that it will improve more out of FAC before meeting WIAFA fully. Thanks for getting it more reviewers :) Kingsif (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild edit

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

  • "A reviewer criticized the screening for its inappropriate projection speed and theatre lighting." Seems inappropriately placed. Can I suggest moving it to the very end of the lead, or, possibly, the start of the second paragraph, and adding 'contemporary'.
  • "One of several dentists may have been featured in the film." seems a little ambiguous/clumsy. Perhaps 'The specific dentist featured in the film is unknown'?
  • "Fraternidad Odontológica del Zulia" Add a bracketed translation?
  • "still": link to Film frame.
  • "reconstructed versions of Un celebre especialista... and Muchachos bañándose..." The titles should be in full at first mention in the main article, with bracketed translations.
  • Either link "short" to Short film or - much better IMO - change "shorts" to 'short films' - in order that non-aficionados can understand.
  • Similarly link "screened", or change to 'shown' or similar.
  • "Peter Rist" Could this person be introduced to the readers?
  • "these films were projected at the Baralt Theatre by Gabriel Veyre" Is a reader to understand that Gabriel Veyre was a film projectionist?
  • "The films were screened at the Teatro Baralt in Maracaibo"; "these films were projected at the Baralt Theatre". Why are we told this twice? And why is the second mention in the midst of the description of the bill?

I am going to pause here. I started this review intending to do my bit to heave the article over the line. I was surprised, and disappointed, in light of the number of eyes which had already looked at it, to discover how much still needs to be done. I am not convinced that, IMO, it can meet the FA criteria without being withdrawn for further work. However, given the advanced state of the FAC I can understand the nominator being reluctant. So I suggest that my comments above are addressed and the rest of the article reviewed for any similar issues before pinging me to continue. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I have made the above edits, and in a similar vein have made more clarifying edits, and introduced more wikilinks and another wiktionary link. Kingsif (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't read ahead, Kingsif;, I see you are trying to please many reviewers, but yes, please see Tony1's redundancy reducing exercises on:
  • The specific dentist featured in the film is unknown --> The identity of the dentist is not known. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingsif. I am almost certainly going to oppose. You are doing great work, but while it is fine to "polish" an article at FAC - and "polishing" is a fuzzy-edged concept - you are substantially rewriting the article during the process. To the extent that by the time you will have finished taking on board all of the comments made so far the article will be a different one from that supported by the editors above. I think that, as SandyGeorgia commented, you need to withdraw it, work through all of the feedback you have received so far, seek advice from an editor with experience of navigating similar articles through FAC, and then bring it back. Sorry to be negative; IMO there is a FAC in there struggling to get out, but it isn't currently ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: No need to apologize, I think this is a very positive comment; I appreciate the honest feedback and the encouragement! Now that you say it, I agree that the edits are substantial enough to have changed the article significantly, as well as having considered that withdrawing will be a benefit to hopefully get the experienced advice discussed. I may leave this up a few more days to see if I get a response to my last comments for Yo and Sandy, but will probably take this down soon to work more without the ...pressure?... of an ongoing FAC. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If, immediately prior to bringing it back, you would like a copy edit and/or an opinion on its readiness - with the understanding that this would be one editor's view which would not necessarily shared by FAC reviewers - feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog, I'll keep you in mind! Kingsif (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, I have been following, but to explain why I haven't responded and to further elaborate on Gog's points ... this FAC is an example of what we can't do well at FAC, and can do better off-FAC.

By the way, Yomangani is fluent in Spanish and historically one of Wikipedia's finest FA writers: he can be of as much help to you as I indicated that Steve can.

In trying to satisfy Yo, Gog and me, some areas of the article are now moving in the wrong direction. (You have effected my suggestion on moving things to footnotes in a less-than-optimal way, is one small example.) To try to go back and review, strike and continue is cumbersome and time-consuming on FAC when so much is changing at once, and much more easily done by directly editing the article. Most reviewers are hesitant to directly edit too much during FAC, as they don't want to risk negatively impacting the nominator. If I have to do this at FAC, my preference is to start over from the top, since it's a new article now.

In terms of what is on the page that you can still address, my very first point is a reminder to alphabeticize the sources.

You have now three people saying that we cannot support this article, even if we have not lodged formal opposes. I have separately pointed out that neither John M Wolfson nor Aoba47 provided reviews that sufficiently engaged WP:WIAFA-- as demonstrated by three subsequent reviewers who found numerous issues. I hope those two reviewers will take greater care in the future, as this is a frustrating situation to put a new FAC nominator in, and equally frustrating for the coordinators as they evaluate whether a page should be archived or promoted. I don't want to go back point-by-point at this juncture, because in some cases, the four of us (you, me, Gog and Yo) have gotten in each other's way a bit. We are not polishing: we are rewritiing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Yes, you're certainly right. I'll withdraw, continue editing, and hopefully receive more input before considering FAC again. As always, I appreciate your view :) Kingsif (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pleasure, always, to see a new FAC nominator learning how to write top content (although frustrating that your nomination received two premature supports). I am unsure if the coords read through to promote/archive every day, but because of the two-week required delay to re-nominate, you may want to bold the withdraw above so that we can get to work off-FAC the soonest. As you know, my participation on Wikipedia has been sporadic of late, but I am always around more during US winter months and I hate those damn pingie things ... please know to always post to my talk page if I fail to respond quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yo edit

I'm not going to support or oppose as I don't support it as is and wouldn't be around to strike my oppose and I just don't get involved in that sort of nonsense anyway, but I do have some comments:

  • " is the first Venezuelan film" - "was"? As it is lost/destroyed.
  • "as the second in a film block" Playbill says it was first, or is there some more reliable alternative source that says it was second?
    • The clipping? It says it's second... Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second after the Champs Elysees - the phrasing in the lead implies it was second after Muchachos unless you read carefully (which nobody ever does). Yomanganitalk 01:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and much like other contemporary films". Later on you say it isn't: "Azuaga García notes that this was to be unusual for early Venezuelan film, and cites only three examples", "López notes that the prevailing scholarly narrative that many Latin American films had science-related themes is inaccurate; she cites four films related to science"
    • Though that part is referring to the practice of actuality films (rather than Lumiere-like or science-themed), I agree that it's excessive and not exactly sourceable - it came from GOCE writing out what actuality films are, and then recommendations to rephrase; not the first of these compromises trying to please everyone that has resulted in mangled text, so thanks for pointing it out to me. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "restoring and colorizing the images to recreate the approximate look of the films". Colorizing? Or tinting? I doubt they were in colour, even that horrible colorized colour.
    • Adding wikilink; source says 'in color'. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The films were probably hand painted in the originals. I'd change it to "adding color" (or "colour" if you want) and link to Film_colorization#Partial_colorization. "Colorizing" has undertones of the hideous Ted Turner efforts of the 1980s. Yomanganitalk 01:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Azuaga García notes that this was to be unusual for early Venezuelan film, and cites only three examples" I added the "early" (being all weaselly like what I am) but it really needs some frame of reference. presumably there have been more than three films of this type to date.
    • Thanks for that :) Re. the context, actualités died pretty quickly; narrative film took over entirely as early as 1911 (likely later in Venezuela given the whole sequence of dictatorships). However, Lumiere-inspired films (what Azuaga García is speaking about here) would be even less in the Americas, which wanted to distance themselves from European practices (to establish themselves as the best) right from the start of the Edison company. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muchachos bañándose en la laguna de Maracaibo needs some explanation. How do we know that this isn't the first Venezuelan film?
    • With little known about the production, we just have the assertion of the Venezuelan government, film industry, and independent scholars that Un celebre..." was first (of course, some of those are more reliable than others); then the fact it was shown earlier is in effect an earlier premiere (even if by 10 minutes), which is how we count film order nowadays, no? Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to mention L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat, then a little aside on it won't go amiss. Why is that important?
    • Little is said about that film in reference to this screening; it's just quite a famous film, so a mention of the name felt more appropriate than excluding it. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you don't give it least an adjective to let the reader know why it is worth mentioning then it looks like it isn't worth mentioning. "Famous", "celebrated", "innovative". Anything like that will do. Yomanganitalk 01:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production and director. This is a bit muddled. It appears no agreement on who made it, so that should be set out first rather than launching with the historic attribution.
    • I will try to rewrite this somewhat. I know this section needs work! Thanks for the idea to put a short statement at the start Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "López writes that ... gave a contemporary audience justification for watching a film when they were otherwise considered spectacles." Perhaps it gave the intellectually snobbish an excuse but generally people don't need an excuse to enjoy spectacles.
    • Well, yep, I can't disagree on the assessment. Spectacle is the film studies term, referring to the idea of early cinema as spectacle - i.e. something pointless that's just innovative, like a magic show - not the modern sense. I couldn't find it in Wiktionary but might add it. Despite this, though, the sources like López get their contemporary info largely from newspapers, many of which were snobbish. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she cites four films related to science, only one of which was produced after 1900. " I don't see the point you are trying to convey here. I think you are saying that after the Paris Expo there was no incentive to produce science-based films but the argument doesn't flow and "only one of which was produced after 1900" suggests there has never been another science related film since.
    • Perhaps another 'early' could be inserted here! I will try to re-write this, I'm grateful you brought it up, because now I re-read it, I'm not sure quite what I was trying to convey, either. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michelle Leigh Farrell discusses 20th-century Venezuelan cinema..." Where? Or when? Or where and when?
    • In her 2011 paper! (Added) - question about if clarifying statements like this should always be used? Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite its claim". Who or what is "it" here? "Venezuelan cinema" isn't capable of making a claim.
    • Re-worded; it now doesn't mention this film by name, but I think the idea is still conveyed. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Martínez adds that...to create slapstick comedy" This whole sentence needs reworking - two films become one factor, the phrasing around the second factor is awkward and the whole concept is not explained.
    • Changed this a bit - clarified it's the two films' form, and put the second part in a refnote, also rewriting that. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the wictionary link to "outfit"? It's not unusual.
    • I recently added it because it's the verb, but looks identical to the much more common noun, and I didn't want confusion. If you think it's common enough to not include, that's great, I'll ditch it. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yomanganitalk 23:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yomangani: Thank you! Made some edits, responded to each comment, thanks for the little edit :) You said you won't be around, but any more comments will be appreciated. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yomangani and SandyGeorgia: You've both mentioned the Production and director section as ... not great. I have rewritten and restructured it over at my sandbox if you are interested in giving feedback on that! (@Yomangani, I've also made your other suggested edits now, thanks!) Kingsif (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [33].

Felicity Smoak (Arrowverse) edit

Nominator(s): AutumnKing (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fictional character Felicity Smoak, as she appears in the Arrowverse franchise, broadcast on The CW. Originally featured as a one-off guest in the first season of Arrow, the character went on to become one of the show's principal characters across the series run (2012-2020), as well as featuring in other shows and media in the franchise. The article was reviewed to Good Article status earlier this year, with a very thorough review from User:The Rambling Man. This is my first attempt at promoting an article to Featured Article status and I would greatly appreciate any comments on improving the article. Many thanks in advance. AutumnKing (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash edit

I'll add comments soon, but don't you think it is a bit early to take this to FAC? Though Rickards is no longer a regular on Arrow, she will return for the finale which airs in Feb 2020. So I guess that's the time when more retrospectives, previously unknown facts and articles about Felicity will be published, making this article look incomplete and unstable? If I'm wrong, tell me. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider whether or not that would be a concern, but having looked at the criteria (stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.) my own personal conclusion was that a one-off appearance in the final episode of the show would not change the content significantly. I may be wrong in that conclusion, am happy for others to decide. AutumnKing (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Brianboulton edit

I have a concern that doesn't reflect on the quality or otherwise of the article, but relates to its length; 9,500 words seems awfully long, for an article about a fictional character in a US soap drama that (as far as I know – I'm not a soap-watcher) hasn't been shown outside the US and can scarcely be said to have global importance. Articles around the 10,000-word mark are usually the preserve of fairly major historical or cultural figures - our recently-departed prime minister Teresa May gets 10,500, and the soon-to-depart (?) Angela Merkel is under 6,000. Alfred Hitchcock just makes the 10,000 mark, and the great Larry David a mere 1,602! Other sitcom figures, better-known internationally than Smoak, have much more modest WP profiles, e.g. Jerry Seinfeld (the character) 2,707, Frazier Crane 3,826 – though maybe that's because they belong to the recent past rather than the present. There is no reason why Smoak shouldn't make it to FA, but is it necessary to inflate the article by including so much detail about the life and relationships of a non-existent person? I'd welcome a little thought being given to this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comment. I wrote much of the article, and in fact shared similar concerns that it may have got away from me a little in terms of length, an issue I did raise at the GA review. I would welcome any suggestions as to which parts could be trimmed. Just to clarify a couple of points from your comments; Arrow, although guilty of falling into soap opera style tropes at times, is an episodic action-drama as opposed to a soap opera. It has also been shown relatively widely outside the US, in the UK and Ireland[34], in Australia[35] and in India[36] among others, and in multiple countries through Netflix[37], including Brazil, Germany, Japan and Russia. As I say, any suggestions for areas where the article could be trimmed would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. ,AutumnKing (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your civilized reply and for putting me right about Arrow's international exposure. My overall concern about length remains, but I don't think I'm the best person to advise on prose trimming, given my obvious ignorance of the topic. Let's see if anyone else shares my concern – if they don't, I won't pursue the issue. Most of my work at FAC now involves source reviewing, and I'm a little daunted by the prospect of having to check out 250+ references! Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for intruding on the discussion. I want to preface this by saying a lot of great work has been put into the article. I do agree with Brianboulton's concerns about the length. This is a popular character from a popular show so it is understandable a large amount of coverage exists. One example of potential length issues is the third paragraph of the "Concept and creation" and the block quote from the same section. To me, there seems to be repetition of the same point (i.e. Felicity being a major component to the show's success). While it is a necessary topic for discussion, I think this part can be trimmed down. For example, I do not see the need for the block quote, and I am wondering if that entire paragraph can be condensed into one or two more concise sentences. I am not a particularly good FAC reviewer so feel free to disregard my message, but I just wanted to hopefully add to this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I have adjusted the section slightly, reducing the use length/use of quotations in the body. I have left the quote box for now. Do you think that reads any better? Many thanks AutumnKing (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I am still uncertain about the quote box, but I will leave that up to you and other editors. Apologies, but I am unable to do a full review due to time constraints (plus I am probably not qualified enough to be a reviewer). I just wanted to offer some input about the length. Good luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Have added alt text - not something I was familiar with so not 100% sure it is right. Some are quite similar to caption. Is that a problem? AutumnKing (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be identical to the caption - think about how you would describe the image to someone who can't see it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have adjusted to be more descriptive. Also adjusted main captions to avoid repetition, and only contain pertinent info. Does this work? AutumnKing (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [38].

1982 Formula One World Championship edit

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 36th running of the Formula One World Championship during the 1982 season. I had entered this article for FA about a year ago, but received only one comment before it was closed. I am hoping for more activity this time around. I have made some changes, but unfortunately, a nomination at peer review did not yield any involvement, so there was no external input since the last FA nomination failed. I would be glad to read your comments and suggestions to hopefully bring this article to FA status soon! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Downtown_Detroit_Street_Circuit.svg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Have added the best source I could find to the image, I hope it is sufficient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats: a few issues:
  • Ref 12: spacing
  • Ref 38: retrieval date missing
  • Ref 58: archive date in inconsistent format. This recurs in 62, 66, 74, 81, 86, 93, 96, 99, 104, 107 and 110 (check for others)
  • Ref 115 lacks an archive date
  • Ref 116: clarify publisher: "Ask Steven" is I believe the name of the feature – the publisher is ESPN
  • Quality/reliability: Generall OK, but:
  • What makes F1 Fanatic a high quality reliable source? (refs 39, 41)
@Brianboulton: This has been discussed multiple times on the WikiProject, always with the consensus that, since the site is run by a professional journalist (who actually added more staff a while back), it is not treated as a blog, but as a reliable news source. Will get to the other points later, for now, thank you for going over the sources! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise the sources appear to be of the required quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

@Zwerg Nase: Unfortunately this has fallen into the Older section without any prose review, again. I understand that sports articles usually struggle for reviews, and I don't particularly want to archive this again but I don't have much choice. Have you reached out to folks who have written or reviewed sports-related articles? --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe SSSB, Scjessey, Mclarenfan17, Corvus tristis, and DH85868993 can chip in, considering they are frequent editors on the F1 WikiProject. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think MWright96 and Tvx1 have more expertise in prose review than me as they had experience with 2015 article. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2019 [39].

Deactivators edit

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article again after getting it a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors. This short but simple article on an old British puzzle game for the Amstrad, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum is ready for another shot at the bronze star. GamerPro64 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

All of my concerns were already addressed in the previous two FACs (here and here), and the copy-edit from a GOCE copy-editor (here) also helped to improve the article. I support the article for promotion. Great work with it. It may be helpful to ping the previous oppose voter from the last FAC, but either way, good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

I opposed at this article's FAC last time. Comments carried over from that review:

  • "making it impossible to beat the level" The words form a grammatical sentence, but I really have no idea what it is communicating in terms of gameplay.
Clearer. Thanks. However, could the concept of a "level" be introduced beforehand? Eg 'The player controls bomb disposal robots known as deactivators to deactivate bombs placed in five scientific research complexes by terrorists. Each of these buildings constitutes a level within the game and each level needs to be completed before moving on to the next, which will be more difficult to complete' or similar. (Obviously I am just guessing with regards to how the game is played, but hopefully you get the idea.)
Reworked again. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each room has different gravity and perspectives, with some rooms being sideways or upside-down" Even leaving aside a room processing multiple perspectives, what is this trying to convey about how the game is played to someone unfamiliar with it?
    • I think I explained it better. GamerPro64 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That helps, but as a point of fact, a "different gravity" means gravity of a different strength. (Which would make sense in a game context.) If you actually mean 'gravity operating from a different direction' - or, possibly clearer, ' "down" is in a different direction' or similar - you should say so.
Re-worked. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I don't see what "and perspectives" adds. If it refers to something different from the changed gravity then could we be told what? If it is a repeat of "different gravity" it needs either deleting or rephrasing. (I assume deleting, as I don't see what one can do to the gravity which changes the wikt:perspective, but I am open to correction.)
Removed Perspectives. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are also circuit boards that must be inserted into a computer to activate functions such as opening a door or window, deactivating force fields, or turning on teleporters" No doubt if one is familiar with the terminology, eg by being an aficionado of action puzzle video games, it makes perfect sense; if one is not, it does not. IMO, to meet 1a. It needs to.
    • Not sure what the issue is with this sentence. Nor what terminology is the issue. You just get circuit boards to put into a computer to activate functions. Not sure how to dumb that down if needed. GamerPro64 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to overcome this impasse, does it mean something like 'In-game features known as circuit boards can be found, which when inserted into an in-game computer enable a player to be able to open doors or windows: this is necessary in order to throw the bombs from the building'? (Again I am guessing, so apologies if I am completely wrong; but I am trying to be helpful. If I am correct, some explanation of "computers" is needed.) Continuing, an explanation of "forcefield" and "teleporter" and their in-game effects is needed.
I reworked to explains things better. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player controls bomb disposal robots, known as Deactivators, to deactivate bombs"; "until they can be thrown out the exit". One gains the impression from the second section quoted, that the bombs will explode harmlessly once "thrown out the exit", and that to cause this to happen is the object of the game; from the first that the bombs are deactivated and so prevented from exploding, and that this is the object of the game. This appears to be a contradiction.
    • They deactivate the bombs by throwing them out of the building. GamerPro64 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that, in game, bombs become - for some arbitrary in-game reason - deactivated once thrown out of a building? If so, things become a little clearer. The Occam's Razor approach would be (IMO) that if one has thrown a bomb out of a building it is rendered "safe" because it then explodes harmlessly - rather than because the act of removing it from the building somehow serves to "deactivate" it. This is one of a number of areas where the nominator, IMO, is so close to the subject that they seem to struggle to step back and write a disinterested summary.

It is always depressing when an editor represents an article having made no attempt to address issues flagged up at the previous FAC.

Thanks for the responses. Some points become, possibly, clearer. See above for my replies to each point in line. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


New points:

  • "Each room has different gravity and perspectives; some rooms are sideways or upside-down." I have no familiarity with the game, so apologies if this guess is incorrect, but I suspect that what is meant is not that "Each room has different gravity", but that 'In each room gravity is orientated in a different direction'. If I am correct then this is a prime example of the careless use of English which means that this does not meet 1a.
  • "the player must throw them from room to room to another deactivator until" I suspect that what actually happens is something like 'the player must throw them from an deactivator in one room to a deactivator in an adjacent room until'. See my previous comment re use of English.
  • I have only looked at the first paragraph of the main article for new issues, where there are also a couple of less serious 1a issues, and it seems clear that the article is not ready for FAC. I am inclined to oppose now, but will hold off to give the nominator an opportunity to improve the article. So far as "Gameplay" is concerned, this section should make a reasonable attempt to explain how the game is played to someone unfamiliar with it; and most importantly, it should be accurate.
    • I think I took care of all the points made right now. GamerPro64 17:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GamerPro64 I can see that you are faithfully implementing my suggestions, but this is having the effect of me amending the whole section, sentence by sentence. This is not what FAC reviewers are supposed to do; as it is, I will be reviewing a first paragraph of Gameplay which is nearly as much my prose as yours. FAC is to apply a final check and polish to articles that are as good as they can be. I realise that it is difficult for me to communicate specific guidance if I don't wish to spell out exactly what you need to do to change something. The prose in Gameplay is improved, but I still feel that it is incomplete, lacks full explanation of some areas, does not flow well, and is insufficient to tell a neophyte how the game works.
Perhaps you could look at some other games which are already FAs to gain an impression of how they handle this. Two random examples I have recently come across are Knight Lore and Descent (1995 video game). (The latter is currently a FAC and so may never become a FA. But it is a first FAC nomination and as such may give you an idea of what is expected of such.) It is possible that if you approach the nominators of video game FAs they may be willing and able to provide useful advice.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spy-cicle edit

Here are some suggestions/points I have from reading the article:

  • Considering this was released over three decades ago the release year should be stated in the first sentence for more accurate previews (i.e. Deactivators is an 1986 action puzzle video game).
    • Done. Though not sure what previews has to do with the quality of articles. GamerPro64 03:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the platforms and release sentence to later on in the lede.
  • Omit the 6 when stating its release in the lede per WP:VG/DATE.
  • There are range of sentences under Gameplay, Development and Legacy with no sources. This may becuase the later sources mentioned in those respective sections are linked to those unreferenced sources but they still should be appropriately referenced.
    • Not sure if that might be considered over sourcing or the like. GamerPro64 03:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's understandable that Gameplay does not have many references since it is mostly from the game itself but the first four sentences of development and the first sentence of Legacy should really be referenced per WP:V. After all it is always better to have more references than too few.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • But its the same references used. The entire Legacy section has the same source for its information. GamerPro64 14:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some verifiability concerns the Deactivators Instructions source as it is simply a text file.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the link to the text file. GamerPro64 15:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

This has been on the Urgents list for a while but hasn't gone the distance. It will be archived soon unless it receives some significant attention. --Laser brain (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson edit

A few thoughts:

  • Going off criterion 3, there aren't any free images in the article. I believe that the fair-use rationales are valid, and I know this isn't itself a reason to oppose, but I'm concerned that an appearance on the Main Page without an image might produce a long blurb relative to the article's size. Perhaps include a free image of one of the developers in the "Development" section if not an imposition and if such an image is available. Otherwise don't sweat it.
  • "If a bomb explodes in a room, everything inside it is destroyed, making it impossible to complete the level." What happens then, does the game start over or is this a glitch that freezes the game/hinders the experience?
    • Watching a quick gameplay of it it does look like the game starts over. GamerPro64 15:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that can be reliably sourced, that should go into the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re-watching the video, it looks like the player actually advanced to the next level since it was the last bomb in the area. So my guess is if objects like circuit boards are inside the exploded room or is a route that needed to be taken, it would be impossible to complete the level. GamerPro64 03:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the Legacy section, being only two sentences long, should be merged with the Reception section.
    • I'm fine with that. Someone split them off earlier and I don't think that works out in general. GamerPro64 15:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this looks good, if a bit brief, and I can easily swing support with these quick fixes. Good work! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2019&oldid=933923380"