Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2019

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2019 [1].

Userkaf edit

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Userkaf founder of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt and pharaoh for 7 to 8 years during the early 25th Century BC. Userkaf built a pyramid of himself in Saqqara, however his main claim to fame is his sun temple, the Nekhenre, the first of his kind, a construction that set in motion a long tradition of building such temples during the subsequent Dynasty. This temple was essentially a mortuary temple for the setting sun. Its construction, separately from the king's own mortuary temple, shows a novel distinction between the king and the sun god that did not exist so clearly in the preceding Dynasty.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

The article is excellent overall.
  • I don't understand this sentence in the lead "He had at least one daughter and one son, who would succeed him as pharaoh Sahure" - hesideancy followed by a statement of fact.
Ceoil So what is the issue with the sentence ? Is it that the first part reads like something uncertain while the second is an affirmation ? Would "He had at least one daughter and very probably a son who would succeed him as pharaoh Sahure" be clearer ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iry-Hor, yes, that seems better to me. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cults performed in the temple were primarily concerned with Ra's creator function as well as his role as father of the king - not sure what "cults performed" means. Should we mention rights.
Done I changed it to "cultic activities performed". I am sorry I don't understand what you mean by "Should we mention rights" ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would use and link the word rite, rather than the vague and needlessly suggestive "activity". Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to his probable immediate predecessor, Shepseskaf, as well as the other pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty, Userkaf built a modest pyramid for himself at Saqqarah-North, at the north-eastern edge of the wall surrounding Djoser's pyramid complex. - This a stated a bit backwards (contrary..as well as...) - maybe "Contrary to other pharaohs..." Drop "for himself" (this informality is my main issue with the prose here).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm editing as I read through, please feel free to revert as the changes are mostly trivial. Hope to undertake a full review next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil Do you have further comments about the article ?Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the statement the consensus among Egyptologists is that he ruled for seven to eight years need four refs - surely there is a source that summaries the positions.
  • Same for much longer than the modern consensus.[11][53][54][55]
  • Beyond such historical evidence - uh, is the tale of the papyrus Westcar "historical evidence".
  • considered particularly important as it is among the very few sculptures in the round from the Old Kingdom that show the monarch wearing the Deshret of Lower Egypt. - explain "in the round".
  • Another head which might belong to Userkaf - "represent" rather than "belong to"?
  • I am leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude edit

I mean... obviously I'm going to help with the review process for this article. I'll get a start on tonight. Just finished work, will be heading home soon. I haven't before, but I can do the source review for the article too. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Thank you for your help!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Spot checks

Considered to be resolved. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The general sourcing standard of the article is excellent and uses primarily authoritative sources. I do have a few specific comments on sourcing.
  • There are a few potentially outdated sources used: Breasted (1906), Daressy (1912), Gauthier (1906), Mariette (1889), Petrie (1897) and (1917), and Sethe (1903).
  • Breasted citations 56, 84–85 and 109. None of these appear remotely controversial, and the first cite is to Breasted's opinion.
  • Daressy citations 57, 68, 83 and 88. Cite 57 is to Daressy's opinion. I feel like cite 68 can be replaced with something more recent, will check my sources for such. Citations 83 and 88 are backed by other sources. I'm not sure Daressy is needed for these, and I'd almost certainly remove cite 88 which is backed by two other sources.
Done, I have removed 88.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gauthier citations 123 and 133.
  • Cite 123 is to the image caption. I'm going to call the caption into question here. Currently the caption tells the reader that Sekhemkhet, Teti and Userkaf own each of the cartouches from left to right. Gauthier says of the first cartouche that the pharaoh to whom it belongs is "absolument inconnu par aillers" (pp. 6–7) meaning "absolutely unknown". The second cartouche can refer to either Sekhemkhet's other throne name, listed in the Abydos King List as Teti ("Teti de la IIIe dynastie"), or to Teti ("Teti de la VIe dynastie"). The third cartouche is definitely Userkaf. The first cartouche reads, I think, (D45-D21-Y1-S12) transl. dsr-r-md3t-nbw or djeser-medat-nebu. I have no clue who that might be, and neither Leprohon 2013 nor the Abydos king list turned up anything even remotely similar. In any case, the caption is incorrect, the first cartouche is an unknown, the second is either Sekhemkhet or Teti (but not both), and the third is Userkaf.
  • Addendum comment: Actually, I think it might be Djoser in the first cartouche. It'd make perfect sense. Userkaf's pyramid is inside Djoser's pyramid complex, and guess who else is near by... Sekhemkhet. Hence Djoser, Sekhemkhet, and Userkaf. It wouldn't be the first time a transcription error rendered something unreadable. I'll see if I can dig something up on this image. More: Well, still going through Gauthier and one of his proposals is indeed Djoser: S'il ne faut pas y voir simplement, ecrit avec une variant orthographique, le roi Djousir de la IIIe dynastie (anquel cas Teti serait egalement le Teti de la IIIe pyramide), nous devons essayer de lui assigner une place dans le serie des souverains. He has much more to say bringing in the 11th, 12th and 18th dynasties up as well, but again, straining my abilities in French. In any case, as Gauthier says, "ce n'est la cependant qu'une pure hypothese" meaning "this is purely a hypothesis".
Mr rnddude I fully agree with your second reading, because the cartouche actually reads Djoserit Nebu, which is definitely Djoser. I don't know why I wrote Sekhemkhet since I meant Djoser since the start. My apologies for this strange mistake. Note that at the time of Daressy, these names of Djoser weren't well known and Sekhemkhet was completely unknown.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 133. Gauthier mentions the Ramesside origin for the tomb, but I can't find anything relating in Gauthier that fits with the rest of the sentence. Presumably Wildung 1969, pp. 74–76 is the main citation for this sentence, so perhaps it should come first.
I agree but per MOS the order of the citations must be numerical, hence I cannot invert the two references. This point was raised in previous FACs, always to have me put references in numerical order. I too regret that the order of the citations cannot reflect the order of importance with respect to the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... *Looks at citations* Given that Gauthier is cite 133 and Wildung is cite 134, and neither cite is used elsewhere, if you switch their order Gauthier will automatically become cite 134 and Wildung cite 133. The order will remain numerical. That said, not all your cites are in numerical order as is: The identity of Userkaf's parents is not known for certain, but he undoubtedly had family connections with the rulers of the preceding Fourth Dynasty.[25][10][26] There are a couple other instances that I'd noted, but I'm focusing on sources atm.
Fixed Actually Gauthier is also cited in 123 so I cannot switch them. All other cites should be in numerical order so I am fixing this as well.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... I've done it myself because we're miss communicating here. Gauthier is now cite 138, and Wildung is cite 137. Numerical order has been retained. You can look at cite 28/29 and 30/31 for a perfect example here. Cite 28 is Grimal, Cite 29 is Rice. Cite 30 is Rice, Cite 31 is Grimal. They retain numerical order. Revert if there's a problem, because I don't understand the concern.
  • Mariette citation 129. I'm not sure why this citation is here. Also, the name marked at the top of the page in pencil reads Ra-ne-kau, which fits with the hieroglyphs there, rather than Nykuhor. Wrong page?
Fixed I found a more recent and more reliable sources with more details about Nykuhor : Hayes 1978 book freely available. See p. 102 -103. I have replaced Mariette with this cite. Thanks for spotting Mariette's oddity!Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you've replaced the citation, Mariette isn't cited in the article anymore. You can move it to a "Further reading" section, remove it from the article, of find a random place to use it as a supporting cite. Up to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude I have added back several references to Mariette, citing ancient officials who served in either Userkaf's mortuary temple or in his sun temple.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Petrie citations 71–73
  • Citation 71a appears to check out against the source.
  • Citation 72: The seal is now in the British Museum cited to Petrie 1897. 1897 it's been 120 years who knows where that seal is now.
Fixed I wrote the factual "The seal was in the British Museum at the end of the 19th century".
  • Citation 71b-73 are cited to an image caption. The image is definitely of a seal from Userkaf. As to translation, I couldn't find it in Petrie 1897 and don't know where to look in 1917, but I'm personally of the philosophy that translations don't need to be explicitly cited (if they did, that would present challenges of their own). I note that Petrie dates Userkaf's reign to 3721–3693 B.C. Quite interesting how different they'd calculated the dates to be.
Old Egyptological dates were very much in the wrong, see e.g. Champollion's estimates for widely wrong dates. These shows how much the discipline has progressed ! As for the translation, it is sufficiently straightforward I think to be quoted as such. It is a very typical formula on seals.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voẞ (2004) is a PhD thesis, however the Gutachter (expert/assessor) for the dissertation is Hartwig Altenmüller, a recognizable expert. It is cited to two statements.
  • Statement 1:This observation is contested by Goedicke[100] and Voß for whom "the supposed proximity to Heliopolis for the choice of the site hardly played a role".[101] - Appropriate attribution of opinion for both Goedicke and Voß, but is Voß's opinion significant enough to be included? Also, what's the procedure for attributing quotes that have been translated? I typically put a footnote that a quote has been translated from the original, but, as this is already in a footnote, that's not going to be possible.
Yes since we are in a footnote and since the quote is not of primary importance to the article, I propose that we leave out the original non-translated version. I removed the name of Voss in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement 2: The sun temple of Userkaf first[106 - Voß] appears in Karl Richard Lepsius' pioneering list of pyramids as pyramid XVII in the mid-19th century.[107 - Verner/Zemina] - I recognize that Voß is cited at "first" because "erstmals", but she does basically say everything else that's in the sentence. The designation for the sun temple appears on p. 7 footnote 38 in Voß's work, but not in Verner/Zemina 1994. You can refer to p. 131 of Lepsius' Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien for more information, albeit he wouldn't have known what it is.
Ok I added the reference to Lepsius original work, but I don't see the issue with the other two citations. the point of putting Voss with the "first" was precisely because this is the one fact that she states and backs it, while the rest of the sentence is in Verner and Zemina. Is that ok or not ?Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[T]he point of putting Voss with the "first" was precisely because this is the one fact that she states and backs it - Are you sure about that? The sentence in question is: The sun temple of Userkaf first appears in Karl Richard Lepsius' pioneering list of pyramids as pyramid XVII in the mid-19th century. Voß says Das Sonnenheilig tum des Userkaf taucht in der Literatur erstmals auf LEPSIUS‘ Pyramidenplan ... [footnote 38] and [footenote 38] LD I, Bl. 32 mit LD Text I, 131: Pyramide XVII. That seems to me to be basically the whole sentence as written in the article. That and Voß gives the designation of the pyramid explicitly in the footnote, but Verner/Zemina doesn't (not that I saw anyway). Mr rnddude (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get the problem : the sentence is not a copyvio in any way, it isn't the same sentence after all. The info is correct and cited, what should I do ?Iry-Hor (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I... never said it was a copyvio. What? The point was simply that as Voß gives all the information in the sentence and also the pyramid designation, which I can't find in Verner/Zemina, then I don't see why Voß is cited at the first half of the sentence instead of at the end of the sentence. Nothing else, and certainly not calling it a copy-vio. Hope that's clear? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one source that appears genuinely questionable here: IMDb which, per WP:UGC, is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. It's not used for anything controversial, but it would be highly advisable to find a better source.

Initial comments on sourcing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I picked this soruce because it gives the exact dialogue were prince Sahu says he is the son of Userkaf in the Sesame Street episode. I haven't found this quote elsewhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks
  • Sources that I'll be spot-checking as I have them readily available: Grimal 1992, Clayton 1994, Verner/Zemina 1994, Verner 2001abc, Altenmüller 2001, Dodson/Hilton 2004, and Lehner 2008. This should be sufficient for a spotcheck as it covers about 20-30% of all citations.
  • Grimal 1992: cites 22a–g on p. 75, cite 28 on p. 68, cite 31 on pp. 72 & 75, cite 32 on pp. 70 & 72, cite 33 on pp. 72–75, cite 53a–f on p. 76, cite 76 on p. 78, cite 114 on p. 116, and cite 116 on pp. 76–78
  • Well... this is daunting. Cite 22a–d check out. Cite 22e covers the location of the tomb for Nykaankh, but either there's another page or there's a missing cite with regard to the royal decree. Cite 22f and g check out. Cite 31 checks out. Cite 32 generally checks out although "now recognized as non-historical" is merely a statement of the obvious. Cite 33 checks out. Cite 53a-f all check out, although 53d isn't needed since 53e is cited to the same sentence. Cite 76 checks out. Cite 114 checks out, though you might clarify that it's "Table 3" as you do in other cites. Cite 116 for making it the second smallest built during the Fifth Dynasty after that of the final king Unas. Mmm... needs a minor clarification. It's the second smallest, by volume, king's pyramid. It's definitely not the second smallest overall from the Fifth Dynasty. By height it's the third smallest behind Sahure's at 47m (Lehner 2008 p. 17) or 48m (Verner 2001 p. 463). For clarity change "the second smallest built" to "the second smallest [built for a king/king's pyramid built]".
Fixed all the adjustments required were carried out.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clayton 1994: cite 7 on p. 60 and cite 36a–d on p. 61
  • Cite 7, cite 36b–d check out. Cite 36a appears to be a mistake cite. Clayton states directly that Neferhetepes is Userkaf's mother. I believe Dodson & Hilton, 2004, p. 65 is the desired citation.
Fixed, well spotted. This paragraph underwent numerous changes as I was working through all the hypotheses put forth and it seems that in the process Clayton's citation was misplaced indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verner/Zemina 1994: cite 38 on p. 118, cite 40ab on p. 119, cite 43 on p. 126, cite 47 on pp. 102 & 118, cite 49 on pp. 68 & 85, cite 51ab on p. 68, cite 93a–e on p. 102, cite 101 on pp. 53, 102 & 111, cite 106ab on p. 217, cite 113 on p. 50, and cite 119ab on p. 53
  • Cite 38 checks out. Cite 40a and b check out. Cite 43 augmented by other citations but does mention Nyuserre and Khentkaus in relation to each other. Cite 47 checks out. Cite 49 checks out, but I'm not 100% on the "Most Egyptologists" thing since I've seen both versions claimed in the same book ten pages from each other (Altenmüller 2001 on p. 598 says brother, while Verner 2001d on p. 588 says son – and this source is 7 years more recent than Verner/Zemina 1994). Cite 51a checks out, but 51b needs to be modified to p. 67–68 as the sentence starts on the preceding page. Cite 93a-d check out, cite 93e extends onto p. 103. Cite 101 checks out. Cite 106a and b check out, but it's a little bit weird to say "[i]t's true nature was recognized by" xyz when "the results of the excavations were something of a disappointment for" xyz. Cite 113 checks out. Cite 119a checks out but "[t]his might be due" is a poor paraphrase of "was almost certainly". Cite 199b checks out.
All Fixed.
  • Verner 2001a: cite 59a–c on p. 386, cite 60 on pp. 388–390, cite 62 on pp. 386–387, and cite 65 on p. 385
  • Cite 59a checks out, but it's in transliterated Old Egyptian, so good luck if you don't read it (heh). Cite 59b should be pp. 386–387 as the statement regarding its unfinished state is on the next page. Cite 59c checks out.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verner 2001b: cite 2a–f on p. 588
  • All cites check out. Minor comment with regard to cite 2e: that Nubia is south of Egypt is common knowledge, but not explicitly stated in Verner 2001b... presumably because common knowledge.
Fixed I added a ref pertaining to the location of Nubia south of Egypt.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verner 2001c: cite 3ab on p. 91
  • The first instance [3a] appears to be a mistaken citation as it should be Verner 2001b p. 588, but that's already there. The second instance [3b] is fine.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altenmüller 2001: cite 4a–m on p. 598
  • Cite 4a–f check out. 4g I'd drop "might", as Altenmüller is adamant that he did. Perhaps replace "might" with "either", i.e. "either commissioned or enlarged the temple of Monthu at Tod." Cite 4h doesn't check out for me. Wrong source? I didn't see it in Grimal either. 4i checks out, but I think you're missing a cite for the previous sentence: Further domestic activities may be inferred from the annals of the Old Kingdom, written during Neferirkare's or Nyuserre's reign. 4j–m all check out. For cite 4m, I assume the other translations are in Janak, Vymazalova and Coppens (2013).
Fixed I added a new cite for "oldest" and new refs for the date of the Old Kingdom royal annals. You are right for 4m.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dodson/Hilton 2004: cite 20 on p. 288, and cite 34a–d on p. 65
  • 34b and c check out. 34d is a bit more complicated than presented. Dodson and Hilton argue that Khentkaus I was mother to either Userkaf and Sahure, but list her as a possible wife of Userkaf. I think adding a qualifier (e.g. "may have been" or other) to that sentence would more accurately represent Dodson and Hilton's views. Cite 34a should probably be presented as an example, rather than as a citation, but meh.
Fixed More to come tonight.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lehner 2008: cite 16a–d on p. 140, cite 95a–d on p. 150, cite 110ab on p. 151, and cite 118a–c on p. 141
  • Cite 16a, b and d check out. Cite 16c: I'm sure it is Manetho's invention (in fact I'm not, but I'm sure I've read that), but Lehner doesn't make this comment on p. 140. He just states the simple fact that Manetho lists him as the first king of the Fifth Dynasty. Cite 95a and b check out. Cite 95c: The four phases are attributed to Userkaf (phase 1), Neferirkare Kakai (phase 2), and Nyuserre Ini (phase 3) in Lehner 2008. Sahure doesn't receive a mention. In as far as this is concerned, Lehner 2008 isn't a suitable standalone citation to this sentence. Cite 95d is a supporting cite to the fact that slaughters were conducted there. Cite 110a checks out to the sentence it's applied to, but the preceding sentences appear to be missing a citation: It served primarily as a place of worship for the setting—that is dying—sun and was closely related to the royal mortuary complex with which it shared several architectural elements. These include a valley temple close to the Nile and a causeway leading up to the high temple on the desert plateau. Cite 110b checks out. Cite 118a should be to p. 140 not p. 141. Cite 118b and c check out, but a citation is missing for The core of the pyramid was built with the same technique as the main pyramid and the cult pyramid, consisting of three horizontal layers of roughly hewn local limestone blocks and gypsum mortar. The core was covered with an outer casing of fine Tura limestone, now gone. The pyramid was so extensively used as a stone quarry that even its internal chambers are exposed which must have been taken from a different source. I checked Verner 2001d pp. 278–279, but I can only cite that the pyramid was made three levels high and encased in fine Tura limestone. That and that the pyramid has near exactly the same dimensions as Queen Khentkhaus II. Nothing on technique or its use as a stone quarry.
  • I'll fill the above out as I get around to checking them. Anywhere where more than one citation has been applied, I'll assume that the second citation contains any information that is not relayed in the source I am checking.
  • The above may look a bit daunting, but it's a lot less than it looks. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Fixed! So I am glad that you have pointed out my mistake with Lehner's citation regarding Manetho's invention of the dynasties. First I moved Lehner's ref to somewhere else where it is stated for the first time that Userkaf was the first king of the Dynasty. Now I tracked down the claim regarding Manetho into two books : The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt has an article on Manetho that makes it clear albeit indirectly that he divided kings into 30 dynasties which I have now cited, while The Delphi Complete Works of Manetho states this directly employing the word "invented" but I can't see the relevant page number on Google preview of this book. The claim is also repeated on the wikipedia article on Manetho however it is not clear which source was employed there.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I fixed the sources regarding the four building phases. Turns out Verner changes his mind all the time. The article on Neferirkare Kakai has a paragraph on the problem. In his Forgotten pharaohs book Verner states that the first phase was under Neferirkare but in his subsequent 2001 article Remarks he deems it unlikely that Sahure did not work on it and thus favors a first phase under Sahure... I have re-worded the article accordingly.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed added two cites for "It served primarily as..." and changed the sentence a bit. More to come soonIry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've double checked, and it appears to me that Iry-Hor has addressed my concerns regarding sources and spotchecks. Below are my prose comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 10: Egyptologists including Jürgen von Beckerath rather see Nyuserre's reign as the peak of the solar cult - "rather see" isn't the best wording here and might be a bit confusing. I'd replace with "consider" or "identify".
  • Footnote 8: ... in particular the name of the king's to whose reign they belong is lost ... - Should just be "king" or "kings" but not "king's" (possessive). ... and they might thus instead ... - I'm not sure that "thus" is correctly used here.
  • Footnote 6: I'm not sure what the existence of two Khentkaus' is supposed to prove about the relationship between Sahure, Neferirkare and Userkaf. How does Khentkaus II being Nyuserre Ini's mother prove that Sahure is Userkaf's son, and Neferirkare Kakai Sahure's son?
  • Funerary cult: Ramesses's fourth son, Khaemwaset (fl. c. 1280–1225 BCE), ordered restoration work on Userkaf's pyramid - and many others of the Fifth Dynasty as well. May be worth mentioning?
  • Funerary cult: In comparison, the official funerary cult of some of Userkaf's successors, such as Nyuserre Ini, lasted until the Middle Kingdom period - Debatable.((sfn|Morales|2006|p=311)) Malek and Verner both challenge the hypothesis that cultic activity continued through to the Middle Kingdom. Verner believes that any of the remaining cults ceased activity in the FIP.((sfn|Verner|2001|p=7)) (OEoAE vol. 1 p. 7) Malek offers that Nyuserre's cult may have survived,((sfn|Malek|2000|pp=244–245)) as does Ladislav Bareš, albeit in a very reduced form.((sfn|Bareš|2000|p=5)) (From AS2000) Unas' is the only other Fifth Dynasty king, that I know of, whose cult has received mention of being active in the Middle Kindom, but Malek contends that it was temporarily revived.((sfn|Malek|2000|p=256)) I think the conviction in the sentence needs to be lessened from "lasted until" to "may have lasted until", and "some" may need to be removed. I don't know any other cult that may have made it to the Middle Kingdom, contrary to the suggestion in the article that "some" survived.
  • Funerary cult: ... Userkaf benefited from a funerary cult after his death. - While I know what you mean, it's a little odd to suggest that someone has "benefited" from their funerary cult. That is unless Userkaf actually became an akh. You know, mythology and all that.

That's all I have time for today. I'll get to the rest of the article tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mortuary temple: ... or to the general topography of Saqqara and the presence of older tombs in the vicinity as expounded by Edwards and Lauer - It seems I missed Verner&Zemina cite 131a & b in my spot checks. The first half of the sentence is easily confirmed (131a), but the fragment here is taken from another work and is missing the requisite citation. I've verified 131b as well.
  • Mortuary temple: Verner rather sees a desire on Userkaf's behalf - "rather sees" again, perhaps "identifies" instead.
  • Mortuary temple: Alternatively, Userkaf's choice for the temple location on the pyramid southern side ... - Propose: Alternatively, Userkaf's decision to locate the temple on the pyramid's southern side ...
  • Mortuary temple: ... exposition to the sun - I think you meant exposure here, exposition makes no sense.
  • Mortuary temple: ... were extensively adorned in numerous raised reliefs ... - numerous is redundant here because "extensively adorned" implies the same. Perhaps "were extensively adorned with raised relief".
  • Mortuary temple: that would become common in subsequent times - I'd re-order this to "that would subsequently become common." In the used context, subsequent is by definition "following in time", so you've written "following in time times".
  • Pyramid architecture: ... its roof made of pented limestone beams - Pented? I couldn't find it in my at home dictionary and online it refers to Pentedrone, the bath salts drug. In other Fifth Dynasty pyramids the roofs are gabled, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean.
  • Location: Unlike all pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty, Userkaf built a modest pyramid at North Saqqara - Mmm... not all Fourth Dynasty pharaohs built pyramids, Shepseskaf had a mastaba built for himself. Replace 'all' with 'the' or 'any of the'?
  • Location: ... against that of a Khufu ... - Was that "a" here intentional?

More from me to come. All I have time for right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

Based on this revision:

References and reference formatting

  • Reference 96 has very odd formatting, and I'm really not sure what you're citing exactly.
Kaplony's book is weird and made with chunks entitled by letters and texts....Iry-Hor (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not really convinced this is the best way to cite this, but since I don't have access to this source to understand what's actually going on regarding pagination, I'll begrudgingly AGF that this is the best that can be done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 108 is malformed.
Actually, I am trying to cite a whole series of books written over four years by these guys, the point being to have the complete excavation reports cited, plus it justifies the fact that the authors parcipated in these excavations. The citations is functioning as desired but perhaps the format isn't ideal. I don't know how I could do otherwise.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what you're doing, a sfn that displays as "Edel, Ricke & 1965—1969." is not the right way to do it. I'm amendable to |loc=passim (in place of |p, or |pp in the sfn template) if that's absolutely necessary. But the source provided indicates two volumes (of, presumably, more than two). Are you trying to cite something broader than that? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For web sources, the "website" should ideally be italicized only if it is also a periodical in some fashion. Historical practice has been to list the responsible entity as "publisher" otherwise. For example, the Arnold 1999 and "Head of King Userkaf" sources should not have their publishing museums italicized.
  • Breasted 1906 is actually a work in 5 volumes; the Internet Archive scan contains all five, but you should amend the entry in the bibliography to indiciate which volume you're actually citing. That should also let you just use normal page numbers for your references to this work, instead of the weird page/section (but really page) system that Breasted apparently thought was a good idea back in 1906. Also, this is a (non-French) book-form work, so it's (admittedly, long) title should be in title case.
  • IMDb really just isn't acceptable as a source. However, Don't Eat the Pictures is definitely notable (and Emmy-nominated) and I wouldn't want this cultural use to be cut from the article. Because this is a plot element, you should be able to cite it to the television program itself (as is generally done for film plots).
I will not support for promotion an article which cites IMDb, and have suggested a way to replace this citation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure the "Wikipedia entry" note is necessary in Sethe 1903. I'm also not sure whether it's technically disallowed, mostly because I've never seen anyone do that before. If retained, capital-W Wikipedia. Also, it's possible that I'm just being dumb here, but I don't understand how the section-number citations to this work (or the linked web page) work.
Fixed. I would like to keep the link to the wikipedia article as I find it nice that we have an article on Sethe's work. Besides, the more wikilinks the better for such articles as there are few links in general pointing to it. As for Sethe's way to putting section numbers, I don't understand Sethe's choices either. I think he chose to have each text be given a separate paragraph number.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not particularly enamored of the idea that a wikilink is being added to this reference in a nonstandard manner, especially if the primary motivation is that the target article just needs more inbound links! Also, while I guess I didn't grok fully what was going on, can you point the external reference link to what you're actually citing, rather than an index of links to pdfs of sections of this work? At least some parts of this have viable pagination in addition to paragraph numbers. IF I could determine what you're actually citing here, I might be able to help suggest a better way to approach it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And stopping my prose review there. In general, I think this is well-researched, but I get the overall impression that it could do with the services of a good copy editor (which I shan't pretend I am). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage:, @Iry-Hor:, @Mr rnddude: Although I'm not the best copyeditor either, I've started work on cleaning up the prose problems, which I think are mostly the minor flaws that crop up with English-second-language writing (Iry-Hor's native language is French). I've addressed most of the purely prose-based problems that Squeamish Ossifrage lists and intend to look through the rest of the article in the next several days. But I found a problem regarding the temple at Tod: Wilkinson 2000 doesn't mention the granite pillar. The following ref points to Arnold 1996, which I don't have; is the pillar mentioned there? A. Parrot (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have Arnold 1996 (which may be 1992 actually) either, A. Parrot. There is a mention of a pillar at Userkaf's temple at Tod in here and a mention of a granite column bearing his name here. That suffices to suggest that there is a granite pillar. Presumably it's mentioned in Arnold. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Squeamish Ossifrage, Ceoil, A. Parrot, Mr rnddude Many apologies for my disappearing from wikipedia lately, I am back and will respond to all your comments within the next few days. I am looking forward to read you all!Iry-Hor (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several of my initial concerns were not actioned, or at least not fully so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: As this has been open for a month now, we need to see something happening fairly soon or it will need to be archived. Sarastro (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 I have answered all the reader's comments and have asked for further input but they seem to be away for now, in any case not responding at the moment. What should I do ? Will the article not pass ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave it open a little longer. Maybe you could approach a few people and ask them for a review? Sarastro (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for leaving open. Would like to get back to this shortly (mid to late week) Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to review this at the moment. Like Ceoil, I can come back to this in the mid to late week. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're into our second week since the above exchange and Iry-Hor hasn't been able to edit since then -- clearly there's still a way to go with several unanswered comments so I'll archive this now. I suggest that when Iry-Hor has time they work on all the outstanding points and then ping the reviewers for an informal peer review on the article talk page, after which (providing the usual two-week cooling-off period has passed of course) it can be renominated at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • The lead should say that his reign dates to the Old Kingdom.
  • "was the first Fifth Dynasty king to build a sun temple" Well he must have been first as he founded the dynasty.
  • "The Nekhenre essentially functioned as a mortuary temple" "essentially" does not sound right to me in this context. I would delete or replace with "mainly".
  • "Beyond the borders of Egypt, a military expedition to Canaan or the Eastern Desert may have taken place". You say below that he invaded Nubia and received tribute from Canaan or the Eastern Desert. This is not the same thing.
  • "He may have been the son of Khentkaus I marrying Neferhetepes" This is confusing. I assume you mean that his mother may have been Khentkaus I and his wife may have been Neferhetepes.
  • Parents and consort. This section reads as a string of names with no indication who they are. The sentence "Bernhard Grdseloff argued that, as a descendant of Djedefre marrying a woman from the main royal line, Userkaf could have unified rival factions within the royal family and ended possible dynastic struggles." is very unclear. What main line and what rival factions? You need to explain more fully or cut out some details.
  • You say in note 6 that it has been proved that Sahure was Userkaf's son, but elsewhere you say it is disputed.
  • "Verner sees Userkaf's time on the throne as significant in that it marks the apex of the sun cult,[note 10] the pharaonic title of "Son of Ra" becoming systematic from his reign onwards." I am not clear what you are saying here "apex" imples a decline afterwards, but the title becoming systematic suggest no decline.
  • "Userkaf's reign might have witnessed a recrudescence of trade between Egypt and its Aegean neighbors" I changed "recrudescenc" to "revival" but both words mean a restoration of a previous high state and yet you say that it is the earliest period for which there is evidence of commercial contacts.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Userkaf was an Egyptian pharaoh, founder of the Fifth Dynasty, who reigned for seven to eight years...: I think this would read more naturally as "Userkaf was an Egyptian pharaoh and the founder of the Fifth Dynasty. He reigned...". As it stands, "founder of the Fifth Dynasty" sounds like the start of a list of attributes, whereas it's really a parenthetical description.
  • He belonged, in all probability, to a branch of the Fourth Dynasty royal family, although his parentage remains uncertain and the identity of his queen is in doubt. Userkaf may have been the son of Khentkaus I marrying Neferhetepes. He had at least one daughter and very probably a son who succeeded him as pharaoh Sahure. A couple of things here. The identity of his queen isn't relevant to his probable relationship to the Fourth Dynasty, but the next sentence is relevant. How about: "He belonged, in all probability, to a branch of the Fourth Dynasty royal family: his parentage is uncertain, but he may have been the son of Khentkaus I and Neferhetepes. He had at least one daughter, and very probably a son who succeeded him as pharaoh Sahure, but the identity of his queen is in doubt."
  • His reign heralded the ascendancy of the cult of Ra: suggest "began", rather than "heralded": to say that A heralds B implies that B has not yet started but will soon, but here I think you mean the cult of Ra actually began in his reign.
  • Nicolas Grimal, Peter Clayton and Michael Rice propose that Userkaf was the son of a Neferhetepes,[28][29] whom Grimal, Magi and Rice see as...: given the citations I assume it's not a mistake that Magi is added, but perhaps we could get his full name, since you give it for Grimal and Rice. And why is Clayton not mentioned in the second half of the sentence? His name doesn't appear to be on the sources you cite for the first half.
  • You have both "Papyrus Westcar" and "papyrus Westcar"; I don't know which is correct, but be consistent.
  • Not necessary for FA, but note 9 is odd. Where is the seal now? Is it not known?
  • Again not necessarily an issue, but I see that the section on Userkaf's sun temple is longer than the article it links to as the "main" article for that topic. Typically one summarizes subarticles, so they become shorter. Can you confirm that there is more to say about the sun temple, so that the subarticle will eventually be longer? If not, we either don't need the subarticle, or should shorten the material about it in this article.
  • Userkaf's sun temple was called Nekhenre by the Ancient Egyptians, Nḫn Rˁ.w, which has been...: suggest "The Ancient Egyptians called Userkaf's sun temple Nekhenre (Nḫn Rˁ.w), which has been...".
  • Both complexes were structurally very similar: needs some clarification -- only one complex has been mentioned so far in this section. The previous sentence mentions the royal funerary cult, so I assume it's the mortuary temple that is meant, but it should be clearer. Perhaps "The complexes for both the sun temple and the mortuary temple were very similar..."?
  • the temple's year-round exposition to the sun: I'm not sure what is meant here, but "exposition" is almost certainly not the right word.
  • What's a "magazine room"? Is there a suitable link?
  • Suggest cutting the sentence about Sesame Street; I don't think it adds anything to a reader's understanding.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 26 February 2019 [2].

German torpedo boat Albatros edit

Nominator(s): L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of six Type 23 torpedo boats, laid down in 1925 and launched in 1927. The ship participated in the Spanish civil War and briefly in World War II. It fired the first shot of Operation Weserübung but then ran aground while trying to avoid Norwegian coastal artillery. I created this article in May and got it to GA later in the year. Just recently, it also passed a MILHIST A-class review. Thanks in advance to all those who comment here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a surprise. L293D fails to mention that I greatly expanded on what he'd initially written and we both worked on the GA and A-class reviews. I didn't plan to nominate it anytime soon, but it should be in pretty good shape. As usual, please let us know if there are any issues with language variants or unexplained naval jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I had a good look at this during the recent Milhist ACR, so not much to pick up on really:

  • suggest dropping the 0 in from the draft in the body and infobox
    • The 0 is template-generated and I think it would be better for consistency to state the number of feet and inches as just on top the two were stated together in the infobox. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "In the spring of 1929, Albatros was departing Wilhelmshaven to take part in a fleet patrol in Spanish waters, and collided with Möwe at the exit from the harbor. Both ships followed the fleet four days later after repairs."
  • suggest "participants in the Spanish Civil War." with link
  • perhaps "the four ships of the 2nd Half-Flotilla" if it was still called that? there are other examples of this.
  • "The half-flotilla returned to Spain" again if that is what it was.
  • what happened to her between June-July 1937 and September 1939?
  • is the 5th Torpedo Boat Flotilla likely to be notable? If so, redlink?
    • Probably not. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I could probably cobble something together if I felt like it. Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would not turn away, butand was"
  • suggest "Albatros's crew set the patrol boat on fire..."
  • suggest either "the lightly armed Norwegian minesweeper Otra" or "the lightly armed minesweeper HHoMS Otra" to clarify that this was a Norwegian vessel
  • Notes 2 and 3 need a citation
  • In the infobox, it would be better if there were separate sections for Weimar and Nazi Germany service, as mashing the two flags together under the heading Nazi Germany doesn't really work.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review. Hopefully, we've resolved all of the issues that you noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

The sources are all of high quality and reliable, exactly what you would expect on a German navy vessel of this vintage. No formatting errors I could see. Spot checks AGF'd as Sturm has a long history at FAC. Lenton's German Warships of the Second World War pp. 84–85 provides some additional detail regarding the class, in particular that despite their enlargement from the earlier types, they were still quite wet due to absence of sheer (and freeboard). It also mentions that they had a double bottom outside of the machinery spaces and longitudinal framing, those details are perhaps best for the class article. Also, the aft superfiring gun was on an open mount and the other two had gunshields. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added the gunshields, but I could only see the bottom of the page in google books snippet view. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortunately, the gun shields are covered by Whitley, so I've changed the cite to that book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Parsecboy edit

  • I don't know that I'd characterize the 1929 cruise to Spain as a "patrol", since that suggests a conflict of some sort (and brings to mind the non-intervention patrols that came later). The Atlantic cruises of the Reichsmarine were a routine occurrence in this period - more of a training cruise/show the flag type of situation
  • "light cruiser Köln, and the" - no comma there
  • Do we need to link both Nazi Germany and the Third Reich? The latter is a bit less encyclopedic, IMO, and could be replaced simply with "Germany"
  • I think [[Bombardment of Almería|did so]] is a bit WP:EGGy
  • The article states there were four non-intervention patrols but only gives details of three - when was the fourth?
  • You might give a bit of context on the North Sea mining operations - these were defensive minefields intended to secure the seaward flank of the Westwall (for details and a cite, see German cruiser Emden, the footnote is Koop & Schmolke, pp. 44–45)
  • Link depth charge - these aren't mentioned in the armament section, btw
  • I spy a "realising" - the rest of the article seems to be AmEng. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't believe that I didn't notice these earlier; sorry for the long delay. Depth charges are not listed in either the infobox or the armament section because none of my sources give any numbers for them. There are scattered mentions of them being used in Whitley, but I can't generalize from those, so I just left them out aside from actually using some. I think that I've addressed all the issues that you raised. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - After being open for well over a month, there just isn't enough here to achieve consensus for promotion and there's been very little activity since late January. --Laser brain (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 February 2019 [3].

Thalassocnus edit

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a big species of marine sloth from the Miocene, and it's one of 2 ground sloth articles (the other being ground sloth) that's above C class, so I hope a future ground sloth enthusiast can use this for some other article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • I'll have a look soon, but a disclaimer; I drew the life restoration, and took the taxobox photo, so I am somewhat "involved" (which is also why I didn't do the GA review). FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thalassocnus were ground sloths that lived from the Late Miocene to the end of the Pliocene–Late Huayquerian to Early Uquian in the SALMA classification–" Why is this under "remains"? The entire first paragrapgh looks like it belongs under the beginning of Paleoecology.
the paragraph's more about which species were found where and in what formations so it should really stay where it is because that's what that section discusses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dates and ages would be expected udner palaeecology, though. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if "specimens" would be a better title than "remains".
  • The map under Paleoecology is formatted in a weird way so that the text is unpleasantly close to the image frame (compare with other images in the article). It should be possible to match this better.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Museum abbreviations are linked every time they are mentioned, but should only be so at first mention.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should state who named the species in-text.
  • "In 1968, taxonomist Robert Hoffstetter placed undescribed sloth remains into the family Megatheriidae, possibly belonging to the now-defunct subfamily Planopsinae, mainly based on similarities with the ankle bone and femur." What does this have to do with this genus? Did the remains belong to it= If so, you really need to make this clear. If the specimens were already known in the 1960s, this should be mentioned in the specimens section.
  • I think the structure of the taxonomy section could be improved. Not sure what others think but I find it unnecessary (and confusing) that you spread out the info on specimens, species, and etymology, instead of just giving it chronologically: State when the first specimens were found, when it was named, what the name means, and the on to the next species. There is no reason to have separated specimen and etymology sections as far as I can see.
  • "Thalassocnus is the only aquatic xenarthran–a group that includes sloths, anteaters, and armadillos–though the ground sloth Eionaletherium from the Miocene of Venezuela may have adapted to nearshore life." Why is this under description?
  • The paragrapgh on bone density and its function under descrition looks like it belong sunde ralaeobiology.
  • "The thick and dense bones of younger species (pachyosteosclerosis) allowed the animal to" "younger species" means more recent species here? If so, the it doesn't apply to "the animal" as a whole, which is implied here. Also, you say "early/later" species (which is better) elsewhere in the article, be consistent.
  • "The size difference in the premaxillae are reminiscent of the developed upper lips or proboscis in males of modern mammals like the elephant seal (Mirounga spp.)." So does this imply that only males had proboscises? And since the sentence is only about skull features, it may rather belong in that section.
  • "The nostrils moved from the front of the snout to the top of the snout, similar to seals." Moved seems a bit too ambiguous, maybe "relocated" would make it seem less like it was some kind of ability they had.
  • "The teeth were prism-shaped with a circular cross section, and the teeth interlocked tightly" Second "teeth" redundant.
  • Any published speculation about whether it would have had hair or not?

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "evolved several marine adaptations over the course of 4 to 6.5 million years" - I see mention of 4 million in the text, where is the 6.5 from?
forgot to take that out of the lead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is possible T. antiquus is not the ancestor of T. natans" - is there speculation on what is?
that just means that T. natans might be the beginning of the lineage instead of T. antiquus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest rephrasing to make this clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phrasing it as it is already is closer to the source material's phrasing. Should I still change it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1 formatting doesn't match other refs
that's how we cite fossilworks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIAFA requires that citations be consistently formatted within the article - while that formatting may be consistent with other articles, it isn't consistent with other citations here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2: author names and pagination don't match authoritative source
I think it does though   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't. The surnames of the last two authors are different, and the page range is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see it now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN3: source hyphenates Salas-Gismondi. Similarly FN4 and Carrillo-Briceño
I think a bot took those out, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FN4 is fixed, FN3 is still unhyphenated. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether author initials are spaced
I thought I was   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No - compare for example McDonald's initials in FN2 (spaced) vs 5 (unspaced). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How did you even see that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in which links are archived and how this is formatted
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be - how are you deciding which links get archived? Also FN21 doesn't match the formatting of the other archived links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well a bot comes in and puts in the archive link if a link suddenly goes dead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide months for journal publications - sometimes the source includes it but you don't, other times you do
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is FN8 meant to be the same as FN7?
yes, I don't know where that came from   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Glosbe a high-quality reliable source? online-latin-dictionary.com?
why wouldn't it be? It seems like a pretty legit website   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think makes them seem "legit"? See this page for some guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's an https site and a decently renowned translator   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For both FNs 9 and 10, simply showing that these words exist and are translated in this way, isn't sufficient to source that that's the etymology of the genus name. Similarly for FNs 11 and 12. It's not clear as presented which of the other sources if any do support the etymology
that sounds like an issue for WikiProject Paleontology to handle because I can assure you this is not the only article that does this and it is not a rare occurrence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to start a discussion about this issue there, feel free. However, it presents an issue in this specific article which will impede its ability to meet the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I started a discussion, so we'll see where that goes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN18: treatment of "de" names doesn't match other refs
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One fixed, one not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suck at I Spy. Where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you use sentence or title case for article titles
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still more to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN20 is missing genus italicization
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN16: |PMC= duplicates |url=. Same with FN18, FN21, FN30
they don't though   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They do though. It's the same link. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
none of those have a url parameter specified. If you're referring to the hyperlinked titles, filling in the pmc parameter does that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN21 is missing quite a few authors - if they're omitted purposely some indication of this should be given. Same with FN25
Generally if there're a lot we stop at just 4 but I've gone back and added all of them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN25 is missing page range
it says 543   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source says more. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only citing 543   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN27: second author doesn't match source
but it does though   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now FN26. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see I missed the "r"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN28: last author doesn't match authoritative source
but it does   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now FN27. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The last author listed on the source is Jorge Domingo Carrillo Briceño, therefore the inline should read "Briceño, J. D. C." which it does   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN29: authors don't match source
but they do
Now FN28. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So then who're the authors?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN30: first author doesn't match source
oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Jens Lallensack edit

  • Bahía Inglesa, Coquimbo, and Horcón Formations – Formations must be in lower case here.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. natans–– with a near-complete skeleton – please use the proper Dash#Em_dash, and it should not have a space behind it.
that wasn't there a couple days ago   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remains section could do with a copy edit.
  • Another specimen, a partial skeleton, was described in 2002, MNHN SAS 734, also from the Montemar Horizon. – one example, this needs to be rearranged.
  • nearly-complete – why the hyphen?
Because every time I tried to read it my brain wouldn't connect the two words so I put in a hyphen mainly for my sake   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in honor of the locality – I thought you can only honor persons?
I did not know that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article you linked for "locality" does not contain what you were looking for.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the plural of "femur" is "femora", not "femurs".
I've heard it both ways, but I changed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the remains section comes across as an exhaustive account of known specimens, but it does not mention all specimens.
Do you think the second and third paragraphs of Remains should be deleted? It does seem rather messy and trivial at times to try to mention all, so should I just leave it at holotypes?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You condensed it now. I think it is better this way as it is more balanced. However, it would be good to know which species where discovered in Chile. Also consider adding type localities for all species. If possible, some general information on additional specimens would still be good (e.g., which species are well-represented by complete finds, which ones only by fragmentary ones). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Type localities are already given in the first paragraph, and possibly all species were found in the Chilean formations because there're some remains that don't have a definitive species designation, but narrowed down to two or three possible candidates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and yuacensis in honor of the locality the species was found in, Yuaca.[2] – would be worth pointing out that "Yuaca" is a village.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • also from the Montemar Horizon. – the "also" would only make sense if the Montemar Horizon would have been mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • T. carolomartini from a skull, SMNK PAL 3814, and hands, SMNK PAL 3814, was also described in 2002 – why "also"? Which one is the holotype?
it gives both as the type specimen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. antiquus was described from MUSM 228 in 2003 comprising a skull, jaw, and most of the body, though the body is badly damaged. – The skull is included in the body. Do you mean postcranium?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the sloths were subsequently put into the new subfamily Thalassocninae. – subsequently means "in a later paper", but no new date is given.
  • Thalassocnus were ground sloths that lived from the Late Miocene to the end of the Pliocene–Late Huayquerian to Early Uquian in the SALMA classification–and all five species were discovered in different horizons of the Pisco Formation in Peru. T antiquus was discovered in the Aguada de Lomas Horizon in 7 or 8 million year old strata; T. natans (the type species) from the Montemar Horizon lived around 6 million years ago (mya); T. littoralis from the Sud-Sacaco Horizon lived around 5 mya; T. carolomartini from the Sacaco Horizon lived between 3 and 4 mya; and T. yaucensis from the Yuaca Horizon lived 3 to 1.5 mya.[2] – Source [2] is given for all of this, but there are newer sources from 2017 available that give updated dates (e.g. the 2017 paper you cited).
  • and UNMSM 223, a right femur, was moved from T. natans to T. littoralis in 2005.[4] – here you provide excessive detail while other species, including the type species, were only briefly discussed.
  • why not incorporate the recent review in the book "The Rise of Marine Mammals" by Berta, 2017? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it's very generalist so if I try to stick it anywhere, I'd have to create different and much less detailed sentences before carrying on to the details (creating a redundancy)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to just stick with the holotype specimens for each species in the Remains section. The entire thing was just too messy and excessive. Could you look at it again?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check (Taxonomy section only) edit
  • with a near-complete skeleton, MUSM 433, – which source is saying "near-complete"? The first description states the opposite: partial skeleton.
I don't know why I wrote that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and UNMSM 223, a right femur, was moved from T. natans to T. littoralis in 2005.[4] – can't find this in the source.
I very distinctly remember writing that but I think too much shuffling happened. I'll try to find the right one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Horcón Formation specimen SGO.PV 21545, a foot discovered in 2011, – only two phalanges, not a whole foot, according to the source.
I saw "pes" and moved on I think, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I only went through the "Taxonomy" section. There appear to be too many issues with sourcing, prose, and focus (it partly reads as an incomplete accumulation of details rather than a comprehensive review); I therefore tend to oppose for now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading on – first sentence in "Description": though the ground sloth Eionaletherium from the Miocene of Venezuela may have adapted to nearshore life. – First, "nearshore life" is vague and can mean anything. The question is to what degree it was aquatic or not. Second, the cited source discusses the possibility of it being aquatic, but provides evidence against it. It basically says there is no evidence for an aquatic lifestyle except for the sediments it was found in. To say "may have adapted to nearshore life" does therefore not reflect the source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It says "E. tanycnemius may have independently evolved the ability to live in a near shore aquatic environment," and then it goes on and on about the femur and stuff which I've put in the Eionaletherium article where it belongs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you placed this out of context. This citation is not a conclusion, this is the introduction of a discussion (which you left out). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second round edit
  • though the two T. carolomartini specimens may represent one individual – why have "though" here?
changed to "and"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seashore"; the species name caralomartini is named in – suggest a full stop here, this long sentence is convoluted.
  • mainly based on similarities with the ankle bone. maybe "similarities in the ankle bones"?
it's a single ankle bone   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • however the femur-to-body ratio differs from species to species. – does not attach well to the sentence.
is it better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The skulls show disparity in general size, slenderness of teeth, and slightly shorter premaxillae – shorter than what? Not clear what this is referring to, does not fit to the remainder of the sentence.
Is it better now?
  • males of more recent mammals like the elephant seal (Mirounga spp.) – That is a living species, not a "more recent" one. Remove the "more".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The later Thalassocnus species had enlarged premaxillae and thus had a wider and more elongated snout. – Can't find it in the provided source (#16). It only says more elongated, but not wider?
removed wider   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • indicated by the large size of the infraorbital foramen which supplies blood vessels – again, where is this in source #16?
I very specifically remember reading that but I think maybe too much shuffling happened, so I'll have to find it again
  • were farther inside the head. – you mean "located farther backwards"?
No, it's the internal nostrils so it's where the nasal cavity meets the throat   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • had a predisposition to dense bones and developed it – "it" seems to refer to "dense bones", but the former is singular and the latter plural.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The masseter muscle on the skull was probably main muscle – missing a "the"
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a form of dentine that allows blood. – Unclear to me, allows blood to do what?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The positioning of the teeth and the chewing pattern of earlier species sharpened their teeth. – convoluted wording.
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The teeth show a change of function from cutting food to grinding food. – Unclear. A change from the front teeth to the back teeth? From juveniles to adults? From early species to later species?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dense bones of younger species (pachyosteosclerosis) – this is not precise, pachyosteosclerosis its not only about density but also about thickness. You mingle these two separate things together.
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • however the femur-to-body ratio differs from species to species – this needs explanation. Why is it important that the femur-to-body ratio differs?
I take it to mean "so these estimates may not be completely accurate" but it doesn't specifically say that so that's what I'm left with   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. antiquus had a bone density comparable to terrestrial ground sloths. In later species, the bone grew to be so thick that the medullary cavity – see above, thickness and density are two different things.
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, the limbs made the heaviest contribution to overall skeletal weight. This condition has only been seen in ancient archaeocete whales with reduced limbs – Again, I can't find this in the sources (the claim that archaeocetes are the only other secondary aquatic mammals where limbs make the heaviest contribution to weight).
looks like I misread that, it only says "Such advanced osteosclerosis in hindlimbs was previously documented in ‘archaeocetes’ (early cetaceans)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only read on to the "skull" section. I really do not want to be responsible for any archival, but the article just does not feel ready. There are numerous prose issues. The article is very short considering the huge amount of interesting material that was published. Most of all, however, I often cannot find the info in the cited sources (see above for examples). Because of the latter reason, I can only keep opposing. This appears to be a general issue with the article that is not as easy to fix. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator comment: I'm inclined to archive this as it has been open nearly a month and we have an oppose. Jens Lallensack do you think this is doable within the timeframe of FAC, or would you recommend withdrawing it? Sarastro (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. It's not a long or complicated article, should be doable. Will have a new look later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also return soon, maybe once Jens has had a new look. FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better if you could have a quick look as soon as possible FunkMonk as I would like an idea if this is achievable quickly (i.e. within a few days maximum) or if it would be better to archive this now; you and Jens Lallensack could still look at the article but away from the pressures of FAC. Sarastro (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do over the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not past the taxonomy section, but I see some structural issues that irk me. If there is really a lot of info that has been left out as Jens implies, I think it could need some more work and a peer review. The taxonomy section is already very vague about some details (were specimens already known in the 1960s, why not state it outright?). FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really interesting stuff. Could you include (text will be fine - love the image!) some comparison of size with other members of the sloth family? These seem huge to me, but I have no idea how big they are relative to the rest of the family. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - With standing opposition, not much movement in recent times, and not much expression of support, I'm going to archive this so issues can be handled outside of FAC. You may renominate after the standard two-week period. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2019 [4].

Cretoxyrhina edit

Nominator(s): Macrophyseter | talk 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article only the second article regarding an extinct selachian to be FA-nominated (the other being Megalodon). It is about an extensively-studied large Late Cretaceous mackerel shark Cretoxyrhina. This particular shark has gotten plenty of notability and fame in both the scientific community and the media as the "great white of the Cretaceous", but what I find the most interesting about this shark is about how well-studied and well-understood it is. We know so much about not only the basics of it as a fossil shark, but also the inner workings of its biology thanks to a number of exceptionally-preserved fossil skeletons that have been discovered. It has passed the GA Review and also has received a copy-edit. It covers just about every relevant literature that I can find. This is also my first FA nomination and that I will be away from any internet in the next two days (camping), so I will not be able to respond to anything until them. Macrophyseter | talk 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back edit

FunkMonkJens LallensackCas LiberPraemonitusLingzhiDunkleosteus77 Alright, I'm back. I've responded to much of the comments. Macrophyseter | talk 04:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary inactivity due to final exams edit

FunkMonkJens LallensackCas LiberPraemonitusLingzhi I probably should have said this earlier. I am currently very close to final exams and have been taking time to study for them since a week or two ago, which is why I have not responded to anything at those times. My exams are this week, so I'm giving a notice that I'm going to be inactive in this FAC until they are over by the end of this week. Apologies for the inconvenience, but I'll try to get right back into it when these exams are over. Macrophyseter | talk 23:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand. Thanks for letting us know. Praemonitus (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, I'll continue my review once my comments below have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. I apologize for the absence taking longer than estimated. FunkMonk I've just addressed nearly all of your comments. Dunkleosteus77 Thank you for taking over the activity while I was out! Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review the rest of the article soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • I will have a look soon. As I stated on the talk page, I think you could go into some more details about that Pteranodon feeding association (now it is only a single sentence with very few details). FunkMonk (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • How much more detail of the Pteranodon association would you envision? I'm not sure what I should add, and am kind of hesitant of adding too much details as it might overshadow the other information. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example that it is unknown whether it represents scavenging or hunting, which species of C. is involved, and which formation it is from. Also, the tooth is not embedded in the vertebra: "Though the tooth does not pierce the vertebral periosteum, the intimate association of the fossils—in which the tooth is wedged below the left prezygapophysis—suggests their preservation together was not mere chance". FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added another sentence about how pterosaurs like Pteranodon were probably easy targets for Cretoxyrhina. Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would still seem quite relevant that it is unknown whether it represents hunting or scavenging, as well as the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs some action here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added formation and hunting/scavenging. Macrophyseter | talk 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is generally preferred that the subject of an image should "face" the text, and here I'm thinking of the life restoration. Perhaps it could be right aligned, and some of the other images in the Morphology section left aligned. The shark cross section photo could then be right aligned, so it doens't clash with the headers on the left.
    • I've decided to replace the image with Damouraptor's new restoration (which is much, much better than the current one imo), which faces the opposite direction. So I don't really think any change is needed now. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, moot point now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very long, vertical images also take a lot of space (which makes image placement less flexible), perhaps add the upright parameter without any number, so that they become smaller in general.
  • Kazakhstan and white shark are WP:duplinked.
  • "may have also provided competition." Needs citation.
    • They have citation, but I cited each reference to the certain competitors behind their names as I believe it would be a bit more confusing to cite them all under "may have also provided competition" as it would give the impression that all the sources mention all mentioned in each of them although they don't. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing I wonder about, though, do those sources specifically mention competition with Cretoxyrhina? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread the sources. The paper regarding Dwardius does say that there is likely competition between it and Cretoxyrhina. The abstract itself even says, "The strong numerical dominance of either Cretoxyrhina or Dwardius in late late Albian to early Cenomanian selachian faunas indicates competitive exclusion in these similar-sized, apex predatory sharks." However, it turns out that the paper citing Cardabiodon doesn't actually say anything about competition between the two, but merely that they probably both shared similar ecological roles as apex predators. I've decided to modify the sentence to mention Cardabiodon but not say that it may have provided competition while stating that Dwardius does and we have evidence of it. Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes need citations too.
    • Added. Do you think footnote b seems too obvious to note?
No, statements like "Although this is a clear misspelling" are too strong to be left uncited. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's already cited under ref 13 (Cahuzac et al., 2007). Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be written in US English (paleo), but you also say "metres", which should be fixed throughout. Probably due to the conversion template (you can add a parameter so it uses US spelling).
  • You don't seem to have added this nomination to the FAC list[5], it seems.
  • "by the famous" A bit too loaded.
  • "with the then Oxyrhina hastalis, Oxyrhina xiphodon, and Oxyrhina desorii" A bit cryptic, you could make it clearer by saying "with the three species then classified in Oxyrhina, O. x, O. y, and O. z."
  • Link Oxyrhina. Perhaps state it is now a synonym of something else.
  • "and placed the shark under the taxon Oxyrhina mantelli" Seems a bit indirect, why not just "sicnetifically named it Oxyrhina mantelli", and why not add "in honour of Mantell?
  • "the third volume of Recherches sur les poissons fossiles" Might as well give the date too.
    • Date of original publication? I can't find any record of the exact date, just the year, which I added. However, in the volume there is a specific date on the preface, however I am not certain if that is the date of publication or merely the date Agassiz wrote that preface. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but since you cite it as well, the date must be known? What do other papers that cite it give as date? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, the papers simply cite the years of publications of all the volumes (1833-1843), with some of them also citing the year of the volume used, although not always specifying which volume. Apparently, Quenstedt (1963) titled "Louis Agassiz: Recherches sur les poissons fossiles (1833-1843 "Tableau general":1844)" is said to have the "dates for publication of individual parts" by Lindgren et al (2013). However, I am unable to locate a copy online and the only way I know and to get it is that I have to get it from one of few universities that own a copy (which I physically cannot do). Macrophyseter | talk 07:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "describe numerous species that are now synonymized as Cretoxyrhina." Species are not synonyms of genera, so perhaps specify "that are now synonymous with Cretoxyrhina species", or mention mantelli specifically.
  • "According to some, there may have been as much as almost 30 different synonyms of Cretoxyrhina at the time" Likewise.
  • There is also an issue of chronology, I wonder if it's best not to use the name Cretoxyrhina until the part of the text where it is actually named? For example, sentences like the following are a bit misleading, because they use a name that was not yet in use: "This all changed with the discoveries of a number of exceptionally well-preserved skeletons of C. mantelli".
    • Based on the scientific papers I've read, when dealing with a taxonomic mess such as a generic dispute, some authors prefer to refer the species by the original scientific name. Although I don't see this being done when laying out the taxonomic history of an undisputed species, I could try that and see which the general audience (in this case you?) would find least confusing. I also removed the direct mention of species or replacing them by terms like "the shark" as an alternative to ease some of the uncomfortableness. Macrophyseter | talk 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a judgement call of course, and up to you in the end. In Stegoceras, for example, I did it chronologically (so that when the species included were moved to Troodon, I refer to them as such afterwards, until Stegoceras is resurrected again). In Istiodactylus, I use the original genus name Ornithodesmus, until the new genus is named. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could spell out and present Charles R. Eastman (he does have a German Wikipedia page) first time outside the quote.
  • "and consist of a partial vertebral column" Consists.
  • "of a "Portheus" (Xiphactinus audax)" Do we really need that many confusing taxonomic details about another species here? I would just give the current classification.
  • Perhaps you could mention specimen numbers of some of the important skeletons in the history section; since you only give the numbers in later sections and captions, it is now hard to correlate them.
    • Fixed. Also, the new sources cited are from museum databases that seem to lack a few information for citation including year. The KUVP database itself is a virtual program so I am unable to provide a link that directly leads to the cited specimen although I have found (and used as the url for the citation) that I can write instructions onto the link without causing interference. Do you have any advice on how to cite these properly? Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a personal opinion maybe, but I usually find it frustrating that etymologies are not given in the text when the naming of a new taxon is mentioned. Now you have it grouped in an "etymology" section, but I wonder if it would make more chronological sense to distribute it to the relevant parts of the history section. For example after: "and erected the genus Cretoxyrhina". Adding etymologies to these sentences would also make more logical sense to me: "He separated the taxon from Oxyrhina and erected the genus Cretoxyrhina.[14][19] He also identified a second species of Cretoxyrhina based on some of the earlier Cretoxyrhina teeth which he named Cretoxyrhina denticulata".
    • In my personal opinion, while I would find it okay if done with one or two names, I find it a bit awkward to read when placing the etymologies of each scientific name directly with its mention of coinage. It could be because my reading differs from others, but I'd like to see how others would prefer first. Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an extension of this, I wonder if the taxonomy section should become a subsection of the history section. They seem to be somewhat arbitrarily split now (the history section deals with naming and placement of new species and genera, hence taxonomy).
  • "Zhelezko (2000)" Present with full name and occupation.
  • "This species would also be moved into Cretoxyrhina" By who and when?
  • "shed new light on the understandings of the shark and, through his new methods, other extinct animals." Is an "and" missing here?
  • "meaning "from Agassiz", named after Lake Agassiz where the species was discovered" It might be worth noting that the Lake itself was named after Louis Agassiz, which is kind of mind blowing, since he named the type species too...
    • Funny that I originally had mentioned that but I cut it out during GA Review because at the time I failed to find a source for it. I guess it's time to bring it back up! Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, just needs a "the": "Coincidentally, lake itself". FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The common name Ginsu shark is a reference to the Ginsu knife" By who and when? I guess it is a relatively recent name.
    • Huh, I thought its origins was mentioned, maybe I somehow cut it out during GA Review. Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vraconian substage of the Albian stage" Links needed. Also goes for many other geological times mentioned in the article.
  • There are a lot of bald statements without attribution under Phylogeny and evolution. For example "These species represents a chronospecies" and everything in the paragraph, and "Cretoxyrhina is most like the modern great white shark" and so on.
  • Also, it is still very inconsistent whether you give full names or not to authors mentioned. You should check this throughout the article.
    • I've revised the mention of studies to name of authors and year unless the author is repeated. However, I've noticed that it feels awkward to mention occupation as the occupation is mostly the same and it gets a bit repetitive.Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tooth size peaks around 86 Ma during the latest Coniacian and then begins to slowly decline" Why sudden change in tense?
  • "by Isurus appendiculatus (Cretolamna appendiculata), which evolved into Isurus denticulatus[c] in the Mid-Cenomanian, then Isurus mantelli (Cretoxyrhina mantelli)" Seems confusing with all these alternate names without explanations. You should state specifically if it is because this particular study referred to the species that way.
  • "The study claims that the absence of corresponding fossils during the Maastrichtian (72-66 Ma) was not a result" Unnecessary present tense. Arbitrary tense shifts seem to happen a lot, check throughout.
  • "Traditionally, Cretoxyrhina is grouped within the Cretoxyrhinidae" Any reason why you lump together the entire history of classification until recently in one sentence?
    • When I wrote the article, I planned to restrict the phylogeny and evolution section to include only the arguments and theories are that still relevant and or under debate today with previous historical understandings of such being put in Research History. Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you jump from the affinities of the genus to discussion of chronospecies, but then back to affinities of the genus again. Perhaps better to order it so that the two paragraphs on affinities succeed each other.
  • The life restoration could state what it is based on in the Commons description page.
    • I hope Damouraptor doesn't get mad at me for altering his work (haha) Macrophyseter | talk 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link terms like Tylosaurus and Cretodus in then image captions.
  • "Taxons" should be "taxa". FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diagnostic characteristics" You need to explain what this means, or use simpler wording (distinguishing features).
  • "closely spaced apart" closely apart seems a bit contradictory. Is "apart" even needed here?
    • Removed the "apart"
  • "The lingual side of the tooth, the side facing the mouth" That seems a bit ambiguous, why not just "inwards" or "facing inside the mouth"?
  • "Juveniles possess lateral cusplets in all teeth,[26] and C. vraconensis consistently retain then in adulthood." Seems odd to say this in present tense, also should be "them" instead of "then".
  • "However, lateral cusplets are only retained up to the lateral teeth in adulthood in C. denticulata and C. agassizensis and only up to the posterior teeth in C. mantelli" Also seems strange in present tense. You are describing it as if this development currently occurs.
    • I think it was because I thought "well, the teeth still exist in its form and all". Macrophyseter | talk 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "height in average" On?
  • "thanks to fossil skeletons like FHSM VP-2187, which consisted of a near-complete" On the other hand, here past tense seems odd, since the specimen still exists.
  • "Other C. mantelli skeletons, such as KUVP-247 and KUVP-69102, also included partial jaws with some teeth in their natural positions, some of which were not present in more complete skeletons like FHSM VP-2187." Likewise. Very odd you describe existing things in past tense and extinct things in present.
  • "the dental formula was reconstructed by Shimada (1997), which is" I'd say it was, especially since the succeeding sentence going into details about this is in past tense.
    • I think the reason I keep getting the tense mixed up here because I thought that the dental formula is a model made by scientists and still existing, while the tooth makeup (explained by the dental formula) is from a dead shark. It's possible I keep confusing model and fossil regarding tense. Macrophyseter | talk 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a flat dorsal and a wide skull" Dorsal what? Dorsally flat?
  • "The rostrum does not extend much forward from the frontal margin of the braincase, suggesting that the snout is blunt" Again, "was blunt" makes more sense because you are referring to how it might have been, not how it is.
    • I guess I was thinking "well, the model of the shark still exists, so use present tense" at those times. Macrophyseter | talk 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. mantelli had proportionally large eyes" Here you use past tense, which seems best. But right after, you say "The jaws of C. mantelli are kinetically powerful." I think you should read through the entire biology section (if not the entire rest of the article) and look for inconsistencies like this, it seems quite messy now.
  • Last point on this until I come back "The hyomandibula is elongated and is believed to swing laterally" I doubt it will ever swing again. So keep this in mind when deciding tense.
    • So at this point the only errors from now on that I'd need to fix would be grammatical mistakes?
I still need to read past the description section (going slow, as I mainly do this at work, hehe). FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Besides C. mantelli, the only fossil representation of Cretoxyrhina is in teeth and vertebra." Not entirely sure what is meant here. Perhaps say "other species in the genus are only represented by" if that's what you mean.
    • Changed to "Most species of Cretoxyrhina are only represented by fossil teeth and vertebra".Macrophyseter | talk 23:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had a lunate tail" Most people won't know what this means. You could explain in parenthesis, or reword.
  • "transition to tail vertebrae, the vertebrae that make up the tail" That should go without saying unless you had started with "caudal vertebrae". Also, state what they transition from (dorsals I guess?).
  • You mention scales, but not that skin has been preserved?
  • "represents one of the earliest forms and origins of endothermy" Origins even? If it isn't ancestral to the rest, what is meant here?
  • "sharks like sharks of the thresher shark" Do you need this many "sharks" in a sentence? You could just say something like "members of the thresher shark family" etc.
  • "compared to ectothermic sharks" As you explain the other metabolisms, this should be too.
  • "This morphological build allows the shark to be partially warm-blooded,[45] allowing it to function efficiently in the colder environments Cretoxyrhina has been found in." Is double "allowed" needed? Why not just "and" the second time? Also, there's some strange tense stuff here. When you say "he shark", do you mean sharks in general, or this particular genus? If the former, you could be more general, like saying "a shark".
  • "Cobb's angle" Could be explained.
  • "and is only found in white sharks for sharks." Pretty clunky, how about "and among sharks, is only found in the white shark?
  • "was ovoviviparous as all modern mackerel sharks are. In ovovivipary" Link ovovivipary at the first instead of second mention.
  • Link porbeagle shark and any other species mentioned that are not yet linked.
  • "of well-preserved vertebra" Vertebrae.
  • "The study also identified a syntype tooth of C. mantelli from England and calculated a maximum length of 8 meters (26 ft), making the tooth the largest known specimen yet" This seems odd. Surely the length of the tooth has been known since it was found? I guess it is the living individual, snd not the tooth itself, that is the longest? Or also the tooth? In that case, it would have been known already?
  • "Many fossils with Cretoxyrhina feeding marks show no sign of healing, leading to the possibility that at least some of the feeding marks were made from scavenging." Or that the prey just died?
  • "As most of these fossils show no signs of healing, if they were indeed a result of predation" Seems a bit repetitive following the above?
  • "(which is most similar with Cretoxyrhina in morphology and ecological role)" if that's true, why is it just mentioned in passing all the way down there, and not mentioned under description and more prominently under palaeobiology?
  • "As Cretoxyrhina possess a robust stocky build capable of fast swimming, powerful kinetic jaws like the great white shark, and reaches lengths" why present tense?
  • You say both white and great white shark, I wonder if it should be consistent.
  • " Notable locations include North America, Europe,[58] Israel,[59] and Kazakhstan.[7]" what makes the latter two notable, compared to everywhere else?
  • "possibly 9 meters (30 ft)." shouldn't this be stated in the section that deals with size then?
  • The culture section is pretty weak (sourcing as well), I think it could be cut.
  • "that it may have, on occasion, swam into partially fresh-water" Not a native Anglophone, but shouldn't this be "swum"?
  • "was likely to have faced heavy competition with Squalicorax falcatus, Squalicorax kaupi, and Tylosaurus spp., but was unlikely to face competition from other predators such as Platecarpus spp. or Xiphactinus spp.." Based on what?
  • Are there size estimates for all species which could be aded?

Sources review edit

  • Ref 3: link does not seem to go to the stated source article. I'm getting a message, in French: "Lien permanent vers cette page" and an "address blocked" pop-up
    • Probably site got banned at your location, because it works fine for me even using different IP sources. Still changed to an alternative link. Macrophyseter | talk 08:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6: 1159=1181 should presumably be 1159–1181
  • Ref 14: p. range is whole book. Can you be more specific?
    • Specified. But when citing books you're only supposed to cite the pages that you are sourcing from contrary to journals which cites the pages of the paper's place in the journal? Macrophyseter | talk 08:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37: source is student thesis
I think the question with this and the dissertation below is whether they are considered reliably published sources. I have used theses too, and though it is iffy, if they are cited and discussed in peer reviewed published papers, it would establish their importance. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason not to cite PhD theses (though Bachelor and Master theses are a different matter). PhD theses are high quality sources and are frequently cited by other academic papers; we cannot ignore them. We could think about indicating the type of source in the text though (e.g., "in a 2003 PhD thesis, …"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it extremely awkward to say "in a 2003 thesis" as the information it is citing is too brief and trivial to give that much treatment (I'm only citing the brief mention of the length of Kronosaurus) Macrophyseter | talk 03:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Kronosaurus, mentioning its length seems kind of random, as it didn't seem to live alongside Cretoxyrhina. Is there a reason for mentioning its size in particular? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 42: publisher information missing. Top Predator Publishing Company
  • Ref 55: publisher information incomplete. ISBN links to a specific book publication
  • Ref 58: give date rather than year of publication
  • Ref 62: source is student dissertation
    • Isn't it already cited as one? (Wikipedia citation templates treats dissertations as a type of thesis) Macrophyseter | talk 08:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 70: What makes ThoughtCo. a high-quality reliable source?
    • I had doubts about it myself, but my GA Reviewer thought that the author of the cited articles could be reliable as he was a well-known paleontologist and an author of three books related to that field. If that still doesn't cut it, I'm happy to remove the section altogether. Macrophyseter | talk 08:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the above, sources seem to be of appropriate scholarly quality and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack edit

  • Interesting topic. However, the prose is not yet of the high quality expected for a FA. I did a copy edit to the lead trying to resolve some imminent issues there [6]. I may go on with the remainder of the article, but it takes time, of which I currently have very little; I thus cannot promise anything right now. If you could get a good copy-edit, that would be awesome. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and look at copyediting in the next day or so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Cas Liber edit

looking now....

  • ...as a close relative of the then three species and named in honor of Mantell - does losing this lose any meaning?
"as a close relative of the then three species" is implied since he classified them all into the same genus, but "named in honor of Mantell" should be kept so I went and did that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In para 2 of Research history - if we make the first sentence mention the 30 synonyms we can delete the last sentence of the paragraph (reduce redundancy)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus edit

Support: Thanks for addressing my concerns. It looks good now. Praemonitus (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found most of the article to be a decent read, with the exception of the lead. For me it has too much of a "gee whiz" tone. The first two paragraphs need to adopt more neutral tone and the apparent hyperbole and unnecessary vagueness needs to be cleaned up.

  • "The common name of the type species, C. mantelli, is the Ginsu shark, first popularized in reference to its theoretical feeding methods being comparable to that of the rapid slicing and dicing when using a Ginsu knife." This sentence is an awkward read. Can it be improved?
is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat. The "rapid slicing and dicing" seems to be a reference to a Ginsu knife advertising campaign, which may not be familiar to some readers. Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like there are instances of unnecessary vagueness, redundancy, and/or hyperbole in the lead: "many exceptionally well-preserved skeletons", "most extreme hydrodynamic features", "powerfully kinetic", "very large eyes", and "grew extremely rapidly". In all of these cases, relative to what?

Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with "exceptionally well-preserved skeletons" but I don't know what's meant by "powerfully kinetic jaws" as if it's opposed to "powerfully static jaws," and "most extreme" is definitely too much. The other ones it seems to me clear it's in reference to other sharks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in the context of comparing to other sharks then, what's the difference between "very large eyes" and "large eyes", or between "grew extremely rapidly" and "grew rapidly"? It reads like WP:PUFFERY. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Modified the lead to remove the puffery. Macrophyseter | talk 16:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi edit

  • 19 instances of "CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al." If you wanna limit the number of authors, you can use the display-authors parameter.
well I filled in all the et al's   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 instances of "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a bot for that that goes around and fills all them in?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: We have a lot of unaddressed commentary here; I am aware that the nominator has been inactive, but if we don't start to see something happening in a day or two, it may be better to archive this and renominate when the nominator has more time available. Sarastro (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to fill in minor grammar and syntax things like above until the nominator comes back   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Sorry for not being back sooner, I've been busier than expected. After seven weeks, we have only attracted one support, and I don't really see a consensus that this meets the FA criteria yet. Given the length of time this has sat here, it is better to archive now. The best course of action would be for the nominator to work with FunkMonk, who is finding a lot of issues, away from FAC. That way, when this is renominated, most of the work will have been done already and we should hopefully have an easier ride. Those who have reviewed here can be pinged when the article is renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2019 [7].

Mahavira edit

Nominator(s): Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 13:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last God of Jainism, a level-4 vital article. There has been a lot of improvement since last nomination and GOCE has performed CE on it as well. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 13:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

Pedantically, there's an open peer review request, which is contrary to FAC nomination policy. But opposing on that ground is bureaucracy for its own sake, and the article has real concerns. Normally, I look mostly at sources, source use, and reference formatting. That's a problem here, too. Right off the top: the article uses a mixture of cite family and citation templates, linking is a mess, there's at least one unused source, some entries have missing essential information, and modern reprints of older or religious publications are treated incorrectly.) But that's hardly the biggest reason to oppose promotion. This article has been soundly rejected at FAC three times previously, all for fundamentally the same reason, and that reason is still evident in the article being nominated now. The prose does not distinguish between the historical personage of Mahavira and the Jain mythic figure of Mahjavira. As a result, it expresses religious statements as statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Examining only the lead:

  • Mahavira, also known as Vardhamāna, was the twenty-fourth tirthankara (ford-maker) who revived Jainism. The entire concept of the "twenty-fourth tirthankara" is a religious one being presented as fact; I have no idea what is meant by the claim that he "revived" Jainism. Okay, technically, I do, but a lay reader won't. And the claim being made here in Wikipedia's voice is not an uncontroversial one; the historicity of Parshvanatha is complicated and... anyway, this sentence in the lead is inadequate at best at addressing the issue. As an aside, so is the body of the article.
  • The next several sentences are all about the religious interpretation of Mahavira's life. That's fine for what it is, but that needs to be more clearly separated from discussion of Mahavira's historicity.
  • Scholars such as Karl Potter consider his biography uncertain; some suggest that he lived in the 5th century BC, contemporaneously with the Buddha. Failure of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Potter is not mentioned in the article body. Also, I'm fairly sure that in the historical sense, we should be referring to "Siddhārtha Gautama" or "Gautama Buddha", rather than "the Buddha".
  • Mahavira attained nirvana at the age of 72, and his body was cremated. Immediately before this was text discussing the historical Mahavira, so the natural assumption is that this sentence is also. Historical people do not "attain[] nirvana". They die.
  • After attaining Kevala Jnana... A new paragraph in the lead means that there is no reader guidance regarding the nature of the information about to presented, so the default assumption is that the statements are to be read in Wikipedia's voice. It is not acceptable to claim that a historical figure attained omniscience in Wikipedia's voice.

And so forth. Things do not improve after the lead.

I am very sorry to be this aggressively opposed to a nomination. especially one whose editors have obviously put in a lot of time and effort. But this does not meet the FA standard. It does not meet the GA standard. This article needs to be fundamentally restructured. It needs careful source evaluation to differentiate authors discussing Mahavira as an aspect of the Jain religion versus authors that discuss Mahavira's historicity, and to ensure that mytho-religious claims are not being presented in Wikipedia's voice. The other issues, like the mess of its current reference formatting, are all very much secondary. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Although I think the article has improved since we last saw it here, based on the concerns identified above I can only repeat my closing comments from the previous FAC; as part of that, it may be worthwhile simply leaving the active PR open and seeking out comments from relevant wikiprojects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Mike Christie via FACBot (talk) 9 February 2019 [8].

1989 (Taylor Swift album) edit

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 1989, the album that effectively eliminates the Country Princess reputation of American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift and transforms her image into a pop star. After excessive trimming and adding appropriate information, I believe the article is now ready for the gold star. I would like to hear all comments regarding the existing problems so that I can address them. Thank you! HĐ (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • For this part (Songwriting process for the album began in 2013,), I believe it should be “The songwriting process” instead. The same comment applies for this sentence (Songwriting process for Red's follow-up began concurrently with the commencement of the world tour.) in the body of the article.
  • I don't think "The" is needed because the recording/songwriting process is not something the reader already knows (Pardon my clumsy explanation, but I believe grammatically speaking the current wording is okay. Correct me if I'm wrong :)
  • Thank you for the explanation. I will leave that up to other editors. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The lyrics mainly address), I would remove “mainly” as I do not believe it is necessary.
  • Romance is the main theme, but this does not apply to all songs as explained in later sentences. Fixed
  • For the body of the article, I believe you have to use Taylor Swift’s full name and wikilink it upon the first mention in the article (i.e. Swift's fourth studio album Red was released in 2012 to commercial success, debuting atop the Billboard 200 with first-week sales of 1.2 million copies.) as the lead and the body of the article are treated separatedly (i.e. things must be linked in both).
  • Done
  • For this part (that was inspired by pop music of the 1980s), I am uncertain about how helpful the wikilink really is, as I would believe that 1980s pop music is rather diverse (similar to how today’s pop music can have several different styles/approaches). The same comment applies to the use of the link in the lead.
  • I think the link gives readers a glance of how music evolved in the 80s. The detailed inspiration for Swift's album is already explained in the article (experimentalism with synths, drums etc.)
  • I do not see how the image of Swift performing “Wildest Dreams” is really relevant to the “Music and lyrics” section. Same goes for the “Commercial performance” section. Both images seem rather disconnected from the topics being discussed in that section (which really has nothing to do with her live performances).
  • Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the photo in the "Commercial performance" section. While the photo in "Music and lyrics" section may be irrelevant, I would like to keep it because the article is a long read, and I can't find other means to effectively accompany the article.
  • Pop music is linked multiple times in the article, both (incorporating more pop-oriented styles) and (1989 is a pop album that features).
  • Done
  • For this part (The album was released), I am not sure a link to a section in the same article is particularly helpful.
  • Removed
  • You have "Billboard 200" linked twice in the body of the article.
  • Removed
  • I found this sentence (While promoting 1989, Swift had tie-ins with Subway, Keds, Target and Diet Coke.) in the main Taylor Swift article. Should these promotional tie-ins be mentioned here as well?
  • Added

Overall, wonderful work with the article. It is a little strange to think that this album was released almost five years ago at this point. Makes me feel super ancient lol. Either way, once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks so much for the comments. They were really helpful assisting the article's refining process. I revisited the album the other day and felt so old too, lmao. I have addressed your comments above, please feel free to add further comments/suggestions :) — HĐ (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. Reading through this article made me revisit the album as well, and I honestly still enjoy it. I support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC on a much less popular topic? Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Nick-D edit

Sorry, but this article isn't ready for FA at present. I'm concerned about it being taken straight to FA after a new version was posted four days ago, especially as it's a reasonably high-profile article covering a well known album by a major music star. As a result, I'm not confident that FA criterion 1e (in regards to stability) is currently met. It would have been helpful for the article to have gone through some combination of a peer review and GA nomination, which could have helped to address the concerns voiced in the nomination statement that the article may still have problems - FA is not really a venue for problem-solving.

Reading randomly-selected parts of the article also shows that the prose is not presently of FA standard. The key problem is that the article frequently uses constructions which are well suited to lightweight news articles, but aren't really suitable for encyclopedia articles. This often leads to a lack of precision, and greatly over-frequent use of the passive voice. Some examples to demonstrate this concern include:

  • " The album was noted for its mild departure from Swift's signature country sound" - noted by whom, and if Swift was doing something different, did she really have a "signature" sound?
  • Fixed to active voice. And Swift's "signature" country sounds were widely acknowledged by music critics
  • "During this time, the "America's Sweetheart" reputation of Swift was suffering from what The New York Times addressed as "a backlash"" - "addressed" isn't the right word here
  • Fixed
  • "The singer remained silent amidst intense media scrutiny" - read literally, this means that she didn't talk to anyone at all, which I suspect isn't the case.
  • "At the 2013 American Music Awards backstage in Los Angeles, Swift revealed" - had this previously been hidden?
  • "Swift confirmed in February 2014 that she was working again with Max Martin and Shellback" - had this previously been the subject of debate or speculation which needed to be "confirmed" one way or the other?
  • "They produced the majority of the album" - this seems needlessly imprecise given that liner notes, etc, are usually very specific about who did what.
  • I have revised the "Background and Production" section
  • "The album mainly addresses the emotions and reflections ensued from romantic relationships, Swift's common theme, and therefrom occasionally expresses self-reinvention" - this sentence is over-complex.
  • Done
  • " At 5 PM ET on August 18, via a Yahoo! live stream at the rooftop of the Empire State Building, Swift ultimately revealed the then-anticipated album's details, including the title 1989, cover artwork, and release date; the cover is a Polaroid picture with the words "T. S. 1989" written underneath, and the release date was expected to be October 27" - likewise, this is a very complex sentence, which also contains excessive detail.
  • " The Los Angeles Times' writer Randy Lewis expressed that this strategy was to ensure Swift's audiences would continue to support her following the singer's decision to eschew her signature country styles" - passive voice.
  • "the media predicted that the incident would not affect sales nonetheless" - only one news story is then referred to, not "the media", and the story states that "music experts" believed that this wouldn't harm sales which seems more useful.

I'm also concerned that the article only currently references online news stories and websites. Searching Google Scholar for articles and books on Taylor Swift since 2015 [9] produces some academic articles which discuss this album (including specific songs) and Swift during the era in which she recorded and toured it. As such, I'm also not confident that criterion 1c (well-researched) is also currently met. Nick-D (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Hi, thanks for your input. Regarding criterion 1e (stability), the article's content had been badly neglected (with edits mostly concentrated on chart positions/data etc.). The contents I edited, mostly focused on Composition/Development/Critical reception, are sourced and verifiable, so I don't think there will be an edit war. Regarding criterion 1c (well-researched), several academic journals have been written on Swift herself, but results for the album in specific show the otherwise, and even so-called academic articles utilize online sources as well. Given the album has been released within five years' time, online news/analyses are sufficient at the time being. Regarding the prose, I have addressed your comments above and will revise the article. — HĐ (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that edit wars are likely, but the natural evolution of re-writes has not yet taken place, and you are effectively asking FA reviewers who don't have specific knowledge of this topic to consider the article before readers and editors with a deep interest in it have had a go at the text. The prose examples I noted above are examples. To be frank, the text is not in state which warrants a full read through for consideration of whether it meets the FA critera at present. I'm not sure why you're dismissing those sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not against academic sources. But as much as I want to include academic sources in the article, the pieces I have read so far all reiterate what has been stated on online reviews/websites that one can easily access to. Therefore I think that the lack of academic papers does not affect the inclusion of information. After all, the current article contains all necessary information for readers compared to fellow FAs on contemporary music albums that I used to model this article on. — HĐ (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for withdrawal edit

  • @Laser brain: I would like to have the nomination withdrawn as I'll be getting extremely busy with future school exams. Will bring this for GAN firsthand and reconsider for future FAC. Thank you in advance, — HĐ (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/February_2019&oldid=885503699"