Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2023

< 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) 27 December 2023 [1].

Wish You Were Gay edit

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 07:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the word "gay" in the title of a song like this, you won't be to blame when you think of it as good ol' fashioned teenage gay angst. The best kind of angst of course. But nope, it's just about a girl who wishes the guy he likes is gay because she can't handle being rejected. Of course that spawned some controversy, and mainstream critics have been ... quite weird about it. You'd have to read about the article to find out more. I await the commentary with open arms. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 07:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • ""Wish You Were Gay" is the fourth single" - I think this should be ""Wish You Were Gay" was the fourth single"
  • "would go to The Trevor Project," => "would go to the Trevor Project,"
  • I'm not sure the rainbow flag image really adds anything to the article. If you really feel like it belongs, you need to expand the caption to explain how it's relevant (i.e. you are assuming that readers know what the rainbow flag is).
  • ""Wish You Were Gay" closes with a round of applause from the crowd" - this implies that she recorded it in front of said crowd. I presume this isn't correct and the round of applause was just a sample.....?
  • "Eilish cited how her female friend" - presumably she had more than one female friend so I suggest "Eilish cited how a female friend"
  • ""Wish You Were Gay" reached its chart peak that day at number 31, placed at number 84 the previous tracking week." - this isn't a grammatically correct/complete sentence
  • "the singles chart by the Australian Recording Industry Association" - feels like there's a word missing here (published?)
  • "Eilish went on a concert show in London less than 24 hours after". "Went on" doesn't feel right here, and I also don't think you need both "concert" and "show". I suggest re-doing the whole sentence as "Less than 24 hours after the release of "Wish You Were Gay", Eilish performed it alongside songs mostly from her debut extended play titled Don't Smile at Me (2017) at a concert in London"
  • "Throughout 2019, Eilish performed "Wish You Were Gay" at three music festivals" - not really "throughout" the year if she only did it three times. Suggest "During 2019"
  • "She performed the song for an episode of BBC Radio 1" - BBC Radio 1 is a radio station, you can't have an episode of a radio station. It would be like saying "an episode of MTV". Suggest just saying "She performed the song for BBC Radio 1 at London's Maida Vale Studios."
  • That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, @ChrisTheDude! thanks for taking up fac reviews as always. apologies for the delays! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
    📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"     05:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Hi Elias, the standard heads up that this is three weeks in and has just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has well and truly stalled, so I'm going to put it to bed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2023 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2023 [2].

Begotten (film) edit

Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1989 American experimental horror film Begotten, after two failed nominations in regards to sourcing and structure, I have done a complete revision by removing unreliable sources, adding more reliable ones and revising some problematic portions while updating the material when it was necessary.Paleface Jack (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wingwatchers edit

Finally a film article at FAC. I will post comments/suggestions shortly. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "According to art historian Scott MacDonald, the film's allegorical qualities and purposeful ambiguity invite multiple interpretations." such as what? I wouldn't recommend shoving it to a single art historian because the lead is supposed to be written in a summary style. Rewrite that sentence to reflect the themes of in the body and avoid attributing to any single author. For example just explicitly say that the "The film's allegorical qualities and purposeful ambiguity invite multiple interpretations including XXX.
I am gonna redo that and make a separate paragraph that summarizes the film's themes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest relocating the theme part after the plot in the lead and remove the part about Merhige acknowledging the thematic elements since it doesn't really provide any real content basis. You have already mentioned the "mythic and religious elements" and mentioning it is "intentionally incorporated into the film." is not very important or useful either. In addition, I would also suggest replacing the word argued with critiqued and readjusting it so it transitions well from the plot part wherever you see fit. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded it a little and placed it after the plot section lead as you suggested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to have it placed after the story in the same paragraph but this also works. Wingwatchers (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see. my bad. If its fine as how I changed it I will leave it alone. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Begotten was shot on location in New York City and New Jersey over a period of three and a half years – although, in an interview, Merhige said filming took only five and a half months." I would think that Merhige's claim is more reliable and accurate since he is directly involved with the film. This sentence is conflicted and I cannot grasp if it is shot over three and a half years or the latter.
I will reword that to reflect the incorrect timespan with Merhige correcting it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years trying to find a distributor willing to market it." -> "After the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years trying to find a distributor willing to market it."
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Begotten was written, produced, and directed by Merhige, with development for the film beginning in the mid-to-late 1980s, although some sources list the date as 1984." -> "Begotten was written, produced, and directed by Merhige, and development began in the mid-to-late 1980s, although some sources list the date as 1984."
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Principal photography took place in the mid-to-late 1980s" -> "Principal photography occured in the mid-to-late 1980s"
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the Influences section be part of the production? And we have two sections with confusingly similar names.
That sounds good, I will try to incorporate that into the development sub-section.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments

  • "Merhige later stated in an interview that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke, what Merhige called "an otherworldly response"." I disliked attributing a director's vision to an interview because it gave the impression that the director's vision was incorrect. I suggest changing it to "Merhige said that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke." to make it more concise and the fact that he stated such things in an interview doesn't necessarily add any context to the sentence.
I agree, did a short rewording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merhige later stated in an interview that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke, what Merhige called "an otherworldly response"." "later", as opposed to "early"? To the best of my knowledge, the directors normally revealed a film's development process after that film had been published, so the use of "later" here doesn't make sense. Even if he is stating in retrospect, I would still remove the word "later" because he at the time was indeed drawn by the use of performer.
Redid it a bit to say "Merhige has stated he was drawn to the utilization of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement".--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing his next project," "next project"? What is his first project?
From all my diggin, I have not found the exact productions he directed and have only found sources that have stated that he previously worked on some with Theatreofmaterial.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing his next project, which was initially for the theater." I am sorry if the "next project" is Begotten. This sentence doesn't make any sense since the first paragraph suggests that the film in question is already being developed because you mentioned how he is drawing inspiration from Japanese dance and how he sought to replicate the same group dynamic.
Both Begotten and the start of his interest in film/theatre. The dance troupe planted the seeds for the film and what would become both Begotten and Theatrofmaterial as a background to its maker and what would be the film. Dont know how you feel it could be reworded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must have misinterpreted that part as Merhige's general approach to the filmmaking process rather than the film's production itself. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All is good. I restructured that a little to be more clear.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was thought out as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra." I assume that the "next project" is the Begotten but the way it is presented suggests that is another project, which is amplified by the lack of context regarding his "earlier projects". The way I look at it, it can be reworded to "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing the film, which was initially for the theater." although I am still puzzled on how the fact he is intrigued by Japanese dances and sought to replicate Japanese group dynamic is relevant here since he began developing the film "after working on several different experimental theater productions". His Japanese vision based on my understanding is for the theater rather than the film itself.
reworded that starting sentance as the first paragraph is meant as background information leading up to the film's development.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was thought out as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra." -> "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was conceived as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra."
This has been reworded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interviewed in 2013 by horror film magazine Fangoria, Merhige revealed that the film itself had also been an attempt to document many of the thoughts and ideas he was going through at the time, believing that if he did not "get it out there" they would overwhelm him" Remove interviewed in 2013 by horror film magazine Fangoria since it doesn't really add context to the production process. Just Merhige revealed will do.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Still only twenty at the time, he wrote the film's script in six months." Why does his age matter?
I am going off of a couple of FA article's that used the youth of the director as notworthy.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before working on Begotten, he had previously made several short films such as Implosion (1983), Spring Rain (1984), and A Taste of Youth (1985)" -> "Before working on Begotten, he had previously developed several short films such as Implosion (1983), Spring Rain (1984), and A Taste of Youth (1985)" more formal
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These were well-received, and gave the director the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten" -> "These were well-received, and gave Merhige the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten"
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Principal photography occurred in the mid-to-late 1980s" most film FA usually use began instead of occurred
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to Themes

  • How did critics identify so many themes when the film itself received "little to no" critical attention? Do you mean scholars? Kane is not a critic so this should be changed to both critics and scholars.
The few that even bothered to review it pointed these things out. But, you are right most are scholars.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " who noted the film's intentional grainy and decayed visual style functioned as an allegory of uncertainty to what she referred to as "the hermeneutic of the image" note" is only to be used for facts, whereas this is interpretation.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alternately, critic David Annwn Jones noted the film's use of certain underminings of 1930s horror films such as Dracula and Frankenstein (both released in 1931)" Same thing
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really like using stated and noted as opposed to said, see MOS:SAID. Said is in no way informal and is a very consistent and concise way to express academic interpretations.
Alright, will adjust accordingly.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed all instances like "In her review of Merhige's third film Suspect Zero for the Los Angeles Times," "Author and independent filmmaker", "Film and literary scholar" because it would be very lengthy and dull to address people's journals and professions. See FA The Empire Strikes Back#Thematic analysis as an example.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances such as "we are encouraged to mourn the film's characters (father/mother/son) through the agony and torment inflicted upon them." are written in a non-encyclopedic tone.
Any suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont know. Just avoid using "we". Wingwatchers (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I will tinker with it a little. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the quote "We would breathe to the point of hysteria and create these moments of panic. Afterwards, we would analyze what the experience was all about. It was an intimate science" is genuine. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so?--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redid the quote to specify the director's intention. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In retrospect, author and independent filmmaker John Kenneth Muir is not a critic, so the previous statement, "Several critics have noted that Begotten contains an underlying theme of death and rebirth,[1][12][20] recurring throughout most of the director's works. [22]" would be incorrect.
Removed that title to reflect that because his books are partial reviews on horror films and because of the previous problem of extended titles being long and unnecessary.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances such as "Merhige acknowledged" should be converted to "said" because it conveys that the film was indeed "deliberately arranged to appear as part of a mythology" but the statement itself is of his own interpretation.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wingwatchers, I think all of your comments have been addressed. Do you have any come backs and/or further comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

Still reading through, but just to note the quality of sources has improved significantly since the last FAC. Am a major fan of this style of horror. Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it took a while and some suggestions/digging to find satisfactory, High quality sources. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be held open for a week please, would like to review but life events have happened. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Paleface Jack (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ceoil was probably addressing the coordinators :-) . Sure Ceoil, in anticipation of one of your thorough reviews, we can hold it for a week. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sound Gog, and to hold myself to that deadline, have always though your innovation of reminding reviewers is most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support and trilled to see this at FAC - feel free to revert any edits made during my re-read...

lead:

  • Link motifs. Also motifs are not so much "explored" as placed or employed.
altered in the body and lead.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • conquer the earth through various means - last bit is redundant. Also the claim is vague, would be good to expand here.
Reworked.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • were major influences on Begotten, as Merhige believed their ideas and theories had not been explored in film to their full extent
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the first part of a trilogy would drop this as the next two claims say the same thing
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot:

  • Rephrase barren landscape", which is used three times in this sect
Changed to desolate.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice. Ceoil (talk)

General

  • would put the cast section much lower in the TOC. Also, the Brian Salzberg and Donna Dempsey entries here are uncited. And do we need "which included Adolpho Vargas, Arthur Streeter, Daniel Harkins, Erik Slavin, James Gandia, Michael Phillips, and Terry Andersen"...which seems to credit extras
The Son of Earth credit is cited due to the actor reappearing in Merhige's later works. The extras cast listing is there in fitting with other Featured articles that list extras if they are significant.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Principal photography lasted from a period of "three and five-and-a-half months". Guessing that it lasted three months, with some additional shots after 5 and a half months.
Unknown, most information I found only listed as this and not describing the half month period.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a real mouthful and diffucult to parse - can you break down pls - While comparing Begotten's opening sequence to the eye slicing scene in Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou (1929), Film Comment's Robert DiMatteo stated Dimitri Kirsanoff's Ménilmontant (1926), tribal art, ethnographic studies, Tobe Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), as well as the paintings of Piero della Francesca as possible influences on the film.[12]
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have concerns over the reliability of SplicedWire, FilmThreat.com & WorldScreen (the last of which gives a lot of pop up ads). Given the film's art house origin and appeal, would have expected more academic analysis.
I did too, I checked out the reliability of all three and they appear to be reliable and sound enough for inclusion as per Wikipiedia guidelines.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usual test is editorial oversight; if you can prove this then great, but it needs to be demonstrated with links. Ceoil (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will see what I can do. Might do that tomorrow or the day after cause I have work. How do you suggest I go about doing it? Paleface Jack (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the questionable sources. Will add more reliable ones when I find them. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • more to follow Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note, given all the improvements, since the last nom, and during this one, esp wrt to sourcing, am leaning support here. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicks:

  • You revered me on changing who sets out on a journey of death and rebirth through a barren landscape - which is totally fine, but still don't like "barren landscape" as it seems vague and lacking
Redid.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • twenty of her closest friends? (re Sontag) Maybe just 20 people
Would seem a bit more specific and better flowing for the overall structure if it remained as it is.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, dunno. Most people have 3 to 4 close friends, maybe just loose the word "closest" as it seems a bit swoony and pretentious. Ceoil (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "disturbing" is used 13 times. It is certainly that, but can you reduce, especially in the legacy sect, where we have hough initially mixed in his response to the film, Muir has since called Begotten "one of the most disturbing films ever made".[108] Natalia Keogan of Paste described the film as one of the best and the most disturbing avante-garde films.[24] Several publications selected it as one of the most disturbing films, including Highsnobiety (2016),[109] Entertainment Weekly (2017),[94] Screen Rant (2019),[110] NME (2023),[111] Similarly, Begotten has appeared on several lists of the top all-time disturbing...
Redid it to cut down on some of that wording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Principal photography began in the mid-to-late 1980s - surely it began only once, do you know the actual year?
All sources use this wording so it is hard to tell withough asking the director himself.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime in mid-to-late 1980s. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Paleface Jack (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Development commenced sometime in the mid-to-late 1980s" is in this style, but it still says "Principal photography began in the mid-to-late 1980s". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film scholars have identified several major themes in Begotten. Merhige has said that he incorporated these themes into the film' - No mention of what those themes are. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He was referring to the mythological and alchemical themes. Will reword that sentence. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Worded it so it just says "certain themes", because he wanted to invite audience interpretation. The section elaborates these themes within the subsections. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    reworded to "Merhige has said that he incorporated certain mystic and existential themes into the film" Paleface Jack (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Members of Merhige's theater company Theatreofmaterial – which included Adolpho Vargas, Arthur Streeter, Daniel Harkins, Erik Slavin, James Gandia, Michael Phillips, and Terry Andersen – provided credits for other characters in the film such as the Nomads and Robed Figures - dont get provided credits for - 'are credited as, or played? Ceoil (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    reworded for clarity. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paleface Jack, have you addressed all of the comments in this review? If so, could you ping the reviewer. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have. And i messaged them on their page and they have not replied yet. I still need to message the first reviewer which I will do later today. I am confident this will pass as all the issues have been addressed so we shall see. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for tardy response, will sign-off in next few days. A spot-check on source is needed, will action. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good mate. Any problematic sources shall he removed accordingly. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paleface, you shouldn't count on my support just yet; the interpretation sections are very muddled and not well done. Very repetitive and vague; mentioning again and again an archetypal figure - without going into examples of who that might point to. Will clarify this complaint in a few days, but for now, the article seems confused in what specific sources it draws from, and how it interprets them Ceoil (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I will get working on that and complete it as soon as possible. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the themes section there are pieces that I am gonna try to reword a little, starting with renaming the section as "Analysis", the suggestions and complaints to that section that you will explain once you get back shall be adressed once that is done. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Look forward. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For coords, myself and Jack are going to move this discussion to article talk, and report back in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

This nomination has not shown signs of moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next day or two, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will get in touch with the reviewer and see where to go from there. Hopefully there shall be a consensus soon as possible, we shall see. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As there's still no substantial movement towards support, I'm archiving the nomination. I encourage you to continue working on the prose issues with reviewers and see about getting them to sign off on the article before resubmission. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by source comments edit

  • BroadwayWorld.com (ref #143) is listed on WP:RS/P as "generally unreliable", so shouldn't be used in a Featured article without significant justification.
Removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a fair bit of inconsistency in how sources are presented. For a glaring example, see refs #3 and #128. More generally, some websites/publications are italicised while others aren't. Some list a website and publisher, while others don't. Some give the website address, some give the website name. A quick glance suggests that these issues were raised at the last nom, so should have been resolved prior to this nomination. I would echo some of the queries raised there about whether some of the sources used qualify as "high-quality" per the FA criteria, but I'm not well enough versed in the subject area to be able to offer any real expertise on this.
Yeah, I removed a lot of unreliable and questionable ones while rewriting the entire citation style, so some of that stuff sifted through the cracks in those edits. I will work on that today and get that all sorted out.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of listing a website for some of the sources, some of those sources did not come from a website or the "Website" was also the publisher. In some of those cases the publisher was not originally a website so just the publisher is listed. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few CS1 maintenance errors in the references, it looks like you've got some |ref= tags just duplicating what the reference would naturally be called anyway.
Yeah that might have been the ones that sifted through the cracks of my reference revamp.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found and fixed the errored citations. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could really do with a source reviewer who knows the field, if possible. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I tried reaching out to some when editing the article before the nomination this time but no response.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A number of reviews in this and earlier noms wen through the reliability of sources, and from what I can see, all non-formatting issues have now been resolved. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Unlinked non-book/journal sources -
  1. WorldScreen - ok, "30-year-old publication covering the international media business", publishes in print and online.
  2. JoBlo, ie JoBlo.com - seems dodgy - is this not just a very popular/insiderish blog?
    Not to my knowledge. Some major publishers have used it as a source and has been listed as reliable by Rotten Tomatoes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine as listed on the RT Critics List as a "JOBLO - Tomatometer-approved critic"
    Keep, modify or remove? Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as used Ceoil (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. shortfilms.org.uk - ok, is the London Short Film Festival[3]
  4. World Artists Home Video - Small distribution company, but they are used only to cited that they did actually release the movie on VHS.
    Searching, see that the release is on WorldCat[4]. Maybe use that ref also
    Looking over that, they imply that it was released on VHS in 1989 but there was no such release from newspaper reports, or any other outlet so I am not sure if this would be reliable enough to use as a source. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RevistaCinefagia.com - dodgy Ceoil
    See its removed Ceoil (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HorrorNews - dodgy
    That was my original assessment, however, I have seen some literary sources that use that interview as a source. I have also seen some FA horror articles that have that as a source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If its an interview and is used for direct quotes only, then am fine with it. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed and will find a new review to replace later.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you need to though? The article is already quite long. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, then again so are many other FA Film articles I have seen. I will not add a review. But later if this nomination passes or not I have found some sources to add (We Got This Covered, is one of them) Paleface Jack (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Review sections can bloat easily with quotes, and as indicated on the talk, I would be more concerned with expanding on the film's visual style and its sources, rather "I liked" "I didn't like" back and forth. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Forum des Images - Fine, well established in the industry, high quality contributors
  8. Not sure what to make of "Merhige 2016", which seem's fine it's ex an instagram post by the director. The claim is "On July 29, 2016, Merhige announced via Instagram that the film was to be released for the first time on Blu-ray in the fall of that year" - can we source this from elsewhere. (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over everything and how far down the rabbit hole I went, I could not find an alternate source for that and it does have some reliability if the filmmaker is making that statement.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, was highlighting only to make the point that Instagram< is used only to source that the director made claims on instagram Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, alr. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The Film Stage - site has editorial oversite, professional RT approved writers who are regularly invited to major film festivals

Spot-checks to follow this evening. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial edit

Placeholder until tomorrow UTC. ——Serial 19:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realmaxxver edit

I will try to get comments by Thursday. Realmaxxver (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • "Its plot draws from various creation myths", "The film is based on various creation myths, including Christian, Celtic mythology, and Slavic paganism." I would suggest removing the first instance of this in the lead, as it it kind of repetitive.
Rewrote that based on your comment.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Begotten was conceived as an experimental theatre piece with dance and live musical accompaniment, but was switched to film after..." --> "Conceived as an experimental theatre piece with dance and live musical accompaniment, Begotten was switched to film after..."
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

I'd really like to see this article hit FA status, and it's clear how much work has gone into it (and how improved it is compared to when I last looked).

  • Opening paragraph requires work. Repetition of word 'violence', creation myths mentioned twice, and the sentence about 'narrative motifs' (without details of those motifs) is pretty useless. I worry that the second paragraph then returns to issues around silent films and influences; the structure of the lead could be a little better, I think.
Done
  • "Mother Earth and her son appear in a flashback" Do we know it's a flashback?
I think that was added in a copyedit by another user, while the scene is reminiscent of the beginning where Mother Earth and her son walk through a dead forest. Some reviews suggest this is a flashback so I will reword it a little for context.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consisted of a handful of core members highly in tune with one another, knowing each other completely on both a professional and personal level" This doesn't come across as that neutral
Did a little tinkering with the sentence.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " producing several theater productions" Repetition
removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try my best.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You discuss the writing of the script after mentioning the start of production; is script writing part of the production, or did it come prior to the production? You mention his earlier films after that; I wonder if this section would benefit from being a little more chronological?
Did a little resituating of things.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group followed up by discussing these experiences, filtering the and emotions into something he could replicate for the film" Incomplete
Incomplete in what way?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final sentence of the development section could be much smoother.
Redid it a little.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it was intended that the visuals had a decayed look" Beware of passive voice. Who intended this?
reworked to reflect Merhige's intention
  • "through analog format, with the development of Begotten realizing the filmmaker's ideas through this format" Repetition
removed--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetiton in discusion of Robert DiMatteo
Where at?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reached the end of the production section. I think the prose probably needs a bit more work before this is FA-ready. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, prose needs work and I am still trying to learn how best to do that. Any Suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (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 2023 [5].

Vitamin C edit

Nominator(s): David notMD (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about vitamin C. I raised it to GA in 2017 and recently updated parts of the article to incorporate content supported by more recently published references. I believe that all of the science journal references meet WP:MEDRS. Per my User page, I earned a PhD in Nutritional Biochemistry, followed by a 40-year career in nutrition/medical health. David notMD (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Tim O'Doherty edit

Oppose, suggest withdrawal: article has an "expansion needed" tag in Pharmacodynamics. On its own that shouldn't be too difficult to fix, but might be indicative of more extensive issues with the article altogether. Skimming through the prose as well, I don't really think it's up the the FA level. Sorry. Develop it a bit more, and then come back here. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being new to FA, is that a final decision, or is there a period during which other FA reviewers chime in, and then a decision reached? David notMD (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a final decision until a FAC coordinator closes the FAC, but in practice this kind of problem needs to be addressed outside of FAC processes i.e on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Graham Beards edit

Sorry, the article is not ready for a FA star. While work on candidates usually takes place during a nomination, there is too much needed here. (I have tagged a few of the places where citations are needed). Graham Beards (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I'm going to archive this nom in light of comments above, please note there is a two-week waiting period before nominating again at FAC. David, I'd strongly suggest that after making improvements to the article you start a peer review, reaching out to members of WikiProject Medicine for input. After that you could re-nominate here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2023 (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 2023 [6].

I don't know her edit

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a unique article is about a circa 2003 quote by Mariah Carey about Jennifer Lopez that later become a popular meme. To this day, Carey refuses to utter Lopez's name and refers to her not as a "singer" but instead as a "dancer" and an "entertainer". I look forward to any feedback. Best, Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a drive-by comment – I won't do a full review of this article but it looks as though the prose could do with a thorough copyedit. Some examples of prose which I do not consider to meet WP:FACR's requirement of "engaging and of a professional standard":

  • "... due to its proliferate use by other celebrities."
    Removed "proliferate"
  • "Five years of involvement in Lopez's music career by Carey's former record label Sony Music and her ex-husband Tommy Mottola preceded the phrase"
    Can you clarify the issue?
    Firstly, I'm not sure that "... preceded the phrase" is meaningful. Secondly, the whole "five years of involvement ... Mottola" section reads super awkwardly to me.
    Rephrased
  • "Sony and Mottola's alleged actions in duplicating compositions of Carey's songs for Lopez's benefit contributed to the appearance of animosity."
    Can you clarify the issue?
    Again, the whole thing reads awkwardly; "alleged actions in duplicating compositions" is particularly grating on my ear. (And as an aside, I'm not sure the body supports that it was Carey's compositions that Sony/Mottola/Lopez allegedly duplicated; it was her choice to sample a particular pre-existing record and collaborate with a particular artist, neither of which I would consider "compositions")
    Changed to sample and rephrased
  • "Carey's feelings toward Lopez became rife with rumors"
    Reworded to "Carey's feelings toward Lopez became a subject of gossip"
  • "Carey responded to Lopez's notions she gets eight hours of sleep per night"
    Reworded to "Carey responded to Lopez's comments about sleeping eight hours per night"
  • "Carey continued using the phrase toward Lopez" - is "toward" the correct word here?
    Reworded to "Carey used the phrase to address Lopez"
  • "On her end, Lopez had not acknowledged 'I don't know her'" - "on her end" is superfluous fluff here
    Removed

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. Heartfox (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by F4U

  • Likewise, Who? Weekly podcasters Lindsey Weber and Bobby Finger considered "I don't know her" a modern variation of no comment. — The word "likewise" doesn't match the source because the source goes on to state a “no comment” for the social media age that epitomizes the act of “throwing shade.”, going against Bryant's interpretation.
    I thought it could be considered both given the authors statement that "Maybe you've used “I don’t know her” to genuinely express lack of familiarity with someone", but I have added this to the "shade" interpretation sentence.
  • Billboard source states that the meme traces back to message boards and blogs, not singling out LiveJournal. LiveJournal and the year 2010 is cited to the Washington Post article which cites Know Your Meme, a user generated content site. They state Know Your Meme, a website that tracks and researches memes, traces the circulation of this GIF back to at least 2010, when it was popular on LiveJournal.
    Incorporated more of the origins described in Billboard and removed the Washington Post reference per your concern.
  • Amidst the recording process, Don't think amidst is the right nuance here. I don't think it's wrong per se, but it does have the meaning of "being surrounded by"; simply using During the recording process, would be better.
    Changed to "during"
  • Carey alleged that Sony officials heard the "Firecracker" (1978) sample she used in the song "Loverboy" and incorporated it in Lopez's track "I'm Real" on the album J.Lo (2001). This is the crux of the conflict, but the phrasing makes it hard to understand what went down. Firstly, the article isn't very clear on what "Firecracker" (1978) is. Also, the Vulture article states that her allegations were that Sony officials had heard her intentions to use the "Firecracker" sample, the article isn't very clear on that—in particular this sentence implies that she did end up using the sample when she didn't. Think the sentence should also cut out on the album J.Lo
    Reworded to make it clear that "Firecracker" is a song, cut "on the album J.Lo"
    The source includes a quote from Carey saying "After hearing my new song, using the same sample I used..." This is not just an "intention" to use the sample, she did use it, and things happened "after" it was incorporated in "Loverboy".
  • During an interview with New York City radio station WWPR, Carey said "I don't know her" in response to whether she had a feud with Lopez. - Article should make clear that this was likely before the famous interview clip.
    It is already in the "background" section.
  • Around 2003, Carey was interviewed by the German tabloid television program taff. - Don't think this fully aligns with the source (but audio and visual cues suggest the interview took place in 2003 or 2004)
    The source refers to "Carey’s head of Charmbracelet-era blonde curls; the prominent use of “Work It Out” (Beyoncé’s 2002 debut solo single)". Charmbracelet was released in 2002. The wording "Around 2003" does not exclude 2004 from being a possibility, so it is still faithful to the source. It does not say "in 2003", and as a person very familiar with Carey I am confident in using my editorial discretion to summarize "2003 or 2004" as "Around 2003" and "circa 2003". Carey did not look like that in 2004. Time magazine reviewer says 2003. Los Angeles Times reviewer says 2003.
  • In her 2020 memoir The Meaning of Mariah Carey, she described Lopez as a "female entertainer on [Sony] (whom I don't know)". - Leaves out that she's making this allusion while writing about the sampling controversy.
    Added
  • In contrast, Kenzie Bryant of Vanity Fair said it can be misinterpreted as an insult - Poor phrasing. The author is stating that tabloids have been misinterpreting it as an insult despite the intention being a "no thank you" response
    Removed "In contrast".

I haven't gone through all the sentences, but I'm quite concerned at the amount of text that is unfaithful to the source, either as a result of poor phrasing or simple misreadings. I recall rephrasing a similar line in the article when I promoted it to DYK. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In your rephrasing, you added two page numbers to the citation even though the quote is not mentioned on them. That's not me misreading, that's you interpreting the material more broadly. Heartfox (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The selection did not argue that the phrase contributes to Carey's diva image because of sexism and racism. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa edit

Link to (initially) reviewed version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_don%27t_know_her&oldid=1189925181

General comments
Lead
  • "The remark was adapted within the queer community" – "adapted"?
    Changed to adopted
  • "Vanity Fair deemed mid-2016 "The Summer of Not Knowing" due to its use by other celebrities." – this phrasing makes it seem like "its" refers to mid-2016. A similar issue is likewise present in the body.
    Rephrased
  • "Vanity Fair deemed mid-2016 "The Summer of Not Knowing" due to its use by other celebrities." – is this really WP:LEAD material?
    Shows the extent of its notability/usage; this title received secondary coverage in The Washington Post.
  • "Carey contended it is not an affront to Lopez because she does not know her personally; Lopez has stated they do not know each other." – what verb tense are we employing here?
    Converted to present tense
  • "or consider it akin to the phrase no comment." – not in the body.
    Rephrased the body and removed this
Background
  • I can't help but notice the extent to which this section relies on sources that predate the remark. Of the sources that are more recent (i.e. post-2003), I took a look at the freely-available one (which is cited relatively heavily here), and it doesn't mention the remark at all. This is a problem; articles on topic X should be based upon sources on topic X.
    The article is based upon sources about "I don't know her". You cited one of two post-2004 sources that don't specifically mention the phrase, which was cited a mere three times (the other, Mamo 2019, only being used in a note). Under what definition is that a "heavy" reliance? Anyways, I have replaced a Vulture citation with Billboard 2020: "For those who don't know why Mariah's infamous 'I don't know her' dig was directed at Jennifer Lopez, it's because... [I'm Real sampling controversy]"
    Like I said, relatively. In the version I reviewed, the post-2003 sources cited in this section were the following: Hirsch 2023 (cited once in the text and once in the image caption), Curto 2020 (cited twice in the text and once in a footnote), Freydkin 2004 (cited twice in the text), and Mamo 2019 (cited once in a footnote). TompaDompa (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the level of detail here to go beyond what's necessary to establish context by a fair amount. It basically amounts to recapping a bunch of celebrity gossip. By word count, this is the lengthiest section, and it makes up more than a third of the entire article.
    Cut much of the third paragraph.
  • "During an interview with New York City radio station WWPR, Carey said "I don't know her" in response to whether she had a feud with Lopez." – why is this in the "Background" section?
    Cut this
Description
  • "Around 2003, Carey was interviewed by the German tabloid television program taff." – maybe this is just my unfamiliarity with the terminology used by this industry, but "tabloid" and "television" seem like they should be mutually exclusive.
    Cut "tabloid"
  • "By 2018, "I don't know her" emerged as one of the most popular Internet memes and GIFs in history." – this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that requires way stronger sourcing.
    Reworded to "By 2018, "I don't know her" became known as a popular Internet meme and GIF"
  • "During a 2016 interview, Lopez stated that they have "met many times"." – so what?
    Adds more to Lopez's version of events so the article does not seem biased toward Carey
    That's certainly a good ambition to have, but I don't really see how this contributes to that aim. It's definitely possible to meet someone multiple times without knowing them. TompaDompa (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to the proliferation of celebrities repeating it at the time" – "proliferation"?
    Rephrased "proliferation" to "the number of celebrities"
  • "It is used within the queer community and inspired "I don't know her"-themed club nights and clothing." – this tells me very little. What am I missing?
    It became adopted as a term used within the queer community and was used as a club theme night and on clothing
Analysis
  • This section does not distinguish clearly enough between Carey's use of the phrase in relation to Lopez and the broader use of the phrase. Madsen is speaking in the specific while Lalancette and Small are speaking in the general, for instance.
    Reworked to focus on the general

I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose this. Frankly, I think this is a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation. The main points are that Carey said it about Lopez, that it became a meme, and that it has variously been interpreted as a perfunctory dismissal and a non-response. The first two are already mentioned at Mariah Carey#Public image, and the third could trivially be added there. Perhaps consensus here will lean otherwise, but that's where I stand. TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your comments above, but your oppose is somewhat non-actionable as there is only so much I can do when you don't think the topic merits an article. Heartfox (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a WP:FACR 4 oppose, i.e. one based on length. I suppose it could also be viewed as a 1d issue, i.e. neutrality (in particular, WP:PROPORTION). But as I said, consensus may be against me here. That being said, I don't think "this does not merit an article" should be considered non-actionable; we have delisted FAs that were deemed not suitable for stand-alone articles before, the most (in)famous example probably being Lewis (baseball) (AfD, FAR). TompaDompa (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edits did nothing to address your comments? Okay I guess. Regarding opposing on FACR 1d, FACR 1b says "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". In the background section, the cited sources contextualize "I don't know her" by illustrating Carey's relationship with Lopez and the latter's record label before the phrase was used. Sources such as Billboard 2020 and Hirsch 2023 make the link explicitly between that 1998–2001 relationship and "I don't know her". It is not original research or disproportional to provide additional contextualization with sources from the time period to add further details. A two-paragraph background section is not disproportional to the significance of the rest of the topic, it is essential information to understand why the phrase came to be. Regarding opposing based on FACR 4, I don't know how more focused on the main topic it can be without losing essential background information. I cut a whole paragraph already, and apparently that was not enough. And it is never going to be enough because you have already said you don't think the article needs to exist. I would be happy to address additional comments, but the oppose is pretty non-actionable at this point. Heartfox (talk)
I mean, you could, at least in theory, add more qualitatively different material to demonstrate that this is a subject that does indeed warrant a stand-alone article. I'm guessing there isn't a whole lot more to say about it or you would have presumably already added it before coming to WP:FAC, but that would be a way to address my concerns. TompaDompa (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I'd like to withdraw this nomination and work on it more off-FAC. I definitely plan to renominate, but I don't feel that adding references is something that should be done during the FAC process. Thank you to everyone who commented so far as they have helped improve the article. Heartfox (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heartfox, will action -- please take the usual minimum two weeks before another nom, this will give you time for references and perhaps also to get some eyes on it before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2023 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 11 December 2023 [7].

John B. Creeden edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Jesuit and university president who played a major role in the creation of the modern Georgetown University. He was responsible for the eventual creation of the School of Foreign Service and he founded Boston College Law School. He also drew up plans for what would be the creation of the Gothic section of Georgetown's campus. Ergo Sum 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Fox,_Donnelly,_Dolan,_Haran,_Creedan_1938.jpg: source link gives the license as CC BY-NC-ND, not BY. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I correct in understanding that that means it cannot be hosted on Commons? Ergo Sum 15:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is the correct license, it would only be usable hosted locally under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the image because it seems (based on this) that I can't upload a local version of the image on EnWiki because its licensing status prohibits non-commercial and non-derivative use. I will (unfortunately) nominate that image for deletion from Commons. Ergo Sum 17:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nikkimaria: Just wanted to let you know that I nominated this image for deletion from the Commons and several users pointed out to me that it actually is valid under both Italian and US law. Since it has survived deletion, I have returned the image to the article. Ergo Sum 22:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure, but according to the Italian copyright template, the copyright of photographs of people expire 20 years after creation, not publication. Ergo Sum 01:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • My question is more with regards to US status. The current US tag asserts publication between 1928 and 1963 - can that be demonstrated? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Rather than attempt to paraphrase, I will defer to Richard Arthur Norton's explanation (pinging). Ergo Sum 13:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Not seeing anything there that supports it having been legally published in this period, though - if it was not that tag would not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Forgive my ignorance, but if it is validly PD in Italy, which is where the image was created, then why does US copyright matter? Ergo Sum 13:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Images hosted on Commons have to be free/PD in both the US and country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                          Ok. Well so as not to hold up this nomination, I've removed the image for now. Ergo Sum 13:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL edit

Comments soon. ~ HAL333 14:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HAL333, I was wondering if these were still on their way? Otherwise I shall be giving the "this is in danger of timing out" warning. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long belated comments:

  • he also expanded - the 'also' isn't needed.
  • which later became the Woods College of Advancing Studies - the later isn't needed
    • I do think it contributes something here, as it suggests that it was not known as that until much later. Otherwise, it would seem like it became Woods during his time in charge or soon thereafter. Ergo Sum 17:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption starting President Calvin Coolidge... doesn't need a full-stop.
  • existing facilities under significant strain - what kind of strain? Clarify.
    • Clarified that it was their capacity. Ergo Sum 17:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • quadrangle would haven
  • Do we know what Creeden died of?
    • I cannot find a source that says his cause of death. Ergo Sum 17:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great otherwise and is certainly of featured quality. ~ HAL333 17:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review, HAL333. Ergo Sum 17:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 18:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hal333 and Ergo Sum: please remember the tq template can't be used at FAC as it slows down load time and affects archives; right now, the entire FAC page is not accessible to all users, so I've switched out some. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dugan Murphy edit

I'll take a look and write some comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are 3 spots that refer to Creeden as the dean of Georgetown College. That Wikilink redirects to Georgetown University College of Arts & Sciences, which says that it had that name from 1990 to 2022, long after Creeden passed away, but not the current name either. Seems you should either use the modern name or whatever the name was in Creeden's time.
    • The school was known as Georgetown College for most of its history, from its founding until an known date in the mid-20th century. The school's infobox reflects this. Ergo Sum 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking President of Venezuela doesn't seem necessary to me. In fact, there seems to be a bit of MOS:OVERLINK in other places too, like philosophy, Catholic theology, Holy orders in the Catholic Church, Priesthood in the Catholic Church, New York City, head teacher, federal government of the United States, graduation, and secondary school.
    • I've trimmed many of the links. Ergo Sum 14:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that includes "size of the campus, established the university's first" seems to be missing an "and".
  • "He taught at Georgetown from 1897 to 1902": this being the first reference to Georgetown in the body, this should be written out with the university's full name with a Wikilink.
  • Footnote A doesn't say anything that isn't said in the sentence to which it is attached, so it doesn't seem necessary.
  • What's the connection between St. Joseph's Lamp and the Spanish Flu?
    • Added detail about the lamp's history. Ergo Sum 15:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything about Calvin Coolidge's visit to Georgetown that is worth mentioning in the body?
  • "Together with these concrete improvements" doesn't seem necessary. And the tone doesn't seem quite right for Wikipedia anyway.
  • "Would involve" and "would be" doesn't sound right. Given that we know it didn't happen, I recommend "would have involved" and "would have been" or a different rewording.
  • "Despite the move away from Georgetown's collegiate campus, Creeden continued" indicates that Creeden moved, rather than the school.
  • The sentence that starts "Following the renaming" is really long, even though it is pretty readable, regardless, and if you really really like it, I won't fight you over it, but I think a modern reader would appreciate breaking it up, if you're willing.
    • I think it makes sense as one sentence, so I broke it up a bit with a semi-colon. Ergo Sum 15:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "for the creation of the school" would read better as "for creating the school"
  • I don't recognize the title "Fr." Maybe spell it out?
    • In the past, I remember someone at FAC telling me that WP deprecates usage of that title in articles, so I've replaced it with a brief aside. Ergo Sum 15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "School of Foreign service": Shouldn't Service be capitalized?
  • "personality was more suited" is an opinion that I think should be attributed. Perhaps it should be "personality he felt was more suited".
  • The sentence mentioned in the above comment is a bit long and would probably be more readable as two sentences.
    • Broke up and reorganized that sentence. Ergo Sum 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The highest educational honor bestowed": does this mean that it is the highest honor that a foreign citizen could possibly achieve or that it is the highest honor ever yet-bestowed upon a foreign citizen?
  • The sentence that starts " With the support of Dean" is a bit too long and hard to understand, particularly because of the parenthetical interjection. I recommend breaking it up and potentially rewording to remove the parentheses.
    • Broke up and clarified the sentence. Ergo Sum 15:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Creeden then went" seems an inapropriate way to start a new section, especially the last thing said was describing events following 1925 and this sentence mentions events starting 1924. Perhaps it should be "after leaving Georgetown, Creeden went".
  • Despite what I said earlier about overlinking, I find myself wondering exactly what a regent is. Perhaps link Regent#Other uses?
    • Yes, the Regent article does not do a great job of describing how it is (mostly historically) used in Catholic higher education. I've linked to that section. Ergo Sum 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Novitiate is WP:DUPLINKed
  • Why is the Academic Offices table at the end missing so many predecessors and successors?
    • Unfortunately, it seems the succession of regents has been lost to history (at least as far as publicly accessible records are concerned), probably because it was such a unique and short-lived position in American Jesuit higher education. As for his position as dean, after quite a bit of digging, I was able to find out his predecessor and successor and added some detail and context to the main text. Ergo Sum 16:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: I didn't review the images, citations, or sources. Though, I did glance at the sources, and they all looked pretty legit. I didn't notice any titles that seemed really Creeden-specific, so I did a really really basic search on Google Books, JSTOR, and my statewide library for titles and couldn't find anything. That is my way of saying that I am willing to believe that the sources listed represent a reasonably wide breadth of available scholarship on the topic. Though I knew absolutely nothing about Creeden or the schools mentioned before reading this article, the article itself doesn't seem to have any glaring holes in covering the man's life, so I think it is pretty comprehensive. Yet, it doesn't go into too much detail anywhere, I think. And the tone throughout is very encyclopedic and clear. Well done.

Fun fact that has no bearing on this nomination: Creeden's predecessor, Patrick Francis Healy, is the brother of James Augustine Healy, who was the bishop where I live for 25 years. I guide walking tours by his old cathedral and tell guests about Bishop Healy. He has an amazing story. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. And a small world. The Healy family is quite fascinating. Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 16:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I support this nomination based on the reasons stated above. If you have the time to do some reviewing of your own, this current FAC nomination of mine is in need of attention. I thank you in advance if you are able to take a look at the article and leave some comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spot-check upon request. Source formatting seems consistent and sources seem reliable, but I notice that a rather large amount of sources is affiliated with Georgetown and the Jesuits - is he primarily discussed by these? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Sum, are you planning to respond to Jo-Jo's concern about the sources associated with Georgetown and the Jesuits? FrB.TG (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant to get back to this and it slipped my mind. This was an issue that was broached in my last FAC. It appears that Creeden is discussed in detail primarily by Jesuit-affiliated sources, some directly published by the Jesuits, others published by institutions affiliated with the Jesuits, and others stilled only written by people affiliated with the Jesuits. That is, there are various levels of Jesuit control over the publications. In any event, it does not appear to me that any of the sources used engage in hagiography and generally bear inidicia of reliability. Ergo Sum 04:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, tough to say. If substantial coverage by independent sources was a requirement for FA, I doubt this would pass. As it stands the article does not mention anything that would make me demand independent coverage. I've done some looking around myself and there are a fair few sources discussing political activities of the university and mentioning Creeden; did he play a role in them?

Also, from a close paraphrase perspective, I wonder if "On November 20, 1921, Creeden received Ferdinand Foch, the French marshal and Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies, and presented him with an honorary Doctor of Civil and Canon Laws degree, as well as a golden sword on behalf of the American Jesuits." is unduly similar to the source's "On November 20, 1921, Creeden received French Marshal Ferdinand Foch at Georgetown and awarded him an honorary degree of Doctor of Canon and Civil Laws. Marshal Foch was also presented a gold sword on behalf of the American Society of Jesus", it's admittedly not the easiest sentence to paraphrase.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, not the easiest to paraphrase. I tweaked the phrasing a bit to make it less close to the source. I will take a look at those sources. Ergo Sum 20:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have gone through those sources and everything I have found either is already in the article or is not really worthy of mention in a biographical article about Creeden. Ergo Sum 22:49, 28 November 2023 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 5 December 2023 [8].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina edit

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article began in the olden days of WP:WPTC and was one of our earlier FAs. Over the decade plus following its promotion, it suffered from article rot. It also fell far below our present standards for a FA and was demoted accordingly. With Hurricane Katrina being one of the most notable tropical cyclones in modern times, it goes without saying the meteorological aspect of it is of great interest and deserves an article of quality. After much research, I believe I have put together the most comprehensive and hopefully digestible piece on the meteorological aspects of Katrina. This article covers the storm's entire life cycle from its complicated origins across the Atlantic basin, to its record intensity in the Gulf of Mexico and subsequent catastrophic landfall, and its ultimate dissipation thereafter. Being a sub-article of the much broader Category:Hurricane Katrina (which spans 190 articles, inclusive of sub-categories), it goes quite in-depth. While a heavy article, I do hope it's an enjoyable read and one that can be understood by most. Thank you all in advance for your time and input. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado edit

I will probably not have enough free time for a full review for the next week or two, but I hope these comments will be helpful:

  • §Lead: "Subsequent interaction with the trough spurred convective development and Tropical Depression Twelve formed over the Bahamas on August 23." TD12 comes as a bit of a surprise here, perhaps "Subsequent interaction with the trough spurred convective development, resulting in the formation of Tropical Depression Twelve over the Bahamas on August 23." would be clearer?
    Yes, that feels more clear. Changed to suggested wording. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §References
    • Please correct "sfn error: no target: CITEREFIrish_et_al.2003". If you are not seeing this, you can follow the instructions in Help:CS1 errors to enable it.
      Corrected that sfn error, the 2003 was supposed to be 2008. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several of the citations do not have incoming links from references (warnings from the same CS1 errors setup). Perhaps these should be further reading? -- Mirokado (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) (tweaked -- Mirokado (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • §Lead: "Deep convection soon blossomed and following the development of banding features as the system intensified into a tropical storm." This sentence is tangled up: please rephrase to clarify (perhaps remove "and"?) -- Mirokado (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The stray "as" seemed to be the problem here, removed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Origins:
    • "there was uncertainty over the degree of involvement with the remnants of Ten and the eventual formation of Katrina": please rephrase: something like "there was uncertainty over the degree of involvement of the remnants of Ten with the eventual formation of Katrina". -- Mirokado (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Tweaked to suggested. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "moving slowly-west-northwest": I would have written "moving slowly west-northwest". Google ngram cannot find the fully hyphenated term.
      I think that was just a stray hyphen, removed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Initial development and Florida landfall:
    • "Meteorologists described Katrina as "still...an impressive cyclone." I suggest moving this sentence to the end of the paragraph, so that "... enabled this to take place" refers more directly back to "its overall appearance improved" as intended. -- Mirokado (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Swapped the order. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And we no longer needed to duplicate a ref callout. Super. -- Mirokado (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "SSHS": according to the article (Saffir–Simpson scale), SSHS relates to the original scale and SSHWS refers to the reformed wind-only scale. I presume this article is using SSHS as that was current in 2005 and the new definition only became operational on May 15, 2010. I only noticed this since there is a discrepancy between SSHS here and SSHWS in the infobox. Perhaps we can have a brief note about this here. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I see this is covered later in §Storm surge, nevertheless it may be a distraction to readers at the first mention. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Added a note explaining the difference at the first usage for the sake of clarity. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Gulf Coast landfalls: "... at the time. At the time of landfall, ..." We need to avoid this repetition, particularly with no intervening text. I suggest "By landfall, ..." for the second occurrence. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to suggested wording. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Storm surge: "The Mars oil platform ... went through the eastern eyewall of Katrina": no, the platform was not moving. Perhaps something like: "The Mars oil platform—designed to withstand winds of 140 mph (230 km/h) and waves up to 70 ft (21 m)—sustained extensive damage as the eastern eyewall of Katrina passed over it." -- Mirokado (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that makes a lot more sense. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Tornado outbreak and dissipation:
    • "This led to the separation of the storm's warm core which in turn caused a near-instantaneous transition..." I found it difficult to imagine what was happening: as far as I can tell, the upper-level anticyclone experienced the instantaneous transition and continued onwards towards the east coast and further north: what happened to the warm core? Some rephrasing would help.
      Added some more context to that bit which hopefully clarifies the situation better. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Much clearer now. Thank you. -- Mirokado (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The four satellite images are helpful. Perhaps we can add a similar sequence for the initial stages? This would help the reader visualise the development.
      I took a look through the satellite imagery for the precursor phase and to the untrained eye it won't really help much imo. It's a lot of scattered clouds that don't resemble much and one of the features (the UTT) is not readily visible for the most part. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for checking. It's of course OK to omit those images if they would not be helpful. -- Mirokado (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • §References: Multiple page ranges need the "pp" parameter rather than "p".
    Corrected these. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This completes my content review (unless I notice anything else later of course.) -- Mirokado (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review, Mirokado! I think I got to everything except the CS1 errors which is confusing me. I'm not the most tech savvy so I'm having issues here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's OK. Here are the warnings. They indicate citations which are not referenced by a callout in the article content. The citations could be, for example, previously-referenced citations which are no longer needed, general references supporting lots of the content in the article, or items which would be helpful for further reading. I would have one list for the citations a reader jumps to from the References section and another (or others) for anything else, since both: the status of the citations is clear to the reader; and this makes maintenance and completeness checking easier.
    Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFDidlake_Jr._and_Houze_Jr.2009.
    Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGreen_et_al.2011.
    Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHowden_et_al.2008.
    Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMcTaggart-Cowan_et_al._(Part_2)2007.
    Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFRogers_et_al.2006.
    You are free to decide how you organise the citations, but it does help if we can tell that there are none which should have been removed. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cyclonebiskit, any response for Mirokado? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: I've been drained from work but I should be able to get to things tomorrow. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mirokado: I've expanded upon information from two of these sources and moved the other three to a "further reading" section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this is what I was hoping you would be able to do. I have moved Didlake & Houze to §Further reading, which I think from the above is what you intended. -- Mirokado (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few changes while looking at the source:

And a couple more comments:

  • references: Fierro et al. 2011, McTaggart-Cowan et al., Rappaport et al. 2010: Please remove the thousands-commas from the page numbers for these refs, they are too easily confused with two individual page numbers. There are even some where the comma is followed by a space.
  • §See also: There is an edit preview warning: "Commons category does not match the Commons sitelink on Wikidata – please check". -- Mirokado (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article is a fairly intense read, but there are inline explanations, notes and lots of wikilinks to help the general reader. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink edit

Conditional support - I gave the article a thorough review before Cyclonebiskit nominated the article. I agree that this is the most comprehensive and most digestible writeup on the subject matter, which is one of my most important criteria for something being an FA (along with spelling and formatting). The only thing the article needs is to make sure all of the images have working URLs for their links. The Katrina in Florida and the NASA one of the GoM loop current aren't working right now. Also, check the formatting of ref 63. There is a broken bracket. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I honestly have no clue why those two links broke. Added one for the GoM loop current, it's not the original but it has the picture there via a PD source. NWS MFL ref for the radar imagery is broken, not sure where to find a replacement for that exact image. I don't see the broken bracket on #63? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contacted a friend at NHC/NWS MFL and they repaired the broken page link. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

CCI check edit

Hi Cyclonebiskit, any response for Sandy? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia: I believe this decision is up to FAC coordinators. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonebiskit, has there been a check ? WIAFA 1f says Featured articles must comply with copyright policy, and since the article (well, the entire suite of articles) is subject to a CCI, it would need to be cleared. That means going back to check for any old copying within or unattributed PD, as I did here to clear this one at FAR. It's a lot of work (although I've gotten better/faster at it), so I'd rather not engage it until/unless it looks like the article is in promote territory. Let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. Cyclone, this has been open for four weeks and has only limited indications that it is moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless there is appreciable further movement over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclone, if it does end up being archived, then I could do the CCI check at my leisure before you re-approach FAC ... be sure to ping me either way. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I expect to support once the remaining two comments above are resolved and would appreciate the opportunity to finish with a definite conclusion. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update; if things continue to progress well here, and nothing hits me IRL, I should have time on Friday 17 to do the CCI work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed most of the work, and added a {{Copied}} to article talk pages for Copying within Wikipedia that dates to 2005. (It has become faster for me to check these articles as I've become more familiar with where and how to look, and now having a base of knowledge about which editors historically frequently failed to attribute.) Once the dead links mentioned below at #Citation checks are cleared up, I can run a final Earwig, and mark this article cleared at the CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final earwig pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation checks edit

Checking for citation consistency and correctness here. User:Cyclonebiskit, please deal with Sandy's comments first (and as "straight away" as possible) since they involve the CCI check. -- Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other citation problems:

  • Bender III et al. 2010: The page range is 1012–1028, see the Bibcode etc. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chen et al. 2018: The page range is 287–306, see the Bibcode etc.
  • Green, Benjamin W.; Zhang, Fuqing; Markowsk, Paul (December 2011): Markowsk --> Markowski. -- Mirokado (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jaimes & Shay 2009: The journal is Monthly Weather Review according to Bibcode and Doi.
  • Kafatos et al. 2006: Geophysical Research Letters uses a CiteID (in this case L17802) to locate each article, and page numbers such as 1–5 for pages within the article. This is an ID within the journal, so not suitable for the |id= parameter which is for unique identifiers. I think it would be OK to use |page=L17802 for this citation. The 1–5 page numbers for the ref callouts are fine. Same applies to other GRL citations. See "In-source locations" in the cite journal documentation.
  • Needham and Keim 2014: The S2CID is 262380488.
  • Rappaport et al. 2010: It looks as if we should say "Rappaport, Edward N." for consistency with the other authors who have second initials, see Bibcode.
  • The {{sfn}} invocations for Jaimes & Shay 2009, Needham and Keim 2014 are inconsistent. {{sfn|Jaimes|Shay|2009|p=4195}} is the more conventional usage, so I would go for that. Please make all the two-author sfn invocations consistent. -- Mirokado (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please update the callouts and citations such as Bender III et al., Didlake Jr. et al., Lee et al. (those are the three I have noticed) to conform with MOS:JR:
    • "When the surname is shown first, the suffix follows the given name", without an extra preceding comma, thus for our citations: Didlake, Anthony C. Jr.; ...
    • "When the given name is omitted, omit the suffix ... except where the context requires disambiguation", thus for our callouts: Bender et al. 2010. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knabb, Richard D. (August 24, 2005): The date in the article is August 23, 2005).
  • Hurricane Katrina: A National Still Unprepared: National --> Nation. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beven, Jack L.; Berg, Robbie; Hagen, Andrew H. (May 17, 2019): the article lists the authors as: "John L. Beven II, Robbie Berg, and Andrew Hagen".
  • Williams, Jack (September 7, 2012): this should be marked "registration required". The archive is free to read. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 4 December 2023 [9].

No Easy Answers edit

Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 04:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These days, I'm usually not surprised by redlinks. There are plenty of content gaps you could drive a truck through, and plenty more redirects made with overly high expectations or questionable AfDs from 2007. No Easy Answers was a surprising redlink. The memoirs of Brooks Brown, a friend of the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre, it's one of the earliest and best-known works on the shooting. No two analyses of Columbine quite agree; they vary on their proposed factors, their portrayals of the killers, the environment they believe they came up in. No Easy Answers is hard on the side of the bullying hypothesis, in a way that's a little less popular nowadays -- but then again, Brown was there.

This article was recently passed at GAN and has had the living daylights copyedited out of it by a high-viewed DYK. I've looked over it a few times, trying in particular to trim the synopsis as far as possible. I think it's okay now -- it's not too far off Dark Archives, length-wise, and the article itself is a couple hundred words longer. I don't think sitting on this one will get it any more ready at this point, so I'm willing to turn it over to FAC. Vaticidalprophet 04:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC
  • Putting down a marker. I have another review to do first, but I'll be back soon. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Vat, Can you ping me when you renom and I'll review then. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SN edit

Yeah, me too. Read it at the time and not since. This is hardcore. ——Serial 20:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would readers outside of the US instinctively understand what age elementary school represents? Perhaps mention an age, or anything that indicates how long a period had passed.
  • Bit nitpicky, but you've made no link between CHS and the JPSCD (save bees: lower bytes now!), so strictly it doesn't say that CHS itself had a good reputation. Know what I mean?
  • What's Normandy Elementary School, a catchment school?
  • "...in their first year of high school", same... esp. as your synopsis section repeats much of this material, different schools, etc, so dates/anchor points would be good.
  • When was Brown born?
  • "reportedly bottled up", reported by whom?
  • "a strict hierarchy" sounds rather official. Perhaps sth like "a strict, if unofficial, hierarchy". Possibly add "among the students", unless it was encouraged by officialdom. Although that would then mean that "students" was repeated. This would mean changing the end of the next sentence, e.g. "towards those seen as unpopular or nonconformist."
  • "He proffers... her arm". This longish sentence could be comfortably split at "Jewish student. Further, practice"
  • "In 1998". You see, first date from before the shooting mentioned so far  :)
  • "in senior year", seems to be crying out for a definitive article, perhaps that's an AltEng thing.
  • ""responsible for creating..." Do you think the interpolations are necessary? I think that anyone who's got this far knows who is being referred to... unless the bracketed surnames are in the original? In which case, I'd suggest cutting the quote back to the three words.
  • The sentence re., Scott needs attention; Brown's discussion of CHS's pro-christian environment is good, but the quote only makes sense we are told that she was an near-maniacal evangelical. And as it stands the only way the reader can find that out is by clicking away from your article. ("Sad!")
  • Connected to the above, there's also possible confusion—possibly dichotomous, but not irresolvably so for certes—as to the connection between CHS (very Christian ethic), Brown (more Taoist than anything) and Scott (Christian to the extent of evangelism). How did Brown, who felt oppressed by the former, find such a good friend in the latter? Is that the basis of his quote ("defying expectations")?
  • "nothing short of horrific", inline citation. Also, at the last of Todd's quotes. What a nice bloke.
  • How did authorities participate in the bullying
  • Mahler has not been a PhD candidate for some time, passing her viva in Dec 2020.
  • "manage his anguish", inline cite.
  • Is there a source for a Parade magazine-offshoot being "nationally popular", or is this a way of subliminally suggesting that a source with 'Teen' in the title can still be an RS[FBDB]  ;)
I hope some of this is useful! Great stuff! ——Serial 18:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vat, just a nudge on this one (Did you forget to watchlist this page?!). Once you've dealt with SN's comments, I'll do mine. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have it watchlisted -- sorry that this has slipped down! I've edited a few of these, but have been insanely busy for a few days. I'll aim to get it all sorted tomorrow. Vaticidalprophet 11:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I'm very occupied off-wiki right now, so unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to address comments in a reasonable FAC timeframe. I'll hopefully be in a position to renominate just after the holiday season at latest. Serial Number 54129 and Gog -- I'll work on these before the renom. Vaticidalprophet 18:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: that's a real shame, considering you've got three guaranteed supports lined up ready for the picking  :) but hope all is well IRL, where "busy" = "turkey + wine"  :) ——Serial 18:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "The book recounts Brown's experiences growing up as close friends with Klebold ... No Easy Answers tells Brown's personal story of growing up with Klebold". The start of these two consecutive sentences is very repetitive.
  • "Throughout the book, Brown portrays both himself and Klebold as the subjects of extreme bullying from other students, and this as a widespread phenomenon at Columbine ... No Easy Answers focuses on bullying as the proximate cause of Columbine ..." Again, although less obviously, but I think this needs tweaking to only stress the bullying once.
  • "those who were non-athletic". Non-athletic in appearance, in mental outlook, in participation in athletics as opposed to other sports? Could this be clarified.
  • "is a 2002 non-fiction book by Brooks Brown and Rob Merritt ... No Easy Answers was co-written by Brown and Rob Merritt".
  • "the subject of much of its critical analysis". The critical analysis in the book, or the critical analysis of the book?
  • "The Columbine shooting had significant effects on education, policy, copycat crime, and media and cultural portrayals of school violence. Columbine affected decision-making around school security, active shooter response protocols, anti-bullying policy, and religion in schools." Could it be specified whether this was just in the US or more generally.
  • "The book begins with the basics of the shooting". "basics" seems a little unencyclopedic. Perhaps 'basic facts'?
  • "which Brown posits". A postulate is "Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted" (Wiktionary). Perhaps 'which Brown argues'?
  • "arguing that the former [media violence] represents an existing demand for such works rather than producing one". I don't understand what this is trying to say.
  • "worshipped the athlete". I suspect that "athlete" is being used to mean something wider than "A participant in a group of sporting activities which includes track and field", eg the US usage. It would be helpful to non-US readers explain what is meant at first use.
  • Link "freshmen". And "junior year" and "senior year".
  • "Brown stopped driving Harris to school." Is it known why this happened?
  • "the common focus on short-term warning signs." Who or what has this focus?
  • "distinguishes Scott as "def[ying] every expectation [he] ever had of a Christian"." Does Brown mean this as praise or condemnation?

More to follow. (I am to the end of Synopsis.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Brown criticises frameworks where the attack was spurred by". This seems a little clumsy. Maybe 'Brown criticises frameworks which suggest [or "posit"] the attack was spurred by' or similar?
  • "They presented this focus as". I assume that "this focus" refers to Stone's accusation? If so, it may be clearer to say so.
  • "They presented this focus as an attempt by Brown to transfer his feelings about the shooting from Klebold to Stone." I am not at all sure what is being said here. Could it be unpacked a little?
  • A general comment: "focus" is used 16 times. Perhaps some synonyms?
  • "The version of Columbine High School depicted in No Easy Answers was described by two reviewers as "nothing short of horrific" ... Peterson and Hoover called the book's description of the school "nothing short of horrific" ".
  • "Brown went on to work in the film and game industry as a visual effects artist." Is it known what he is currently doing?

That's it from me; a fine analysis. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2023 (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_2023&oldid=1191991804"