Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2023

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2023 [1].

Battle of Cirta edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another episode from the Second Punic War. Carthage's position in North Africa unravels further as the Romans take out one of their main allies. This has recently been through GAN and I believe that it may reach the high standards of FAC. See what you think.

As Sturmvogel 66 pointed out at GAN, the article title may be better changed to meet the current content. This article includes all that is known, and probably ever will be, about the battle of Cirta. But that still makes it a minority of the prose. I believe that the whole episode is notable and worthy of an article, but perhaps "Masinissa's defeat of Syphax"? (Following the example of the FA Hamilcar's victory with Naravas.) Or perhaps I am wrong. Opinions on this, or anything else which catches your eye, are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias edit

  • Quick initial comment: tidy up the distance measurements, there is a mix of "imperial (metric)" and "metric (imperial)". Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh. That's me taking them from different sources and not using my brain. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, I definitely have issues with the scope of this article. You mention in your introduction to this FAC that you're not sure if the title is appropriate, given the relative length of the article and the battle, and I think that is an issue. To me, this reads like a campaign article. I note that below, AirshipJungleman29 contemplates a merge with Battle of the Great Plains and Battle of Utica (203 BC), and it is easy to see where that desire comes from. In my opinion, this level of detail would be more suitable to a campaign article for the closing stages of the Second Punic War taking place in Africa, then allowing the Utica, Great Plains, Cirta and Zuma articles to be somewhat more concise. At GA, discussions of scope are quite hand-wavy. At FA, in my opinion, this misses the mark, and fails Criterion #4, length. The main topic of this article as presented in the title and the lead is the Battle of Cirta, but that isn't what the tone and balance of the rest of the article focus on. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question (maybe comments) from Airship edit

This might be a somewhat controversial/silly question, but could this article be merged with Battle of the Great Plains and Battle of Utica (203 BC) to form one big article? For all three, the background/prelude sections are identical, and the dedicated battle sections are comparatively small; I note that in Second Punic War the entire episode is summarized in one and a half sentences. They seem more components of a notable campaign rather than three individually significant battles. Of course, feel free to refuse emphatically. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, but in my opinion no. Obviously with anything like this there is scope for difference between lumpers and splitters, but all HQ RSs covering either the campaign or the war treat the battles of Utica and the Great Plains as distinctly separate. Similarly for the wider Masinissa-Syphax conflict. And Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, especially when the bit you are referring to was written by an idiot. In so far as you are seeing a problem, it may be in my overdoing the background/prelude sections or not sufficiently individualising them, but that is one of the things an FAC is for. The two battles you mention were, of course, components of a notable campaign; as Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge were components of the Siegfried Line campaign ... I assume you would be lobbying to also roll Battle of Zama into this new campaign article? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this reply is intended for both of us. I personally wasn't advocating for the merge; I think the Great Plains and Utica articles should definitely exist. It just seemed like the way this article was written was more like a campaign article than a battle article. If you want to keep this article to the Battle of Cirta, then the overall length of the Background, Prelude and Invasion of Africa sections needs to be reduced significantly. We've had this argument plenty of times before, of course. For example though, the Prelude section would typically provide information on the forces directly before the battle, but here it is being used to give that information prior to the invasion of Africa, which is part of what gives the appearance that the focus of this article is in the Invasion of Africa, rather than the Battle of Cirta. That section focuses quite heavily on Scipio, who didn't even take part in Cirta directly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^^ What he said. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You raise good points. I have been looking at the article too narrowly.
  • @FAC coordinators: Given that no reviews as such have taken place, would it be permissible for me to withdraw this article to continue discussing its scope off-FAC and to immediately nominate another in its stead? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine by me, Gog -- maybe a common-or-garden-variety battle with no potential scope issues...? (Yes, naughty corner time)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 February 2023 [2].

Terminator 2: Judgment Day edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1991 science fiction action film that pretty much defines Arnold Schwarzenegger's career. Easily one of the greatest action films and science fiction tales of all time that created THREE iconic characters, an insane feat. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by TompaDompa edit

I may or may not find the time to give this a more thorough look later, but for now I have a couple of notes:

  • It is in general a good idea, when dealing with articles about films, to try to use photos of actors that are fairly close in time to the film itself. People age, after all. All photos of actors in this article are from between 2009 and 2019, i.e. between 18 and 28 years after the film was released. The actors all look very different from how they look in the film. I realize that it might not be entirely easy to find better images for all of them, but at least for Schwarzenegger it should not be a tall order.
  • There are no fewer than 7 images that are just photographs of people. Adding more photographs of people rather quickly runs into diminishing returns, and this is past that point. At minimum, there should not be two photos of Patrick.
  • The "Cultural influence" section is a bit dubious in terms of MOS:POPCULT (or equivalently, WP:PROPORTION). Examples of references to T2 in other media should come from sources about T2, not sources about the media the references appear in.
  • "included in the 2013 film reference book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" – the 2013 edition was not the only or the first edition it appeared in. To the best of my knowledge, it has appeared in every single edition.

TompaDompa (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made most of these changes, the only thing in the Cultural influence section that seems relevant to your comment is the one sentence about references to it in other media, which doesn't seem undue, it's a single sentence referring other popular IP that took influence from it. Unfortunately youre not going to find many reliable sources that talk about T2 and bring up external media references unless it's to do with the Simpsons hedge meme. It seems a proportionate and fair amount of content toward that topic, it's certainly not an In Popular Culture section. As for pictures, anything from the actual time period is not going to be free to use because any photos taken back then are going to be 99% professional photographers, I've gone as contemporary as I can possibly go while not using images that are fuzzy or facing out of the article. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources about T2 don't bring up external media references, covering them in this article is out of WP:PROPORTION by definition, really. It seems reasonable to me to mention Patrick's cameo in Wayne's World and the Stallone poster in Last Action Hero (even if the sourcing is not the strongest), but "Terminator 2: Judgment Day has been referenced to in a variety of media, including television (including American Dad, Rick and Morty, Stranger Things, and The Simpsons), films (including Ready Player One and Scream 2), and video games (including Cyberpunk 2077, Doom, Grand Theft Auto Online, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, and Mortal Kombat 11)." is just a laundry list. The Black Panther: Wakanda Forever stuff is also questionable and comes off as an example of WP:RECENTISM. TompaDompa (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the Black Panther 2 reference is recentism. I would generally include references to filmmakers who said they were influenced by a film or who rated it highly but finding those types of sources is not easy as it's generally not the focus of an interview, just a one off question some filmmakers get asked (such as Spielberg's recent comments on The Dark Knight), but Coogler states clearly that T2 was a big influence on his film, which is a big film in a significant franchise and demonstrates its lasting influence on filmmakers over 30 years later. I've removed the links to the other references, although some of them, such as The Simpsons and Family Guy have done fairly extensive parodies of the film.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa ping Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like Black Panther 2 is the only film where creators have acknowledged being inspired or influenced by T2. Feige said so of Captain Marvel. Steven Caple Jr. said so of Transformers: Rise of the Beasts. Hideo Kojima said so of Metal Gear Solid 2 (though that's a video game). That's just from a few minutes of Googling. I would be looking for high-quality sources that say that the film has been influential (more broadly) rather than sources saying that XYZ was influenced by T2. TompaDompa (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What terms did you use to find those? I have beefed up the section about its influence, there is already an existing section about its influence on visual effects. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was "Terminator 2" "influenced by", "Terminator 2" "inspiration from", and similar variations. TompaDompa (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some searches based on those but not come up with anything explicit to individual persons/films. I did however change up the section in the article and add more sources, is that sufficient? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement, at least. TompaDompa (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Terminator_2_-_3D_Entrance_Universal_Studios_Florida.jpg needs a tag for the work pictured
  • File:A._Schwarzenegger_(3x4a).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, for the A._Scwarzenegger one, do you mean the archive url isn't sufficient or it didn't load? It didn't work for me first time but I reloaded and it came up. For the ride image, sorry, I'm not 100% what you mean. I'm just gonna remove the ride logo because I never know how to find the right tags, searching fair use doesn't ever get me to the right place. I do think it's too generic a design to be copyrightable since it's just font and that font is apparently called Earth and has been around since the 1970s, but its not essential just decorative. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ping Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, not sure what was going on with the source link, but looks good now. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry edit

At over 10,000 words, this article is too long and fails criteria 1a and 4 at least. The lead technically follows the four-paragraph rule but those are four chunky paragraphs that could be shortened to focus on the most important points. The plot summary is overly detailed and could withstand some culling without losing any important details. There are places where wording could be tightened to improve flow and bring the word count down without actually losing any facts (just one example: making director James Cameron a credible director).

  • The cast section mentions non-notable actors who play minor roles (although Hamilton's sister appearing as as T-1000 impersonating her is definitely worth keeping).
  • Two big paragraphs on rights acquisition is excessive and the whole development and writing sections go into too much detail
  • Schwarzenegger's jet is trivia
  • The casting section is huge. The reader doesn't need 850 words on the casting process to understand the film.

From what I can see, the article is very well researched but is not written in summary style (cf. WP:TERSE). It would benefit from a 10-20% reduction in word count in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every article I've promoted in the last 2 years has been at least 10,000 words, a big film is not going to have a comprehensive article and be short. It also has a 1,140 word Themes section which means the base article is 9000 words. A themes section is unrelated to the film but a requested aspect of a Featured Article and so I do not count it towards the word count because it's not essential to the core of the film process. It's been copy edited and trimmed extensively, Schwarzenegger's pay was huge for the time and them paying him in a jet is unique and therefore notable, and the casting section again was heavily trimmed to the essentials which is physical and mental preparation of Hamilton and Patrick, there's nothing there to be cut that wouldn't be a loss and it certainly does not fail 1a or 4, but thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 13:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that you've had other articles promoted. We butted heads over Die Hard so I've refrained from reviewing those articles but in my opinion those articles should have been challenged for their length. Reviewers are often unwilling to oppose, especially when the nominator disagrees with their concerns, and the appropriate length is always going to be somewhat subjective. But if you can summarise India or Canada in 10,700 words, you don't need 10,200 for one film. I've pointed out places above where details could be trimmed. I even gave an example of redundant language. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on countries have multiple sub articles, if all the content was in the top-level article they'd probably be like 40,000+ words, they're effectively hub articles for a subject that's spread over dozens of articles, it's not a fair or realistic comparison. The only thing that could be removed here is the production section which would negate 90% of the article and the only outcome would be that an article about 1 film would now be spread over 2. If you don't find the information pertinent, that's your personal opinion, I've explained above why your suggestions are not applicable, and I've also explained that without the Themes section, it's only 9,000 words, and that is with the special effects section broken off into its own article. I can remove the cast you consider non-essential and save like 50 words. It's not worth it, but the article is comprehensive which is part of the criteria, and I can assure you the casting section was gutted and gutted until only the key elements remained. If you prefer shorter articles that's your prerogative, but that does not mean it fails any criteria. Your input has been appreciated, but there is no where for this discussion to go. Thank you. EDIT: and if you look at my previous FAs I've been more than aggreeable to any changes suggested by editors, as I've been so above, but I won't gut the article for some arbitrary limit. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that the article needs to hit an arbitrary word count. If the subject can't be summarised without using 10,000 words, then 9,900 words wouldn't be comprehensive, but I could probably eliminate a non-trivial percentage of the word count just by tightening language and maybe 10% by trimming it to focus only facts that are directly relevant to the film. Verbiage is something that I'm guilty of myself. My writing has improved through feedback at FAC and elsewhere, to the point that I was able to look back on one of my older FAs recently and managed to eliminate 900 words without removing any important details. It's not about a golden number but about staying tightly on-topic, especially when there's a lot to say about the subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 February 2023 [3].

Burhanuddin Harahap edit

Nominator(s): Juxlos (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burhanuddin Harahap was Indonesia's 9th (probably, depending on when you start counting) Prime Minister, serving for seven months or thereabouts, including during Indonesia's first election in 1955. Until Abdurrahman Wahid in 2001, no Indonesian head of government would come from an Islamic Party after Harahap. Mostly known to Indonesians through a sentence or two in history textbooks. Article was promoted to GA in August 2022, and was featured in "On this day" the following month. Previous nomination was made before I became aware that I can only make 1 FAC at a time - can someone close it, by the way? Juxlos (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The one issue I'm seeing is File:Election Pamphlet of Masyumi 1955 election.jpg, which would be public domain under a different tag if the author of the illustration is not known. In most cases works by a political party are not considered government works. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Juxlos: Out of curiosity, what happened to the first FAC? SN54129 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominated simultaneously with another FA without being aware of the rules about multiples. Could have just reposted it but didn’t want to have a 3-month old nomination. Juxlos (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with the IDUnknown tag, and added URAA for good measure. Juxlos (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 February 2023 [4].

Ayn Rand edit

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a few years since my last FAC, so I decided to return with a bang. This is a level-4 vital article about one of the most controversial authors of the 20th century. Rand wrote Broadway plays, Hollywood screenplays, and bestselling novels, but she is most commonly discussed today because of the ideas she championed in her later novels and nonfiction essays. She is sometimes considered a key figure in "libertarianism" or "neoliberalism" – labels she rejected or never heard of (respectively). This longtime GA article has been updated with recent scholarship about her background, impact, and academic reception, to make it ready for FAC feedback. RL0919 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde edit

I'd quite like to review this in depth, but I'm not sure I'll have the time: I'm scrambling in RL. So I'm leaving two drive-by comments, in the hope that I will revisit this later. First, I was pleasantly surprised by the extent to which scholarly work is represented in the source material; for such a contentious figure, I would have assumed that media sources would have crept in over time. On a quick read through, however, I get the impression that in many places the text mentions the existence of reviews or critique rather than summarizing their substance. I'm also a little hesitant about the structure, in particular the distribution of critical material across five sub-sections. Thanks for bringing an article this important to FAC! Vanamonde (Talk) 21:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, Vanamonde. Any actionable feedback to improve the article is welcomed, even if you aren't able to provide a full review. --RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde. I note that you are under pressure, but I just wanted to let you know that I shall be timing out this nomination in the next day or two if there is no movement towards a consensus to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Afraid I can't give this the sort of sustained attention it deserves for at least another week. If this stays open beyond that I can try to review; if not, and it's taken to peer review, I can try to engage there. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Ayn_Rand_signature_1949.svg: source link is dead
  • File:Aristotle_Altemps_Inv8575.jpg needs a tag for the original work
  • File:Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick review, Nikkimaria. I made the following changes:
  • For the signature, archive link added.
  • For the photo of the Aristotle bust, added "PD-art-70-3d" license tag.
  • For the photo of the Kant painting, changed license tag to "PD-art-old-100-expired", which includes US status.
Let me know if you spot anything further that is needed. --RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is now more than four weeks in with no sign of a consensus to promote. I will nudge those who have expressed an interest, but the nomination is liable to time out very soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, after five weeks there is no further movement and so I am reluctantly going to archive this nomination. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian edit

Recusing coord duties, I've been meaning to put a placeholder here but had a few other things on the plate. I'm quite familiar with Rand's works but will try to remain severely objective (if not Objectivist)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I note that you are under pressure, but I just wanted to let you know that I shall be timing out this nomination in the next day or two if there is no movement towards a consensus to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pressure? Moi...?! Actually I've already read through once, just need another pass for tweaks and comments... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although my comments might be academic as far as this nom goes, given the lack of other reviews, I've completed a light copyedit, and have the following queries/suggestions...

Lead

  • There shouldn't be a need to cite so much material in the lead. Quotes and info not cited in the main body are valid exceptions but I see none of the former and I wouldn't have thought there should be any of the latter.
Another exception is controversial points that have actually been challenged, which is probably the reason for every one of those footnotes. That said, in some cases those challenges may have happened over a decade ago and/or relate to wording that was subsequently changed for other reasons. I cut the citations for some points that have not been challenged recently, but left them for some of the points that are more commonly disputed.
Hmm, I sympathise with your point of view, it's difficult to maintain the page of a polarising figure, but I'd still be inclined to remove citations from the lead if something is clearly cited in the main body. If somebody throws a fact tag on anything in the lead that's cited in the main body, it's appropriate to revert with an edit summary pointing this out. That said, I doubt I'd oppose just on this point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who writes a lot of contentious material, I actually think this isn't a problem at all. I make about an edit a week reverting someone who has removed lead content claiming it wasn't cited. I see why we don't require citations, given that the lead is a high-level summary; but we shouldn't be requiring their removal either. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atlas Shrugged as "best-known" work? "Best-selling" yes, "magnum opus" yes, but "best-known" is a little trickier I think, given The Fountainhead as competition -- perhaps go for one of the aforementioned epithets?
Changed to "best-selling".
  • The Objectivist movement attempts to circulate her ideas -- I don't think you need "attempts to"; you circulate ideas or you don't, whether they take root or not is another matter.
Removed.

Main body

  • volatile mood swings -- I think mood swings implies volatility, do we mean "violent" mood swings?
Rand would go on verbal tirades, but the term 'violent' seems too physical. I've reworded to "mood swings and outbursts" to try to make it more clear – let me know what you think.
  • returned to Hollywood to write the screenplay -- perhaps I missed something but from where did she return to Hollywood?
New York, but the fact that she moved there in the 30s got cut at some point, so I've reinserted it.
  • The images of Tara Smith and Tibor Machan seem superfluous as neither is mentioned in the body of the article.
Removed.

Summary

  • The article generally reads quite well and, given my knowledge of the subject's life and works, seems reasonably comprehensive and neutral in tone.
  • That said, I'd need to check some of the sources to satisfy myself of their accurate use (a source spotcheck in other words).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Updated per your comments, with a couple of partial demurs mentioned in my replies above. Let me know if you have any other feedback or find anything to address in source spotchecks. --RL0919 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks RL, I appreciate your quick response to my comments. I'll try to have a look at some of the sources when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Gog the Mild you didn't sign this (and a couple other in archives), so FACbot is not triggered. Check the FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 February 2023 [5].

Doughnut edit

Nominator(s): Miserlou (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the humble doughnut. I stumbled upon it while looking up the etymology of the word and found an incredible article which covers history, language, geography, chemistry, physics, and international cuisine. This article is a delight from top to bottom. Miserlou (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose unsourced content and cn tags. FYI drive by nominations at FAC are almost never successful. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention the OR tags... but in any case I can see no edits by the nominator, so archiving as out of process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 February 2023 [6].

1998 Tour de France edit

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 85th running of the Tour de France, the most famous bicycle race in the world. It was in FA review 3 years ago and received two supports, but lack of more engagement led to the nomination stalling and being closed. I am hoping to have more success this time around. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 February 2023 [7].

La Isla Bonita edit

Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Madonna's most known, iconic and emblematic songs, as well as my personal favorite. I believe this article meets all the criteria required to be passes as FAC; having corrected all the comments given to me by my fellow editors, I am once again presenting this article with the intention it gets approved as a Featured article.Christian (talk)

  • Two drive-by comments. First, some of the images feel purely decorative without adding any illustrative benefit to the article. The image of Janet Jackson stands out the most, as Jackson has virtually nothing to do with this song. Second, the word "gypsy" can be interpreted as pejorative, and it might be preferable to use the otherwise equivalent term "Romani". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Thebiguglyalien:! Thank you for your comment! Is the Janet Jackson image the only one you're talking about? Cause I believe the ones included on the article are all very appropriate for their respective sections (even the Janet one, as it specifically mentions a record shared with her); also, regarding the use of "gypsy", that's how the source mentions it. Christian (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG edit

Sad that this has continued to get little attention from reviewers. Maybe ping the reviewers from the previous nomination? I previously copy-edited this during its PR; here are my comments.

  • "During the autumn of 1985" - "autumn" is ambiguous, see MOS:SEASON.
  • "the singer and Leonard" - I would just swap these four words for "they" or "the two" as it's clear that we are talking about these two.
  • I am not convinced of the quality of the critical reception section. It lists the opinion of a reviewer after another without much organization. It would benefit from some summarization of similar opinions so we don't have the repetitive "Reviewer a praised this, reviewer b agreed". See WP:RECEPTION to get a better idea of what I'm talking about (you can also check out my recent FA Alejandro (song)#Critical reception and accolades as an example). Addendum: the "Analysis and reception" subsection of music video does an excellent job at this.
  • "In The Madonna Connection: Representational Politics, Subcultural Identities, and Cultural Theory (1998), authors Ramona Liera-Schwichtenberg, Deidre Pribram, David Tetzlaff and Ron Scott, argued" - no comma before "argued"
  • "Sticky & Sweet (2008―2009), Rebel Heart (2015―2016), and Madame X (2019―2020)" - wrong use of em-dash. En-dash should be used here instead.
  • "Jon Pareles, from The New York Times," - both commas unneeded here
  • Dressed in black slacks, a backless black dress, and surrounded by a "gaggle of percussionists and dancers" - avoid the repetition of "dress" in such a close proximity. And it should be "Dressed in black slacks and a backless dress, and surrounded by.." Otherwise it reads as "dressed in surrounded by a", which is grammatically incorrect.

That's it for now. FrB.TG (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments @FrB.TG:! Let me know if how I've modified it is better (I tried to divide the reviews section per theme, as you suggested). And yes it sucks that there's so little activity here 😞😢 Last time, only @ChrisTheDude: gave a support.--Christian (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at this new FAC but it's unlikely to be today, I'm afraid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi FrB.TG, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Things have improved but it's still not quite there IMO (at least not in the critical reception section). The first two paragraphs list the positive reviews at the time of the song's release, but it's not clear what the theme of each paragraph is. I see a lot of reviewers highlighting the song because of it sounding "exotic" (Latin American culture) and its influence on subsequent similarly-themed songs (e.g. Gaga's "Alejandro"). I would rearrange all this in one paragraph and write an introductory line that its "Latin flavor" was praised. I'm sure you can recognize similarities in other reviews. FrB.TG (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "Her and Leonard would go on to work together " => "She and Leonard would go on to work together "
  • "The song starts with a musical introduction performed on Bongos," - no reason for capital B, it isn't a proper noun
  • "It reached the top five in Ireland,[72] Norway,[73] the Netherlands,[74][75] Sweden,[76] and the top ten in Spain" => "It reached the top five in Ireland,[72] Norway,[73] the Netherlands,[74][75] and Sweden,[76] and the top ten in Spain"
  • "who had previously worked with Madonna in the videos" => "who had previously worked with Madonna on the videos"
  • "At one point, she's shown" => "At one point, she is shown"
  • "The "passionate" flamenco dancer Madonna dances inside a bright red room with red candles, candelabra" => "The "passionate" flamenco dancer Madonna dances inside a bright red room with red candle and candelabra"
  • "In Europe, it was the most heavily rotated clip on television" - during its chart run? Of all time up to this point? Of all time ever?
  • "Madonna singing the track on the Rebel Heart Tour (2015–2016)." - this image caption doesn't need a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @ChrisTheDude: --Christian (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Where is the length in the infobox coming from? None of the entries in Formats have that length
  • Some of the details in the infobox aren't explicitly cited anywhere, eg the label
  • The lead states the work is in tribute to the beauty of Latinos, but the text states the beauty of Latin Americans - which is correct?
  • There are no citations to Broughton et al
  • FN13 is misformatted
  • Be consistent in whether you name "Staff" as an author or omit the author
  • FN36: author spelling doesn't match source. Ditto Fn38, check throughout.
  • FN40 has author backwards
  • Fn77 is missing language
  • Be consistent in when you include publishers for periodicals
  • The references to The Backlot appear to go to a site with a different name, even the archived versions - can you explain?
  • What makes Albumism a high-quality reliable source? The Tab? Cashbox?
  • Associated Press should be credited using |agency=
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • What makes O'Donnell a high-quality source for the claim it is being used to support?
  • Be consistent in whether book titles use sentence or title case. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nominator edit

Note for coordinators - given that the nominator is yet to have their first FA, this should have spot-checks for copyvio and source-to-text integrity. FrB.TG (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for more than four weeks and has only picked up a single support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I think Chrishm21 will correct the last points that were stated above. Great expansion and work! Vera (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Quite honestly, the page needs lots of revising:

  • The use of "hit" from "11th top five hit" is too informal
  • I'd add the other places it went number one into the lead; to only single out the UK feels incomplete
  • Don't link commonly recognized terms like "music critics" per WP:OVERLINK
  • Under "Background and release", the opening sentence "In 1985, Madonna started writing and recording songs for her third studio album, True Blue; she decided to bring back producer Stephen Bray, with whom she had worked on her previous album Like a Virgin (1984), and also hired a new producer, Patrick Leonard." is quite a mouthful! A helpful change would be splitting this up by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • To use a surname in quick succession as you do by having "Leonard" at the end of your first sentence followed right by it beginning the second one feels repetitive.
  • You've also misused the semi-colon after "'La Isla Bonita' was the first song Madonna recorded that incorporated Spanish motifs and lyrics" and would be better off turning that into a period too.
  • Using "Of working with the producer" doesn't sound right, so maybe change "of" into "on".
  • The use of "cited" from "cited as possibilities" reads awkwardly. A better choice would be "named", "speculated", "surmised", or even "thought of".
  • There's something weird with File:Madonna - la isla bonita.ogg. The file reads 25 seconds within the bar next to its play button while the file source says 24. Which is it? Remember per WP:SAMPLE that you can only use 10% or less of the total duration for songs under 5 minutes (this one is 243 seconds and thus your limit would be 24 here).
  • For the "Critical reception" section, don't hide the title of Madonna: An Intimate Biography with an WP:EASTEREGG of simply "biography"
  • It's worth mentioning that Lucy O'Brien's comments are published within Madonna: Like an Icon
  • "The" is part of the title for The New York Times
  • Unless you've got a citation specifically talking about such assessments as a whole, I'd remove the "Retrospective reviews have been positive" to avoid WP:SYNTH, plus there could be some reviews from the 21st century not listed here that were mixed or negative.
  • Instead of curly quotation marks (’,”) that you have for "it’s touching, and as a personal reflection, it’s beautiful", use straight ones (',") per MOS:CURLY
  • Not convinced File:Janet Jackson 4 (cropped).jpg serves any benefit beyond decoration, but either way don't use italics for "pictured" within its caption. At least it's free of copyright.
  • The uses of "hit" in multiple instances of "top ten hit" are subpar tone for the "Commercial performance" section, and same goes for "top five hit" again.
  • Like the Janet caption, I wouldn't italicize "left" or "right" for File:La Isla Bonita (music video).jpg, which isn't backed up by the given file link and thus doesn't feel like an authentic FUR.
  • "Filming took place in downtown Los Angeles in March 1987, and lasted four days; over 500 extras of Hispanic descent, including a then-unknown Benicio Del Toro, who was paid $150, participated in the shooting."..... care to guess what's wrong here?
  • Only the first mention of Jon Pareles needs to be linked
  • Again, "pictured" shouldn't be italicized in captions of photos the way you did for File:Ricky Martin in store appearance, Sydney Australia (14672277611).jpg and File:Alizée Jacotey - Chanteuse Francaise - Paris - 3 December 2007 - DSC 1665bis.jpg
  • No commentary from critics on the covers by other artists?
  • I'm not familiar with "Gay Star News" (which isn't supposed to have italics) or "Queerty". How trustworthy are these sources?
  • "Bibliography" is frowned upon as a vague section title that could also potentially refer to works written by a subject, so let's give this a more specific name. I'd also add a subheading for the citations used beforehand within "References".

Unfortunately, I must oppose the nomination, at least for now. Maybe some improvements will later change my stance. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

  • Oppose My attention was first caught by the the unencyclopaedic phrase "academics applauded the clip" as something that needed to be changed. The relevant section doesn't clarify who the vaguely-labelled "academics" are (many are just described as "authors", rather than identifying their academic discipline). The word "applaud" is repeated in the sentence "McDanell, in her book Material Christianity (1998), applauded Madonna for giving "new meaning" to candlestands and "home shrines"". Reading the actual source, McDanell doesn't "applaud" anything: there is no praise (or condemnation), just a description of how Madonna used or marketed Catholic items. The quote "new meaning" does not appear in any description of Madonna in the source, and the only reference to "home shrines" is the description that Madonna's "characters in La Isla Bonita performed/prayed in front of home shrines, one ablaze with candles".
  • The sentence "In The Madonna Connection: Representational Politics, Subcultural Identities, and Cultural Theory (1998), authors Ramona Liera-Schwichtenberg, Deidre Pribram, David Tetzlaff and Ron Scott argued that although the settings suggest that both of Madonna's characters live in the barrio and may be Latina themselves, her portrayal of the flamenco dancer—which he described as "lush, flashy [and] colorful"—contrasts with the Latinos in the street, who are decked out in "sparsely worn out" clothes." says the work is from 1998, but the Source list has a 1993 edition listed. Looking at the 1993 edition (available here), neither of the two quotes are anywhere in the book and the cited page (259) contains nothing to support the sentence.
  • Fabricating a quote and misleading on what sources say are auto-opposes for me, and that's before the text problems that SNUGGUMS has identified. This shouldn't be at FAC - it should be at GAR to have the 'Good Article' status removed - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The amount of fabricated material is not surprising considering it was taken to GA by User:Legolas2186 who added a lot of misinformation to many Lady Gaga and Madonna articles and cited book sources and sometimes even fake offline magazine issues so that they were not easily verifiable. It's very unfortunate that his misdeeds have left their mark on articles to this day. I experienced this firsthand when I took "Bad Romance" to FA where I had to clean up a huge amount of made-up nonsense. FrB.TG (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not good - one wonders why the GAs weren't delisted when his activities were uncovered - it means the misinformation, fabricated quotes and misrepresentation has been left in place with a GA for ten years.
Chrishm21, this highlights the need for nominators to have a full grasp of all the sources used in an article and to be able to justify every bit of text and every source used. FAs need to cover all the best sources possible, to ensure that all aspects of a subject have been covered - so you should have got hold of the sources and checked to ensure they are used properly in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the claim not found by SchroCat's second suggestion, seems editor Chrishm miscited the book, as according to Google Books, it doesn't belongs to The Madonna Connection (1993; 2019) but to Madonna's Drowned Worlds (2004). Both compendiums of scholarly essays and journalist pieces on Madonna. Chrishm: if there are remaining's of Legolas' contributions, take a bit of your time for comparing, especially factual information. GA 2009 results shows it was shorter. Also reviews can be replaced as long came from perennial publications used here, or others reputable, if there exists problems with this part regarding Legolas' footprints. You have a lot of tools outside, Archive.org or Google Books to mention a few, to re-verify or even add relevant material, just putting "La Isla Bonita". Add: At the moment, I also oppose. There are points addressed by SchroCat and SNUGGUMS that needs to be solved. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrishm21: It seems that you have been WP:AGF for citations in place when you started work on this article, rather than checking each one of them. I am minded to archive this nomination to allow time for you to do a thorough source to text check. Do you have any comments on this proposed course of action or the situation more generally? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry for the delay, I’ve been caught up with some personal things. Thank you for the comments and for everything that has been pointed out. I’ll try to correct/clean up what you have pointed out here this weekend.
Again, thank you both! Christian (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately it is clear that the article was not ready for FAC when nominated and is still not. It also has three open opposes. I am therefore going to archive this nomination to allow improvements to be made off-FAC, possibly at PR. I would also draw the nominator's attention to the top of the FAC page where they can find:

    Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process.

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

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2023 [8].

Leonard W. Murray edit

Nominator(s): Friendofleonard (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a significant Canadian military figure, the only Canadian to command a theatre of war in WW1 or WW2. Admiral Murray was C-in-C North Atlantic, and widely regarded as the architect of the convoy system during the key years of the Battle of the Atlantic. There is a linked date - the FA could be published on 8 May 2023, the anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. Friendofleonard (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’m going to drop in a procedural oppose on this (for the moment, at least), as you opened a PR an hour ago, and you should only have one process open. A quick glance suggests you should withdraw this and keep the PR open. The lead is too short and there are a few MOS breaches I can see from a quick glance, which the PR should sort before it is returned here. - SchroCat (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur - suggest withdrawal for the moment, let the PR run instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving per above, let this finish it's peer review before FAC. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2023 [9].

Music of Mesopotamia edit

Nominator(s): GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 06:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time at FAC. I’ll be responsive to making changes during the process, and I'll also ping @Aza24 and @Furius. Thank you! GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 06:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments edit

  • As the nominator is a first time FACer, the article will require a spot check for source to text fidelity.
  • Hi GuineaPigC77, can I ask if you were/are being mentored per the FAC instructions? "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination."

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild, I don't have a formal mentor; it seems I made a mistake. I did read that statement (including the bold part), but took away from this conversation that it was appropriate to proceed without further involvement. I benefited from a lot of mentorship from Aza24 and Furius during the preparation of the article, but it seems my mistake is that the mentorship is supposed to be both formal and also FAC-specific. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 21:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obligatory, just strongly advised. Let's see how the nomination goes. Mentoring can definitely be informal, and does not need to be ongoing. Were they aware that you were aiming this article at FAC when they were advising you? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We were discussing a GA goal at that time (summer / fall 2022). Since then, I haven't heard from them except for for this message. I followed Aza24's advice to proceed with the GA nomination and have pinged them a few times, but neither has participated on the talk page since mid-October. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 22:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Not a problem. FAC can be unexpectedly tough on first timers, and it helps to have a "native guide". But as I said above, let's see how it goes. In the end it's all about the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GuineaPigC77: That's on me, I didn't think to check that it was your first FAC (which honestly should have occurred to me based on your questions). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better if I had said so outright. I generally try to be upfront about my inexperience, but this is a case where I definitely should have highlighted it. I will do my best here. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 21:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GuineaPigC77: Happy to recuse myself as a reviewer here to assist as mentor, and however else I can. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be wonderful, @Iazyges. I accept! Thanks so much for offering. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 00:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wall of comments but with no declarations of support or opposition - it feels more like a PR than a FAC. There still seems a way to go to achieve any consensus to promote. Unless there are very clear signs of movement towards this over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived, for the good work on the article to be continued off-FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is with considerable regret that I am going to archive this fascinating article. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Can I urge all involved to continue the good work seen here off-FAC, with a view to bringing it back sooner rather than later. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: We have attracted a support and have another review on the way, with a third support contingent on those reviews; does this not constitute "clear signs of movement"? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not make these decisions lightly, but no, in my opinion it doesn't constitute very clear signs of movement towards a consensus to promote. Having read through this very lengthy page I also believe that it was not ready for FAC when it was nominated and there seems to be some feeling that it still isn't. It has attracted plenty of interest, use that to kick it into shape off-FAC and bring it back stronger. There is no rush, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment edit

Thank you for working so extensively on a top-level article about an ancient culture. I know all too well how difficult that is. This looks like a promising FA candidate, but I think its organization needs adjustment. "Background" is a normal section title in articles about events, but not on broad topics such as this, and well-developed articles shouldn't need "overview" sections, as the lead of the article is supposed to serve as its overview. I think each of the subsections of "overview" ("uses of music", "music education", and "musicians") can be broken out into a top-level section of its own. "Background" is more of a puzzle. The latter two subsections ("surviving works" and "surviving instruments") probably belong in a section titled "evidence", but I don't know what to do with the first section ("context"). Much of it is general information about Mesopotamian civilization that is unnecessary here, while most of the rest seems like it is summarizing information that is found later in the article, in which case it should probably be moved to the lead. A. Parrot (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks A. Parrot for your comments. Airship's mockup makes sense to me and seems to address some of your concerns. Regarding the context section, perhaps we keep the last 4 sentences of the current Context section (beginning with Much of what researchers know...) and incorporate it into the lead. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 17:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Phlsph7 edit

I agree with A. Parrot that it looks promising and that something needs to be done about the sections "Background" and "Overview". For "Background", I don't think that we need the subsection "Context" since the reader can look up these details in the corresponding articles. Or keep only the details that are directly relevant to the music. The remaining section could be titled "Historical evidence" or "Surviving artifacts" and should probably be moved somewhere to the bottom of the article. The section "Overview" seems to discuss mostly the role of music in Mesopotamia society. What about renaming it to "Role in society" or something similar?

Would it make sense to have a comparison of the different Mesopotamian civilizations somewhere? For example, concerning the musical differences between Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadian, and Babylonian civilizations? You are probably more knowledgeable about whether there are important general differences worth discussing.

I've spotted various minor issues with the prose:

  • The Mesopotamians had an elaborate system of music theory, and some level of music education.: remove comma after "theory"
  • later known known as Babylonia—where several large cities emerged: remove one "known"
  • Religion and writing help set the stage for a music culture in this region: use past tense for "help"
  • ancient city of Ugarit, modern day Syria, dating: add hyphen "modern-day"
  • divided into songs of varying length separated: use plural: "lengths"
  • but also because there was “no sweet-sounding musical instruments: replace "was" with "were"
  • The bull was then singed: is "singed" supposed to be "signed" or "sung"?
  • dance can be distinguished on wall reliefs, cylinder seals, and painted pottery, and depictions of musical instruments accompany them: remove "and" before "painted pottery". Or maybe reformulate the sentence: there are too many commas and "ands"
  • musicians in temples survive, and reveal that a large number: remove comma before "and"
  • necked instrument sitting at the back of boat in a musician's posture: add "a" before "boat"
  • they are instructions which tell a musician how he or she can change a sammû instrument's: replace "which" with "that"
  • A corpus of thousands of surviving clay tablets provide additional details about : replace "provide" with "provides"
  • time as similar instrument in Egypt, the nefer.: add "a" before "similar"
  • The text jumps between English variants. If you want to default to American English, you should change:
    • pictographic and ideographic stylisations would: "stylizations"
    • contains a catalogue of song titles organized: "catalog"
  • Most of the text uses Oxford commas but they are still missing at several locations (see WP:Oxford comma):
    • which includes artifacts, artistic depictions and written records
    • use in secular occasions included festivals, warfare and funerals
    • Nimrud, Khorsabad and Nineveh
    • Major cities of Sumer included Ur, Uruk, Larsa and Lagash
    • reading, writing, religion, the sciences, law and medicine
    • rattles, sistra, cymbals, bells and drums

Other observations:

  • WP:EARWIG shows no copyright violations
  • User:Headbomb/unreliable shows no unreliable sources
  • User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js shows no duplicate wikilinks
  • There are no unreferenced paragraphs.
  • Some cases of WP:OVERCITE:
    • The "Hymn to Nikkal" (pictured) is considered to be the oldest surviving substantially complete written music in the world.[1][2][3][4]
    • is considered to be the oldest surviving substantially complete written music in the world.[1][2][3][4]
Thanks for your comments, Phlsph7. As for the bullet points first, I've implemented your suggested changes. The only difference: I used "singed" from the source. An alternative could be "superficially burned" or "seared". More replies coming. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 16:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:OVERCITE, I used extra citations here given that it's a hefty claim. But we could scale it back to the first two. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 17:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fast response. The "singed" makes sense to me now. You can avoid WP:OVERCITE by bundling the citations, for example, using Template:Multiref2. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a comparison of civilizations. While the source articles sometimes have a narrower scope, many of the sources speak broadly about Mesopotamian music. It could be possible to separate them by piecing together the examples offered, but I would be concerned about OR here? Another concern is that there are so many peoples mentioned here that each section would be sparse. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 17:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very hesitant about adding a comparison of civilizations if the sources don't do it. Given how much the different groups overlapped and how limited our evidence is, I'm not sure that it makes sense to separate them off as separate traditions to be compared. Furius (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've bundled the refs; feel free to revert, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for bringing up the idea was that these categories play a role in the general history of Mesopotamia. But there is no point in comparing them in the article if they play no important role in the academic literature on the music. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: Do you have any further concerns about the article? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the contents were reorganized in the meantime. It looks better like this. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short source review edit

I made a short source review, see below. At two points, there were minor issues with the page numbers but otherwise it looks fine.

  • The song's words are written above the double line and the music notation is below.[2]: supported by Burkholder, Grout & Palisca 2014: "The words are written above the double line, the music below". This is page 8, not page 10.
    Fixed.
  • In some depictions of religious festivals, musicians were accompanied by dancers, jugglers, and acrobats.[5]: supported by Collon 2003, p. 99.: "Musicians, dancers, jugglers and acrobats often accompanied religious festivals. An Old Babylonian terracotta disc..."
  • Enheduanna was simultaneously a princess, priestess, and poetess who wrote a cycle of hymns to the temples of Sumer and Akkad, including devotional hymns for the gods Sin and Inanna, the texts for which survive.[24]: supported by Burkholder, Grout & Palisca 2014, p. 7.: "The earliest composer known to us by name is Enheduanna (fl. ca. 2300 b.c.e.), an Akkadian high priestess at Ur, who composed hymns (songs to a god) to the moon god Nanna and moon goddess Inanna; their texts, but not her music, survive on cuneiform tablets."
  • She authored nin-me-sar-ra, a short (153 line) poem in which she may allude to her own songwriting at a critical moment in the work.[57]: supported by Hallo & van Dijk 1968, pp. 51–52.
  • While much is known about Mesopotamian instruments, musicologist Carl Engel points out that because the main depictions of musical instruments come from bas reliefs celebrating royal and religious events, it is likely that there are many instruments, perhaps popular ones, that scholars are unaware of.[61]: supported by Engel 1864, p. 28.:"MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS OF THE ASSYRIANS...The Assyrian bas-reliefs chiefly represent historical events, religions ceremonies, and royal entertain- ments. It is therefore very probable that the Assy- rians possessed several popular musical instruments which are not represented on these bas-reliefs..."
  • This was especially true of an instrument known as a balag, whose identity is disputed[68]
  • inform the reader whether the object in question is, for example, made of wood (𒄑, giš), is a person (𒇽, lú), or is a building (𒂍, é).[65]: supported by Bowen 2019, pp. 28–32. The reference only mentiones 28-9 but I think the additional pages are needed.
    Fixed.
  • Strings may have been made with catgut, as was done by the Egyptians, or with silk.[105]: Engel 1864, p. 30.: "The strings were perhaps made of silk, like those which the Burmese use at the present time on their harps, or they may have been catgut, which was used by the ancient Egyptians, one of whose harps thus strung, as I have already mentioned, has been ex- humed."
  • Two surviving tablets give instructions for tuning string instruments. According to Sam Mirelman, these tablets are better thought of in terms of re-tuning rather than tuning:[115] (and the following quote): supported by Mirelman & Krispijn 2009, p. 43. Should our text mention Krispijn as well since both are the authors of this paper?
    Although in the source it appears the summation comes from O. R. Gurney; I've attributed it to him and cited it to his work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...as well as drums, sistra, and cymbals.[128]: supported by Aruz & Wallenfels 2003, p. 33.

Phlsph7 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Believe I have addressed all issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These references look good now. There is currently a cite error message displayed at the bottom of the page. It was probably introduced somewhere in the process of fixing the references.
Fixed, needed a notelist for an added note. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at some of the publishers. The article cites a great variety of sources and many of them are by high-quality publishers, like Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Yale University Press, and Brill Publishers. However, I spotted two publishers associated with self-publishing: Trafford Publishing (Dumbrill, Richard J. (2005). The archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East) and Vantage Press (Polin, Claire C.J. (1954). Music of the Ancient Near East). Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: Polin, Claire C.J. (1954) was "picked up" by academic presses later (presumably after the author realized Vantage was screwing them over); so I've adjusted the date and publisher; page numbers appear the same between versions. @GuineaPigC77: Dumbrill 2005 will need to be extricated from the article, and replaced as possible; they were never carried by a reliable press later on, unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. We lost a quote and some minor phrases, but I salvaged the Hurrian hymn composers and scribes names. Thanks for catching this. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 21:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: Sourcing should be good to go now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issues pointed out have been solved. I would tend to support the nomination but with two caveats. On the one hand, it needs to pass a more thorough source spot check. This one only had a look at 10 references. On the other hand, I'm not qualified to assess whether the treatment of the topic is comprehensive. So another reviewer would have to check whether this criterion is fulfilled. If someone could ping me when these points are fulfilled then I would take a final look. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by a455bcd9 edit

Hi, two comments:

  • What's the period covered in the article? Should it be renamed "Music of Mesopotamia (period)" or "Music of Ancient Mesopotamia"? Because today's music of Mesopotamia includes modern music of Iraq (also known as the music of Mesopotamia).
  • There's no source (and legend) for File:N-Mesopotamia and Syria english.svg.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, a455bcd9.
GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 16:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: Are you intending to perform a full review, or were these comments all? Thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Iazyges, I only had these two comments (that I don't consider resolved). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: The image has been removed from the article, and any move should, IMO, take place after this wraps up; thank you for your involvement! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: got it, thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship edit

First impressions look good. Agree with (a.) parrot above on the section organisation; I've mocked up something in my sandbox about how I would go about it. If I were implementing it, I would trim the context section, to try to keep it music-focused; remove the top-level background and overview sections, as they don't really convey anything, and merge the surviving instruments section into the general instruments section, just for simplicity. The rest is fairly self explanatory. Greatly looking forward to your response! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Airship, for your comments and mockup. It sounds like overall organization is definitely an issue, so if people like your mockup I can go ahead and restructure the article based on it. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 15:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that we need the section "Context" but the rest of the mock layout looks fine. I assume the content of the subsection "Surviving works" goes into the new section "Works of music". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be worth keeping "surviving instruments" as a separate sub-category of "instruments" (probably the final sub-category), because the vast majority of them come from the same cemetery. I also think that "surviving works" and "music theory" should be separate sections at the same level, since neither is obviously a sub-type of the other (but it makes sense for both of them to go after "instruments"). I agree about moving the final sentences of the "context" section, which deal specifically with music to the lead, and getting rid of the rest of the context section (actually, I think that material should be added to the lead of the History of Mesopotamia article, which is extraordinarily short). Furius (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked @AirshipJungleman29's outline based on these comments. I also moved the last 4 sentences from the Context section into the lead, and then removed Background and Context altogether. It is in my sandbox. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 10:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sandbox looks good. I'll leave you to deal with the current maelstrom, and come back with more comments later. Good luck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is a better way to organize the contents and to focus on the essential information. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great, I will make this change. I will address some of the other concerns first, in case others want to adjust the outline before I implement it. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 18:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did the big picture shuffling of sections. I think this is more what people have in mind? Feel free to revert. Note that this edit removed the map, as it appeared in the background and context sections. If we still want to include the map, perhaps it could go in the influence section? GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 09:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, does this article still need a source spot-check? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but as the nomination has so far not attracted a single general support, I was holding off to see how htat went before seeing who might be prepared to do one. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ping me if the need is there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Furius edit

I commented a little bit on this article at an earlier stage, but it's come a very long way since then and I think it is a really good piece of work now. I do have some comments, however, which I'll arrange by section. Mostly, they are very minor matters.

  • Surviving works:
  • We're missing an explicit statement about musical notation (aside from a brief comment in the caption up at the top of the article), which would build on the quotation from Dumbrill. How, broadly speaking does the system work? (this overlaps with the "musical theory" section, so would be a reason for the "surviving works" section to appear immediately before the "musical theory" section.
  • "an Akkadian language tablet" - does it have a name/number? If so it would be useful to include this (in main text or in the note).
  • This is only a suggestion: I think it would be better for the image of the Hurrian songs' tablet to appear in this section. That would open up the issue of what image should go at the top of the article, but I think either an artistic depiction of musicians or another angle of one of the Lyres of Ur could fill that gap.
  • Surviving instruments:
  • The text and image could match up better - the text emphasises the "Golden Lyre of Ur" & the "Bull Headed Lyre", while the image is of the "Great Golden Lyre / Queen's golden lyre" (can you doublecheck the name? If I'm understanding Lyres of Ur correctly, this image actually is of the Golden Lyre and the Queen's lyre is a separate object in the BM). Commons says that the image is partially a replica - it would be better to have an image of an actual artefact, but if that's not practical (I admit, this photo gives a really good idea of the shape of the thing), then the fact that it is a partial replica should be stated in the caption.
  • I don't think it is necessary to describe the "Bull Headed Lyre" as "well-known".
  • Uses of Music: Religion:
  • "Old Babylonian period" - good to give a date range (yes, user can click through, but they shouldn't have to break their flow like that).
  • "balag and shem" - should these words be italicised?
  • No one is playing Ninigizibara, correct? Might it be possible to state that a little more explicitly, if so?
  • Singed bull: I agree with the earlier comment that this is a bit confusing in context. Is the bull alive for this?
  • The second paragraph somewhat gives the impression that all religious songs were laments. Is that right? Elsewhere in the article "hymns" are mentioned.
  • Uses of Music: Secular
  • The seal in the Louvre needs a citation. Ideally that citation would include its inv. number and a link, if it is included in the Louvre's online catalogue. It is a pity that we don't have an image.
  • Were "festivals" a secular context?
  • "they both use Emesal" is confusing because a number of pairs have been mentioned in preceding sentence. Clarify, e.g. "both laments and love songs use"
  • Elam-Anían should be linked.
  • I wonder whether a bit more could be said on the use of music in the army - what was their role exactly? If the section said a little more on this topic, it would also be possible to use File:Bas_relief_Ninive_musiciens_AO_19908.jpg or File:Exhibition_I_am_Ashurbanipal_king_of_the_world,_king_of_Assyria,_British_Museum_(45973108151).jpg as an image for this section.
  • Music education
  • "Professional musicians were first... and then became eligible..."
  • Unlink "numerous settings" - not helpful.
  • " indicate that choral training occurred by 3000 BCE" -> " indicate that by 3000 BCE choral training was occurring". Perhaps too many "which"s in this sentence
  • "Some religious practices were highly specific in teaching music." - is it possible to be more specific? How does a practice teach?
  • "With Ancient Egypt" --> "Along with".
  • Need to be consistent between "edubas" & "edubbas"
  • Is there a date for the school in Mari?
  • Musicians
  • "Gala" is lower case in this section, but was capitalised in the "uses of Music" section. It is a bit awkward that information on the Gala is split between these two sections and I'd suggest moving the material on the instruments played by Gala, at least, to here.
  • "regarded highly" --> "highly regarded"
  • Repetition of "the king kept" is a little awkward. Add links for "Nineveh" "Gilgamesh" and "Assyrian army" (piped, to Military history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire). "sometimes accompanied the king to his grave" - I'd be more explicit about this. Gabbay ought to have a first name.
  • Link Enheduanna in image caption as well as main text. "Ur III" is perhaps confusing and it might be better to stick with "Third Dynasty of Ur".
  • "gala (or gala-mah)" - this is the same as the gala from the previous section? Should gala-mah be mentioned there? "He and his family-owned" remove hyphen?
  • " nin-me-sar-ra": What is this? Do we have any information on whether Enheduanna wrote the music as well as the lyrics for her hymns? If not, that might be worth stating.

Throughout, I think the article could be a little more explicit about whether terms are in Sumerian or Akkadian (e.g. "Gala" is Sumerian, but the article never actually says this; "Eduba" is Sumerian, etc). Obviously, one can't do this for every list of instruments, but for key terms, it seems worth doing. The night is no longer young, so I will stop here for now and look at the rest of the text later (possibly not for a few days, sorry!) 00:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Furius. As I implement them, I'll leave a few notes. Starting with Uses of Music: Religion.

  • Dates added
  • Instrument names italicized per source
  • Ninigizibara. I'm cautious about making any statement about who played the instrument. Bowen states that the balag "was used by the Gala-priest in the performance of Emesal prayers", but later says "the Gala-priest would recite or sing the prayer, often accompanied by instruments and other singers." The issue is further complicated by their religious belief that it played itself. (Since it is the proper name of an instrument-god, I removed the "the" in front of it, and did the same in the lead.)
  • Singed bull. I changed the sentence to “Various parts of the bull were burned with a torch during the ritual.” The source says “...More offerings were made and perfumes burnt. A torch was lighted and the bull was singed. Twelve linen cloths...” and, at the end of a lengthier description, it says, “The bull was then slain, its heart burnt, and the body skinned, wrapped in a red cloth.”
  • Hymns and laments. I generally see these words used interchangeably in this context. Bowen says "The intercessions of the Gala-priest generally took the shape of sung laments..." He also refers to Emesal prayers as "hymnic liturgies".

More replies coming. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 07:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving works:
  • How the notation works. I think the best answer is we don’t know. West (1994) says “On many important points there is a consensus. But on others, including the interpretation of the notation, widely divergent positions have been taken up.” And goes on to say “At present we have four rival decipherments of the notation, each yielding entirely different results.” The closest our article gets to explaining any notation is under Music theory where it says “a tablet from Ugarit lists musical interval names along with two numbers, presumably referring to the two strings plucked”, sourced to Güterbock 1970.
  • I added the tablet number per Kilmer 1971
GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 07:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify on this point, I mean simply: how is it written? Do the Hurrian songs use cuneiform characters, separate symbols, or something else? Did they write these symbols in line with the lyrics or in a separate section? Agreed that this overlaps with music theory and could go there, but that section seems much more, well, theoretical. Furius (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. I added some material to the discussion of the Hurrian Hymns that addresses these questions, does that work better? GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 08:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Music education
  • I implemented these changes. I re-phrased a few things in the first paragraph, and removed the awkward sentence in which a practice teaches, which seems unnecessary.
  • Working on a date for Mari.
GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 11:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Musicians:
  • Implemented the re-phrases and wiki links
  • I removed "gala-mah". The source seems to imply that the gala-mah was in charge of other galas, but does not say so explicitly; later it says they may be synonyms.
  • nin-me-sar-ra. I added that it is a short poem written by Enheduanna, and also added a topical detail that she may have referred to her own songwriting or lyrics. I have yet to see anyone say that Enheduanna wrote the music, just the text for the hymns. For example, Hallo and van Dijk don't mention any melodies in their chapter on her "Life and Work".
GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 08:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surviving instruments
  • Regarding the lyre names. That appears to be correct. According to Woolley 1934, it is called the “gold lyre”. It is a partial reconstruction and is the subject of the looting quote in the body. I adjusted the text and caption. There is much variation in the literature with respect to the names of these lyres, so to be safe I think it makes sense to use the name Woolley gave to it? I think the Lyres of Ur article is misleading in that it jumps between different names from the various sources. I agree that this image shows the shape of it well, and I’d favor it over an image of the original, which is difficult to make out.
  • removed “well-known”
GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 12:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Secular:
  • The festivals Collon refers to are in a religious context; I moved it up
  • I re-worked the ambiguous phrase
  • Military. I added a paragraph. It includes a long quote from Marten 1925, which I think illustrates the main idea nicely, does this fit? The images you suggest look great, especially the first one, which has fine details and shows the musicians “squaring off”. If that image is usable I think it would fit well.
GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 03:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't write scholarship like that any more! I'm pretty sure that the File:Bas_relief_Ninive_musiciens_AO_19908.jpg is fine to use, but Nikkimaria seems more knowledgeable than I am on this. Furius (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: It appears uploader legitimately took the picture, so their copyright is fine, I've added the copyright for the relief itself. It will be fine for use. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments

As in the first half, the standard is generally very high and most of the comments below are pedantic little issues. I'm sure I'm wrong on some points, too.

Instruments: Divinity
  • "Clear evidence for the divination" -> "Clear evidence for the divinity"
  • "The use of determinatives" --> "Determinatives" & I'd switch the semicolon for a period at the end of the sentence.
  • "intended recipients" feels a little jargonish to me. I think the point of the phrase is that the offerings given were intended for the instrument itself (and not for some god or something), but one might take it to mean "intended but not actualised"...
  • italicise "balag"?
  • Gudea: it is odd that the two sentences on Gudea have become separated and that it is the second of these sentences that explains who/when/where Gudea was.
  • "Several balags are known to have been minor gods to the sun-god Utu" - something a little off here. "associated with" or "connected to"?
  • "suggesting that each instrument was" -> "... these instruments were" (seems strange to assume every instrument had this role, rather than just those with the king's name in them)
  • Add a gloss for "Ninigizibara", e.g. "[i.e. a named musical instrument]"
  • This sub-section sits somewhat awkwardly in the "Instruments" section, which is otherwise about types of instrument. I'm not sure if there is an easy solution to that - and "awkwardness" is subjective, anyway. I had thought about moving it to the "uses of music: religion" section, but it's not exactly about "use", either. Maybe, if this sub-section came at the end of the "instruments" section?
Instruments: Voice
  • "will never be known" seems a little too strong. But maybe so.
  • "contemporary" is ambiguous - does it mean contemporary with the ancient Mesopotamians, with van der Merwe, or with the reader?
  • Link for "dynamic changes"? I'm not sure why "shake" is used instead of "trill" and it comes as a bit of a surprise to click on "graces" and be delivered to tempo, which doesn't mention that term. (perhaps a wiktionary link would be better?)
  • muse --> goddess ? (since "muse" has Greek mythological baggage)
Instruments: Percussive
  • "to produce the rattling sound when shook" -> "that produced the rattling sound when shaken" (this might be a dialectal difference...)
  • "Cymbals were small and massive" --> "Cymbals could be small or massive"
  • "4 types" --> "four types"
  • "rather than sticks" --> "rather than with sticks"
  • The Santur instrument mentioned in the picture is not discussed in text (is it a percussion instrument or a stringed instrument?)
Instruments: Wind
  • Link "Hittites"
  • "although some" --> "and some"; "The silver pipes represent" --> "These silver pipes are"; "500" --> "five hundred"; "flutist" --> "flautist" or "flute-player"
  • The word "flute" - here it would probably be good to include the Sumerian word. The reference to tablet viii perhaps goes into a footnote?
  • Link "cylinder seal" and "Nimrud"
Instruments: String
  • Link "catgut" (and "silk"?); perhaps "mother of pearl" (and "lapis lazuli" at first mention in the Surviving instruments section?)
  • "a bull-headed lyre is in the bass register" --> "... would be in..." (and for the rest of the sentence).
  • "Hittites" and "cylinder seal" are linked here for the first time, although they have already been mentioned. It's probably best to wait until the order of sections has been fully arranged and then do a thorough check on terms like these.
  • If any of these depictions of lyre-players are on the museums' online catalogues, it might be nice to link to them.
  • Gloss "sammû" (or mention and define the term somewhere in the preceding discussion).
  • I think most of the discussion of tuning here would go better in the next section. The names of the strings could stay here, but even that fits better with the discussion of cyclic musical theory in the next section.
Music theory
  • Is a link possible for "diatonic" and "tritone"?
  • Is a bit more explanation of "cyclic theory of music" possible?
  • "would later be called Pythagorean" - I think it would be good to have a link here and a phrasing that makes clearer who called it that and when. It should be obvious that something called Pythagorean is Greek, but actually readers of this article might be primarily musicians or interested in Near Eastern history, so we shouldn't presume familiarity with Greek history if we can help it.
  • italicise the names of the scales and link the Greek names (e.g. Dorian mode).
  • The statement in paragraph 3 that the Mesopotamians used a Lydian scale (implicitly: and only that) and the statement in paragraph 4 that they had a number of scales fit together awkwardly.
  • Give Duchesne-Guillemin's first name / initial. Perhaps it is unavoidable, since this is a technical subject, but I have no idea what these four rules mean. Anything that can be done to spell them out further, or to provide links to other places in WP where the concepts are discussed more thoroughly, would be good.
  • In the "Influence" section the article refers to numerology mysticism in relation to the Greeks, but there is no reference in the article as it stands to the role of numerology in Mesopotamia itself. I think that probably belongs in this section - this would also help counteract the impression currently given in this section that Mesopotamian musical theory was rational and mathematical in exactly the same way as modern music theory.
Influence
  • Bahrain - include a link to Dilmun; I don't think it makes sense to include a link to ancient history at this point.
  • The term sinnitu should appear in the Instruments section, not (at least not just) here.
  • It would be good to double-check whether "nefer" actually is Egyptian for "lute". My understanding was that this was an outdated interpretation of the hieroglyph "nefer" (beautiful), now considered to be a depiction of a trachea, not a musical instrument.
  • Is it right to say that the sinnitu has parallels with the Sumerian pan-tur? Shouldn't they be the same thing? "Pandoura" is probably the same thing, also: and is a Roman-period term that appears first in Near Eastern sources, so saying "the Greek pandoura" is a bit like saying "the English gamelan". I guess what these comments are getting at is that this sentence compresses a very wide range of influences over a very broad swathe of time.
  • Why is the image of the lute-player here?
  • Reference to Pythagoras perhaps belongs in the Greek sub-section (and I feel nervous about attributing interest specifically to Pythagoras rather than the Pythagoreans, given how heavily what we are told about him is shaped by later periods).
  • Greek sub-section: I'm not sure the reference to sacrifices to instruments is germane here; it's not a typical feature of Greek religion. In general, I'm nervous about how heavily this rests on Franklin but this seems to be a feature of the current scholarly landscape - there is an article on the Mesopotamian influence on Greek music in the new A Companion to Ancient Greek and Roman Music (2020), edited by Tosca A. C. Lynch & Eleonora Rocconi... also by Franklin (Nevertheless, worth a look and a citation, since things may have changed in 5 years).
  • Persia sub-section: I'd cut the first sentence, which isn't really relevant. "they're" --> "Mesopotamia and Persia were."
  • I'd switch the order of the Persia and Greece sub-sections (since the connection with Persia is closer and starts earlier) and add {{main|Ancient Greek music}} and {{main|Music_of_Iran#Earliest_records}}.
  • Three bigger thoughts: (1) It surprises me a bit that there's not enough scholarship for a sub-section on the relationship with Egyptian music, as the other major neighbour; (2) This section is very focussed on the influence of Mesopotamian music on other cultures - is there really no evidence for the influence of these (and other cultures) on Mesopotamian music? (3) Is it possible to say anything about the influence of Mesopotamian music on Arab music? In asking this question, I am thinking both of any direct influence (e.g., instruments that are still played today) and of attempts by modern Arabs/Iraqis to draw on Mesopotamian musical traditions (i.e. the sort of thing that classicists call reception studies). With these issues, it may be that these reflect real gaps in scholarship, in which case nothing can be done, of course.
End Matter: This looks fine. Maybe add a "see also" section with links to e.g. Parthian music, History of Mesopotamia, Ancient Mesopotamian religion. Furius (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Furius for your additional comments.
  • I agree that the discussion of tuning is better suited in the Music theory section. I moved it there and also adjusting the surrounding text a bit.
GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 05:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most re-phrases and additional wiki links are done. I plan to do a thorough review of the links.
  • Location of the Divinity of instruments section. I think moving it lower in the Instruments section would work, either immediately before or after the Surviving instruments section? No strong opinion.
  • Heptatonic, diatonic, Lydian scale. I think we could lose the Lydian - it was only mentioned because it points to the example in the accompanying image. In the caption, we can say that Lydian is an example of a heptatonic scale. We can also improve the image by including audio, as is done in the Lydian scale depicted in Heptatonic scale.
  • Pythagorean tuning. I added a wiki link perhaps that works? I'm hesitant to state that Duchesne-Guillemin 1984 "called it" that because it doesn't seem to be that author's original idea, but I could be wrong.
GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 22:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I really like the idea of including audio - I always forget that that's a possibility.
Pythagorean: I meant something like "this is the tuning procedure known to the Greeks as Pythagorean" or whatever. My point is that the current phrasing ("this tuning procedure would later be called Pythagorean, although the Babylonians had worked out the heptatonic system many centuries before Greece") expects the reader to make the link between "later" and "before Greece". It's not the hardest logical leap in the world, but the music theory section is the most technically complicated in the article, so wherever it is possible to clearly spell things out, it would be good to do so. Furius (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of my (many) comments have been addressed and I am now prepared to declare support of this article. I consider it to be well-written, comprehensive, without going into unnecessary detail, extremely well-researched, neutral, stable, and free of plagiarism/paraphrasing. The structure is appropriate (and indeed should provide a model for other ancient culture music articles), with a clear lead and consistent citations. I believe that all media issues have been resolved. Furius (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up the sheet music and trade routes
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Captions need editing for style
  • File:Hurrian_Hymn.jpg: what's the copyright status of the photo?
    @GuineaPigC77: Unfortunately I don't think this one is actually PD for the image itself; the credit is to "RS15.30. Photographs by Françoise Ernst-Pradal, French Archaeological Mission to Ras Shamra-Ugarit"; which appears to be published (for the first time?) in 2017. There is a website that claims courtesy was extended, so I'll see if I can't reach out to her and ask for permission to use it on Wikipedia via OTRS. If not, I think we would struggle to justify a non-free image being used, as although it's a good example, there are free equivalents. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tracked down an email and attempted to contact her, hopefully, she will grant permission. If not, we will have to remove it (and indeed delete it from Commons), I believe. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much, @Iazyges. It would be too bad, but Furius prefers a different lead image, and I do think others could work well there. Thanks for reaching out to her. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 04:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GuineaPigC77: The author has refused to grant permission, so I will go ahead and nominate it for deletion on WikiCommons; we'll have to find something to replace it, if desired. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking on the permission. That's a shame, it's the crown jewel of the images IMHO. I'm open to moving one of the other images up but don't have a strong opinion on which. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 20:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iazyges, is this image usable? [10] GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 17:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GuineaPigC77: I've tracked down the file to the British museum, replaced it with a better quality image, and tagged it appropriately, so it is now usable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The former lede image was deleted due to the no-permission tag; so I've gone ahead and added the lyre image as the lede image. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:N-Mesopotamia_and_Syria_english.svg is tagged as lacking datasource
    Can perhaps be replaced by a map from SVG near east map series by dates, based on whichever date is most preferable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GuineaPigC77: for the map replacement, we have options from 2600 BC to 100 BC (interval of 100 years between), do you have a particular preference? Most of the older maps are sourceless or otherwise poor quality, and about an hour of digging didn't find better options unless we want to try our luck getting one commissioned. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iazyges Thank you. Some of our best examples come from the Ur III period and the OB period. What about 2100 BCE. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 18:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GuineaPigC77: Done; are there any prose issues that I should be involved in? It appears you have them well in hand. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iazyges Thank you. So far so good. The trickiest concern to address from Furius has been regarding the names and images of the lyres. The Lyres of Ur article is problematic and probably misleading. I'll comment more above, but I see this as the thorniest item at the moment. But overall yes, all the concerns appear doable, so I'm just chugging through. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 22:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once the context section is cut back as advised by other editors above, I'm not convinced that a map of Mesopotamia will be required. File:Ancient_Near_East_2100BC.svg is well-cited, but isn't really focussed on Mesopotamia and (in my subjective opinion) is not terribly attractive. Furius (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hurrian_Hymn_6_interpreted_by_Raoul_Vitale.png needs a tag for the original work, and what is the basis of this interpretation?
    Done.
  • File:The_Queen's_gold_lyre_from_the_Royal_Cemetery_at_Ur._C._2500_BCE._Iraq_Museum.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:God_Ea,_also_Enki,_holding_a_cup_with_overflowing_water._From_Iraq._Pergamon_Museum.jpg, File:Plaque_with_male_musician_playing_a_harp,_Ischali,_baked_clay_-_Oriental_Institute_Museum,_University_of_Chicago_-_DSC07334.JPG, File:Ishtar_goddess.jpg
    Done.
  • File:LIstofMusicIms2340.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Santur_babylon2.jpg
    Done.
  • File:Bull's_head_ornament_for_a_lyre_MET_DP260070_(cropped).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Plaque_with_musician_playing_a_lute,_Ischali,_Isin-Larsa_period,_2000-1600_BC,_baked_clay_-_Oriental_Institute_Museum,_University_of_Chicago_-_DSC07344.JPG, File:Ishtar_Gate.gif, File:Chaldean_flag.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • @Nikkimaria: Believe all should be good to go now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Caption grammar is still pending. For File:Hurrian_Hymn_6_interpreted_by_Raoul_Vitale.png, what is the intended meaning of "interpretation" in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: It is his attempt to reconstruct the music pattern from what sources remain, interpretations of the work differ between authors; I'll work on image grammar. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there particular sources supporting this interpretation? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: It's drawn from La tablette musical H-6. Archeologiques Arabe Syriennes 29 – 30; would you recommend citing that in the article? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Has been added; apologies if I'm missing something, what about the caption grammar needs fixing? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noticed a few issues - captions that aren't complete sentences ending in periods and hyphens where dashes should be used are the most prevalent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria Thank you so much for your comments. I believe I've fixed your first three points, and Iazyges seems to have addressed the rest? GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 23:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 February 2023 [11].

William D. Mullins edit

Nominator(s): Curbon7 (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first FAC. This article is about a minor league baseball pitcher-turned-state legislator who rose to prominence as an honest person in a legislature historically known for its corruption. Big advocate for Western Massachusetts. This subject came to my attention as he is the namesake of the Mullins Center. Curbon7 (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments edit

  • As the nominator is a first time FACer, the article will require a spot check for source to text fidelity.
  • Hi Curbon7, can I ask if you were/are being mentored per the FAC instructions? "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination."

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not mentored. In retrospect, I would've benefited from discussing the image copyrights with Nikkimaria prior. Curbon7 (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Use of 's after a word ending in s seems inconsistent, but I am not sure what is standard in US English for a singular noun which ends in s. You have "one of Western Massachusetts' most" but later you have "Mullins's" and "the Senators's" (the last of which is definitely wrong BTW - with a plural noun ending in s it is always s' and never s's)
See below.
  • "Mullin's professional debut" should be either "Mullins's professional debut" or "Mullins' professional debut" depending on the resolution of the above point but definitely not what is there at the moment
Done.
  • "Originally run out of rented room" should be either "Originally run out of rented rooms" or "Originally run out of a rented room" depending how many rooms were involved
Done.
  • "without parent consent" => "without parental consent"
Done.
  • "with the courthouse serving as way to" => "with the courthouse serving as a way to"
Done.
  • "Mullins was a lifelong smoker, having smoked from the age of 17 until quitting in 1984" - not really lifelong, if he didn't start till he was 17 and stopped two years before he died. Maybe just say "a longtime smoker"
Done.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the apostrophes, I was following MOS:POSS for singular nouns, which states that "including proper names and words ending in s, add 's". Regardless, I re-jigged some sentences and pronoun-ed out to remove most instances of "Mullins's" as it was quite awkward in most instances, per that last sentence in "Singular nouns". I appreciate the review :)! Curbon7 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:William_D._Mullins.png: the given fair-use tag is not appropriate for the proposed use of this image here. Normally I'd suggest {{non-free biog-pic}}, but in this case we do have a free image of the person so I'm not sure that is justified either. Have you verified that the publication included a copyright notice and whether the copyright was renewed?
  • File:Pierce_Mullins_DeFilippi_political_cartoon.png also has the incorrect fair-use tag, and if it's to be included the FUR will need to be strengthened

In passing I'd also note that the article would benefit from a thorough edit for MOS compliance - I fixed a few issues but more work is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nikkimaria, Alt text has been added. For File:William_D._Mullins.png, I looked into the copyright databases and found no initial notice or renewal (following [12]); I would also figure this one meets NFCC#8 as the only image to show him as an athlete with no free alternative. I've gone ahead and removed and G7'd File:Pierce_Mullins_DeFilippi_political_cartoon.png, as it was definitely pushing the limit and it isn't really necessary. Curbon7 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the athlete image, my question was more, are we sure this is non-free? Can we confirm the original publication had no notice included? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok got it, sorry for the delay. There does appear to have been a notice included in the original, but it was not renewed. Curbon7 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, After checking once more to be sure, yes the license was not renewed, so {{PD-US-not renewed}} does apply here. I have moved the image over to Commons with the proper licensing now. Thank you for your help! Curbon7 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses, Gog! I'll review this next. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Putting down a maker. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A word or two about names: there were times like I'd been sandbagged by the name "Mullins" here, so often was it repeated. A good rule of thumb for each paragraph is to use the name on the first mention and then he (or she) for the rest of the paragraph if there are no other names in the way. You'll see what I mean when you go through the suggestions below – "Mullins" used five times in one paragraph when there are no other names just jars – Use "he" where you can and "Mullins" where you have to.

Lead
  • "However": Delete the word – it's not appropriate
  • "Mullins had retired": just "he retired" will suffice.
  • "Mullins became a teacher" and "Mullins was elected": "He" will do
  • Para three: "Mullins used his position" and "Mullins was described" – "he" will suffice
Early life
  • "Mullins was described", "In baseball, Mullins" and "Mullins was also physically": He, he, he (although that makes me look like I'm laughing!)
  • "Mullins attended", "Mullins was described", "Mullins gave up" and "Mullins threw": guess what I'm going to suggest here...
1953 season
  • Para one: lose the second and third uses of "Mullins"
  • $15,000 and $6,000: maybe use the inflation template to give a current figure to compare?
  • "fielded an offer": sporting metaphors don't work in encyclopaedic writing (even for sporting figures!): he received an offer.
  • Is there any reason why to took the position that was less than half the other?
  • "Nicknamed Moon Mullins during": just 'Nicknamed "Moon" during' (including having quote marks around the nickname, per MOS:NICKNAME)
  • After "In summer 1953", the two uses of Mullins should be "he"
1954 season
  • Para 1: the second third and fourth uses of "Mullins" should be "he"
  • "In April, Mullins pitched": he
  • "Mullins managed" and "Mullins ended" should be "he"
Military service
  • The "atone for the mess" quote – you should identify who said it
  • "Verbale admitted": unless it was a crime he didn't "admit" it; see MOS:SAID
  • "Mullins briefly played": he
Education
  • Para 1: the second and third uses of "Mullins" -> he
  • "the high school's baseball coach": just "the school's baseball coach"

Refs 4, 36, 42, 47 and 123 all have the date formats January 15, 2023. For the sake of consistency you should change them to the 2023-01-15 format, like all the others.

Done to the end of the Education section. It's reviews like this that show why you should have gone through mentoring first. If this was from an experienced FA writer, I would have failed it on the spot and I'm still considering it now. Once we've culled the uses of Mullins from the article, I'll have to review again with fresh eyes to pick up other issues, but the repetition of the name gets in the way of proper reading and reviewing.

The option of withdrawing this nom to work on it at PR is also open to you - and probably something I'd strongly advise now; I'd be happy to help review the text at PR and then mentor you through the return to the FA process, if you would like - I will leave the offer for you to consider. – SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Sorry about this. I've been mulling over this one for a day and a half and tried re-reading without the plethora of "Mullins"s in the way, and think it's not ready for FAC yet. The previous offer still stands: withdraw, take it back to PR and ping me and I'll be happy to go over it all again step-by-step with what's needed. If you want to do that and bring it back to FAC at a later date, I'll be happy to help - just let me know. - SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note -- tks Curbon for bringing this to FAC; I'm going to archive now and strongly suggest taking up the suggestion by SchroCat, one of our most experienced FA editors, to go to PR and perhaps also be mentored by him in a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 February 2023 [13].

Wikipedia edit

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again! This should be the sixth time this article is up for candidacy to become an FA. I've gone through the entire article and brought everything up to date (that I could find data for). I hope this article is restored to its previous glory! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on 1c and 4. Currently cites plenty of dubious sources such as International Business Times, Wikipedia articles, The Signpost, Larry Sanger op-eds, etc. The article's length is over 12,000 words of readable prose and could benefit from a 30-50% reduction. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Buide, among other things. The sourcing is one of the main concerns for me - using dubious sources and under-using academic sources is a no-no for me. But there are issues in the text too. There is a single paragraph that reads “The number of active English Wikipedia editors has since remained steady after a long period of decline.” There’s no context in the paragraph and “since” has no start or end points - “As at/of” is needed for context, particularly for a three-year-old source. That’s one example, but there are more. There’s also a CN tag in there. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nominator has had relatively little input into the article as it stands—indeed, some of their improvements have already been reverted—and does not seem to discussed it with longer-term contributors. SN54129 13:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- thanks everyone, this is an article that really needs to go to another Peer Review before any future FAC nomination... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 February 2023 [14].

Eileen Collins edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently completed a series on the first six NASA women astronauts. All though were mission specialists - scientists, doctors and engineers who worked with the Space Shuttle payloads. But who was the first woman to actually fly the Space Shuttle and go on to command a mission? Well, we have an article on her too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma edit

Happy to review another astronaut soon. —Kusma (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Referring to the missions just as STS-63 etc. is jargon that should better be explained. (at least use "the STS-63 Space Shuttle mission" at first use); I would also prefer to see "mission" or so added to the section titles, but I won't insist on that
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her ancestors came to America in the mid-1800s, settling in Pennsylvania and Elmira, New York." It is a bit odd that you omit her proudly proclaimed Irish heritage.
    Added "She was proud of her Irish heritage." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is much better now that you included it in the previous sentence (I think I didn't state my point well).
  • God Is My Co-Pilot what is that book? Fate Is the Hunter could also benefit from an explanation, but at least we have a link there
    God is My Co-Pilot is a 1943 novel by Robert Lee Scott Jr. about his exploits in World War II with the Flying Tigers and the United States Army Air Forces in China and Burma. We don't have an article on it, but it is red-linked elsewhere on Wikipedia. We do have an article on the 1945 film though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but could you add glosses like "the aviator's memoir"?
    Yes, but that required a couple of additional references. Sourced the gloss to the New York Timesbook reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a trainer is not considered an operational aircraft." according to whom? And is this still true today?
    As far as I know. Added a bit about what is considered a major weapons systems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sections about the missions could have {{main}} introducing them; this is especially necessary for STS-93 and STS-114 where the link isn't in the first sentence.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her husband was trained as a pilot, but worked for the Air Force Academy as golf instructor, but then became a commercial pilot? This sounds odd. Or was the golf instructing just a side gig?
    He was assigned to the USAF Academy's Athletics department as the golf coach. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is fine if he was no longer serving as a pilot.
    What?! That's not right. Where did that idea come from? He retained his pilot rating and military flight pay, which is worth up to $35,000 a year. He flew the required number of hours to retain it. One annoyance was that after he got married he couldn't fly with Eileen any more, due to a USAF regulation prohibiting spouses flying together (so that their children won't be orphans if they crash). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From the article, I understood he was working only as a golf instructor. —Kusma (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Collins's selection as one of the twenty-three astronaut candidates (ASCANs) in NASA Astronaut Group 13." garbled
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was another routine assignment that astronauts did that help familiarise them with the Space Shuttle's systems and procedure" garbled
    Corrected spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Had this occurred, the engines would have had to be replaced" what is "this"?
    Engine startup. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK.

Probably more later! —Kusma (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall the article seems to be in excellent shape. Happy to support on prose (but I share the concerns about potential over-reliance on her autobiography). —Kusma (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp edit

  • Why is "bachelor of Arts" have a lowercase "b" but "Master of Science" have an uppercase "M"?
    Typo. The MOS says that the B should be capitalised. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the article use DMY dates? I always thought that American articles were meant to have MDY dates.
    MOS:DATETIES: articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TIL. Steelkamp (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will have more comments later. Steelkamp (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Space Shuttle orbiter should be linked the first time that orbiter is mentioned.
    Linked on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and she attended the El-Ne-Ho summer camp." Is this really that important? There isn't much information about this camp on Google.
    It is related to her mother's work at Elmira, but the connection is not as obvious nor the camp not as well known as I thought it would be. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But most single-pilot aircraft were combat aircraft..." Could this changed so the sentence doesn't begin with "but". How about: "Most single-pilot aircraft were combat aircraft though, ..."
    Already done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But women were still not permitted to fly combat aircraft, ..." Same as above.
    In this case the two sentences have been joined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pilot Instructor Training (PIT)". Is this acronym necessary, considering it is not used later in the article?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and only woman flight instructor at Vance..." Should this be "and the only woman flight instructor at Vance..."?
    Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines, and then to back to Clark, to Diego Garcia again, ..." This is written confusingly.
    Tried to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a golf instructor? Does it have to do with the sport of gold? I'm confused because it later says Youngs was a commercial pilot.
    Someone who teaches you how to play golf. Linked. The article seems clear enough to me: Youngs was also posted to the Air Force Academy, as a golf instructor. They were married on 1 August 1987. Youngs eventually left the USAF to fly as a commercial pilot for Delta Air Lines, thereby giving himself the flexibility to follow Collins as her career progressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just making sure it wasn't some military thing I hadn't heard of. I was kinda confused how one goes from golf instructor to pilot lol. Steelkamp (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • United States Air Force Academy can be linked in the body.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which also included Carolyn Huntoon, the Director of Life Sciences; Joseph Atkinson, the Chief of Equal Opportunity Programs". Does this conform with MOS:JOBTITLES?
    I think so. When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs). What could be clearer? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an inconsistency in the capitalisation of "Orbiter".
    Lowercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some, like one of the other leaking thrusters, could be shut off, but one, R1U, was required for rendezvous." What does "some" mean in this context. This sentence is confusing.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mir EO-23 mission commander". Should Mir be italicised here?
    "Italicised. The software should be modified to handle this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was made by the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton". This seems to also go against MOS:JOBTITLES. It should either be "was made by the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton" or "was made by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton".
    The second form is called a false title. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should The Tonight Show with Jay Leno be linked?
    There's an article on that? Wow. Linked then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Discovery was not damaged, video of the launch revealed that the problem with debris striking the Space Shuttle had not been resolved.[96] Ten pieces of foam had broken off the external tank during lift off, including a 92-by-279-by-17-centimeter (36.3 in × 110 in × 6.7 in) piece that was the largest ever recorded." This is referring to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster right? I think you should make that clearer for those who might not know about the circumstances of that disaster.
    Add some editorialising. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The three spacewalks and the transfer of supplies was carried out without problems." Change "was" to "were".
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Steelkamp (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Steelkamp (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian edit

Recusing coord duties to review...

  • Copyedited as usual, hopefully I didn't misunderstand anything. The lede read very well. Outstanding points re. prose/content:
    • No reason she shouldn't be proud of her Irish heritage but not sure we need in the article unless it motivated her activities in some way. Can we drop and just say her ancestors came from Ireland in the previous sentence?
      Always seems like an American thing to me. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't think sibling names are necessary unless notable, can we just mention sexes and places in the brood relative to Eileen?
      Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • a logical assignment for a mathematics major -- maybe the source says this but it still reads like editorialising; maybe it can reworded, but I don't think it'd hurt to just drop it.
      Yes, it is what the source says. "As a math major, I would be working in strategic missile targeting." Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • She knew one other member of the group, who called themselves the "Hairballs", well -- I went "uh?" at the "well" on first reading; I'm guessing Collins knew others in the group but not well, is that right?
      Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing-wise, in due course I'll walk through and let you know if I have any concerns with citations to the co-written autobiography, as I did in a previous astronaut FAC (I note that the book under Further reading appears to be quite short and aimed at children)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a book for young readers. I have used such books in the past, but only when no better source was available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit I was initially sceptical of the value of Osprey's books on fighter aces because they were so slim and so profusely illustrated that they seemed little more than kids' stuff, and then I looked at the caliber of authors and their no-nonsense writing and found them to be a very worthwhile source of information. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Not strictly a source review query but are three citations really necessary for Her parents were James Edward Collins and his wife Rose Marie née O'Hara.?
    To avoid creating an extra ref. Combined two of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look reliable, formatting check later.
  • Generally I'm not concerned with using the (co-written) autobiography for uncontroversial info and/or stuff that purely relates to the subject and her thoughts/goals/actions/reactions. More general statements about the Air Force or NASA programs, and especially about distinctions/firsts, I believe should at least be augmented by other sources, e.g.
    • In 1976, women had different fitness standards from the men, but Collins was granted permission to do the morning run with the men, who had to run 12 furlongs (2.4 km) in less than 12 minutes. The training included classes on the history of the USAF and the theory of flight, a ride in a Fairchild C-123 Provider and a flight in a Cessna T-37 Tweet with an instructor.
      Actually, this is still the case. The RAAF wants 2.4 km in 1q2 minutes, and I think the kids may well be wondering where the 2.4 km comes from. Added a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Syracuse AFROTC commander, Colonel Vernon Hagen, informed her that the USAF was now accepting up to ten women from AFROTC programs for pilot training, and offered to put her name forward for this.
      Added a reference that partially covers the. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • She was one of four women in the class; there were ten men. The purpose of the FSP was to screen out unsuitable pilots before sending them to the more expensive Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) program. Collins was almost eliminated on medical grounds due to her left eye and a suspected heart murmur, but was cleared to fly. Training flights were conducted from nearby Hondo Municipal Airport in Cessna T-41 Mescalero aircraft.
      Added a reference about the FSP. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The top-ranking members of the class went on to fly single-pilot aircraft, while the others became co-pilots. Most single-pilot aircraft were combat aircraft, which woman could not yet fly,
      Could not find another source for this. Since 1992, those destined for large aircraft trained from the beginning on the T-1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • and the only woman flight instructor at Vance between September 1979 and December 1982
      Added an extra source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty well the whole of the fourth para of Air Force career barring the first two sentences (i.e. Now a captain, Collins set her sights on becoming an astronaut. To achieve this goal, she aimed to graduate from the USAF Test Pilot School.)
      Nothing I can do about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • During the American invasion of Grenada in October 1983, her aircraft flew troops of the 82nd Airborne Division from Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina to Grenada, and took thirty-six medical students back. Although women were not supposed to fly in combat, the USAF gave her combat pay for the mission, and awarded her the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.
      Added an extra source for her Air Expeditionary Medal. I can source the use of C-141s for the 82nd and evacuation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Through the Air Force Institute of Technology, she earned a Master of Science in operations research from Stanford University in 1986
      Added an additional reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty well everything in the second-last para of Air Force career, up to and including but this time a waiver was granted.
    • She was also the most senior member of the class, as she was the only one with the rank of major, which made her the class leader.
      Could not find anything on this, although a major would normally be the most senior member of a test pilot class; usually everyone is a captain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to stop there, pls consider Astronaut career in the same light and look at further referencing for passages that rely solely on the autobiography but are not strictly to do with Collins' own actions/reactions -- happy to have another look after that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I don't think this is going anywhere. Please close. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 February 2023 [15].

Damen station (CTA Blue Line) edit

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another Chicago "L" station on the old Logan Square branch, home to the Lake Street Transfer station that I also got to FA status. Unlike the Transfer and most Logan Square stations, however, this station still exists and is one of the Chicago "L"'s busiest. This is the first rail station that's still in service I've worked on, and I hope I've gotten it to FA status. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, note the rule at the head of the FAC page "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks" and my comment when I closed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2023 "The usual two-week hiatus will apply." So I am afraid that I will be closing this one.

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 February 2023 [16].

Early skyscrapers edit

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about skyscrapers built before World War II, and especially before the Great Depression. These were primarily focused in New York and Chicago, but by the interwar period had spread to many other cities and countries. Although tall structures have existed since the 3rd millennium BC (c.f. the Great Pyramid of Giza), skyscrapers as we know them were not technically feasible prior to the late 19th century, and what better places than the major cities of America to experiment with new architectural forms?

For full disclosure, I did not write the large portion of this article; that honor goes to Hchc2009, who is regrettably no longer active on Wikipedia but who gave his blessing to this FAC. Since Hchc wrote almost 90 percent of this article, I do not intend to claim WikiCup points from this nom, nor do I think anyone else should. I did, however, make some minor cleanups to this article (duplink removal, consistency in AmEng, etc.), and I believe this article passes the criteria on prose (pending minor copyediting, which can be done as seen fit rather than clog up the review). I am also pinging Epicgenius, who I am quite surprised also did not write (much of) this article but to whom this should be of great interest. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Fixed
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done
  • File:Terminal_Tower_ceiling.jpg: what is the copyright status of the interior design?
    • Irrelevant, as the US has freedom of panorama for lobbies, especially in pre-1990 buildings.
      • The description identifies the design as a mural - is that not correct? Murals are not 3D. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is referring to the murals in the window arches (which I believe it is), those qualify as de minimis IMO, since the focus is on the ceiling (which is 3D/building/FoP) and I needed to expressly look at the arches to see where these "murals", which are in any event angled and out of focus, were. However, even without such protection, they were installed before 1978 and don't appear to have a copyright notice attached to them, so they should be fine. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Old_timer_structural_worker2.jpg: why is this believed to be a US government work?
  • File:Home_Insurance_Building.JPG: when was this first published? Ditto File:Newspaper_Row,_1906.JPG
    • For the Home Insurance Building, it appears that it wasn't published until 1931; I've removed the image for now, and referred the matter to Commons. For Newspaper Row, the site says that the NYT published it in 1906, but clicking on the link given gives me a dead link and the Internet Archive is of no help, so I have no choice but to take it at its word.
      • What site says it was published in 1906, as opposed to created? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking through NYT archives from 1905 to 1908 I can't see it published, so for now I've replaced it with a surer picture of the Potter Building in the area. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Chicago_Masonic_Temple_Building.jpg: if the author is known, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom pinging edit

Perhaps due to the length and scope breadth of this article, this hasn't attracted an especial lot of attention. I'll ping some FAC buddies/WikiProject Skyscrapers contributors/WikiCup participants here: @FrB.TG, Wehwalt, Trainsandotherthings, Steelkamp, Kusma, Lee Vilenski, SounderBruce, MelbourneStar, and CookieMonster755:, in addition to repinging @Epicgenius:. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make any promises, but I will keep this on my radar. It depends on how busy I am the next few weeks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will review this after finishing a review of 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate). Steelkamp (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will review this soon. FrB.TG (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My time's short due to travel but I'll see if I can get in a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I also have very little time over the next few weeks due to real-life commitments. However, I can also leave some comments. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, John, are you familiar enough with the source material to be able to address any concerns that might come up about accuracy or comprehensiveness? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell I am not; as said earlier, I am nominating someone else's article, mainly focusing on prose and image concerns while assuming good faith on the sourcing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma edit

OK, I'll do some non-expert reviewing. I'll look in detail later, just first impression:

  • There may be a structural/comprehensiveness issue in the body: we seem to get dropped right in the middle of 19th century New York. Shouldn't we first discuss what the term "skyscraper" means and what "early" means in the context? Which tall buildings are skyscrapers? See also Skyscraper#Definition. You do discuss the term later, but that is after more than a screenful of extensive use. This could also help with clarifying which European tall buildings (if any) should be discussed in the context (why are the 10+ storey buildings in Edinburgh Old Town not "skyscrapers"? What about Queen Anne's Mansions or the Royal Liver Building?).
  • In a similar direction, it would be good to state again at the beginning of the body that this is very much a New York and Chicago topic.
  • Is the definition of "early"="before the end of World War II" universally accepted? (The Early Chicago Skyscrapers are all from the 19th century)
  • Commercial and social drivers: I'm wondering whether this isn't a bit long (perhaps because I'm waiting for the article to get to the point and start building skyscrapers).
  • "Most buildings adopted the Italian Renaissance inspired palazzo-style of architecture popular in England, and rose no more than five or six stories." perhaps this would read better with less active buildings.
  • Technological developments: "French engineers experimented" as I read the source, this is Hippolyte Fontaine (fr:Hippolyte Fontaine also mentions his engineering works on the Docks de Saint-Ouen [fr]). What are the "engineering journals"? (A cursory glance suggests the titles cited are books, but I could be wrong).
  • "Augustin-Jean Fresnel" source says it was his brother Léonor.
  • Fireproofing: Who are the "French engineers"? Peter B. Wight seems to be mentioned in this context on p. 27 of the source, not p. 24

More later! —Kusma (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kusma: As said earlier, someone else wrote this article, so I don't have the deepest expertise on the subject matter or sourcing that I would for one of "my own" FACs. That said, I have added a section on pre-19th century tall structures and how the "skyscrapers" of the 19th century fit into them, and I'll address your other concerns in the coming weeks. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That helps. For the history of the word, the source just refers to the OED, which would IMO be better to (also) cite directly. Do you have a citation for "Where the "skyscraper" fits into this history is somewhat nebulous."?
    • I do not, I just thought it would be a good-sounding transition. I've decided that it's not necessary, though. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Further down, but I don't want to forget to mention this): The Seven Sisters are seven buildings, not one. The main building of Moscow State University reminded me of the Cathedral of Learning, which used to be the world's tallest educational building and fits into the time covered by the article. I'm not an expert, though, so I have no idea what examples should be included.

And again, more later. —Kusma (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • More sourcing issues. "The Home Insurance Building in Chicago, opened in 1885, is, however, most often labeled the first skyscraper because of its innovative use of structural steel in a metal frame design" snippet says something like this is on Schleier 1986 p. 5, but what is the relevance of Condit p. 115?
  • Why is the Witte Huis a skyscraper? The whole "foreign skyscrapers" bit is lacking citations.
  • "The design won critical acclaim within the American architectural profession." citation seems off by a page?
  • "Architect Cass Gilbert designs included" grammar.
  • Throughout the article, "the war" and similar expressions sometimes mean WW1, sometimes WW2.
  • "Lewis Hine, employed to record the building of the Empire State Building, portrayed the skyscraper construction teams as courageous heroes, creating a genre of photography that continued up until 1941" do you mean "until the US entered WW2" or is there something else about 1941 here? Is there a name for the genre?
  • "Skyscraper development paused during the years of World War II. Once development began again in the 1950s and 1960s, the skyscraper entered a different phase of development, usually called the international or modern period." source?
  • "Critical discussion of early skyscrapers began from the 1880s onwards in the architectural community and continued across a growing cultural and academic community in the inter-war period. " Is this in the source cited? And does it say very much other than that discussion of skyscrapers is as old as skyscrapers?

Overall an interesting article, but I am unsure whether I can properly judge it for comprehensiveness. We see in-depth discussion of Chicago and New York (at various times in history) while the rest of the world comes up only as examples that are not discussed in much detail; it is hard for me to tell whether this is appropriate. I am also worried by the often somewhat imprecise citations (and some uncited bits) and would recommend checking the sourcing thoroughly. I may comment more but I will leave the article to others for the moment. —Kusma (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

  • Oppose. I hate having to oppose articles, but there are times it's unavoidable. I expected to see comprehensive coverage of what constitutes "early skyscrapers", but see this is about late 19th/early 20th century US buildings. As it stands it is not comprehensive enough in scope to justify the title.
    The sources are also lacking. This is a well-covered field (America's first and most important architectural development), but I would have thought Jason Barr's Building the Skyline: The Birth and Growth of Manhattan's Skyscrapers (OUP, 2018) and Skyscrapers: A History of the World's Most Extraordinary Buildings by Adrian Smith and Judith Dupré would be in there. I also see there's no use of the CTBUH Journal from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat – and nothing even from the journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, which is actually based in Chicago. So, we can't say that the literature has been comprehensively explored either. Given Kusma's concerns on sourcing and some of the grammar, I think this would be best off withdrawn and worked on, prior to re-nominating at a later date. Sorry! - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi John M Wolfson, any comeback on the two reviews immediately above? At the moment I am minded to archive it for further work off-FAC as suggested. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SchroCat gets more directly to the heart of what I was hinting at above. The nomination was made in only the best of faith but John isn't in a position to resolve queries about the substance of the article so the nomination can't really progress. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go right ahead, Gog. I still think that this is adequate scope-wise, but this will require much more work on sourcing and prose than I expected and am able to put in at the moment, especially with WikiCup. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archived. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
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_2023&oldid=1142088021"