Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2021

< 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2021 [1].

Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania edit

Nominator(s): Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an event that happened in retaliation for Lithuania's restoration of independence on 11 March 1990. Basically it was the first escalation of the conflicts between USSR and the rebel republic (or the newly independent republic, depending on the point of view) in the early 1990s; January Events was the second. The article passed the Good article review in July, and has since undergone an enormous expansion (14K -> 75K). The article went through peer review, whose advice has been reflected in article changes, but unfortunately the FA mentor essentially decided not to take up the article - I've implemented his suggestions but I wasn't able to address other issues that apparently exist because these were not outlined, and I don't see any that can't be dealt with in this prep area, so to say. In any case, your comments are welcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose from Kavyansh edit

  • Is fixed image size in the infobox required?
  • The lead says that the blockade lasted from "18 April and 2 July 1990", the infobox says "18 April 1990 – 30 June/2 July 1990". The dates differ, even the date format differs.
  • "Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union, embarked on a course of liberaliszation of the political system of the Soviet Union." — is there a way to avoid the repetition of "Soviet Union"
  • Is there a MOS as to what will be used: "Soviet Union" or "USSR"? Isn't using both of them together inconsistent? I'm not sure, though.
  • "the blockade started on 18 April 1990" — Why is the year specifically mentioned here, when it wan't mentioned in the immediately previous sentence.
  • "as Western countries" — countries should be piped inside the link
  • "exceeded 500 million rubles, or 1.5% of GNP" — can we use Template:inflation? Is there a link for GNP? Also, "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression"
  • The lead is indeed long for an article of this length.
  • Multiple terms like: "Soviet Union", "Mikhail Gorbachev", "Sąjūdis", "Algirdas Brazauskas", "Communist Party of Lithuania", "Klaipėda", "George H. W. Bush", "Prime Minister of Lithuania", "Nikolai Ryzhkov", "rubles", "Poland", "US Senators" are linked multiple times in the prose. (MOS:DUPLINK)
  • From the quick glace, there are various inconsistencies in the prose. For instance: "United States" v. "US Senators"; rubles is linked in the prose, but not on its first instance. Neither is it linked in the lead; in few places, MOS:JOBTITLES is not implemented.
  • Few references have titles in all-caps, which is discouraged.
  • Suggesting to hyphenate the ISBNs, using this tool.
  • Inconsistency in linking the work/media agency/website. For instance: The Gorbachev Foundation, Seimas of Lithuania, etc are linked. While, Albert Einstein Institution, The New York Times, etc are not.
  • Washington Post should be The Washington Post; Baltimore Sun should be The Baltimore Sun; "Washington DC" should be "Washington, D.C."
  • Inconsistency is listing the locations for sources. For instance: "Boston, MA" has state mentioned in abbreviation, while "Los Angeles, California" does not. We have "Washington" linked to Washington, D.C., when it could be confused for Washington (state).
  • Few sources like Ref#42, 44 need title to be translated in English.

I have not even read the prose. Have just read the lead, and taken a quick look at the over-linking, the overall structure, and drive-by source formatting. I do not want to discourage you, but sadly, the article requires much work to meet FA status. I am leaning oppose for now, but feel free to ping me to take another look whenever you want. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I took a look at the prose and it looks like the article could use a thorough copyedit. Few examples of prose issues from just one paragraph of the article:

  • "little educational and economical opportunities in the area"
  • "mandated the use of Lithuanian without taking account of the minorities" by definition
  • "On 15 May 1990, the Šalcininkai (Soleczniki) district council, intent to create a Polish autonomy, voted to only recognise Soviet laws and the Soviet Constitution and to disregard the independence declaration"

There are sourcing issues. What makes gazeta.ru , russiantheory.ru , RIA Novosti high-quality RS? Why cite the Lithuanian parliament for historical assertions like "The Soviets were unimpressed, and on 18 April, at 21:25 (EEST), the Kremlin launched the blockade by stopping supplies to the Mažeikiai oil refinery"? Overall, the sourcing definitely needs a very thorough check. I would suggest withdrawing and getting a thorough copyedit of the article and ensuring all sources cited are high-quality reliable ones before nominating again. (t · c) buidhe 14:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coordinator comment - closing, based on comments above that this needs further work. Would recommend finding another FA mentor and give this one a thorough working-through before renominating. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 28 December 2021 [2].

Planet of Giants edit

Nominator(s): Lbal (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of Giants is a 1964 Doctor Who serial. It is one of the few three-part serials of the First Doctor's era, and one of the few to be set on present-day Earth without any extraterrestrial or non-human involvement besides the Doctor and his granddaughter. I believe it should be featured as a prime example of mid-sixties science fiction television, especially as a little-known serial of a well-known show.

@Lbal: - The instructions at the top to the WP:FAC page state Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it, and I am not seeing anything that suggests this has been done. This appears to be an out-of-process nomination. The primary author is Rhain, do they have any thoughts about this? Hog Farm Talk 21:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally hadn't planned to start an FAC anytime soon—and if I was going to nominate any serial, it almost certainly wouldn't have been this one. – Rhain ☔ 22:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhain: - Do you think it's ready for a FAC? If not, this can probably be closed as out of process. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think so. I think it's fine for GA, but the prose probably needs some significant work for FA, and I'd want to dig deeper for additional sources to use—and I'm not really willing to do either at present. – Rhain ☔ 23:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 28 December 2021 [3].

Abdollah Mirza Qajar edit

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Abdollah Mirza Qajar, an Iranian prince of Qajar dynasty, son of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar and governor of the city of Zanjan. in his time, he built the Jameh Mosque of Zanjan, discovered the long lost tomb of Arghun, Ilkhan of Ilkhanate and had a meeting with James Edward Alexander a Scottish traveller. he however, eventually lost the governorship due to the complains from the peasants. he once tried to regain his power when his father died and the realm was left upon Abdollah's nephew, Mohammad Shah Qajar, but faild. since then he left the government jobs and spent time with scholars and writers in the capital Tehran until his death in 18 June 1846 which he foretold earlier.

The article has been through copy edit and peer review and i firmly believe it is ready to jump up the final phase. Amir Ghandi (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't repeat caption in alt text
    • Changed the caption
  • File:Abdullah_Mirza_Dara.jpg needs a US tag, and can the summary be translated?
    • I'll translate the summary but how can i find the US tag, Original work tag as well?
  • File:Jemeh_mosque_Zanjan.jpg: as Iran does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the original work.
    • Done (I think?)

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'd like to have a look, but at a glance, it looks unusually short for an article about a historial figure? Are the sources scarce, or are there omissions? FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a good amount of material about him the problem is that apart from the sources used in the article, most of them are primary sources
What are these sources? And if there are secondary sources that deal with those sources, it should be covered. Otherwise there might be a comprehensiveness issue, but hard to say since I don't know the scope of the literature about him. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Chronicles written by Qajar era historians in which the amount that secondary sources cover were added into the article, however, some things were left out tat i guess is due to the problem of credibility. but its not anything significant, namely, the details of the fate of his children.
I saw that during an earlier review, a lot of "further reading" sources were removed, nothing in those that could be used here for expansion? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was something that i wish could remain, it was about a historical drama book based of the discovering of the Ilkhan's tomb.
  • There is a good deal of WP:duplinks, that can be highlighted with this[4] script.
    • The repeated links were delinked
  • Coord note We're now at 20 days without any supports. It's likely to be archived soon absent progress towards promotion (t · c) buidhe 09:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 December 2021 [5].

John Hugill edit

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 1935, a radio evangelist became premier of Alberta based on his promises to end the Great Depression using unproven—some would say crackpot—monetary theories. As his Attorney General, he selected a man who viewed the implementation of those theories as unconstitutional. It went predictably.

This is on the short side for a featured biography, at about 2,000 words of readable prose. However, Hugill's notability comes primarily from his time as Attorney General, which lasted less than two years. With that in mind, I think this article is sufficiently comprehensive; I hope that you will find that it satisfies the other criteria as well. Steve Smith (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review all the images need US public domain tags (possibly {{PD-1996}}, but only if the image was in the public domain in Canada on 1 January 1996) (t · c) buidhe 10:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • All three images were, and I have added that tag to each; thank you. Steve Smith (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date of Death - I noticed there was no date of death in the article. The date of death in the obituary in the Calgary Herald is January 13, 1971 via Google Newspapers (to the right of the highlighted article. An article was published on January 15th by the Canadian Press in the Edmonton Journal when he died via Google Newspapers. Caddyshack01 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to point that out. Leaving out a detail like that makes me hesitant to review the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it's not source-able to secondary sources. However, for a detail like that, I think a primary source is fine, and I'll throw that in there later tonight; thanks, Caddyshack. Steve Smith (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note After almost 3 weeks this has not gotten much in the way of substantial review or support. It may be archived in the next few days if we don't see progress towards promotion. (t · c) buidhe 01:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 December 2021 [6].

Tito–Stalin split edit

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about political conflict between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The conflict was framed in ideological terms by the Yugoslav leadership and led the country to formulate an independent foreign policy. The break with the USSR also meant a political and ideological conflict with the Soviet Bloc, resulting in perception of threat of military invasion by the Soviet forces and their allies as well as wide-ranging purges of actual or perceived political opponents. Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Steve Smith edit

On a first read, this is excellent, albeit dense. I think it may be possible to edit the prose to make it a little bit more accessible to people like me whose familiarity with the subject basically boils down to the fact that there was a split. I'll do a detailed review of prose within the next couple of days; for now, I offer the following comments with respect to images and sources:

  • All images are appropriate, with appropriate captions, and properly tagged as being free. I consider criterion #3 a pass.
  • All sources appear to be high quality academic sources, except where basic factual information is being cited, in which case the sources are suitably reliable for that purpose. I have not yet delved deeply enough into the article to determine whether all claims are properly sourced, but the sources used are certainly appropriate.
  • There is some inconsistency as to whether publishers are wikilinked in the "References" section; most are, but Lexington Books and Stanford University Press are not; is there a reason for this?
  • There is also inconsistency as to whether publishers are linked only the first time they appear, or on all occasions. For example, University of California Press is wikilinked both times it appears, while Oxford University Press is wikilinked only on its first occurrence. Meanwhile, MIT Press is wikilinked only on its second occurrence. These are obviously exceedingly minor quibbles, but should probably be addressed.

As indicated, I will delve more deeply into the text, to review the rest of the criteria, within the next couple of days, but my reaction at this point is that I am very likely to support in something very like its present form. Steve Smith (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thaking this up. I've wikilinked all publishers now (except where no wiki article exists) for consistency.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Smith It's been almost a week, are you still planning to review the article? (t · c) buidhe 23:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM edit

Placeholder. My neck of the woods, although post-war. Looking forward to reviewing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, have been busy in RW. Will take a look in the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • drop the comma from "under Josip Broz Tito and Joseph Stalin, respectively"
  • suggest "that also involved Albania and Bulgaria; the friction also related to the communist insurgency in Greece, which Tito's Yugoslavia supported and the Soviet Union secretly opposed."
  • suggest avoiding the "which... which" by going with "within the Albanian political leadership. This exacerbated tensions with the Soviet Union, which made efforts to slow down Yugoslav–Albanian integration."
Background
  • the whole "Tito–Stalin conflict during World War II" subsection needs more sources. All but one citation is to Banac 1988, and while Banac is fine as a source, it is mainly about the split itself, not what happened in WWII, and some of the material in this subsection has an "unique" perspective and needs to be balanced with other sources that are specifically about the WWII period. Ramet 3Y pp. 142 & 152 would be useful, also Roberts pp. 41-48, Tomasevich 1969 pp. 80-81 and Pavlowitch 2008 p. 83. There is also material in Tomasevich 1975 and 2001. Areas that need to be addressed include:
  • "new Communist organisation independent of the KPJ in the NDH" - never heard of that before, needs at least one corroborating source
  • "the party's new organisational structure and territory of operation were adjusted to account for annexation of Yugoslav territories by Bulgaria" - there is contrasting info in other sources
  • "Tito informed the Comintern and Stalin about his plans for an uprising against the Axis occupation" the USSR actually called on communists in eastern Europe to revolt (after Barbarossa began)
  • the symbols bit is overstated, as is the democratic liberties bit and the fighting to restore the king. The KPJ adopted a "popular front" approach in 1935.
  • the USSR and Britain and their pressure on Tito to fall-in behind DM needs to be mentioned
  • the whole para about AVNOJ seems one-sided. There are a range of views about what went on then between the USSR and Yugoslavia over AVNOJ, they need to be reflected in the article

I'll just wait for this aspect to be addressed before I go on with the rest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 thanks for the input, I appreciate it very much. I'll get back to you as soon as I have a look at the suggested sources and whatever can be found on the other issues you raised.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the second map, and see MOS:COLOUR
    • I have scaled the map to match the one in the lede in terms of its size.
    • As regards colours, and font selection in the map, I'd say the font appears to be quite tiny unless the file is viewed in full size and selection of the colours does not seem to help. The file uploaded at the commons was originally essentially black and white - actually the second uploaded version added colour and made minor changes in lines drawn on the map - apparently that was a completely new image and not a "version" of the old. Do you think the original map would be better suited here in terms of MOS:COLOUR and, if so, is there a way to use the old version? (T)
      • What do you mean by changes to lines?
        • For some reason the boundary line around Pula Zone A exclave (at the tip of the peninsula) is drawn slightly differently. In the later versions of the image the northern part of that line traces around the "Zone A" label, while in the original one it does not. In this respect the original B/W version is more true to the source offered. (T)
          • Er..is there a source that supports the change? If no, that's a problem quite apart from the accessibility issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right. I don't think there is one. Actually the original upload is also problematic because the red line was added later over the dotted (Morgan) line rendering the key useless. I swapped the map now (and updated its sourcing info at the Commons) because the original one is relevant for the Morgan Line only which became obsolete in 1947 with establishment of the FTT. (T)
      • For the second map, the Zone A/B coloration is fine since there is also labelling; as you note the font size is an issue, as is the coloration of the lines in the legend. The original map addresses the second problem by using different line formatting (dashed, dotted) instead of colour. If you wanted to use the original instead of the second, it should be fairly straightforward to upload. For the first map, not sure if additional labelling could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see now. A colour blind person might not distinguish between the line coloration in the 2nd map and shading of various groups of countries in the 1st. Let me see what could be done to remedy this and I'll get back to you shortly. (T)
  • File:JStalin_Secretary_general_CCCP_1942.jpg: which of the Russian rationales is believed to apply here?
    • No idea really. Swapped image. (T)
  • File:Goli_otok_zatvor.jpg: where is that specific licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a closer look at the licencing and it appears the uploader added a third-party photo and pasted a copy of e-mail correspondence seeking permission from purported author for use. I've swapped the image for a photo of the island viewed from the mainland shore just to be on the safe side. (T)

Nikkimaria thanks for the comments. I'm not entirely certain what are you aiming at specifically re MOS:COLOUR, so please let me know if you meant something else. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I swapped both maps: the lede map for a clickable one where I tried to address the MOS:COLOURS concerns (and omitted the 1960s Albania split as irrelevant for this topic), and the FTT map with a different one dealing with the FTT specifically instead of Morgan Line. Could you have a look at these just to check if those are fine?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first is fine, the second could use a more descriptive caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tomobe03 hasn't edited since 16 December. Hope he's all right but if he's unable to respond to comments it may be time to archive the review. (t · c) buidhe 01:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. I have started reading up along the lines pointed out by PM and there is substantial work required to address those issues. I hoped to fix problems quickly, but some unforeseen drains on time in RL limited the time I had available. I plan to address the above issues later on, and renominate at a later date. I'm grateful for all the feedback provided and hope to resume work on this article soon. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 22 December 2021 [7].

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article takes up where American logistics in the Northern France campaign leaves off, covering the period from September 1944 to January 1945. The volume of material was considerable, so I split the article into two parts; one about transportation, and one about supply. In this phase, the American armies remained largely static through September and October for lack of supplies, particularly ammunition. Initially this was because the rapid advance across France and Belgium created lengthy supply lines; the rehabilitation of railways could not keep pace, and the use of motor transport was a stopgap that caused longer term problems. Then, as the weather deteriorated, the beaches became unusable, and the lack of port capacity became a problem because the ports in Brittany that had been intended to supply the American forces had not been captured. Shipping piled up offshore, unable to discharge, and the resulting shortage of ships threatened the entire Allied war effort. This article has recently passed an A-class review, with source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges edit

  • Recently reviewed this at A-Class; happy to support as featured quality. User:Iazyges

Comments from Trainsandotherthings edit

I will try to keep these organized by section. They may arrive out of order though.
Shipping

  • This section is quite long to not have any subheaders. I recommend adding some here, if possible.
    There is no consensus on when a section becomes too long. (WP:MILMOS#SECTLEN) I will consider adding subsections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Railways

  • This section is quite long, if possible, can you divide it into subsections?
    I will consider this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These were manufactured at Differdange in Luxembourg, and after it was liberated it began producing steel beams for the Allies." When was Differdange liberated? I believe this merits a brief mention to give some context.

I will add more comments soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • Having read more of the article, I find that I agree with the points raised by GraemeLeggett. I additionally am of the opinion that the sections on the individual ports are too long, and need to be condensed. With approximately 72 kb of readable prose, this article is at a length where a split could seriously be considered, per WP:SIZERULE. The ports section is disproportionate to the rest of the article in size, and there are some paragraphs that I feel would be more at home on the articles for the individual ports themselves, or even a separate article on English Channel ports in the Siegfried Line campaign, or English Channel ports in the Western Allied offensive 1944-1945, although I know that's getting very niche.
    Yes, it would be. I'm regretting splitting it in the first place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find that there's not a clear narrative or order here, the article seems to jump around with dates and times. There's a lot of information here, and it's well written, but the article needs a clearer focus and better organization to improve its readability. When I first saw this article, I expected it to tell the story of transportation throughout the campaign, with the article written in chronological order and closely linked to the progression of the campaign, but that is not the case at present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One possible solution is to reorganize the article to go by month, instead of being divided by mode of transportation. Covering periods between specific events in the campaign might also be a solution. For instance, there could be a section about the consequences of the Ardennes offensive and how it complicated transportation, which is right now buried within the ports and railways sections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is organised on a topical basis. This is normal fior logistics articles. The sections are arranged in geographical order, so it logically proceeds from the ships to the ports, to the railways, roads and barges, moving closer to the front. A chronological organisation would be incomprehensible, as the rehabiltaion of the ports and the development of the different transportation systems proceeded in parallel. But each subsection is arranged in chronological order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    However, for the subsequent campaign in 1945, I have been able to relate more tightly to the operations. See User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox6. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reluctantly going to Oppose this FAC at this time, pending a response to my concerns, as well as those below. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am striking my oppose for now, but this article is not yet at a state in which I could support it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GraemeLeggett edit

  1. The article does not deliver a narrative. It starts with an introduction, then describes the various ways supplies are moved but doesn't wrap up the tale. It also doesn't - to me - do a good job of relating the logistics to the military operations they were supplying.
    In particular, it seems to have failed to get across the fact that operations were stalled from September to November while they got the logistics in order. It is in the map but I think it was lost from the narrative when the article was divided. I will rework this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is only a single map and yet much of the text is describing moving things from one location to another - places that may be obscure or even if the name is known the spacial relationship may be uncertain to the average reader.
    I think I can find some more maps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Variety of language - having just read the article, the word "hauled" has lost all meaning
    I will address this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The conversion of tonnage looks iffy in places (a function of the rounding function?) but that might just be me - that said Deadweight tonnage needs explanation.
    Usually the problem with tons is the different types. Feel free to point out specifics where you think the rounding might be weird, as it can be tweaked. Deadweight tonnage has been linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In "Shipping" 3rd paragraph we get the odd-looking "the allocation to Overlord would be reduced to 250,000 deadweight tons (250,000 deadweight tonnes)" a few sentences later we get "50,000 deadweight tons (51,000 deadweight tonnes)" - which gives the impression of different precision, though the same template is used. It probably doesn't help that there isn't an abbreviation for DWT so every conversion takes about a third of the line width. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rounding does seem odd. Adjusted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


It may be easy to fix the technical requirements I mention but still seems to fall short in those narrative/comprehension respects. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Seems to rely a lot on the US military sources and per FA Criteria 1.c ("representative survey of the relevant literature") has there been any consideration of what historians outside the US military wrote (particularly where the US and their logistic operations overlap - eg the shared ports) or some higher level critical opinion on the logistics relating to the campaign in the round from general writers covering the particular period.
    The article also uses van Crevald and Dick as sources. I assure you that it is a comprehensive survey of the literature; only about a half dozen or so historians specialise in military logistics (and I'm one of them). Dick is very recent, and a British historian, but he's fairly critical of the Americans. I will add a bit more from Dick to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Specialists can get too deep into the subject. What do the "generalists" think of logistics performance and its effects (or not) on the course of the campaign? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The campaign is not well covered. Most writing by operational historians is about the Normandy campaign and the Battle of the Bulge. (Operations Market Garden is well covered, but outside the scope of this article; it is covered in the companion British article.) There is much less interest in the period between, and even less in the 1945 fighting. They write a lot about the crisis that brought the US forces to a halt in September, but are much less concerned about the subject of this article, which is all about how those problems were resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Generalists are actually very uncommon; Dick is a rare example. Most writers are purely concerned with operations. But you can't really understand a World War II campaign without understanding the logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification - no I don't think this is FA yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but these are the comments that are sought from reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also

  1. Fails WP:Accessibility on alt text for images. I'd never used the tool listed in the sidebar at top before - it's quite useful GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note though that alt text is not a requirement at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But accessibility is part of the Manual of Style and Featured Articles are supposed to be the best that Wikipedia delivers.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It is regrettable that the FAC requirements and the MOS sometimes conflict. The problem is that much editing of the latter is by editors with no experience in featured article writing. However, I didn't say I wouldn't do it, just that it is not required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article criteria specifically says "2. It follows the style guidelines...". This is briefly touched on here Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive85#FA/FL_review_visual_and_accessibility_checks. I'm not claiming the high ground when it comes to putting them in myself (stones and glass houses and all that). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It goes on to specify the parts of the MOS that must apply. There is no consensus on what other parts apply. (Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive66#MoS and featured-article criteria) In the case of WP:Accessibility, there are requirements for complex table markup. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Please archive this nomination. I will take it away and work on it further. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2021 [8].

F. Scott Fitzgerald edit

Nominator(s): Flask & ~ HAL333 06:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... F. Scott Fitzgerald. He very well may have written the Great American Novel, but Fitzgerald was no one-hit wonder. This was my first Good Article, back when COVID first hit and I had endless amounts of time. More recently, Flask has done some tremendous work revamping it. And after a peer review, we feel it's fit to be a FA. ~ HAL333 06:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:F Scott Fitzgerald and his mother St Paul Minnesota.jpg Why is this image free in the US?
According to the Minnesota Historical Society, it is in the public domain, but I have been waiting two weeks for them to respond to my emails with written confirmation. If they do not respond within the next few days, I'll remove the image. — Flask (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with relying on copyright determinations by reputable institutions but if so that should be stated in the image description, eg: "According to the Minnesota Historical Society, this image is in the public domain in the United States". (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: File:F Scott Fitzgerald and his mother St Paul Minnesota.jpg - On Monday, November 29, 2021, I again e-mailed the Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) regarding the copyright status of this 1897 photograph. On Tuesday, December 7, 2021, at 12:56 p.m. CST, MNHS librarian Jenny McElroy replied to my inquiry and confirmed that "the photograph was produced in approximately 1897" and is in the public domain. Although the photograph is in the public domain, McElroy nonetheless requested that their digitized version be credited to the Minnesota Historical Society. Based on this information, I have updated the image license on Wikimedia Commons. I can also provide screenshots of the e-mail correspondence if needed. — Flask (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:F. Scott Fitzgerald - World War I Uniform - 1917.jpg Claim "published in 1917-1918 periodicals such as Prince" How do we know it was published in Prince? Did someone check the source and if so could they state the issue, page number, exact date etc. so it's verifiable?
  • File:F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald Passport Book Page 4 Retouched.jpg File:Ernest Hemingway 1923 passport photo.jpg US passport photos are not necessarily public domain. They are not created by the federal government and passports are usually unpublished documents.
  • File:Downtown Saint Paul roof with Fitzgerald Theater mural in background.jpg The mural is copyrighted and since the photograph is included in the article precisely because of this mural, it cannot be argued to be incidental. (t · c) buidhe 07:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. — Flask (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Some sections especially "Early life and education", "Early struggles and meteoric success", and "New York and the Jazz Age" are inordinately long. It would improve readability, especially for mobile viewers, to split them up or add subheadings. (t · c) buidhe 07:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Per your feedback, I have split up several larger sections and added new section titles. — Flask (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO there are too many notes, which could be profitably deleted or moved to other articles (as I did with the material on Max Gerlach). For example, "Ginevra King married William "Bill" Mitchell on September 4, 1918.[58] Three days later, Fitzgerald declared his love for Zelda on September 7, 1918.[59]" It just duplicates what the article already says without adding new information. In general, if the info is important enough to include at all, it should not be in a note, conversely if it is not important enough to include in the article text, it should most likely be excluded entirely. (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Per your feedback, I have culled many of the EFN notes. I'll do another pass tomorrow. — Flask (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lost manuscripts" section seems WP:UNDUE especially since it is sourced to news coverage of the finds. The section is discussing apparently non-notable and it seems less important Fitzgerald works. I would axe the section and instead cover these works in a dedicated bibliography article. (t · c) buidhe 20:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Done. Shifted that section over to the F. Scott Fitzgerald bibliography article. — Flask (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from DMT edit

Sorry to be the one to usher a negative start. My biggest grievance is divvying. The intersection of Fitzgerald: the man and Fitzgerald the writer is negligible – the word theme is used once, by the man himself; prose is absent. I concur with Buidhe that a lot of material is superfluous. For example, the initial material concerning Ginevra King could be one paragraph. For example:

'Amid his sophomore year at Princeton, Fitzgerald returned home to Saint Paul, where the 19-year-old Fitzgerald met 16-year-old Chicago beauty and debutante Ginevra King with whom he fell deeply in love. The couple began a romantic relationship that would span several years. Their relationship was not without hindrance, chiefly Fitzgerald's lower class. Their relationship ended in January 1917; a distraught Fitzgerald requested she destroy his romantic letters professing his love, although he never destroyed King's letters which would eventually enter King's possession until her death.'

Summarised, more encyclopedic, less of a Xerox of a Xerox of a book biography – I'd recommend discussing the literary relation to King alongside the similar occurrence with Zelda. Elsewhere there's material that's simply trivial: "Four of the University's eating clubs offered him a membership at midyear, and he chose the University Cottage Club where its library still displays his desk and writing materials." Interesting, certainly, but also beckons that eternal question: "Did you know?"

Further examples of excessive material: "The affluent granddaughter of a Confederate senator whose extended family owned the White House of the Confederacy Zelda was one of the most celebrated debutantes of Montgomery's exclusive country club set." For this article's purpose, this can be summarised by noting Zelda as a much-celebrated southern belle. In that paragraph, I'd exercise removing the mentions of King; she has her own article, after all.

I'm not going to continue and highlight specific material; I don't like grandstanding, no more than is inherent to these hallowed halls. I merely recommend a reevaluation, perusing and deciding upon material that is essential and/or cannot/shouldn't be further summarised.

Returning to the point about themes, I think the lack of a section solely dedicated to discussing Fitzgerald's writings is unfortunate. The sections: "Critical reevaluation" and "Literary influence" are great starts. But they concern the reception to writings I know - assuming my only understanding is this article - little about. Of course, the specific articles on the novels befit in-depth analysis of that which pertains to them but there still must be overarching and recurrent matters: developing style, clingy themes and motifs, akin to the green light; use of grammar and differences in short story and novel writings. Fitzgerald's mate Hemingway provides a pretty good example.

All that being said, there's still a lot of very respectable craftsmanship here. The prose is high quality throughout – sojourned, what a great word. The images are similarly appropriate, embellishing the material throughout. And, frankly, given the Fitzgerald's entangled life and legacy, it's most commendable to be able to compile a detailed - if a little too much and a little lacking - biography. I just think that there are a few missteps.

All the best. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMT Biscuit: Thank you for your feedback. In response to your concerns, I will do several passes and cut any details which seem superfluous. I also will try to compress several sections as well as expand the "Critical reevaluation" and "Literary influence" sections. However, I do not believe the sentence regarding Zelda's ties to the state elite and the Confederacy should be cut. The point is that Zelda was far more than a much celebrated Southern belle: Her family were among the foremost political elite which dominated the Alabama, and her father's uncle was the head of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan during Zelda's own lifetime. Removing that sentence both reduces Zelda to a wealthy flapper stereotype and, worse, whitewashes both her and her family. Given the ongoing reckoning in historical scholarship on this subject, that is something I do not feel we should do. Nevertheless, I understand you chose that sentence as merely one example among many, so I shall do my best to excise or compress other superfluous details. Hopefully, after these changes are undertaken, you can reassess the article. — Flask (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Flask: this is a perfectly sufficient rationale. Sometimes the analytic mind is solipsistic. Upon what you consider an ample assessment, I'd be happy to look over the article again. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DMT for bringing this up, I was going to mention it myself. Anton Chekhov was delisted last year for similar reasons—it contained no analysis on the works themselves. In addition to the Hemingway article recommended above, Ezra Pound and James Joyce (which was just recently rewritten) manage to fit much of this kind of information in the actual biography sections, so that might be an option to some extent. You could go the more direct route as Chinua Achebe and Edgar Allan Poe do with having specific sections dedicated to such information. Plenty of options. Aza24 (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Flask: I noticed a problem with one of the citations. You'll be able to see the problem and my resolution in the edit history. I sussed the problem out with this user script: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. I'd recommend it to circumvent other problems; for the record, there are no present problems. DMT Biscuit (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DMT Biscuit: Thank you for fixing the citation error. On a side note, I have drafted new sections which focus upon Fitzgerald's fiction, and I will be adding them to the article within the next two days. Then I will do a full pass on the whole article. — Flask (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Most Comfortable Chair edit

  • Citation error at reference 137 (<ref name="Max Gerlach"/>).
  • General observation, and I have not read the sources yet — While I don't see anything technically wrong with the way sfnms are used, there is some potential to reduce the amount of multiple sources cited to sentences. Take "Fitzgerald spent the bulk of his income on Zelda's psychiatric treatment and his daughter Scottie's expenses at Vassar College" for instance, which is referenced from four different sources — Graham & Frank 1958, p. 188; Ring 1985, p. 115; Mizener 1951, p. 290; Turnbull 1962, p. 303. Similarly, "One day, on a whim, they jumped into a water fountain at Union Square while sober" could probably be referenced from just one source, or less than four sources that it cites — Mizener 1951, p. 117; Turnbull 1962, p. 134; Bruccoli 2002, p. 131; Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald 2002, p. xxvi. Multiple sources in and of itself should not be an issue, but it is preferable to have specific attribution wherever possible, especially if the fact that is being cited is not a consensus or controversial opinion.
  • Since locations are used universally, "Edwards, Ivana" and "Metro's New Pictures" are missing them.

— The Most Comfortable Chair 06:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Most Comfortable Chair: Thank you for your feedback. I fixed the citation error; culled a number of redundant citations, and added the missing locations for Edwards and Metro Pictures. Let me know if you have any other suggestions, and I will implement them as soon as time permits. — Flask (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from blz 2049 edit

HAL333 tapped me on my talk page a little while ago for help with sourcing some additional public domain images of Fitzgerald, if possible. Working on that now and will touch base with the nominators elsewhere as I find images they might like to use. In the meantime, some quick comments:

  • I haven't reviewed the article in any serious depth, but I do have to echo some of DMT Biscuit's big-picture critiques. There's plenty about Fitzgerald's life and plenty about his legacy, but the absence of a section about his work and literary style is conspicuous. There's a hint of it in "Literary influence", but it's indirect—that section's primary focus is who his writing influenced, but nowhere is there a section on who influenced his own writing. I had this thought while searching the Internet Archive library for information about photos of Fitzgerald; I happened to come across the reprinted 1923 article "Prediction Is Made About James Joyce Novel: F. S. Fitzgerald Believes Ulysses Is Great Book of Future", which finds Fitzgerald opining on not only Joyce but also a whole other swath of authors and philosophers he admires. He called Conrad's Nostromo the novel of the preceding 50 years and Ulysses the novel of the next 50 years. His admiration for Nostromo is reflected in the lead of the article on that book, but the word "Conrad" only comes up once to note a similarity between the two authors but without noting Fitzgerald's intense admiration. The word "Keats" is missing too.
@Blz 2049: First, thank you very much for adding pictures to the article! The Scott and Zelda photo in particular is great. It is amazing how much different images can change the appearance of an article. Thank you also for your detailed feedback regarding the article's lack of literary and thematic analysis. I am currently writing a draft version of a Literary Analysis section to be appended to the article, and I will take your suggested sources into account. I hope to finish a rough draft of the section by this weekend. — Flask (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Flask (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Selected works" section could probably be subdivided into lists of novels/short stories. Also I think I see the intent behind putting the year first then the title, since the years form an easily scannable vertical column that way, but that format nonetheless strikes me as pretty irregular edit: I've now seen that this year-first list style is in use at Ernest Hemingway § Selected works, so that's fine (and was no big deal to begin with). —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 07:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blz 2049: For the ordering of the Selected works, I mostly imitated the ordering style of the Ernest Hemingway Featured Article. But, if others find the ordering too odd, I can change it. — Flask (talk)
  • This has been open for three weeks and shows no sign of gaining a consensus to promote. There seems to be agreement that outstanding promote, so I am archiving this. The usual two-week pause will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 11 December 2021 [9].

Long Sault Parkway edit

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 17:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the parkway developed in Ontario when the St. Lawrence Seaway was built. It is comprehensive, well sourced, and includes some interesting images. It's been nearly a decade since I last brought an article to FAC, so hopefully I haven't fallen behind on standards. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The parkway refers to both the roadway as well as the park system through which it travels. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hurricanehink

  • ”The islands, which were created by the flooding of the Long Sault rapids during construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway in the late 1950s, include two public beaches and three campgrounds.” - that’s a lot of info for the second sentence of the article, especially the way it’s structured. I suggest switching the clauses, like “The islands, which include two public beaches and three campgrounds, were created…”
  • ”A road also known as the Long Sault Parkway serves to interconnect the islands.” - you just said this two sentences prior.
  • I think you should include “rapids” in the wiki link for “Long Sault rapids”, as you also mention the town of the same name, and it’s the name of the Parkway.
  • Thoughts on this in the lead? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought I fixed that with this change, but apparently not.[10] It's fixed now, let me know if that intro looks better! - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it worth mentioning the 6,500 displaced people because of the project? It’s not directly related to the road, but IMO it’s interesting.
  • That was a no? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, didn't respond to this one. I think it fits in amongst the history pretty well, even though obviously not all 6,500 lived directly where the parkway now sits. I'm sure a lot of the content of this article could be copied into the Long Sault rapids or St. Lawrence Seaway articles though. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I followed the route description to Hoople Island, then I got lost how we got to Dickinson or Heriot
  • While The Wedge described it as "an oasis unlike any other." - this isn’t a complete sentence
  • That animation of before and after the spillway is awesome!
  • ”At 8 am” - specify time zone
  • Is there any history on the road since 1958?

The article is pretty good. I think it just needs a bit more for an FA. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to these shortly, but I guess I should have mentioned that the Long Sault Parkway is both the road as well as the name of the island chain, and that's what I was trying to establish with that 3rd sentence in the lede. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so first off, thank you on the animation, it was pretty fun to make! So I've made some adjustments, and in conjunction with the above comment that I made, that should cover everything except the fifth ("I followed the route description to "), and the last point ("Is there any history on the road since 1958?"). Regarding the former, I'm curious if you might have a suggestion on wording the description without overusing the word "causeway"? As for the latter, There have been no significant changes since the parkway opened fully in 1959. The only thing I think could cover the time period after that would be attendance and perhaps seasonal operations (as pointed out by Hog Farm below); the St. Lawrence Parks Commission only seems to track overall attendance throughout the entire system, and not park by park. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so the "Long Sault Parkway" also applies to the islands? If so, then I think there should be a separate section then for the islands, where you could mention the names and stuff (instead of the route description). Like, the opening sentence says that the parkway connects the group of islands - perhaps you should specify something like: "The Long Sault Parkway is a 10.1-kilometre (6.3 mi) scenic parkway that connects, and is the name for, a group of eleven islands west of Cornwall in the Canadian province of Ontario." I'm not sure if that exact wording is ideal, but the article needs to reflect that it's not just a road article. It vaguely reminds me of Afsluitdijk, which is the name for a causeway and a dam in the Netherlands. It makes sense that the name and history would be the same for the road and the island group, but that just needs to be made clearer. Ref 3 calls them the "Long Sault Parkway Islands", FWIW. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case (as it appears to be), then I think the "islands" section should be a bit broader. You'd need to include the size of the islands, and as mentioned below, the flora/fauna, the climate. I think the islands section should include the naming, so the route description can be a bit more focused on the roadway itself. I hate to ask, since the article is now on FAC, but the entire topic might be better focused if all of the information was located in the Lost Villages article. There's a lot of overlap between the roadway, the islands, and the villages themselves. As it stands, the article has an unclear focus, being kinda about the road, kinda about the islands, and a large portion on the dam and the flooding. That equally applies to the Lost Villages article. I'm not going to oppose the article on those grounds, as you might want to still pursue this article at FAC, and the suggestion of a refocused article might be unactionable. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't feel as if flora/fauna/climate is of any purpose in this article. It's a par system that doesn't differ from the nearby mainland that it was once part of... that and there is really no coverage of it whatsoever. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A featured article on a group of islands would talk about more than just the road and how the islands were made. If it was just a road article, then it wouldn't need to carry it. As for whether it has any purpose, one of the picture has several bird-like creatures in it, and the article mentions beaches and nature trails. So I think they're relevant. But I don't want to oppose on those grounds. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's about a parkway, both the road and greenway type; it just happens to cross islands. It's a driving tour with some campgrounds and beaches. I'm trying to find another featured article that covers islands that aren't out in the ocean and well separated from the mainland... the only one I could find is Barren Island, Brooklyn. As an aside there is next to no distinct coverage of the ecology or climate of the parkway on its own. This is all I can find that even mentions fauna/flora: [11] - Floydian τ ¢ 01:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But do you see the difference between Barren Island and the Long Sault? Barren Island includes much of the history, so the equivalent would be this article mentioning more about the Lost Villages. The Barren Island also has several decades of history. This only seems to cover the 1950s. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I do see that it's different, but what I was pointing out is that it is about an island and it doesn't cover ecology. This is about a park and the road that travels through said park. It didn't exist before the 50s and it hasn't changed in any significant way since then (the latter I suppose could be pointed out in the article though). To go into a full history of the floodplain is more appropriate for the Lost Villages article, or the Long Sault article. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

These are just some quick comments, full review to follow later

  • "Beginning immediately east of Inglewood, the Long Sault Parkway branches south from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (SDG) County Road 2 and passes a parkway information booth, with the Ingleside Sewage Treatment Plant located on the southeast corner" - source only covers that the treatment plant is on the Long Sault Parkway, not the other details
  • Accessed this off Google Scholar, it includes the statement The Long Sault Parkway was initially popular with motorists, with cars often backed up at the entrance gates on weekends. Initial enthusiasm tapered off, however, and tourism and camping on the islands remains mostly seasonal, limited to warm months. which looks like information suggesting material lacking from the article

More to come. Hog Farm Talk 19:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The later contains a nature trail as well as a boat launch" - should be latter, not later, shouldn't it?
  • Some of the connections between the island ain't clear - Heriot-Vankoughnet, Vankoughnet-Philpotts, and Macdonald-Mille Roches
    • Should be fixed with latest edit. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear what the 11 islands are - route description says McLaren and Moulinette is out, but then the list of islands includes Moulinette but not McLaren
    • Fixed, I did that list quickly yesterday and put Moulinette and forgot MacLaren, also the misspellings you pointed out. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of stronger sourcing, can the list of what exact islands are part of it be sourced to a stronger source than a map?
    • How is a map not a strong source? It clearly labels the eleven islands. I haven't been able to find a reliable text source that lists them, just the ones with amenities. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Referring to the map heading the list, it does clearly show the 10 connected. But how does it clearly and strongly support the inclusion of Snetsinger? It's connected to the 10 main ones, but so is Moulinette. And the color used Snetsinger and the other 10 is the same as used for unconnected Wales island, so that map isn't a good source for excluding Moulinette/Wales but including Snetsinger. Does Dunphy contain a stronger listing that could be used to back it up? Hog Farm Talk 18:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • After extensive searching, it appears it does.[12]. Added the ref to the island list. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Learn about Battle of Crysler's Farm". Upper Canada Village. Retrieved April 20, 2021." - ref appears to be nonfunctional?
    • Worked back in April... I've added an archive link. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the latter saw a monument installed at Upper Canada Village" - first source only announces plans for it, and the second doesn't work, so this isn't well-supported
  • Brior 1960 appears to be self-published. What makes it high-quality RS?
    • Appears or is? I'd say regardless that having a forward written by one of people in charge of building the seaway, or being carried by the University of Michigan or Archives of Canada, makes it quite reliable. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will look at the credentials of author after work, but being carried by those libraries does not indicate reliability. The library of my college contained books from the 1950s with ethnic slurs in the titles and a book claiming that the Native Americans were the 10 lost tribes - being held in libraries doesn't necessarily mean it's high-quality RS for the purpose of FAC. Hog Farm Talk 17:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can find pretty much nothing that would support Brior being the sort of high-quality RS required for FAC, aside from a single citation to one page of the work in a Yale UP book. I'd be willing to accept it for GA, but probably not for FA. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article really doesn't feel complete - has literally nothing of note happened here since 1958? I really don't think there's adequate coverage of post-opening here
    • Not really. The parks were closed in 2020 because of Covid, but otherwise all the existing beaches and campgrounds are the same as they were in 1959. I don't mind working in something based on the source you found in your first comment. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iroquois is only mentioned in the lead
  • There's a number of spelling inconsistencies in here - Mille Roches Island vs Milles Roche Island, Vankougnet Island vs Vancougnet Island
    • Mistakes in my addition of the island list yesterday, fixed. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope here is unclear - is this about both the islands and the parkway? Because a FA about islands would need information about such as plant life, fauna, climate, etc, but we mainly just have the human history of the road here. But the lead seems to suggest this covers both.
    • It's about the parkway, which is both a term for a roadway lined by parks, as well as a line of interconnected parks. These islands were part of the mainland and have the exact same makeup of flora and fauna that any other part of the St. Lawrence region would have. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am leaning oppose here, because this doesn't seem to be properly complete and has an unclear scope, as well as the internal inconsistencies. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian - I know a lot of roadway articles contain traffic statistics - would those be available for this roadway? Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the St. Lawrence Parks Commission to see if they have traffic or attendance levels. I only have stats for provincial highways. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the animation
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Is there an unaltered replacement for File:Long_Sault_Parkway_near_Lansdowne.png available? See WP:WATERMARK. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've upped the image size, not sure if it's too big now or not. Alt text added. I've contacted the Flickr author, but I'm not sure they're still active; might have to take this to the photography workshop to have it removed. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should be able to remove it if you want or need me too. - Tcer99 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tcer99: That would be very much appreciated, thank you! - Floydian τ ¢ 00:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Floydian: Consider it done. I uploaded the new version of the file. It should update on the article in a couple minutes. Tcer99 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

So far we're approaching the 3-week mark without much sign of progress towards support. Without that happening in the next few days the FAC may be archived. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is a lack of review as well. I've responded to everything but seem to be at an impasse with some feeling I need to treat this as an Island in the middle of the ocean instead of a park in the St. Lawrence River, so I'm not sure how to proceed. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 December 2021 [13].

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic edit

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sixth FAC nomination of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, hopefully it'll be the charm. I nominated this article previously almost two months ago but it failed due to lack of engagement. It's gone through another peer review with helpful comments from Z1720, Laser brain, Wizzito, Kavyansh.Singh and Pseud 14. Now, it's hopefully ready. Let's just believe that: Friendship is magic. Pamzeis (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The prose remains well short of FA standard I'm afraid, as it is often needlessly unclear or overly complex. Some illustrative examples from random spot checks are:

  • "Hasbro, Inc. has produced several incarnations of the My Little Pony franchise, often labeled by collectors as "generations"" - collectors of what?
  • " With many brands, including My Little Pony, the company uses a multi-generational plan as a template" - a template for what?
  • "According to Margaret Loesch, CEO of The Hub, revisiting properties that had worked in the past was an important decision in televised media, which was somewhat influenced by the opinions of the network's programming executives, several of whom were once fans of such shows" - over complicated and hard to understand
  • "Animator and writer Lauren Faust approached Hasbro to develop her girls' toys property "Galaxy Girls" into an animated series" - when?
  • "had been unsuccessfully pitching animation aimed at girls for years, as studios and networks considered cartoons for girls unsuccessful" - repetitive
  • "Faust was initially hired by Hasbro to create a pitch bible for the show, which allowed her to get additional help with conceptualization" - this is unclear
  • " When designing the settings, she sent photo references to artist Dave Dunnet" - as nobody has been mentioned by name in this para prior to the 'she', who is is referring to is unclear.
  • "Hasbro Studios and a season's story editor employed writers" - unclear (what's 'a season's story editor'?), and this seems a statement of the obvious given that writers were clearly needed.

As I think that the prose would need a lot of work and this article has failed five previous FACs, I don't see much likelihood of this sixth nomination passing. Sorry. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I would like to withdraw this nomination per the issues pointed out by Nick-D. Apologies for any inconvenience. Pamzeis (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2021&oldid=1062802642"