Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2020

< 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) 29 January 2020 [1].

Leptospirosis edit

Nominator(s): Cerevisae (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Leptospirosis disease. I see it reasonable for featured article nomination after substational expansion in 2019. Thank you.Cerevisae (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards edit

  • This can't be right " If infected, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) examination shows lymphocytic predominance with a cell count of 500/mm3". How can you be so precise? I have counted my fair share of cells in CSF.
Sorry, but not done. What if I were to telephone you in the middle of the night and say "342 cells, 70% lymphocytes". We need more for an FA. Graham Beards (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs clarifying, "During the first eight days of infection, the bacteria can be detected by quantitative PCR and can reach as high is 10^6 bacteria per ml of blood". PCR detects DNA not bacteria cells. I have read the citation (and the one cited in the citation) and it is not clear to me how the qPCR has been calibrated to correlate copies of DNA with numbers of bacteria.
  •  Done. Removed whole sentence. Unable to find additional sources to support this.Cerevisae (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. It is used in epidemiological studies only.Cerevisae (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. I have incubated and tested loads of routine blood cultures where the suspected (speculated) diagnosis was leptospirosis. Graham Beards (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also seeing quite a bit of bad grammar. In my opinion, this article is not ready for FA (or FAC) and should be withdrawn. Graham Beards (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the instructions at FAC; done and not done check marks should be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG: suggest withdrawal edit

  • What I am seeing initially (just scanning the page) is a lot of copyediting needs, samples only:
  • The people at the highest risk for leptospirosis are young people whose age ranges from 5–16 years old, and can also range to young adults.
  • The duration of bacteria being consistently present in animal urine are long.
  • The lead is quite choppy. And repetitive (“most common”).
  • There are also WP:MOSNUM issues throughout. A thorough MOS review is needed for things like image captions, NBSPs, a lack of as of dates, wikilinking, etc.
  • A surprisingly large number of the sources are quite dated, which is always a concern in medical articles (WP:MEDDATE). As but a few examples only (there are more), why are these recent reviews not used?
  • PMID 25388134
  • PMID 30605077
  • PMID 31898795
  • PMID 31542372
I realize the Peer review got zero feedback after waiting a long time, but I suspect this article could benefit from more eyes before being submitted to FAC, and may not be quite ready.
While it is unfortunate that the peer review garnered zero feedback, I suggest this FAC be withdrawn and re-submitted after a copyedit, MOS review, and use of more recent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding. I use Google searches to find the latest review articles. Therefore, I missed the latest reviews. Thanks for your feedback.Cerevisae (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article might help you: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. You really have to go to Pubmed, and restrict your search to Reviews during the last five years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With a little leeway for a "History" section. :-) Graham Beards (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Cerevisae, per the recommendations for withdrawal, I'm going to archive this. As well as acting on the suggestions above, you could consider giving the FAC mentoring scheme a try to assist with a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2020 (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) 26 January 2020 [2].

Drosophila subobscura edit

Nominator(s): Andrewoh29 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the biology, ecology, and taxonomy of the Drosophila subobscura species of Diptera. I started writing the article from Dr. Strassmann's Behavioral Ecology class at Washington University in St. Louis. Since then, I have continued to improve and follow-up with the article. I believe the article should be featured, because it seems to meets all the criteria for a featured article.

I am open to being mentored and would appreciate reviewers to reach out to me!

Andrewoh29 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
Hi Andrewoh29, welcome to FAC and thanks for your work on this article. I notice that some sections are quite closely paraphrased from the given sources. Look for example at the "Head" section:

The species has a brown antenna with grey pollinosity that is approximately the same color as the rest of the head-capsule. The front of the antenna is dark brown and matte, without any pollinosity except on the frontal triangle and fronto-orbital plates, both of which are shiny and slightly pollinose. The carina (tracheal cartilage that divides the two bronchi) of the fly is rounded, widening below, and the face is a paler brown color with grey pollinosoty. The genae is brown with heavy, grey pollinosity. The ocelli (small or 'simple' eyes of an insect) are the same color as the eyes.

This is essentially a slightly expanded version of the given source for that section:

Antenna brown, grey pollisnose, more or less concolorous with the rest of the head-capsule. Front dark brown, matte, without any pollinosity except on the frontal triangle and the fronto-orbital plates which are shiny and slightly pollinose. Carina rounded, widening below, it and the face generally of a paler brown, grey pollinose. Genae brown, heavily grey pollinose. Ocelli of the same colour as the eyes.

Unfortunately I'm going to need to oppose over this issue at this time, as fixing it will require some pretty fundamental rewriting of affected sections. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your comments! I appreciate you reaching out. I will work on these edits. andrewoh29 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct! I am going to do more edits before re-nominating. Not sure if there is a formal process for withdrawing. Sorry about that andrewoh29 (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, andrewoh29, apologies for undoing you, but, yeah, the FAC coordinators have to do it the way the bot likes  :) they'll be along soon enough to complete the process. Best of luck with getting this sorted out though! ——SN54129 19:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate that! Thank you for your help! andrewoh29 (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2020 (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) 26 January 2020 [3].

Sol-20 edit

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sol-20 is a surprisingly little-known microcomputer given its place in history. It appears to be the first truly mass-produced personal computer - there are numerous earlier examples of PCs like the Micral and Altair, but they were only the CPU box and required an external terminal of some sort to be useful; most also did nothing when turned on and the user had to "switch in" a program. In contrast, the Sol-20 could be purchased complete, plugged into the wall, plugged into any television for display, and thanks to its onboard ROM, was running as soon as you turned it on. It pre-dates the "1977 trinity" machines -TRS-80, PET and Apple II- which also had these qualities, and sold some ten thousand or more units during its two-year production run. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
The first is used only in a parenthetical note and seems uncontroversial? I could simply remove the note if need-be, it doesn't add much. The second is a re-"printing" of the original book, "Stan Veit's History of the Personal Computer", should I re-cite it to that source? I am actually quoting the web page itself, so I cited that, but I could probably get a copy of the book somewhere.
For the first one, I would remove the note. For the second I would credit the original source in some way. I don't think it's necessary to get a copy of the book but one could say something along the lines of, "reprinted from... "
Fixed and fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ham Radio Horizons and Byte sources should use the same format as other sources, unless there is a reason.
Moved.
  • Please cite specific pages for where the information can be found in the Byte article, Swaine & Freiberger 2014, Felsenstein 1977, Systems 1977. (Longer page range makes info harder to find).
Ok, so...
Byte moved and clarified exactly what I was quoting with another cite for the price comparison.
Swaine & Freiberger fixed, just an oversight.
Found an original for Felsenstein 1977, re-cited and pages added. That version showed blockquotes, one of which I begged to be included.
Systems 1977 - this is actually referring to the entire document.
That leaves Veit, which I simply don't have in a version with numbers. I know it's Chapter 9, and the page range is around 138 to 142, but that's all I can get out of Google.
  • Is Kilobaud Magazine being used to cite anything?
Apparently not, removed. That is very odd, normally the cite tool I have turned on would put that up as an unused template. Perhaps it is no longer working, I'll have to look.
  • Otherwise, sources seem reliable for what they're being used for. A cursory search didn't find any more information.
  • It's a shame there's only google preview for PC World article, which is one of the better sources from a RS perspective. If you'd like I can request it via ILL from my university.
Oh, I'd love that! I'm also STILL trying to get a photo of the expansion bus, I know someone that has one of these machines (still working if you can believe it) but he keeps forgetting to forward them :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requested. If you send me an email, I will send you the scan as soon as I get it. buidhe 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to verify some information through source checks. buidhe 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description—this is all cited inline as per FA criteria. Is it necessary to state "From the Sol Systems Manual unless otherwise noted."? buidhe 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Lead caption needs editing for clarity
  • File:Popular_Electronics_cover_July_1976.jpg lacks a sufficient FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All should be fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit of an issue with the last of these - that fair-use tag is intended for cases where the publication, not the thing featured, is the focus. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some other tag I should use? Perhaps you can point to a similar example? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7 I think this is a great article. Although I remember with other computers of the era, I'd never heard of this one. Which is a way of saying that your work here is truly appreciated.

  • "where it was a huge hit" Suggest deleting "huge" per WP:PEACOCK
Done.
  • Link "modem". Most millennials would never have seen one.
Added.
  • Link "baud" A term you never hear anymore
Changed and linked to BPS instead.
  • "The terminal was deliberately designed to allow it to be easily repaired by anyone. Combined with the Pennywhistle, users would have a cost-effective way to access Community Memory from anywhere." "anyone"? "anywhere"? Sounds like hyperbole. Suggest deleting these words.
Deleted.
  • "with its primary funding source" Who was that?
Added.
  • "hacking minded engineers" hyphen required here?
That seemed wordy in retrospect, removed.
  • Footnotes a, c and f could use a reference
Well A is a claim of obvious fact, and the second part is reffed in the body. F already has the ref. Added C.
Suggest moving the reference to the end of footnote f? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already is...
Moved to first.
  • "Stan Veit later joked to Les that they named it after Solomon in another way" Suggest "Stan Veit later joked to Solomon that they named it after him in another way"
Changed.
  • " a kludged up box of parts", hyphen required here?
Grammarly, which is normally spot-on with these, says no. But eyeballs say yes, so added.
  • 8" should be "8-inch" and 5.25" should be "5.25-inch" Remember, most people have never encountered the old measurements, and would not know what the whole 9x means.
Added. I assume we don't need a conversion here, as this was the name more than the physical dimension?
That would be my position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the Sol Systems Manual,[32] unless otherwise noted." Do we need this?
I have always found this VERY useful because it indicates you will be referring to it a lot. A list of para-ends is not the same implication. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let me thank you for taking on the task of writing this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro edit

Oppose on 1c (specifically WP:V): I looked at the lead, which revealed a few minor issues to begin with, but the first section of the main body threw up quite a few more, which worry me a little. Therefore I am opposing until this is clarified a little (there is probably a simple explanation, but I think it needs clearing up, hence the oppose).

Lead: Parts of this are a little difficult to follow, but this is easy enough to fix with a link or two. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The opening paragraph of the lead is somewhat impenetrable to me as I have no background in computing. This would be less of an issue if we had some slightly better links: could we link backplane, I/O drive and boot code?
All addressed except I/O, which is explained in the 3P+S link.
  • ”It also included swappable ROMs with boot code that allowed it to start up running a selection of programs”: Perhaps a little redundancy here. Could we just have “Swappable ROMs with boot code allowed a selection of programs to run on start up.” Also, we could perhaps link start up here.
Reworded.
  • ”a motherboard known as the Sol-PC which was also available as free schematics”: I’m not entirely clear what this means. I know the lead is a summary, but am I right in thinking this means you could simply build your own for free if you were so inclined?
Correct.
  • Should the price be mentioned in the lead?
Indeed, added.
  • ”By that time, the "1977 trinity" -the Apple II, Commodore PET and TRS-80- had begun to take over the market, and a series of failed new product introductions drove Processor Technology into bankruptcy”: We are using a hyphen to break up the sentence when it should be a pair of emdashes.
Fixed, although you should feel free to do this yourself.
  • ”Felsenstein would later develop the successful Osborne 1 computer, using much the same underlying design in a portable format”: Why not simply “Felsenstein later developed…”? Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded.

Tom Swift Terminal: Reading the first section, I checked a source to clarify something with a view to rephrasing it, but I could not find the information in the source. I then checked a few more references and I could not find the information in those sources either. I imagine that there is a simple explanation: either I am overlooking something in the source, the wrong page was given in the reference or a different edition was used to the one linked in the reference. However, as this is a sourcing issue, it does need clarification. It may also be worth the nominator and maybe other reviewers checking some of the other references to make sure they support the text given. If I am overlooking something, it may be worth quoting the parts of the source that support our text. I am more than happy to strike the oppose if this can be easily cleared up, or if I have misunderstood something. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incidentally, at the start of the History section, we need to introduce Felsenstein as we only do so in the lead.
Added.
  • The first couple of sentences are a little difficult to understand. It was trying to understand these first sentences that led me to check the sources.
  • ”The cost of running the system was untenable; the terminal cost $1,500 (their first example was donated), the modem another $300, and the mainframe time would normally be dollars a minute.”: Using “cost” twice in close succession here. I’m not clear what “their first example was donated” means here: it was donated to them (by who, and why?) or they donated it to someone else? Nor do I understand what “the mainframe time would normally be dollars a minute” means.
Let's unpack this...
The cost of a Model 33 is referenced just below in the section about the Altair.
Added the donator, although I don't think that really clarifies anything.
Time-sharing systems of the era billed in terms of CPU time, typically minutes. It cost a lot. Added and reffed.
  • I'll be honest, it concerns me that this was not referenced before. However, it reads more clearly now. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Even the reams of paper output from the terminal were too expensive to be practical”: What paper output? Again, this is unclear to the general reader… why did the system need paper to operate?
Teletype Model 33's are teletype printers. The link to the Model 33 should do here.
  • Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. For an FA, the reader should not have to follow links to understand what something means. I had no idea that it was a printer, nor will, I imagine, the majority of readers. However, I'm not going to insist on a change here. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we could do with some dates in the first paragraph of history.
Added.
  • The first four sentences of “Tom Swift Terminal” are cited to Levy p 148, which is viewable for me online via the link. I cannot find any of the information cited.
I can see all of this information in Google Books between page 145 and 148. Can you see this section? I was using a PDF version lacking page numbers (one of the major reasons I believe ebooks are a plague) so I had to do my best by cross-referencing.
  • OK, this is a big problem. The reference says p 148, now you are saying it's somewhere between p 145 and 148. This fails WP:V. I'm inclined to agree with you about ebooks, but that doesn't mean that WP:V doesn't apply. I'm not sure what you were using, but even some kind of ebook reference such as Kindle use would be preferable to giving what is effectively the wrong page number. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page numbers appear to all be correct.
  • ”The replacement of the Model 33 with a Hazeltine glass terminal helped, but it required constant repairs”: The reference checks out about requiring constant repairs, but the reasons given in the source for switching are not related to costs but to unreliability.
Yes. Sorry, have to go, back later. Maury Markowitz (talk)
  • I notice this has not been changed yet. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Since 1973, Felsenstein had been looking for ways to lower the cost”: I’m probably overlooking it, so could someone show me where the source supports this?
  • Just flagging this in case you missed it. 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This is mentioned again below.
  • Reference 6 covers most of the second paragraph of “Tom Swift Terminal”. But…
  • Article: “When he saw Don Lancaster's TV Typewriter on the cover of the September 1973 Popular Electronics…”
  • Source: Yes, he saw the January 1975 issue cited, but here it says that the picture was a design by Ed Roberts, not Don Lancaster.
I cannot find any statement like that. Ed Roberts was the designer of the Altair, two years later. This is definitely not in ref 6, where are you seeing this?
  • The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, on which the only mention of Popular Electronics is about Ed Roberts; looking again, I see that it was actually from 1975 not 1973. However, it did not support the text. The new reference supports the text given. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: “a 300 bits per second acoustic coupler that was 1⁄3 the cost of commercial models”
  • I can’t find this in the source cited.
Which part, the 300 or the cost? I think you mean the cost, and that's in there, "And it finally went on the market in ’76 or ’77, and it knocked modem prices down from $350 to $100."
  • The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, which does not contain any of this information. The new version is referenced to Felsenstein 2008, p. 13, which STILL does not contain the cited information. A search reveals this is on p. 17. It should not be the job of a reviewer to correct citations. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: “he began adapting its circuitry as the basis for a design he called the Tom Swift Terminal”
  • In the pages cited, he saw the magazine cover after he had come up with his ideas.
I am reading a paragraph that starts "In 1973, in September '73, the TV typewriter burst upon the scene" and ends "And that was the basics of the design of the Tom Swift terminal,". Can you be more specific - is the problem in the text in the Sol article or the source?
  • The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, on which the only mention of Popular Electronics comes after he had come up with his ideas. The current version is referenced to to Felsenstein 2008, p. 13, which STILL does not contain the cited information. A search reveals that it is on p. 14.
  • Article: “The terminal was deliberately designed to allow it to be easily repaired. Combined with the Pennywhistle, users would have a cost-effective way to access Community Memory.”
  • I can’t find this in the source given.
Which part, the easily repaired or the cost effective? The later is mentioned in the paragraph just above the one talking about the TST, he's talking about how much it cost to maintain the Hazeltine and that it wasn't worth it.
  • I cannot find that on the cited page. Possibly I'm not familiar enough with the topic to understand the reference, so could you please quote directly the text that supports our article? Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"when I heard about this I said, "This maintenance contract isn't worth what we are paying.""
  • This does not support anything about repairing, or any comparison to the Pennywhistle, nor any indication that it would be more effective for users rather than the people running it. Also, this is not in the Levy reference to which the sentence is currently cited, but to Felsenstein 2008. Sarastro (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A search of the book for “Don Lancaster” gives a reference to him designing a “TV typewriter” on page 155, but that page does not support any of the other information cited to reference 6.
Ahhh, there is a single missing ref in the middle. Added.

I'm stopping there for now. Assuming this can be clarified, I will strike my oppose. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a superb review BTW. In-depth and from someone "outside the box". It's too easy to write things based on prior knowledge, you don't even see you're doing it, so this sort of second-glance is invaluable for future readers. Example: I recently referred to Andre Norton as "that guy". Please keep going! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm still finding errors in the citations, as noted above. I notice that the nominator has rejigged the references since my review, hence my link to the version I reviewed which had the failed verifications. Also, we may be introducing new errors by adding citations mid-sentence. For example, we now have a reference in the middle of the first paragraph of Tom Swift Terminal to The Economics of Computers. As written, this reference is supporting the information about Felsenstein at the start of the paragraph, the Teletype Model 33, and the cost of the system in 1973. This is obviously not the case, so this information needs to correct reference. I'm afraid I'm unconvinced that this meets Criterion 1c as I am finding so many problems with verification. It may only be a page or two out, but this is not acceptable at FA level. And the version that I first reviewed had references that simply did not support the text. Also, to be blunt, an article should not be reaching FAC needing this kind of work doing. I am concerned at finding so many verification issues within just two paragraphs; I haven't looked at the rest of the article, but I am worried that this is replicated throughout the article. I am afraid my oppose stands. I will not revisit unless I have some reassurance that the nominator and at least one other reviewer have checked the rest of the article for verification. Because, to be honest, finding even one more issue would leave me inclined to suggest that this should be withdrawn and worked on away from FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the last part of 1c, "...are supported by inline citations where appropriate". We appear to have different definitions of appropriate, as the level of detail you are expressing, to me, borders on overkill, but I'm aware opinions differ on this. All of the items (save one) are in the references provided, so the question is whether 1c is violated by having generalist citations like the style I use? I guess we'll need another opinion on this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For reference I looked over your last FA. It has dramatically more inlines than I have ever used, so that clarifies the level you are looking for. Seeing as the article is not at that level, perhaps we can put a pin in the cite issue for a moment... would you mind continuing looking over the content for additional notes on content and gr? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've never heard that argument before at FAC, and I think it's a long time since it would have been widely used in response to WP:V concerns. I've been around FAC a very long time now, and unless I've missed something enormous, every article has had this level of reference, and every source reviewer has required it. I may be very wrong, but if you raised this at WT:FAC, I think you'd be in a definite minority. However, we may possibly be talking at cross-purposes here. I am not requiring a cite at the end of every sentence. But, for example, those references which are to the wrong page (e.g. where we are referencing p 13 and the information is on p 17) are easily fixed by changing the citation to pp 13-17 where the information is on a range of pages. Also, there is nothing wrong with moving two or three citations to the end of a paragraph if they cover all the information in that paragraph. My only caveat would be that it should be easy for a reviewer (or anyone else) to find the facts from the text in a cited source; that is my primary concern here, that it is NOT easy to find. Regarding "put a pin in it", I'm afraid there is little point for me to review prose etc until the sourcing is sorted. I'm going to step back now and see what other reviewers think, but my oppose (which I've clarified is on 1c) stands for now. Sarastro (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But as my main purpose in FAC is to improve the article, are you sure I can't get you to continue reading it? I found your notes on prose useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that, until the sourcing is settled one way or the other, it's a shifting sands kind of situation. There's no point polishing prose if the actual content could be changed over sourcing. I've no objection to doing so at some point, but not before any sourcing issues are finalised. Sarastro (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose from Ealdgyth edit

  • Note f: "Here too the stories vary somewhat; Felsenstein's 2008 interviews state they went to the first meeting together, while his 1977 article states he did not attend until the second meeting in March. However, the first meeting of the club was in March," is cited to this Wired article. But noting in the Wired article supports the information it is cited to. There is no mention of Marsh or Felsenstein in the Wired article.
  • Note h: " In contrast, the Hazeltine 2000 terminal sold for $2,995, and the "low-cost" 1500 series, introduced in 1977, started at $1,125." is cited to this article. While it supports most of hte infromation, the "low-cost" bits are not supported in the article.
  • Sales section: "The Sol was initially offered in three versions. The base motherboard was offered as the Sol-PC, available as a kit for $575, or fully assembled and tested for $745. The Sol-10 added a case, keyboard and power supply, was $895 in kit form and $1,295 assembled. Finally the Sol-20 added a keyboard with numeric keypad, and a larger power supply to feed the five expansion slots and a fan to cool them, for $995 as a kit or $1,495 assembled. Advertising of the time referred to the Sol-20 as "The first complete small computer under $1,000"." is all cited to this ad from Processor Technology. Much of that information isn't supported by the ad, and the ad is a poor choice for a source, as it's not a independent source. The ad mentions nothing about the Sol-10 or the Sol-PC.
  • Tom Swift Terminal section: "Lee Felsenstein was one of the operators of Community Memory, the first public bulletin board system. Community Memory opened in 1973, running on a SDS 940 mainframe that was accessed through a Teletype Model 33, essentially a computer printer and keyboard, in a record store in Berkeley, California. The cost of running the system was untenable; the teletype normally cost $1,500 (their first example was donated from Tymeshare as junk), the modem another $300, and time on the SDS was expensive – in 1968 Tymshare charged $13 per hour (equivalent to $96 in 2019)" is sourced to this page ... but the only thing that page supports is the "in 1968 Tymshare charged $13 per hour" ... none of hte rest of it is supported by the source given.
  • Software section: "CONSOL provided a simple terminal emulator function, along with a small number of additional commands to load and run programs from tape using TLOAD. SOLOS added names to the files on the cassette, the TSAVE command for saving data to the tape into a named file, and TCAT to print out the details of a named program. TXEC loaded and executed a named program in one step. SOLED included block-mode editing, used on some mainframe systems, but it is not clear if this was actually available." is sourced to this webpage, which basically appears to be a personal website. I'm not seeing any sign that this guy is an expert, so what makes it a reliable source? And a good bit of this isn't actually supported by the webpage - "TLOAD" most of the commands for the SOLOS, and most of the information given about SOLED.
  • Frankly, having checked all the online sources, I'm afraid I must strongly oppose. The whole article needs a top to bottom source integrity check against the sources. Given the number of issues with the online sources, it is going to be a long tedious chore to check all the offline sources against the text in the article. It really needs to be withdrawn and worked on away from FAC, with someone who is capable of doing a very detailed check against the sources and who has access to them. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Note I plan to claim WikiCup points for this FAC review) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

The spotchecks by Sarastro and Ealdgyth suggest this should be closed and improved on outside FAC; it might be good if one or both of them can be involved in some re-checks before another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 January 2020 [4].

Right of abode in Hong Kong edit

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about permanent residency in Hong Kong. Rewrote this article a while ago and think it's up to FA standards. Given current events in the city, looking at its colonial history is particularly interesting. Addressed sourcing issues since last FAC and should be good to go on that front. Hoping this nomination will get a bit more traction this time around, and looking forward to feedback on the content. Horserice (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif

  • There have been no substantial edits since the last nomination, and only some of the sourcing issues have been addressed. I can certainly write a full review, but it doesn't seem to have improved to FA standard in the last two weeks. I also feel like this was GA nominated a while ago but seems to have been removed from there? Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to note that there was no feedback on the actual content of the article in the last review, so there couldn't have been anything substantial for me to address. Seems like a leap to say it's not up to spec when that was the only outstanding issue? And yeah, I removed it from GAN because seven months without a review is long enough. Your feedback on the content would be appreciated. Horserice (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, both of those assertions are highly questionable. Some initial content comments:
The lead does not read like a lead, it reads like an introduction. This is just some stylistic phrasing, perhaps a review of leads in similar articles and/or MOS:LEAD could point this to be better.
The first line of MOS:LEAD says: The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction), so I don't understand what you're trying to point out by saying that the lead reads like an intro.
Leads are supposed to be an overview of the article, not an introduction to the topic. I also think overall it was the phrasing. It doesn't read like a lead, it almost sounds more instructional (i.e. lecture-y)... you know? Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm but I don't know. Opinions from other editors would be nice here? Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, is there any reason that the sidebar is in conflicting shades of green and blue? It's not easy to look at.
It's pretty old and I think whoever made it was trying to approximate the green used on Hong Kong identity cards. Changed the color scheme to be a bit more muted.
Right of abode eligibility was accordingly closely tied could be rephrased to something more easy-to-read.
As with Residents with the right of abode are unconditionally allowed to reside; Those who additionally do not possess the right of abode in foreign countries may stand for office; probably other parts but I would defer to someone more familiar with the ideals of FA prose these pointers.
Tweaked some of the phrasing, but it's written that way to be unambiguous in meaning even if a bit cumbersome.
The background may be too detailed on elements of British nationality that are not really related to right of abode in Hong Kong.
Equally, a bit more detail on complex terms like belonger status, given its relevance, may be useful.
It would be important to distinguish between previous rules on residency and the legally-defined 'right of abode', i.e. why the previous rules are under 'background' and not 'history' (that it's not a different version of the rules, it was a different rule altogether). Unless it is a previous version of the same right of abode law, as Prior to 1997, acquisition of the right of abode... seems to suggest. So this is unclear.
Regulations on residency are largely carried over from the colonial era with relevant changes hashed out through negotiations between the British and Chinese governments. So yes, the rules for residency in British Hong Kong are a previous iteration of the ones currently in effect today, updated to be tied to Chinese nationality law. The focus on British nationality law in the background section is to illustrate how right of abode in this territory evolved to its current state and why it remains distinct from residency in the rest of China. Belonger status is just a synonym for permanent residency, which itself is just a label for possessing right of abode; I'm really not sure what you'd expect to be elaborated on there.
Even just some expansion on the term 'belonger', since it is used nowhere else? Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the phrasing a bit, maybe that works for you? Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there is conflict and discussion on the acquired residents having and not having certain rights? I'd expect some coverage of legal, policy, public debate history of the 'rights and privileges' and 'restrictions' sections.
The part where it says A limited number of residents with foreign nationality or right of abode in other countries may be elected to functional constituency seats in the legislature does not then suggest who or why. So, who? And, why?
There's two things that foreign nationals can't do: 1) hold an HKSAR passport and/or mainland travel and residence permits 2) run for most LegCo seats. I'd consider the first one to be self-explanatory because as a general rule, virtually no one can hold a passport of a country they're not a citizen of. Eligibility for the travel and residence permits has always been exclusive to Chinese nationals. For candidacy in the legislature, I don't think it's in scope of this article and should go in the articles on the Legislative Council or functional constituencies since the restrictions are not directly related to Hong Kong right of abode itself.
  • I may add more detailed notes, but this came from a quick skim and feels like at least somewhere to start. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Horserice: Thanks for the responses and edits! Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Sorry for the delayed response, the holidays were distracting. Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Could you take a look again at the sources? Don't think I missed anything. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahh that's unfortunate to hear :/ He will be missed. Horserice (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

I'm afraid this has once again slipped far down the list with very little attention. It will be archived soon unless it receives some significant review. --Laser brain (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @John M Wolfson: With only two sets of comments, I don't think it's going to get promoted unless more reviewers contribute something soon. I haven't had a further look since, but might give it a look tonight. Kingsif (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fair enough. I myself am currently on the fence about this article, but I appreciate Horserice's responsiveness. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson edit

Here are some comments. I inserted some stuff in the lead a while back but I still find it rather wanting.

  • Individuals with this right are called permanent residents I assume this is distinct from Hong Kong residents in general (otherwise there'd likely be talk of a merger); how precisely are they different?
  • The generic term includes nonpermanent residents, which is used to describe anybody living in Hong Kong for more than 6 months. There isn't anything specific to say about this group of people in relation to right of abode, since all requirements applicable to them are applicable to everyone else.
Ah, in that case the link should just be to "residents" and not include "permanent".
  • That wouldn't make sense in this context though? Permanent residents are defined as having right of abode, so removing "permanent" in this sentence would make it incorrect.
  • No, from the link, like so: permanent residents.
  • Ah, got it.
  • Foreign nationals ... are given most rights usually associated with citizenship, including the right to vote in regional elections. What rights don't they have, especially with respect to full citizenship? I know it's in the "Restrictions" section, but it should also be in the lead.
  • I don't think that should be focused on in the lead. It would be strange to focus on a detail that doesn't really have to do with right of abode itself, but foreign nationality. I elaborated on it in an earlier response, but the only two things foreign national residents can't do is: 1) obtain an HKSAR passport and 2) stand for office in the directly elected portion of the legislature. There would have to be a lot more elaboration on LegCo in the lead than is appropriate in that section, so it's best left to sections below.
  • Given that the lead should be an overview and not just an introduction, as Kingsif said above, I feel a passing mention of the restrictions is appropriate.
  • Added a bit.
  • Although the territory, ... Should be simply "Hong Kong".
  • I'm avoiding repeating instances of "Hong Kong", but I tweaked it to name those places in that part.
  • Fair enough, I just don't want people to get confused.
  • [F]oreigners are only eligible on the basis of the seven years immediately preceding their applications. I infer so, but need those years be continuous/consecutive?
  • Yes, made it explicit.
  • Thanks.
  • Hong Kong permanent residents do not have automatic residence or employment rights in mainland China. Should be cited.
  • The next sentence after that details which permits you would need to obtain permission for residence and employment, so I'd consider the citations there to be adequate.
  • Fair enough, I don't think it falls under MINREF, so it should be good.
  • Also, there aren't any images, against criterion 3. I know it's hard to illustrate this kind of stuff, but perhaps an image of a document related to permanent residency might be in order, even if fair-use.
  • The last image I used was deleted, but maybe this one will work.

That's what I can think of for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, made some changes in responses. Horserice (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, did another pass at your comments. Horserice (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • they are not entitled to hold territorial passports is not elaborated/cited in the body, unless I've missed it.
  • Yeah, it's in the rights section. "Chinese nationals with right of abode..."
  • Are their any restrictions on Macanese residents in entering Hong Kong, like for mainland Chinese? It's probably not that relevant, but perhaps it could round out that Mainlanders also cannot enter Hong Kong.
  • Added at end of lead.
  • What reactions were there to the Court of Final Appeal continuing the exclusion of FDHs to right of abode status?
  • Added a bit more in that section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20 January 2020 [5].

Mangalore edit

Nominator(s): Aviator423 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Mangalore back to the Featured Article Candidates again. It was de-listed from Featured Articles in January 2018, but now all the necessary changes have been made to this article. Please note that Mangalore was a Featured Article in Wikipedia from 2011 to 2018. Aviator423 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D edit

Based on reading elements of the article at random, the prose, referencing and comprehensiveness of the article are not currently of FA standard:

  • "Mangalore is the second best business destination in Karnataka after Bangalore and the 13th best in India." - I can't see where this is referenced, and why is it so important that it belongs in the first para of the lead?
  • "India's first and only 3D Planetarium with 8K resolution display, is situated in this port city" - the body of the article doesn't say that this is the only " 3D Planetarium with 8K resolution display", and why does this belong in the lead?
  • The lead repeatedly also states that this is a port city, which doesn't read well.
  • The history section stops in 1980
  • The economy section has several problems:
    • It doesn't explain whether this is a well off or low income city by Indian and world standards, and whether this has changed over time
    • Some material looks to be over-referenced (e.g. " Infosys,[112][113][114] Cognizant Technology Solutions[115][116][117]" and several other such entries)
    • "During 2000–01, Mangalore generated a revenue of ₹33.47 crore (US$4.69 million) to the state" - this seems rather dated
    • "India has built 5.33 million tons of strategic crude oil storages at Mangalore, Padur (near Udupi) in Karnataka and at Visakhapatnam to ensure energy security" - this was done by the Indian Government, not "India", and the statement implies that India now has energy security, which I don't think is the case at all
  • The education section is not of FA standard. What is the value of listing lots of early schools and "Popular educational institutions"? Most of the "Popular educational institutions" are unreferenced. Is it possible to comment on issues like attendance rates, the quality of the education system, etc?
  • The statement that the city has only two museums is not referenced Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick-D (talk),
Regarding your point well off or low income city by Indian and world standards, the Dakshina Kannada district (Mangalore is its headquarters and capital), has the highest percentage of workers employed in industry and the second highest industry to district GDP ratio in Karnataka. Bangalore Urban (Karnataka capital and the Megacity) follows Dakshina Kannada district in this parameter. Hence Mangalore is definitely a well-off income city, and not a low income city. Kindly check the following reliable source for details
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/from-india-today-magazine/story/20171009-karnataka-bengaluru-it-start-ups-agriculture-growth-engine-1053993-2017-10-05
I've updated this in the article's Economy section.
I could not find any reliable source which gives any numeric details regarding Mangalore city's GDP or per-capita income statistics. The existing 2000-01 information, is the only one I could find.
The article's Economy section is changed as per your points. You can have a look at them.
Aviator423 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today, All the issues you've mentioned in the article have been fixed, except for the following 2 points
  • 1. The history section stops in 1980
  • 2. Is it possible to comment on issues like attendance rates, the quality of the education system, etc?
Regarding point 1, I don't understand whether there is a specific year that separates "History" with "Modern" content. Can you elaborate about this? What's the matter if the history section stops in 1980? In the article's earlier FA review, this point number 1 wasn't considered at all.
Regarding point 2, the statement related to the quality of education system, is added with a reliable source. Mangalore and Udupi comprise a major education corridor in India. I would think of probably adding a few more statements, if reliable sources exist for them.
You've also mentioned about attendance rates, I am not sure if attendance rates are provided in sources. I don't think the attendance rate was even discussed in the earlier FA review. There are a few sources that are already existing in the article that talk about 100% results in CBSE, ICSE school exams, etc.
Aviator423 (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that speedy closure of this nomination is in order per my comments and the comments left by others. The article requires much more work than is appropriate for an article at FAC. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have incorporated almost all the suggestions to the article mentioned in these FA review sections. Can you list out the work that is needed for an appropriate FAC article, from the present article version?
Aviator423 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal edit

This article is not ready for FAC and should be withdrawn and independently copyedited and reviewed for MOS. There are too many images, that clutter the article. Grammatical issues are easily spotted (About 8.5% population was under six years of age.) The {{as of}} is needed throughout. There is prose redundancy (As per the 2011 census of India, the city has a population of 484,785, --> Per the 2011 Indian census, the city's population was 484,785.) WP:NBSPs are needed throughout. The article is not tightly focused; for example, considering the sub-article List of educational institutions in Mangalore, every school need not be listed. Sentences are overly long at times, and hyphens are not used correctly (NH-66 (previously known as NH-17[233]), which runs from Panvel (in Maharashtra) to Kanyakumari (in Tamil Nadu), passes through Mangalore in a north–south direction and connects with Udupi, Bhatkal, Karwar, Goa, etc. in the north and Kannur, Kochi, Thiruvananthapuram, etc. in the south while NH-75 (previously known as NH-48) runs eastward to Bangalore and Vellore. NH-169 (previously known as NH-13) runs north-east from Mangalore to Shimoga. NH-73, a 315-km long National Highway connects Mangalore to Tumkur.) 315-km-long highway, and it needs a convert. Images are sandwiching text. There is too much here to address at FAC. The enermous image in "Economy" adds nothing to Economy. Sentences with unclear referents: Out of the 5 million metric tonnes (MMT) storage, 1.5 MMT is stored at Mangalore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
All your suggestions have been incorporated into the article.
In the article, can you please clarify in which statements/places are WP:NBSPs needed?
Aviator423 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With no comment on whether all has been done (those were only samples, and an independent copy edit is needed) I left you several samples of WP:NBSP work needed. Basically, wherever you have a number that shouldn't be cut off from the until following it on line wrap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, all was not done; there are still no {{as of}} templates; I left several samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added WP:NBSPs and {{as of}} templates in the article.
Aviator423 (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by RetiredDuke edit

I actually think that articles on cities are the some of the easiest to determine if they're within FA-hood, you just need to check the economy and education sections first. These sections should be all about hard-hitting numbers, but in reality are often the most prone to trivia and fluff.

  • On the economy section, it says that the New Mangalore Port is India's eighth largest port. - The source does not back up what the text says; the source says "The New Managlore Port was declared as the 9th Major Port on 4th May 1974" - this is an estimate from 46 years ago, a bit outdated for a FA.
  • "During 2000–01, Mangalore generated a revenue of ₹33.47 crore (US$4.69 million) to the state." - The year 2000 was 20 years ago, outdated.
  • "The city along with Tuticorin is also one of two points for import of wood to South India." - Without any numbers to show how this is relevant, this part reads like trivia.
  • I see no mention anywhere of an unemployment rate, which is a "basic of basics" for an economy section.
  • "The city's major petrochemical industries include..." cue laundry list of companies without showing how they are "major" or significant to the city at all.
  • "The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) plans to invest over ₹35,000 crore (US$4.91 billion)" - The source is from February 2006, did they actually invest it since then?
  • The part about strategic crude oil reserves is very confusing. First, we have a source from 2007 saying "India to form crude oil reserve of 5 mmt". The source does not say which part of these 5 mmt is going to Mangalore, but our text sure does. Then we have a source from 2016 saying that "Mangalore facility with capacity of 1.5 million tons has started receiving crude today for testing the facility". So only the second source is actually relevant for us, which means that the text about strategic crude oil reserves has to be cut in half.
  • Then we have another laundry list of companies, this time IT companies.
  • "The traffic at this port was 122,000 tonnes during the years 2003–04." - This is the kind of information that the economy section needs, but this is a bit outdated.

I'm not going to continue this review since it's clear that the article is not ready for the process. Suggesting withdrawal. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I've made the suggested changes to the Economy and Education sections of the article. Please have a look at them.
However, I wasn't able to find any reliable source regarding the unemployment rate figures of Mangalore.
Aviator423 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate about the "hard-hitting numbers" that need to be added in the Education section? A statement about 100 per cent result in a top school in the city was added, but these aren't numeric stats and were undone today. Can you please give examples about "hard-hitting numbers" that can be added to the Education section? Aviator423 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA first edit

Might be better to go through the GA review first as it's much more lenient in waiting for fixes to be done and will prep the article for FA review. For a FA review certain expectations of quality should already be adhere to and the GA process will help with that.

Sentances like "this place and that placd are the museums in Mangalore" will be noticed and fix with actual content at a GA review.--Moxy 🍁 19:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. But, the article was an FA for quite a few years, and that's the reason it was brought here for an FA review. Around 2 years ago, an FA review had already occurred leading to the de-listing from FA. The article is already tagged for Peer Review, but I'm unsure whether any Peer Review has taken place. Do you think a Copyedit for this article might also help?
Aviator423 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, you are referring to this 2018 peer review. @FAC coordinators: , anyone home? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (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) 19 January 2020 [6].

Washington Heights, Chicago edit

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Chicago Community Area #73, located on the Far South Side and unrelated to the one in New York. Established where two railroads crossed, it became one of the original community areas in the 1920s. Originally mostly settled by Irish, Germans, and Swedes, it experienced white flight in the 1960s and has been predominately African-American since then. It has mostly retained its middle-class character after the transition but has declined a bit in recent years. It contains the Brainerd Bungalow Historic District and the Carter G. Woodson Regional Library, home to the largest collection of African-American history in the Midwestern United States. I owe it to Mpen320 for looking this over and suggesting additions to the article, which entailed a major expansion of it using the induction info on the Brainerd District and miscellaneous other information; I am unaware of any good major sources outside of what I have included here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Done
  • File:Washington_Heights_OpenStreetMap.png: if this is from OpenStreetMap, why is it tagged as own work? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the screenshot and had a lapse of judgment in that regard. I have since corrected it.

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Please be more specific about source(s) for the infobox data
    • All of the stuff in the infobox (except for time zone, which I don't think is likely to be challenged) is cited in the prose with better sources. As such, per WP:INFOBOXCITE I have removed the infobox footnotes.
      • The area shown in the prose is different from the one in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your source for the inflation calculation in note a?
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
    • All inline citations have been templated.
  • Be consistent in when you include locations for publications
    • I have removed all locations from inline citations, but have kept them for bibliography entries when they are available.
  • Be consistent in when you wikilink parts of citations
    • I have removed all inline citation wikilinks.
  • Don't duplicate |work= and |publisher= when they are the same, use only the more appropriate one
    • I don't see any such duplicates, all of the |work=s have a different |publisher=. I have, however, done some miscellaneous parameter improvements.
      • Keeping in mind that |work= has several aliases, I see several such instances - for example, Illinois Policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done for Illinois policy, as well as the Civic Federation and Kensington Research. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Rob Paral a high-quality reliable source? ZipMap? Chicago-L.org? Fuder?
    • Paral and Associates is an organization dedicated to providing data for community development; they have had several clients (admittedly their words, but I see no reason to doubt them). The data used is objective enough such that NPOV and CoI issues should be low, and the fact that the data for 1930, 1960, 1990, and 2000 line up with those provided by the Encyclopedia of Chicago indicates that it is an adequate and reliable source. Chicago-L.org is managed by Graham Garfield; it maintains a bibliography of the sources it uses; while it solicits and encourages user entries, they are submitted through e-mail, providing an opportunity for Garfield to vet them. Given that, I believe it is a sufficient source to verify the claim that 95th/Dan Ryan was the 6th-busiest "L" station in 2012, although if you beg to differ I can try to find another source or remove the claim altogether. Fuder is a prayer booklet, and thus probably not the best source for most of the article, but according to its Introduction it was compiled over several years by several people, largely grad students at the Moody Bible Institute. Its sole use in the article was to verify that Longwood Manor is a neighborhood in Washington Heights, which looking through Google Maps and real estate sites seems WP:TRUE enough but which Zangs does not mention and which upon further reflection isn't found in any other sources and should thus not be mentioned in the article; I have thus removed it and Fuder for the time being. ZipMap was not a reliable source, and I have replaced it with a much better one.
  • FN47 is missing date and authors, the report title should be italicized, and DocDroid should be in |via= or not included at all
    • There are no authors given in that report to the best of my knowledge, but I have attempted to make improvements. I don't think {{cite web}} might be the best template for italicizing the title, perhaps another template may be used.
  • Chicago Tribune should be italicized
    • Done
  • Be consistent in how DNAinfo citations are formatted
    • I have decided to use {{cite news}} with all of them.

Thank you for your feedback, and apologies for the delay in getting to all of them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Epicgenius edit

@John M Wolfson: In the course of my real-life job (which is not related to editing Wikipedia at all), I had the great pleasure of reading many subjects on Chicago topics, including drawing maps and writing real-estate blurbs for Chicago neighborhoods. I have to say that this is one of the better neighborhood-related pages in the WP:CHICAGO project, as there are only three neighborhood GA's and the Washington Heights article looks like it is at least GA quality.

Anyway, that said, here are some preliminary comments I have.

  • There doesn't seem to be any content at all about fire or health. There is only minimal info about police and crime.
    • I have added some material on crime stats, I'll see whether I can find something about fire and health. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a good start. Would it be appropriate to make a "Police and crime" section/subsection with both the police district and the crime stats?
      • I think "Governance" should similarly be looked-at. This section is currently a single paragraph with, as far as I can tell, three distinct topics: [Governance/courts], [Police], and [Post offices and ZIP codes]. These topics may be better off if they are split up, at least into separate paragraphs, but that's just a suggestion. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Transportation" section can stand to be split up into separate subsections, I think.
    • The first paragraph is more heavily loaded on Metra, but the Chicago "L" and local buses are only mentioned in one sentence each. I like Metra, but still, I think commuter rail is in a different class of public transit than the "L" and buses. And considering that there is more content about Metra than the "L" or buses, Metra should be its own paragraph.
      • AFAIK the "L" itself doesn't actually run through Washington Heights, although the 95th/Dan Ryan stop is explicitly mentioned in NPS as being in Roseland. I'll see whether I can beef up the stuff about Bus lines. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, and the "L" is mentioned in the Roseland article itself. My main point is that Metra and "L"/bus transit should be treated separately, but within a subsection about public transit. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Washington Heights's history has been described as "all about transit" - This history of transit should probably be summarized here as well, in a sentence or two about the different railroad lines that historically took up the area.
    • The second paragraph is about transportation, only insofar as private car usage/ownership is considered. I wouldn't really consider this transportation, but that's just me.
      • I personally would consider it as transportation, although if other reviewers felt differently I could put it in "Demographics". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Parks and recreation" section:
    • I know the Major Taylor Trail was a rail line before it was a park. Can we expand on this, somewhere in the history or transit section? There's only a passing mention here.
      • The Park District website doesn't specify which railroad it had been, I'll see whether I can find more sources on the matter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe it was Conrail, per Chicago Tribune (subscription required) - but you can apply at WP:TWL for a free newspapers.com subscription. The other sources I saw (which are not reliable) seem to confirm this, but you can look for sources as well. epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there really only three parks in Washington Heights? I feel like there are more. Are Oakdale and Euclid Parks not part of the Washington Heights community district?
  • The "Geography" section includes housing stock as well - maybe rename this to "Land use and terrain"?
    • Perhaps, although that might be a less intuitive/common title. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll wait to see if other people point this out as well. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subsections: I only see a subsection about Brainerd. What about other subsections? I see a "Washington Heights" subsection is mentioned in the lead, but isn't covered here. Is it substantially different from Brainerd?
      • Reliable sources don't say that much about Washington Heights the neighborhood other than the fact that it exists and where the original settlement was. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you checked any newspaper archives? I notice this doesn't contain too many newspaper references. You can ask WP:TWL if you don't already have access to an archive. I feel that more detail on Washington Heights (the sub-neighborhood) would be welcomed here. epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, don't start sentences with numbers, e.g. "28.0 percent of units have two vehicles available, compared to a citywide figure of 25.5 percent." MOS:NUMNOTES is the relevant guideline, but this is a general thing to avoid outside Wikipedia as well.

More comments later. Right now I'm seeing a few places where there are a few things to be wondered, content-wise. epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are some places in this article where grammar may need to be touched up. I have made a few edits to the lead, but feel free to remove any parts you don't like. Some of the more common issues I noticed are the lack of commas after prepositional phrases (e.g. "Throughout the 20th century"), repetition of some words (e.g. "it" was repeated four times in the last sentence of the second paragraph), and sentences with unwieldy construction (e.g. The area was the site of the formation of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company). I think this may need a grammatical once-over since there seem to be a lot of these in the article. epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Epicgenius: thank you for your feedback. I will be somewhat busy this weekend, but I have started to address your concerns and hope to do so more in the next upcoming days. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll point out regarding your concerns to that effect that I am a longtime user of Newspapers.com (see my work in 1927 Chicago mayoral election, for example), but have been up to this point mostly focused on book sources for this FAC. I think consulting it some more will be a great idea given the subject matter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. You may want to look into clipping your articles, and then link to the clipping. Afterward, the clipping is publicly accessible unless you delete it. epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Major apologies for not getting on to this earlier. I have split the Transportation and Government sections as you've suggested. I've also added new information for the Fernwood neighborhood and a new subsection for the Washington Heights neighborhood; I still feel as if the latter is redundant to the "History" section, since I haven't been able to find much about it in particular in the sources. (I have also considered using newspaper clippings, but I am declining to use them for the time being because I don't want to reveal my real name, which is used for my Newspapers.com account.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: No problem. I am also using my real name for my newspapers.com account, but I don't really care about my anonymity anymore (my real name is in a few news articles), so I can clip the articles for you if you want. Anyway, I can take a look at your improvements later on, when I have some time. epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if not an imposition, but no worries if it is. I look forward to your feedback. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've gone & done that. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epicgenius: Apologies if this is overbearing, but I was just wondering if you've had the chance to look at this article some more. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @John M Wolfson: Sorry, I forgot about this review. Here are a few minor issues I found:
      • A growing number of African-Americans began moving into the area, starting east of Halsted Street during the 1950s - does this mean that they began moving into the region east of Halsted, starting in the 1950s? If so you do not need the word "starting" and can say "the region east of Halsted...".
        • It means that the African-Americans initially settled east of Halsted, something which I hope I've made clearer.
      • Interstate 57 was built through the area, opening in 1967 and displacing many residents - How so?
        • I've rephrased it to say that it forced the residents to move.
      • 91.4 percent of people and jobs are located in highly walkable areas - what does this mean for non-city planners? I know it, but would the average reader know what this means?
        • I've used the CMAP definition while avoiding close paraphrasing.
      • With respect to Chicago Public Schools the area contains, in addition to Fort Dearborn School, Kipling Elementary School, Evers Elementary School, Fernwood Elementary School, Green Elementary School, Wacker Elementary School, Garvey Elementary School, Mount Vernon Elementary School, and Julian High School - this sentence is clunk. Do you need "in addition to"? Also, I'd rephrase "With respect to".
        • I've attempted to tweak the sentence.
      • 1.8 accessible park acres, 2.4 acres - might be better with metric conversions. Check for others as well, such as square miles.
        • Done
    • Overall, this is in better shape than when I last looked. However, I think there are still a few details left to be clarified, as I mention above. epicgenius (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. I found a few more things on my final look-through, and saw these:
          • A minuscule part north of 97th street - "Street" should be capitalized.
            • Done
          • In the United States Postal Service Washington Heights is part of the 60620, 60628, and 60643 ZIP Codes. - I don't think you need to mention USPS when mentioning ZIP Codes, unless you mean to say that the USPS administers these ZIP codes.
            • It was meant to indicate that those were for mail for those who don't know what ZIP codes are, but I think the "Postal service" header already implies that. In any case done.
          • the sixth busiest station on the Chicago "L" as of 2012 - are there more up to date data?
            • I found a more primary source from the City with data from June 2019; it appears 95th/Dan Ryan has slipped to 14th.
        • Otherwise I am inclined to give my support. However, I may still point out a few issues later. There are a few grammar things too, but these vary between different English variations, so I won't point them out. epicgenius (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support. All the issues I've pointed out above have been resolved. I may check for some minor errors later, but on the whole, this looks fairly comprehensive, without going into excessive or insufficient detail. epicgenius (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below...

  • The area was primarily agrarian between the 1830s and the 1860s - err, why not just say "farmland"?
    • I have changed it to more closely match the source.
  • Calumet Township was incorporated in 1862... - I can't figure out why this is relevant.
    • The NPS source says that Settlement of the Ridge region began in earnest once Calumet Township was organized in 1862; perhaps this can be better phrased.
  • which began a dominance of the railroad in the region - I know what you mean (I think) but this phrasing sounds odd. Does it need to be in at all?
    • I attempted to reword it, I feel like something to that effect should be in there.
  • ...and was annexed to Chicago in 1890 - you mention this twice in the para. I'd remove the first mention as it keeps the flow more chronological and the second one is harder to remove from surrounding material.
    • Done.
  • Brainerd is a neighborhood in Washington Heights - I'd remove this sentence in the Brainerd subsection as we've already established this and it makes the prose here sound repetitive.
    • Done.
  • I don't get much of a feeling as to what these parks are - forests? lawns? fields?
    • Forgive me if I've misunderstood your comment, but I have added the facilities for each park. Chicago parks tend to be "lawns" except for the forest preserves, of which there aren't any in Washington Heights. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine. I have no familiarity with the area - if there are no sources that expand on it that's okay. Rading it again, I think there is enough info. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Also - what about commercial areas - local shopping districts - where do people go shopping?
    • I wasn't able to find such a good source for this, but I used the zoning map to determine which areas were zoned for commerce and business.

SG edit

Not ready, there is still quite a bit of work needed here. There are no WP:NBSPs. All of the dates need {{as of}} templates, as geographic place articles become dated. The word "eponymous" is not helpful in the lead, as not all readers will understand it. Prose needs work, sample:

Another sample:

  • (In the time, in that time, in that time.) In the time between November 2018 and November 2019, 3,165 crimes were committed in Washington Heights, making it the community area with the 32nd most crimes in that time;[62] in that same time 291 violent crimes were committed, making it the community area with the 29th most violent crimes in that time.[63]

I suggest an independent copyedit and thorough MOS review will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I respectfully disagree that this is not ready for FAC given the support that it has received above. I think the work that you suggest can be done in the course of a normal FAC, especially the NBSPs and As ofs. I have removed the word "eponymous" in the lead, but kept it in the "Etymology" section as I think it's the best word for the context. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia:, I have performed a copyedit on the article which included moderately reformatting the lead, adding nbsps and as ofs, removing about 40% of the instances of "the area", and rewording all but one of the sentences that had started with numbers. While it might not be perfect, I hope it will at least be enough for your consideration (and if you see anything more, feel free to reword it as you see fit.) Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I mentioned that it needed an independent copyedit, because it can be hard to see our own typos and prose errors. For example, "13.6 percent of the population 25 years and old held ... " There are still sentences starting with numbers. Two parks consecutively described with "it contains". WP:MOSNUM issues (9 years old). Still lacking many WP:NBSPs; anywhere a number and word are together, they need to be stuck together (25 houses, Ward 31, Interstate 57, etc.) Many statements that NEED a date don't have them (With regards to languages, 97.9 percent of the population five years and older were able to speak only English and an identical figure of residents spoke it at home, compared to respective citywide figures both at 64 percent.[38]) There is prose redundancy throughout ("With regards to lanugages", "In 1940 foreign-born whites were 12.5% of the population; the top five such nationalities were German, Irish, Swedish, Canadian, and English or Welsh.") Most of the article uses percent, but there is some %. Percent ranges should not use the word twice. In short, these are samples only, and only what my eyes fell on as I scanned, and the article needs an independent set of eyes to go line by line and address everything. Withdrawal and working off FAC would be the fastest way to accomplish this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro edit

Oppose: I've looked at this a couple of times, and I don't think we're there. The prose especially needs quite a bit of work I think. These are examples only from a fairly quick glance through the article. I'm pretty sure that a closer look would reveal many more issues. So this is not an exhaustive list, and addressing these alone would not be enough for my oppose to be struck. I think someone needs to have a look at this with fresh eyes, which might be better done away from FAC and I'm inclined to suggest withdrawal. There are issues with prose and flow, comprehensiveness (there is information on the decline in the area in the cited source which is not included in the article; there are also a few things that I think need to be explained further), and a potential small issue with close paraphrasing (which may need further sources to be checked). Sorry. Sarastro (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some random samples from throughout the article:

  • How are we using commas for adverbials at the start of sentences? We have "In 2017 27,453 people and 9,570 households lived in Washington Heights" (no comma); " In the Chicago City Council, Washington Heights is split between..." (comma); "Within the Circuit Court of Cook County Washington Heights is located..." (no comma); "In Chicago Public Schools the area contains..." (no comma); "Within the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, the Dan Ryan Woods are located" (comma)
  • We use "located" 17 times in the article; the word is particularly present in the "Government" and "Transportation" sections, and a little variety would be beneficial.
  • "The first public school in the area opened in 1874.[11] Mr. J. A. Wadhams had already been teaching at a small wood-frame building for the previous two years; Wadhams became the first principal of the new school.": We are not told who Wadhams was, so the reader is left wondering if he is significant in some way. Why did he open the school? Why did he become principal? Is he commemorated in some way? Also, this is rather awkwardly written and could perhaps be rewritten as something like "The area's first public school opened in 1874. Mr J. A. Wadhams, a [whatever we know about him] who had been teaching in a small school [where?] for two years, became its first principal."
  • "In Chicago Public Schools the area contains Fort Dearborn School, Kipling Elementary School, Evers Elementary School, Fernwood Elementary School, Green Elementary School, Wacker Elementary School, Garvey Elementary School, Mount Vernon Elementary School, and Julian High School.": This as written doesn't quite make sense. Perhaps "The Chicago Public Schools district contains..."
  • We use "bounded" three times in close succession in the "Brainerd" section; the word "households" is somewhat overused in the "Demographics" section.
  • "Gardner established a tavern in 1836, which would be acquired by William Wilcox in 1844": Why not just "was acquired"?
  • "The median household income declined somewhat in the 2000s; it was $2,000 less than the citywide median in 2013, while it had been $6,000 above the citywide median in 1989": This is a failing of the source as much as anything, but the date we use here to support the decline in the 2000s does not mention anything except 1989 and 2013. However, if we are making a point about decline, the source also discusses other factors, such as the poverty line, that we are not using here but that we probably should be.
  • "The area had an income distribution in which 32 percent of households earned less than $25,000 annually; 21.9 percent of households earned between $25,000 and $49,999; 16.4 percent of households earned between $50,000 and $74,999; 12.5 percent of households earned between $75,000 and $99,999; 12.1 percent of households earned between $100,000 and $149,999; and 5.2 percent of households earned more than $150,000": This is an incredibly repetitive and long sentence. This information would be better recorded as a table if it is essential, or summarised better. Recording this information as prose is not a good idea.
  • We need to be a little careful with close paraphrasing. I'm not sure this would count as such, but it pays to be careful and to completely rewrite the source (incidentally, our article omits any explanation of what the Brainerd Improvement Club is):
  • Source"In 1902, E. L. Brainerd and other early settlers decided to form a community organization called the Men’s Club of Brainerd, then changed its name to Brainerd Improvement Club a year later in order to permit women."
  • Article:"The Men's Club of Brainerd was formed in 1902, and was renamed the Brainerd Improvement Club in 1903 in order to admit women."
  • We should probably say more about who EL Brainerd was.
  • Prose: This needs quite a lot of work. We have some very repetitive sentence structures. We have an enormous number of sentences which follow the form "[Noun] was/is [piece of information]", many more that are simple "[noun] [verb] [information]", and a few that have an adverbial to start the sentence, followed by the same structures. We also do not seem to be using "while" in the most effective way at times, as it quite often implies a chronological element; perhaps words such as "although" or "whereas" may help a little.
  • Flow: Related to the above points, much of this article reads like a list of unconnected facts placed next to each other. We need to look at improving the cohesion and flow rather than a list of information. For example, the "20th Century" section has successive sentences with completely different subjects: Brainerd Improvement Club, gas lines, street cars, paving of roads, streetlights, definition of area, bungalows, growth, population. There is nothing to connect them or to show why they are placed where they are. Only the last paragraph, on the African American population, has a little more flow, but then loses focus again when the information about Interstate 57 is tacked onto the end. Sarastro (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your and SG's comments. I would withdraw this were it not for the fact that this is pretty close to being closed anyway. I shall address your concerns throughout. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John, I'm sure you'll make every effort to address the concerns raised and, yes, let's please do that outside the FAC process and then bring it back for another nom at some stage after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2020 (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) 19 January 2020 [7].

Teriitaria II edit

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for FAC review because this is an extremely influential figure in French Polynesian history. She defeated a French invasion force in the Franco-Tahitian War and indirectly secured the independence of the Leeward Islands and the French protectorate of Tahiti (instead of outright annexation) for four decades after her victory. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Векочел edit

As the reviewer for the GAN of this article, I can say it is a very good article. It is well-sourced and well-written. I am giving my support. Векочел (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question on sourcing: This is not a full source review but I notice that several of the sources used for this article are VERY old. This always raises a concern in a FAC. Could I ask the nominator why we need to rely on sources from the 19th century, with one as old as 1817? How can we guarantee that such sources meet the standards of modern scholarship? How are they used by modern scholars? I also notice a PhD thesis from 1956; what makes this reliable? Are there no modern sources on Teriitaria? If not, have we consulted any overview sources from this period to ensure that modern scholarly consensus still matches the views held in the old sources? I am not questioning the sourcing as such, but I think reviewers may appreciate some reassurance on these points. Sarastro (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: The 1817 source is a primary source used to cite the term "My wife Tarutaria" by Pomare II not much else. I often cite modern source and primary source side by side like for example Ellis (a good 19th-century source is usually accompanied by a 20th-century source); the primary sources are good places to dig for quotes. Colin Newbury seems to be the English language authority on the subject; his 1956 thesis contains material on the political situation of the islands especially in the 1850s not found in any other sources. Newbury's 1980 Tahiti Nui was the best overview of the period out there. A good chunk of the article is cited to Teissier 1978, Matsuda 2005, Newbury 1980, just some examples, not from 19th-century sources. I don't think that much have come out about Teriitaria besides one or two sentences in sources since the 1980s with Newbury's Tahiti Nui. I don't know what your definition of recent is. But basically if I want to use only recent sources within the last two decades—examples of Kirk 2012 only referring to the Battle of Maeva—this article would be a superficial read. KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll try to have a read through later. Sarastro (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro edit

Leaning Oppose Comments: I've read the "Birth and Family" section. Sourcing seems fine, but I'm not sure we have quite got this section right. I picked up quite a few little issues and things that require clarification. I would expect these to have been ironed out before FAC and if this section of representative of the whole article, I think I would oppose. I would recommend getting an independent copy-editor to look at this. I'll let the nominator respond first, but I think if I found another section with similar issues, I would switch to a full oppose. Sarastro (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did some spot-checks on "Birth and Family", and everything checked out. I will do a few more if I go through, but I don't foresee any issues on this. Further to my comment above, all these sources are very high quality, so I have no further concerns on that.
  • "...while her mother" does not quite work as well as it could. This may be simpler as "and her mother".
  • Changed.
  • I wonder do we have the sequence quite correct here? We talk about her birth and then her family's background. I wonder would it make more sense to give the background to her family losing their power, and then going on to her birth?
  • Changed.
  • It would also be useful at this point to say where she was born.
  • I think this is just a guess on my part. We have no idea where she was born. It could have been Raiatea or Huahine since the Tamatoa dynasty lost secular power between Puni’s conquest and Tamatoa III’s reconquest in the 1800s.
  • "While still retaining their esteem because of their rank..." Could we be more specific about what this means? It is vague to the point of being almost meaningless as it stands.
  • So this comes from James King (Royal Navy officer): "Ooroo, the dethroned monarch of Ulietea, was still alive when we were at Huaheine, where he resides a royal wanderer, furnishing, in his person, an instance of the instability of power ; but what is more remarkable, of the respect paid by these people to particular families, and to the customs which have once conferred sovereign ; for they suffer Ooroo to preserve all the ensigns which they appropriate to majesty, though he has lost his dominions." Would it be beneficial to include it?
  • "she held special status since traditional titles were passed down by the first-born daughters in the Tahitian social organization as a matrilineality": What special status? What traditional titles? Again, this is rather vague. I also wonder should this be "passed down through the first-born daughters"? It also may make the sentence flow a little better if we maybe moved "as a matrilineality"; maybe something like "... special status as Tahitian society was organised as a matrilineality and therefore traditional titles..."
  • Changed.
  • The fourth paragraph, that starts "In the Tahitian language..." is a little strangely constructed. "In the Tahitian language, Teri'i is a contraction of Te Ari'i, meaning the "sovereign" or "chief." looks like it's just tacked onto the front, when it should be in the middle of the paragraph. The next sentence, "Tahitian names were rooted in land and titles" would perhaps make more sense as the opening of the paragraph. It is also unclear why she adopted other names.
  • Changed. She adopted the name and title of Pomare Vahine because of her marriage. Ariipaea Vahine, I'm not sure of why. There is no source to state she married Manaonao or Paiti (the regent before her). Ariipaea or Ariipaea Vahine is also a common title carried by Pomare I's aunt and brother, and then a collateral descendant of Pomare I after Teriitaria II's death into the 1900s. There is probably some territorial association with the northwestern districts of Arue-Pare.
  • "It was connected through marriage and adoption with the hereditary chiefs of the other Society Islands": Doesn't seem quite right. Would it not be better as "...connected by marriage and adoption to the hereditary chiefs"?
  • Changed.
  • Finally, as someone who knows nothing about Tahiti, or this period of history, perhaps a few sentences to set the scene a little more? I've no idea of what a Ariʻi rahi would do, or how far their power or influence went. Perhaps a word or two on this, and a word or two on how long her family had ruled? Sarastro (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "The ariʻi class were the ruling caste of Tahitian society with both secular and religious powers over the common people." — The more complicated answer is that it varied between who is in charge and who is not in charged, same as the Prince of Salm-Salm may not have the same power as the Prince of Wales. The question of how long her family rule is not one I can answer or is found in the sources. If you based it on Teuira Henry, it would be from time immemorial based on her genealogy of the family.
  • @Sarastro1: Thanks. I will address these comments one by one. I addressed each one. Look over again, please. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, this looks to be an improvement, but now we say that "the islands of Raiatea and Tahaa were conquered by the warrior chief Puni of Faanui on Bora Bora" without saying who they conquered it from. I'm assuming they took over from the Tamatoa family, but we don't say so. I'm also not certain that "The ariʻi class were the ruling caste of Tahitian society with both secular and religious powers over the common people" is in the right place; would it make more sense at the very beginning? Sarastro (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I've looked at the next section, and I'm still seeing issues. These aren't huge issues, but they are not ones I would expect to be seeing at this stage. I believe that a thorough copy-edit may be needed to bring the prose up to scratch (1a). There are also things that I believe require more explanation for this to be comprehensive (1b). If I continue going through the article, I think we'll just end up with a huge laundry list of items, which is wearing for everyone concerned. And I'm not sure I have the time to do the complete copy-edit that I believe this article requires. I've left some comments for the "Marriage to Pōmare II" section, but I'm going to stop there and I'm afraid I'm moving to a full oppose. I like this article, and I think it will make an excellent FA, but I don't think it's there yet. I would recommend that the nominator withdraws this, and works with a good copy-editor away from FAC. I'd be happy to take another look when this has been done and before it is renominated at FAC. Sarastro (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we need to say a little more about who Pōmare was? He just appears without much introduction.
  • "His successor Pōmare II saw this legacy unravel because of internal rivalries between the Pōmare regime and other chiefly families and the fear of foreign influence on the traditional Tahitian religion.": What legacy? If he accepted the missionaries, but did not convert, and apparently tolerated rather than supported them, it's not really his legacy. And "unravel" is somewhat vague. Also, "saw" in this sense is usually a bit awkward. Maybe something more along the lines of "Under his successor Pōmare II, the missionaries were evicted by the district chiefs of Tahiti because..."
  • "It is said that the ship bearing Teriitaria landed on Moorea a little after the one bearing Teriʻitoʻoterai Teremoemoe and that Pomare fell in love with Teriitaria's younger sister." Hmm... it's either a fact, in which case we can lose "it is said", or we need to give the source of the story. The transition from his mother deciding that they needed a marriage alliance to Teriitaria arriving by ship is a little abrupt. Is there nothing more to say about how this came about?
  • "Unable to reject the older sister for fear of a casus belli (an act to justify war) with Tamatoa III": Why do we need the Latin?
  • "he married both sisters around 1809": Was this usual/acceptable?
  • "Sometimes the marriage is dated to around 8 November 1811": Why the discrepancy? Is it important? Having "around" with such a specific date reads a little oddly. It needs either "around November 1811" or to remove the equivocation. Also, "sometimes" here does not work. It may be better along the lines "Some historians/sources/authorities date the marriage to 8 November 1811/around November 1811".
  • "Pōmare II preferred her younger sister": Have we not already established this? If we need to spell it out, it should be moved back to the story of her arrival.
  • "and how Teriitaria remained on Huahine and was not brought over to Tahiti and Moorea until 1814–1815": But... haven't we said she arrived with her sister? And how were they married if she wasn't there? And this sentence is once more repeating the fact that he preferred her sister.
  • "During the absence of the miss. who had gone to the Colony king Pomare had been married to Terito second daughter of Tamatoa chief of Raiatea": What is "miss." here? Do we even need the quote as we have summarised it, and it is kind of saying what we've already said. Sarastro (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the oppose, I’m not going to continue with improvements for now. I did request copy-editing from the Guild of Copy Editors but that has not been enough. A lot of these comments are just too nitpicking at the moment. KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Based on the continuing identification of issues noted above and the recommendation to withdraw the nom, I'm going to archive this and ask that improvements take place outside the FAC process before considering another try after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2020 (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) 17 January 2020 [8].

Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film) edit

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the debut film of several personalities who later became legends of Tamil cinema, most notably M. G. Ramachandran. I know it is FA-worthy because it is comprehensive and wide in coverage, with every single statement sourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47 edit

Resolved comments
  • I have a question about the lead. Is it necessary to put all of the actors' names in parenthesis by the characters' names? The paragraph is quite dense with names, so I think that removing the actors' names would help to make this part more readable.
Agree, I removed them for conciseness. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two questions about this sentence: "It is based on S. S. Vasan's novel of the same name, which was serialised in the magazine Ananda Vikatan." Do we know when the novel was first serialised in the magazine? If so, would it be helpful/beneficial to include the year in the prose to give the reader a better understanding of the timeline?
Added 1934. It most likely ended serialisation in 1935, but I can't prove it, so didn't that. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend putting the citations in numeric order. It may not be required for a featured article, but I always found it to be helpful.
  • I do not think the descriptive phrase "the British writer" is necessary for this part "based on the British writer Ellen Wood's 1860 novel, Danesbury House". It is not used in the lead either so it would be more consistent to remove it here.
I considered doing that, but the article belongs to Category:Films based on British novels. Therefore, describing Ellen Wood as British helps it right? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that the phrase is not used in the lead so it is a little inconsistent. I would recommend adding it to the lead too. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "at a mock tea party arranged for this purpose", I do not think "arranged for this purpose" is necessary as I think it can be assumed from context that Ramanathan arranged the party for this purpose without explicitly saying it.
  • I am a little confused by this sentence: "Krishnamurthy finds a treasure and gives it to his master, who is pleased and adopts him as his son." What is the treasure? How did he find a treasure at a tea estate?
The plot in the pressbook mentions a "treasure trove". Tell me once you read it. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually forgot while reading the article that this was a lost film so I had erroneously assumed there was more detail about this. Apologies for that. Since there is not any further details about this point available, I think it should be good in its current state. Looking through the pressbook is rather cool so thank you for finding and including it in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "When the servant came out Ramanathan picked up", there should be a comma after "out".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Tamil is linked in the lead, I would also link it on the first instance in the body of the article, which would be here: "Pathi Bhakthi was a Tamil play,".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "said that after Bhakta Nandanar's release Tandon asked", there should be a comma after "release".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be helpful to link "copyright violation"?
I pondered over this for long; the words "copyright violation" were there long before I started editing this article, but Sathi Leelavathi was actually involved in a case of plagiarism. Is CV still the right word to use? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually not sure. CV could still be correct as a copyright may be placed on an idea or book during publishing, but that is outside my area of expertise. I will leave that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rephrase this part "including the same name of the female leads (Leelavathi)." to something like "including the female leads having the same name (Leelavathi)". Something about the current wording seems off to me, but it may just be me.
Done as suggested. The earlier phrasing was by the GOCE. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceylon is linked twice in the article when it should only be linked once on the first appearance.
Done: linked only twice now, the lead and plot sections. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "to deliver the dialogues naturally, with natural acting", I do not think "with natural acting" is needed as that can be assumed/understood from the previous part of the sentence.
Done, but you understood the context right? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do. That's why I suggested removing that part because I found it unnecessarily repetitive. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "According to Dungan, when the actors faced the camera they", I would add a coma after "camera".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "the plight of Tamil Nadu labourers on Ceylon's tea estates", I would link "Tamil Nadu".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Themes" section, I was wondering if either of the sources discuss further about how alcoholism and chastity are represented in the film? I was just curious because the information is rather brief in the section.
Nope, the sources only mention them as themes without elaborating further. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include a brief sentence about the themes in the lead.
Now I've written "Sathi Leelavathi explores themes such as temperance, social reform, selfless service and the plight of labourers" in the third para for balance. That good? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the link to "temperance movement" to this part "Sathi Leelavathi explores the themes of temperance" since that is where temperance is referenced for the first time in the article.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "in one scene Dungan showed the dancing girl as seen by the inebriated protagonist, and in another Dungan", I would add a comma after "scene" and "another".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to repeat the information about the strict discipline, shooting by schedule, camera mobility, cabaret dances and less-theatrical acting in the "Filming" and "Legacy" section.
I can cut down the wording in "Legacy", is this good? The features that Dungan introduced in the film became staples of Tamil cinema.? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part "M. S. Murugesan as Marwari". Is this referring to this part "A Marwari who lent a large sum to Krishnamurthy to support his lavish lifestyle obtains a repayment warrant" from the "Plot" section? *Is the character referred to as just Marwari in the credits? Just wanted to clarify this.
Murugesan is simply credited as "Marvadi" in the pressbook, and in the plot of the pressbook he is called "A Marvari". But writing "the Marvadi" won't be so harmful will it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If he is credited at just "Marvadi" in the pressbook, then it is probably best to keep that way in the article too. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my comments are helpful. Great work with the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Aoba47, they are indeed helpful. Since the film is lost, all plot details are taken from the pressbook. The plot is written in both English and Tamil, but the Tamil plot is more comprehensive. Still, you read the English plot only and tell me: is it coherent enough, and does the Wiki plot match the pressbook's English plot? Because I took some details from the Tamil plot at the instigation of GA reviewer Ssven2, who is not currently active. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The plot summary from the article matches the pressbook and does a very good job in presenting a coherent storyline (at least in my opinion). I just have two last comments.
  • In the article, it says "Rangiah receives seven years' imprisonment", but the pressbook says "Inspector Rangia is convicted for 7 years rigorous imprisonment". I think this is referencing something along the lines of penal labour, and I would include it in the prose if that is the correct interpretation.
  • Would it be beneficial to clarify that Ramanathan was sentenced to death by hanging or could that be understood from context?
Once these points and my response to the Ellen Woods comment are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-check your comments and strike them if they have been solved. But voluntarily I reduced the sentence "Both men approached Vasan, who gave them the rights to make a film version of his novel. Mudaliar then began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" to "After Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel, Mudaliar began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" for conciseness. How is it? Besides, I think the final sentence of Rangiah's 7-year sentence (as written by me) is not wrong as convicts typically perform rigorous labour during their sentences. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. I normally do not strike out comments; that is just not my approach to doing these types of reviews. I will collapse the above comments though if that helps. The revision to the sentence looks good to me; I did not have an issue with the original wording, but it is always best to try and make things as concise as possible for a featured article. I only asked about the rigorous labour part because it was clarified that way in the pressbook, and it is probably a cultural difference as not all American prison sentences for instance require this type of labour. I do not think it is absolutely necessary for the plot summary. I support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Which file are you referring to? File:Krishnamurthy and family Sathi Leelavathi.jpg or File:M. G. Ramachandran in Sathi Leelavathi (1936).jpg? Or both? What should I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search for "px" in the edit window of the article, and either remove the value or swap it for |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sathi_Leelavathi_(1936_film).jpg: why is this believed to be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this, and I believe it leads to the answer. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The linked page argues against deletion of images with copyright restored by URAA. However, this image has a tag stating it is PD under URAA, and my question is why that is believed to be the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know what to do Nikkimaria. Remove the PD-URAA tags from the images (just keep {{PD-India}}) and they can be used? Or remove the pictures altogether? Because apart from the fact that the picture's copyright has expired in accordance with PD-India guidelines, I don't know how it can still be copyrighted in a country where it wasn't published. But I don't know if an Indian film that released on 28 March 1936 would be considered eligible on 1 January 1996. Does this have the answer? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that the image is in the public domain in India - the problem is US status. Take a look at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, specifically the four-point test:
  • Is the source country a WTO member or a party to the Berne Convention? Yes, India is.
  • Is the work copyrightable in the United States? Yes, it meets the required standard of originality and is not in one of the exclusion categories.
  • Was the work published after January 1, 1923? Yes, in 1936.
  • Had the copyright expired in the source country on the date of restoration? It appears not. The current PD-India tag indicates en expiration 60 years after publication, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year - which would in this case give us 1997, after the date of restoration. This means that US copyright persists.
You could potentially upload it locally under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher edit

  • " which was serialised since 1934 in the magazine" Which was serialised in 1934? Or which has been serialised since 1934? It's a bit unclear.
It is unclear whether the novel ended serialisation in 1935, but saying "serialised in 1934" is not misleading in any way is it? Because that's what I wrote now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of actors in the first para who don't have a wiki article, either red link them or remove them.
Some actors like M. K. Mani, P. Nammalvar and M. R. Gnanambal (the female lead) are too important to omit from the lead because of their characters. But red-linking looks like it will do more damage. I don't think these actors will ever have articles because of lack of sources. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to link 'directorial debut' in the lead?
I agree it isn't useful, de-linked. In fact, the page shouldn't even exist as every man has a first film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And every woman as well. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Madras in the second para.
Madras is linked in the first para in "a wealthy Madras-based man". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DBigXray edit

  • Please fill up the "| runtime =" parameter in the infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see if there are others missing parameter in the infobox, that can be added. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to include that the reel was of length XY ? what is the significance ? what makes it special ? looks like trivia to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is needed to signal the film was finished in some way. And since there is no source stating the film's runtime in minutes, we can only state it in reel length. So should I add this value in the infobox? I think so. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I forgot, in the olden days, reel was used to measure runtime. If I remember correctly there was a standard that 1 reel = W Mins. So the best way here would be to mention runtime = X reels (Y mins). --DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The runtime parameter is filled, but only in reel length. Can a duration in minutes also be added using the standard durations mentioned at Reel ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, is this calculation acceptable? Do I write 180 minutes? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually 200 mins, writing it in bracket looks helpful to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, I've written 200 minutes in the infobox. Should I put the reel length in brackets next to it? Do you have further comments? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is fine now. I would suggest to mention "(equivalent to 200 mins)" at the place where the reel length is mentioned. So that one can make out where this 200 mins is coming from. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, I've solved all your comments so far. Do you have further comments? It seems you do. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY marked as fixed. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Filming" There are 2 refs together that are not arranged in ascending order in pair. Please fix this and review the article if more such examples are there. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I identified it at the sentence "lack of on-screen stage influences" and fixed the ref order. No other set of references arranged this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Thank you, marked as done, I will try to find more issues in coming days. If no more comments from me then this should be taken as a support from me. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any further comments DBigXray? If not, you know what to do... at least for the co-ordinators to understand. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is one more near "Danesbury House;[22][2] "--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I read the plot in English again and it says, "A Marvari who had lent a huge sum to Krishnamurthy, issues a warrant..." Is the current wording fine and accurate though? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Thank you, marked as done. Looks fine. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the link you put here is an American magazine. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Thank you for checking, marked as done. since the indian one does not have an article. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Thank you, marked as done--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Saadhanaigal Padaitha Thamizh Thiraipada Varalaru" ? a magazine ? newspaper ? please clarify it since Non Tamil speakers cant decipher what it is from the name. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a book, written. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Thank you, marked as done--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I would still want a full sweep to fix issues that might have escaped. I will review it again once you have done your sweep. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 09:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the email, I understand that you cannot reply right now, but there is no hurry. Please ping me from this page, once you are unblocked and have checked the entire page to fix the CLOP issues if any. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro edit

Overall very well done. Just a few things:

I was advised against this by Yashthepunisher, and his reason was justified. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main question is (and I'm sorry if this was already answered above) but is there a reason why the film no longer exists in its entirety? I'd really be interested to know. And how much of it remains? Half? Over half? Or only a small fragment?
Really I don't know. Maybe lack of care and preservation facilities then. Whatever remains is here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rest looks good. Great job to you! :-) – zmbro (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zmbro, so does this mean you'll say support? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep happy to support :-) – zmbro (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Laser brain edit

I scanned this over this morning and find the prose to be deficient. It needs significant work from a strong copyeditor. A few random examples just from the Music section:

  • What is a "music director" in the context of an Indian film from that era? No explanation or context is provided.
  • You go on to discuss the lyricist and then presumably a song from the film but, again, no context is provided for what you're discussing.
  • Who is the composer?
  • There are lots of awkward phrases like "based on Subramania Bharati's poem, 'Karumbu Thottathile', with modified lyrics" The phrasing suggests lyrics were written from the poem and then modified for this version... but it's unclear.
  • "and the song explored" The song still exists presumably... you need to review what tense is used for writing about creative works like songs and poems.
  • "The song, which was composed in the Carnatic raga" The wording here is quite awkward. How do you compose "in a raga"?

These are just pot-shots from one section but it needs significant work to be FA quality prose. --Laser brain (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if Ian doesn’t get it by the time we stop at a place where I can type, I’ll do it then. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the extent of the copyvio investigation into this nominator, along with Laser brain's oppose, archiving seems appropriate here. Earwig shows no current copyvio, but the history might need investigation nonetheless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will suggest waiting for a month before archiving this. Nom has applied for unblock and talking with him, I feel he is ready to help fix the problems. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then it could come back to FAC in a month, after addressing issues raised by Laserbrain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been at FAC over two months and concerns of the nature Andy raises at this stage necessitate closure regardless of the block and any potential unblock. It can be brought back at a later stage (minimum of two weeks per FAC instructions). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [9].

Portraits of Odaenathus edit

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the article of Odaenathus king of Palmyra appeared on the main page in 19 November, an image of a sculpture reportedly depicting him accompanied. Sadly, the sculpture with a 99% chance does not depict the king. We actually do not know how he looked like, but we do have portraits that are more likely to represent him, some of those sculptures are lost, and we only have photos of them. This article trace every single possible depiction of the king, and clarify what portraits do not represent him despite being promoted more than the ones that might be actual depictions. The article is definitely for lovers of obscure artifacts and antiquities, and was copy-edited by Miniapolis to guarantee its reading quality.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given the length of the article the lead should be considerably longer, and could an image be placed there? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead and added an image. Do you see any problem with the images and copy-rights??.

Caeciliusinhorto edit

Art history and ancient history in one: definitely something in my wheelhouse to hopefully get me back into the swing of reviewing articles! I've read through to the end of the section on limestone portraits, so more tomorrow, but some comments now before I go to bed:

I appreciate you taking the time, but before implementing your suggestions, I would like to discuss some problematic ones
  • I am surprised at only a single-paragraph lead for a 3000+ word article.
This is solved
  • The first sentence to me seems a little awkward in order to coerce the phrase "Portraits of Odaenathus" into being the opening words of the article. Perhaps something like The only clearly-attributed Portraits of Odaenathus, king of Palmyra (260–267) to survive are threea few small clay tokens (tesserae), though several larger stone carvings and one mosaic are thought to depict him.
I see your formula awkward. Neither I nor the copy-editor see the current wording awckward. It is not wise to plunge the reader directly into details.
  • Palmyrene portraits were generally abstract, depicting little individuality. Is abstract the right word here? I wouldn't describe this sculpture as abstract! Compare this Brancusi sculpture.
Abstract does not have one meaning. The photo you wont describe as abstract is an abstract in Palmyrene context as you will find many sculptures that look almost the same depicting different men
Abstract does have more than one meaning, but given that in art history it has a specific technical meaning when discussing the style of an artwork, it is probably best to avoid using it with a different meaning when discussing the style of a sculpture. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt an art history book. Its an encyclopedic article for everyday-readers. They will understand what is meant with abstract
  • he assumed the title of King of Kings in 263 and declared his son Herodianus co-ruler. The title was traditionally held by Near Eastern Seleucid and Parthian rulers and Sassanian monarchs: "the title" presumably being "King of Kings", but this is a little awkward because the two references to the title are separated by Herodianus' co-rulership.
Whats wrong here? what is weird?? King of Kings is the only title mentioned, so there is no ambiguity as to what the "this title" refers to
  • the heads were part of a monumental, frontal kline in the exedra of a tomb; an example of such composition is the hypogeum of the Palmyrene noble Shalamallat I realise some articles are unavoidably more technical than others, but here we have three very technical terms (kline, exedra, hypogeum) in quick succession; kline has been previously defined (assuming that a frontal kline is not a different thing from a funeral kline!), but the other two words require me to follow links to work out what they mean.
  • The historian Udo Hartmann also considered Ingholt's arguments unconvincing, and his identification arbitrary. Two sources of potential confusion here. Firstly, the "also" apparently refers to Parlasca's rejection of Ingholt's theory, but the most recent scholar to be discussed, who we naturally assume the "also" points to, is Balty. Balty's judgment of Ingholt's theory is not established in the article. Secondly, though Parlasca clearly finds Ingholt unconvincing, it is not established that he finds it arbitrary, but the flow of the sentence suggests that "also" applies to both "unconvincing" and "arbitrary".
Why is Balty's judgment important? He did not discuss Ingholt
That's precisely my problem. The structure of the paragraph is: 1. Parlasca disputes Ingholt's argument. 2. Balty has an opinion. 3. "The historian Udo Hartmann also considered Ingholt's arguments unconvincing, and his identification arbitrary". The obvious reading of this is that Balty's opinion is that Ingholt's opinion is unconvincing. But that's not Balty's opinion. So the reader then has to track back through the paragraph to find who the "also" actually refers to. It's confusingly written. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three head sculptures were excavated from a hexagonal tomb in Palmyra's northern necropolis when were they excavated?
  • Both portraits are influenced by a model, which (given the massive, square skull) may have been the Gallienic model for the Damascus portrait. Explain what is meant by "model" here – the usual meaning clearly does not apply.
  • As demonstrated by Parlasca, most of the oversized limestone heads with thick necks were connected to funeral practices as sarcophagus lids this has previously been described as something Parlasca "considered" rather than something that he had "demonstrated" – a very different thing!

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part the second:

  • reminiscent of similar crowns worn by many contemporary Eastern monarchs from Commagene, Hatra, Osroene, several Parthian kings, and seen in some portraits of Ardashir I This starts out as a list of place names, but then we get "Parthian kings" and "portraits of Ardashir I".
Again, what is your objection here? Only Ardashir wore such a crown, and only couple of Parthia monarchs wore a tiara with that design. So its not problem if I mention places names or specific cases
My objection is that "many contemporary Eastern monarchs from [...] several Parthian kings" is ungrammatical. One list ("many contemporary Eastern monarchs from Commagene, Hatra, [and] Osroene") is embedded in another ("similar crowns worn by many contemporary eastern monarchs, several Parthian kings, and seen in some portraits of Ardashir I") in a confusing way. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ungrammatical?? There is a reason I asked the guild to help. If you think there are grammatical mistakes, fix them, but keep the wording true to the facts
  • In Balty's view, the Damascus token confirms that the missing part of the tiara portrait's headdress is a royal tiara, and the sculpture depicts Odaenathus; it cannot be Herodianus, since the subject has a beard. from the point of view of a non-specialist, it seems as though a crucial part of the logic here is missing: why can the portrait not be of (a) Herodianus later in his reign (I guess from the article on him that he was still young when he died) or (b) some other Palmyrene ruler?
Im in no place to argue with Balty on his conclusions! and neither is any Wikipedian. We just mention what the scholar say and attribute his words to him (anyway, Herodianus dont have a later reign, he died young. Second, we dont have many Palyrene rulers, only Odaenathus, Herodianus, and Vaballathus who was a child when Aurelian came)
I'm not suggesting that you should argue with Balty's conclusions; merely explain them! That Herodianus and Vaballathus died young and therefore would not have been depicted with beards is a perfectly cromulent explanation, and the conclusion I in fact came to, but I had to read the articles on Herodianus, and on the Kingdom of Palmyra, to work it out. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither I nor you can explain. Thats an original research. If the source does not mention this connection, I cant do it as well. Again, open the source
  • The piece is poorly preserved and fragmentary; its hair begins on the centre top of the head with long sparse strands, which are carved flat and held by a diadem. it's not clear to me why these two clauses are joined by a semicolon.
  • This tessera, also in Damascus, depicts a king in a tiara on one side; a ball of hair in chignon style is attached to the back of the head. Weird phrasing. What's wrong with "This tessera, also in Damascus, depicts a king in a tiara on one side; he wears his hair in a chignon"?
I dont see it wierd, neither did the copy-editor
Nonetheless, describing someone's hairstyle as "a ball of hair attached to the back of the head" is very odd. It's so odd, in fact, that it makes me wonder if what is being described is not Odaenathus' hairstyle, but some kind of decorative wig? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Open the source. Its a ball in it
  • the portrait of Herodianus on the lead token: as the portrait of Herodianus has only so far been mentioned once, briefly, in a separate section, it might be worth re-establishing what it is – I had to search up through the article to work out what was being talked about here.
  • Le tableau de Bellérophon (The Table of Bellerophon). Whose translation? "tableau" can mean table, but I would imagine that the sense here is closer to "The Picture of Bellerophon".
  • divided into two tables of equal dimensions; The table depicts a galloping rider attacking a rearing tiger; The composition of the table; Two eagles fly at the top of the table: initially I thought that these parts of the mosaic might be physically raised from the rest, but in the context of "The Table of Bellerophon", I strongly suspect that they are actually just bad translations from French.
  • pants, tunic, and a kandys per MOS:COMMONALITY, I would be inclined to write "trousers" rather than "pants".

That's it for the line-by-line comments: general thoughts and a look at the sources to follow. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more thoughts having read through the whole article and thought it over for a while:

  • I am surprised that there is no further discussion of the "small clay tesserae" which "were found in Palmyra with impressions of the king and his name" given that these are apparently the only surviving images certainly of Odaenathus!
Scholars did not further discuss it. If you have more sources, I will welcome them
  • Information given about different possible portraits is erratic. It's especially noticeable in the discussion of the Istanbul and Copenhagen heads, where we learn in a note that the Istanbul head was acquired by the museum after 1895, but no corresponding information about the Copenhagen one. Similarly, the section on the Damascus and Palmyra heads gives the date of discovery of the Palmyra head to the day, but nothing on the discovery of the Damascus head. In general I would like to see more information on the provenance of all of these objects.
Do you have sources?? I dont and I searched ten libraries and the digital world I have access to through my University (which have access to most publications). Its like you are suggesting that I delete a beneficial sourced information because I cant find the same detail for another piece!
I nowhere suggested that you delete information. I am just surprised that there isn't any more detail on the provenance of the Copenhagen head – works in major European museums generally have reasonably well documented provenances, or failing that documented lacks of provenance. If the information isn't available, it isn't available. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they dont exist. Even Ingholt does not know when the portrait was found. So next time be more humble and dont demand with words like: " In general I would like to see more information ". First ask if such information are available, and better, search yourself and make sure they do or not before making it sound as if I did not do my work properly
  • Meanwhile, inventory numbers of artworks, while useful information, are a distraction to most readers in running text – I would demote all of them to notes.
I think the opposite. They need to be stated clearly
  • The heads are full replicas, intended to represent the same person; their similarities are not the result of a workshop's standards is presented as fact rather than opinion, but Fortin identifies one (and presumably not the others?) as being of Odaenathus, and only a few sentences later we hear that Gawlikowski shared Balty's view, suggesting that the heads depicted three men from the same family [my emphasis]. Which is it? (And while we are at it, Galiwowski presumably agrees with Balty's view that these are funerary portraits, but he clearly disagrees with his identification of the three heads as representing the same man)...
Yes, scholars agree on stuff and dissagree on others. I cant do anything here
Yes, but when they clearly disagree on something (one saying that all three heads depict the same man, another saying that they all depict different men), we shouldn't say that they "shared" a view. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the sources, and they all seem reliable, but I haven't spotchecked them thoroughly. But even without commenting on that, I have concerns with prose, with comprehensiveness, and with the lead, which will need addressing before this should be promoted to FA status.

I have concerns with you approach to reviewing. The prose is copy-edited by an experienced editor. The article is the most comprehensive you will ever read, and if you can prove that there is an information not mentioned here but exist in sources I did not use, then you can talk about comprehensiveness. I see this as a clear case of I just don't like it, specially that you cannot judge the comprehensiveness without researching this topic which took me months to write and research. Therefore, I will not be able to cooperate with you. Feel free to Oppose this nomination- Your concerns need to be adressed to get your support, and not for the article to be promoted as this does not count only on your support.
Wow. I spent quite a lot of time reading, thinking about, and writing a review for your article, including giving dozens of examples, with quotes, of things I would change, and mentioning the specific Featured Article criteria which I felt the article fell short of. That's the opposite of "I don't like it". You are perfectly free to argue that my concerns don't apply, but please don't dismiss them as unsupported dislike: they clearly aren't.
I have responded to many of your specific queries in line. If you want me to clarify something I have said, or you think you have addressed all of my concerns, let me know on my talkpage – it's not currently looking like there's any value to me further engaging with the article if this is your response to a good faith review.
However, I believe that the article currently fails to meet at least criterion 1a ("engaging" prose of a "professional standard"). I am also concerned about the neutrality of the article: in my earlier review I gave an example of one scholarly opinion being presented as fact with no clear justification and despite a more recent reliable source coming to a different conclusion. Finally, I have given an example of the article apparently misrepresenting the source it is based on. Given these concerns, I have to oppose. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The things you would change, many of them at least, will damage the article in my view. Its your word against mine and thats the reality of it. There is no substance in your arguments against the prose... you use the word awkward! But what is your criteria here? I and the guild copy-editor did not find it awkward, while you did. So obviously this is a matter of taste, not grammar. Also, and again, you did not do your research on this article, so you cannot say that there is a problem with neutrality. Every pov is represented, but there is an academic consensus: those limestone portraits are not Odaenathus. Balty agree to this since he dismiss the Hexagonal tomb portraits, which are very similar to the Danish museum portrait. So in conclusion, this article do have an "engaging" prose of a " professional standard, which does not change if you think some wording is awkward. The reason I dismiss your "concerns" as unsupported dislike is because you seem to mix your taste in wording and the appearance of an article with the prose criteria. I discovered that through an earlier contact with you in the Cleopatra Selene nomination where you argued for a long time just because you didnt like the location of a paragraph!!! Therefore, I cannot work with you here, nor in any other nominations in the future, even if this means that I wont nominate anything again. I will however go through the article, and make sure to ascribe every statement to its scholar, and implement the logical suggestions you made.

Note to the coordinator: The logical, and sometimes good, suggestions of Caeciliusinhorto are implmented:

  • Technical words are explained.
  • Every scholar's opinion was ascribed to that scholar. This includes: Hartmann's on Ingholt. Balty's view regarding Parlasca and Ingholt, Balty's view regarding the replication of the Hexagonal tomb portraits, and Gawlikowski's view regarding the same portraits.
  • What is meant by a model (regarding the Gallienic model for the Damascus portrait) is clarified.
  • In the conclusion of the limestone portraits section: the word "demonstrated" is replaced.
  • Why it cant be Herodianus depicted in the tiara portrait is clarified from the point of view of Balty. No more extra clarification was provided as it would by SYNTH of Balty's words.
  • Table was replaced by panel.

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2020 [10].

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division edit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC) and User:Kges1901 [reply]

This article is about the British 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division, which was raised in 1908 as part of the Territorial Force. On the outbreak of the First World War, the division was drained of resources to reinforce others formations until it ceased to exist. In late 1915, the division was reformed in France. It went on to fight in several of the major battles on the Western Front: the Somme, Passchendaele, Cambrai (where the division's retreat resulted in a court of enquiry and a knock to its reputation), Lys/Givenchy, and the Hundred Days Offensive. In the inter-war period, it became part of the Territorial Army (which replaced the Territorial Force), and was transformed into a two-brigade motor division. As a first-line formation, it helped form the second-line 59th (Staffordshire) division on the outbreak of the Second World War. During the war, it remained in the United Kingdom assigned to home defence duties. It had been intended the division would deploy in 1944, but instead it was once again stripped of its assets for use in other formations. The division was maintained as a deception formation, assisting Operation Fortitude, before being demobilized at the end of the war. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:55th_(West_Lancashire)_Division_positions_at_Guillemont.jpg and other maps need a US PD tag
  • File:164th_Brigade_WW1_battle_patches.svg and similar do not warrant copyright protection for the uploader - they are simple shapes. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ni Nikki. As always, thank you for the review. I have made changes to all reviewed images, which hopefully address your points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the particular map named above has been changed, but several others still have just the UK-anon tag
I apologize about that, I have updated them now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

I did a fair bit of work on this for GOCE and a number of issues were discussed on the talk page.

  • "the majority of its units volunteered for overseas" Picky point - can "units" volunteer? Or only the individuals comprising them?
  • The sources in question state that units volunteered. Technically it would be men in units volunteered, but in the units of the division the rate was near 100%, such that subordinate units were sent to the front as units because of the overwhelming majority having volunteered. Kges1901 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901: Is there a source to support the "near 100%" figure? The one provided below says every unit volunteered, but only 60% of the men in the unit had to volunteer for that unit to be deemed to have volunteered. Factotem (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weell. If you are positive that that is how the sources phrase it, then I suppose we need to go with it.Gog the Mild (talk) 7:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I see your point Gog. Kges1901 is accurate in his description, whole units shipped out. To quote the source:
""A day or two later came the telegram from Lord Kitchener inviting units to volunteer for service overseas. The response was immediate and emphatic. Every units in the Division volunteered." (p. 21) and "...a steady flow of battalions, R.E. companies [etc] ... proceeded overseas..." (p. 22)
With that said, is there something that could be tweaked to aid the non-versed reader?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comment: Individuals volunteered. If enough men in a battalion volunteered, it would be sent overseas. "Enough" was set at 80% on 13 August, but this was reduced to a more realistic 60% by the end of the month. This is covered in the 2nd para of the Mobilisation section over at Territorial Force. The text and source can be lifted from there if need be. Factotem (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Factotem: Thanks for the correction. I have rephrased accordingly. Does this satisfy your concern? Kges1901 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not key to the article or the FAC. The sources I have only give broad, brushstroke figures for the TF as a whole, with only a few specific examples. I was simply curious to know if there were any sources for the level of volunteering by the men of the division, for my own interest. Factotem (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After posting the above I realised you had amended the article accordingly. Unfortunately, that edit did not accurately reflect the source. Rather than confuse each other (well, certainly me) with further back and forth here, I edited the article to accurately reflect both the source and, in a footnote, how it actually worked. Hope that's OK. @Gog the Mild:, this is my edit; does that answer your comment? Factotem (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some specifics in battalion histories that I read while working on portions of this article. For example, the Liverpool Scottish battalion history (McGilchrist 1930) states that "all officers and more than 800 other ranks volunteered at once," with a further 300 recruits enlisting to bring them up to strength. Those that did not or could not volunteer formed two new companies. That of the 1/4th Loyal North Lancs states that the battalion volunteered "practically to a man." Kges1901 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: Personally I would scrap the quote marks, but it's not a deal breaker. Re the footnote, "Kitchener had signalled a willingness to deploy overseas those territorial units in which 80 per cent of the men (reduced to 60 per cent at the end of the month) had volunteered for service overseas" doesn't really convey a lot. Do we mean 'Units in which 80 per cent of the men (later reduced to 60 per cent) had volunteered for service overseas were liable for deployment'?
Quote marks are the choice of the article's editors; I have no opinion on that. The footnote conveys exactly what the source says, i.e. that Kitchener, who was so averse to using the TF to reinforce the regular army overseas that he chose to raise a completely new army from scratch (with the agreement of the regular army), expressed a willingness nevertheless to deploy some TF units overseas if they volunteered. How is the use of "liable" an improvement? Factotem (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my last comment. You are correct. The footnote reads fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know there has been a detailed discussion here, but I have went in and made some large changes to this section (largely based off the material Factotem provided, and my limited access to Becke). I believe the footnote was better served in the text, and with the additional text now should make this whole thing much more clear ... well I hope so anyway!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its units volunteered for overseas service and the division was stripped of assets; those who remained were merged" I think that a reader may be confused as to whether units, assets or (unstated) individuals "were merged".
  • What actually happened was that the units that remained after the transfer of the last remaining infantry, mainly the division artillery and some small logistics units, were attached to the 2nd West Lancashire Division. Kges1901 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. That seems clear. Why not cut and paste that clear phraseology into the lead?
Done - I don't want to get too specific in the lead. Kges1901 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which resulted in the defeat of the German Army and the end of the war" The last time I checked neither of these were the consensus of modern scholarship. I am of course happy to proven wrong. However, a skim suggests that the main article makes neither claim. Perhaps you would care to reconsider?
    Toned down to what the article states, the culminating offensive of the war (which one would argue defeated the remnants of the German Army and won the war, but that's not really a discussion for here).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • When copy editing I asked on the talk page 'Why the upper case T in "14 Territorial divisions", "envisioned the Territorials taking over" etc?' I understood that it was agreed that sentences would either be rephrased to use 'Territorial Force' (as in '14 Territorial Force divisions', for example), or a lower case t would be used. If this is mot the case, could we reopen the debate as to whether "Territorial" used adjectively should be considered a proper noun for MoS purposes?
    Agreed, and changes made.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six months following mobilisation, when the troops would have come up to an acceptable training standard, Haldane was confident that up to a quarter of the men would volunteer for overseas service." Another picky point. I think that what you actually mean here is 'Haldane was confident that up to a quarter of the men would volunteer for overseas service six months following their mobilisation, when the troops would have come up to an acceptable training standard.'
    I don't see any fault with that argument, tweaked accordingly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comment: That is actually a faulty argument. Haldane designed the TF to reinforce the regular army overseas in the event of war, but political opposition forced him to present it as a home defence force which could not be compelled to serve overseas in order to get his reforms through Parliament. He hoped that up to a quarter would volunteer for foreign service on mobilisation, and the Imperial Service Obligation was introduced in 1910 to allow territorials to volunteer in advance. This is covered in the second para of the Formation section in Territorial Force. Factotem (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to address this soonEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are articles on the actual North Lancashire, Liverpool and South Lancashire Brigades could the Wikilinks target these rather than the geographical areas.
  • Done.
  • "The division, as a formation, was inspected ... " Does "as a formation" add any information?
  • This seems to be meant to imply that the entire division was inspected.
And would a reader not take the same understanding from 'The division was inspected'?

Bedtime here, I shall continue tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "practicsed"
    Updated to BE.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "lacking flanking guards" →'lacking flank guards'. Also optional: link to Covering force.
    Edited out during the cut downEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "artillery batteries lacked mobility and were too slow in moving" Consider deleting 'in moving'.
    DittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it had also suffered from training and mobility flaws" This is a repetition of the previous sentence, and I would suggest deleting it.
    It is now goneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the popular enthusiasm for the war, the division was flooded with potential recruits." Optional: To my eye this doesn't quite work. Maybe 'With popular enthusiasm for the war high ... ' or similar?
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a precise date for the divisions reformation? I ask because "authorised the reformation of the 55th in France in November, and its former artillery units were given orders to move to Saint-Omer in mid-December" suggests 1915, while the infobox states 1916.
    I have made some changes to the article, from what I can see of Becke he is a little vague but it seems that its "birthdate" would be 27 Jan 1916.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second installment edit

A little more copy editing for you to check over.

  • Any chance of a footnoted explanation of 1/9 etc, for non-aficionados who may read, and pronounce, them as fractions.
  • "consisting of the (1/10th (Scottish) Battalion, King's (Liverpool Regiment) (Liverpool Scottish)" Is the first parenthesis a typo?
    Typo removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 1/4th Battalion, King's Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment)"; but "1/4th Battalion, Loyal North Lancashire Regiment". All units and formations throughout the article should have a definite article in front of them.
    Believe I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In February 1916, the division took over a sector of the front line" We don't know when in February?
    I have added a dateEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elements of six battalions"; "Two of the attacking battalions were repelled while the other four entered"> The first quote states "elements of"; the second reads as if entire battalions were involved.
    I have tweaked thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote a: Is this for "quiet periods", similar to that the 55th experienced, or for the whole war averaged (ie, including the Somme etc)?
    The whole war averaged: "British and Canadian battalions suffered about 100 casualties per month on average on the Western Front in the First World War." It was added into the article as Peacemaker, during the GA review, was a little astounded by the high casualties during a "peaceful" period. It is the closest, that I am aware of, any stat that shows the average wastage level so one can kind of make sense of the casualties.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Losses for this raid are not reported. During this period in the trenches the division suffered 1,110 casualties.[a] On 25 July, the division was relieved by the 11th (Northern) Division" Would it not make sense to swap these sentences, to put them in chronological order?
    I have moved them aroundEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 164th Brigade advanced on the division's left flank. The advance of the 1/4KORL on the left flank" Was the 1/4KORL on the left of the 164th Brigade? Ie the extreme left of the entire division? If so, could we say this?
    No longer relevant following the trimmingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Noel Godfrey Chavasse (a Captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps" Either the parenthesis should be a comma, or you need a closing braket.
    This has been addressed via trimmingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph commencing "An attack on 9 August" the two distance conversions are spuriously accurate. "23 m"!?
    Also removed in the trimmingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prepare for an attack after 20 August" "after"? Is the actual date of the attack known?
    DittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cochrane Alley" I don't think that throwing this name in helps a reader. Either you need to explain its relevance - and what it is - or (preferably IMO) rephrase without it.
    Ditto
  • "Under a creeping barrage" The RA isn't that bad. Possibly 'behind'?
    That made me giggle, and it has also been trimmed outEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "five German 77 mm (3 in) gun batteries and captured them" Is the number of guns captured in the five batteries known?
    I will see if I can find anything, but Coop only mentions that it was five batteriesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a methodical counter-attack (German: gegenangriff)" Why do we need the German word?
    We don't, and removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we be told that A.J. Smithers is a historian at first mention?
    AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear, without hovering on the cite, whether "no officer of field rank or above ... to blame for anything" is quoting Smithers or the enquiry; the first time I read it, I assumed the enquiry. Perhaps it is. Could do with in line clarification.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, I am holding off from further comment until the article stabilises. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done edit

  • Organizations like IWM and National Library of Scotland are publishers, not work titles
    Could you elaborate please? In these instances, we have used the cite web template and the website section is where they are cited.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They should use |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated this nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk a high-quality reliable source?
    Replaced with RSEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN254 has a stray parenthesis
    FixedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN255 is missing author
    Author addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of References
    I believe I fixed all that were out of wackEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hesketh, Sheldon, Tomaselli. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing those ones out. I have adjusted them now :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barbier 2007a has a state name but none of the other refs do - should be consistent
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hall 1910 is missing location, same with McGilchrist
    Locations addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how editions are notated
    I have amended several, where the edition field was being used for the reprint info.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does Newbold meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoted and referenced in published secondary sources discussing the topicEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Examples? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Used as a source in the following published secondary sources:
        Place, Timothy; Military Training in the British Army, 1940-1944: From Dunkirk to D-Day; Todman, Daniel, Britain's War: Into Battle, 1937-1941; McKinstry, Leo, Operation Sea Lion; Beckett, I.F.W, The Amateur Military Tradition, 1558-1945; Forczyk, Robert, We March Against England: Operation Sea Lion, 1940–41.
        Used as a source in the following thesis:
        Jones, Alexander, Pinchbeck Regulars? The Role and Organisation of the Territorial Army, 1919-1940EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Newbold looks good given the citations, but some of the other points above are still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, thanks for the additional feedback. I believe I have now addressed the remaining points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Factotem edit

Not sure if I have the time to give a full review, but skimming through, there are a few things that concern me:

  • The article runs to 71 kB readable prose, 11 kB beyond the point at which it should "probably" be divided, according to WP:LENGTH;
    I have cut 10k out today, although there will need to be additional information added based off the information you have provided.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That overrun seems due in part to excessive detail. Do we really need so much detail on Langlois's assessment in the Formation section? Do we really need four sentences on Baxter's VC-winning actions? Or for Procter's? Both have their own articles, and shouldn't this article focus on the division's activities, rather the individual deeds of its men?
    Largely having left Cambrai and Givenchy along for the moment, I have cut down the VC info. Likewise, I have cut Langlois' assessment (which I will supplement with material that you added to the talkpage)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, there are four paragraphs on the actions around Guillemont in August 1916 which, I have to assume, were relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme because they do not appear to have been part of a named battle. The Battle of Guillemont itself didn't occur until September, according to the article linked to in the first of those four paras (but which, the wording in the article suggests, preceded the West Lancs' actions - I think you need to check either link or source). Couldn't the four paras be simply condensed to something along the lines of "In August, during the Battle of the Somme, the division suffered 4,126 casualties in unsuccessful attempts to capture Guillemont..."?
    I will review the article with this in mind. As for the link to that particular article, I discussed this with the chap who wrote up the majority of the battle article. The 55th's actions are described in the Battle/Fourth Army/August section. To fully quote his response to me, when asking essentially the same question you have:
    "I hesitated about them but in James, E. A. (1990) [1924]. A Record of the Battles and Engagements of the British Armies in France and Flanders 1914–1918 those are the dates. It's as if the earlier fighting hasn't been seen as part of it, only the few days leading up to the capture of the village. If I had only put those events in the Battle section the background and prelude would have been the majority of the article. I remember that when I started I thought it would be a fairly small article, like the Battle of Thiepval but that for continuity I had to begin with the end of Delville Wood. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, my last edit for the day (and it made me feel icky), I have just condensed this entire section and also made a few tweaks to the wording. Just as a start, to fully addressing everything else, does this work (not just for you Factotem, but also Gog, who I know as similar concerns per below)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still have a lengthy, detailed narrative which can, IMO, be better placed in the Battle of Guillemont article and summarised here simply as:
"In August, during the Battle of the Somme, the division fought three actions in the prelude to the Battle of Guillemont. The attacks were largely unsuccessful, and the division suffered 4,126 casualties. Two men of the division, Second Lieutenant Gabriel Coury and Captain Noel Chavasse, were awarded VC's for their actions during the fighting."
This tells us the key details, with links to the relevant articles for those who are interested in learning more. In principle, IMO, there's no need for a blow-by-blow battle narrative for every action the division was involved in unless the story involves more than a simple battle narrative. Thus, the division's actions in the Battle of Cambrai might usefully get more detailed coverage because of the enquiry that followed, and its success in the Defence of Givenchy also appears to be particularly conspicuous, and therefore more deserving of more detailed coverage. Factotem (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an edit along the lines you have suggested, although I opted (and hope you agree with it remaining) a little of the context.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some context is fine and that's now the level of detail I think is appropriate. Factotem (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence of the lead, about the division's role in the event of an invasion, is not supported in the main body. It's misleading, if not completely wrong, because...
    I have fixed this, so it now reflects the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...before the war, the division was earmarked for deployment to Ireland, where it and the East Lancs Division were to replace two regular army divisions and allow them to be deployed on the continent. This plan, drawn up in 1912 I think, was dropped as logistically impossible on the outbreak of the war. The division did not move to Kent "to continue training in preparation for service in France." The Liverpool Brigade was sent to Canterbury, where it joined the Second Army of the Central Force, the mobile element of the home defences, while the South Lancashire Brigade was sent to Scotland to help defend the Forth. At the start of the war, the TF divisions had roles in home defence that this article completely ignores. The decision to deploy them overseas evolved as the regular army was decimated by the German offensive of 1914. Kevin Mitchinson has written three very good (and very expensive) books on the subject of the TF in general (see the bib in Territorial Force for details), which is where I got this info from. If you want, I can send you copies of the pages in which the West Lancs Division is mentioned - there aren't many.
    So the current wording is based off the divisional history, which in turn does not provide that much information on what the division was doing from the outbreak of the war until its breakup and reformation. The relevant quote is "...the Division was ordered to Kent for training...". I do wonder how that jives with the sources you mentioned, which I would very much like to take up your offer of copies of the relevant few pages.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant info from Mitchinson's three books transcribed to the article TP. Factotem (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the divisional history was written by the divisional chaplain in 1919, just after the war. Whilst I don't think that's grounds for objecting to the reliability of the source for basic facts and figures, some of its evaluative statements should be handled with care. As an example, on p. 20 Coop writes, "...upon the outbreak of the war in August, 1914, the West Lancashire Division was at least the equal of any Territorial Division in the country." But we know from Mitchinson that in December 1914, General Ian Hamilton, commander of the home forces to which the division was at that time allocated, noted that the West Lancashire Division was 'fully 20% behind the rest' in efficiency and training." (2014 p. 79) Factotem (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of the care that needs to be exercised in the use of Coop is the narrative surrounding the Battle of Cambrai. That section in the article is almost exclusively sourced to his divisional history, and it reads as if little blame can be attached to the division. But if we turn to Mitchinson we learn that ""Some battalions of 55th (West Lancashire) Division virtually disappeared east of Epehy in what could be seen as questionable circumstances in late 1917..." (2014 p. 217) Mitchinson does not go into any further detail, but I'm wondering if there are other accounts more recent and more detached than Coop that are not so reticent in discussing those battalions' apparent failing. Factotem (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My general MO is to use an official history as the framework, and allow historians to provide assessment. I have attempted to do this throughout the article. But will revisit this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several changes to the "Early Years" section to include the relevant info about the proposed deployed to Ireland. More to come on the founding section to reflect the other points you have made.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you've fully understood the situation with your recent changes. The decision to deploy the two Lancashire divisions to Ireland to relieve regular formations there was made before the war (1912, I think, but not entirely sure), not "Following the start of the First World War...". Also, it's incorrect to state that "the division was assigned to Central Force". Only one brigade was. The units assigned to the Forth defences were not part of Central Force. I'm also not sure any source explicitly says that a brigade was deployed to Oxfordshire, only that parts of the division were based there (I could be wrong on that though). Factotem (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few additional tweaks. I believe my initial edit by Central Force was a more general generalization than I intended after looking at what I could access of Defending Albion on Google Books last night. I have amended accordingly, which I hope you will find satisfactory :)
As for Ireland, I have made some revisions after re-reading the material. From the quotes and what I can access, I think what is now in the article should make the point more clear although I have not been able to date it as I could not find anything.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "merging" of those left behind that has been queried by another reviewer is actually a fairly significant detail not fully covered in this article, though it does not need much more than a sentence. Those territorials who could not (or chose not to) volunteer for service overseas formed a second-line of TF, intended to take the place the first line units had vacated in the home defences;
    I was able to access the relevant page in Becke, and have added a few lines in about this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another detail missing from the article is the pre-war effectiveness of the division. You give a lot of space to Langlois's assessment, but he's pretty much a contemporary source, writing in 1919, which makes his assessment slightly dubious, I think. You could instead provide a few words about the woes of the pre-war TF and its poor reputation in general, which you can easily steal from Territorial Force, and tie that back to the West Lancs with statements based on the fact that in 1912 "a large proportion of the troops in the West Lancashire [Division]...were judged to be incapable of carrying their own kit...", so physically unfit were they (Mitchinson 2008 p. 167), and on the fact that on the outbreak of war the division "...was not particularly highly rated and had been 2,900 below establishment in July." (Mitchinson 2008 p. 217)

Sorry to be so negative, particularly as I know you put a significant amount of effort into the work you do on MILHIST articles, but based on the little I have looked into, this is not ready  :( Factotem (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of some of Factotem's comments, without necessarily agreeing with their conclusion, I have found this comment by me on the article's talk page from September: "The paragraph starting with the Battle of Amiens seems unnecessarily detailed to me. I suggest boiling it down into a couple of sentences from "The division was ordered ... " Ditto the battalion attack in the next paragraph." Gog the Mild (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only have time for a quick check in today. I really do appreciate the feedback. I want it to be right, and I want it to be good. I believed some of the minor tweaks and cuts we did earlier took away some of the over-detail (to address the VC point, in particular, this was based off prior feedback of not putting enough in although in hindsight that was from far shorter articles), but I was shortsighted in that as they clearly did not go far enough.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed: in the "Cambrai court of enquiry", shouldn't it be "inquiry"? Factotem (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources use either term interchangeably. The national archives file for the relevant documents uses the term "enquiry".EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are cutting large swathes in response to my comments suggest that you accept the article needs significant changes in order to get through FAC. I have no problem with the concept of FAC as a venue in which articles are polished, but I think this goes way beyond polishing, and indicates that the article is not ready for FAC. I'm afraid I must oppose on that basis. Sorry.

But, I am aware that the article as nominated passed MILHIST ACR, which I respect as the best review forum after FAC. It may be in your best interest and the best interests of the article to see if the ACR reviewers have anything to say here; @Peacemaker67:, @AustralianRupert:, @CPA-5:, @Sturmvogel 66:.

In summary, my main objections are:

  • Excessive detail (WP:WIAFA 4. Length)
  • Neglects details about the pre-war division and the plans for its use in home defence (WIAFA 1b. Comprehensive)
  • Relies too much on questionable sources, specifically Coop, who is too close to the subject in both ties and time, and is insufficiently scholarly (WIAFA 1c. Well-researched, WP:SOURCE, WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP)
  • To be clear, I'm not objecting to the use of Coop's work out of hand, only to its use in certain contexts where he might reasonably be judged as biased or misinformed (he clearly does not know about the TF's role in home defence at the start of the war), and where more recent, more scholarly sources would be more appropriate. Factotem (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, responding to the ping above...I will have another read through today and try to offer some help where possible. I have started, but am feeling a bit under the weather at the moment and need to have a lie down. Will try to come back later. Re Coop, I wonder if it possible to try to verify the information in the areas that are of concern, using other sources? (For instance, maybe Edmonds or Miles, or one of the other official history volumes). Sorry, I don't think I can access these. The snippets from Mitchinson on the talk page could probably be worked in to help address the concern about coverage above; I'd be happy to try to help bring some of these threads together, if the nom is happy with this. Anyway, I will come back in a bit when I've had a rest. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I have read through the article again today and taken the opportunity to do a little copy editing -- please revert as desired. From my read through, I notice that the Battle of Cambrai, Defence of Givenchy and Local attacks in the Givenchy sector sections seem a bit long compared to others (say for instance the Battle of the Somme section), so I would suggest that any further efforts to reduce detail might focus on those areas if desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent edits. Further inclusions based off Factotem to come, along with further cuts/refinements in the areas you guys have mentioned.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2020 (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) 12 January 2020 [11].

Freddie Mitchell edit

Nominator(s): Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American football player who had a high pedigree at the time he was eligible to play professionally but flamed out in the National Football League. He was a key participant in one of the most notable plays in his franchise's history, played in the Super Bowl the next season, and ran his mouth out of town the following year. A decade later he was in prison finishing a three-year sentence for tax fraud.

I previously nominated this page for FA status in March 2012, but I became overwhelmed with work in my real life and had to withdraw the nomination. I believe all of the comments from the first nomination have now been addressed, and I look forward to addressing additional concerns. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Quick comment – I (unfortunately) don't have time for a full review during this holiday season, but I did peek at this article and thought that the Personal section looked the weakest. There's quite a few short, stubby paragraphs, and in general the section tends to float between topics. We go from family relations to media appearances to personal issues to more media appearances to the tax fraud stuff, without much rhyme or reason. Once the holidays are over, I'd focus on reorganizing these paragraphs by theme, and perhaps merging some of the smaller ones, to strengthen the section. Also, since most of the reference access dates are from around the time the article reached GA in 2011, it would be a good idea to run the article through the link-checker tool in the toolbox to seek out links that may have gone dead since the first FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your feedback, I have reorganized the paragraphs per your suggestion. Before nominating, I ran the link-checker and replaced all bad links it showed, and it looks like Gog the Mild has also added 136 archive URLs to preserve the active URLs this morning as well. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal: I noticed that this has been in the queue for quite a while, and had a quick look at it. I'm afraid in my view, it falls some way short of FA status. I looked closely at the lead and first section, and skimmed rest of the article. These are samples only, there are numerous other examples throughout, and I believe this article needs more work than is possible to accomplish in the timeframe of this FAC, and am inclined to suggest it should be withdrawn. Also, addressing these examples would not lead me to strike the oppose: I think the main editor needs to have some fresh eyes on this, and it needs a thorough polish and reworking from top to bottom. Sorry. Sarastro (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: Other than when I reviewed this at FAC years and years ago, I've never heard of Freddie Mitchell, and know nothing about him. Reading the lead, I still have no sense of who he is, or what his story might be. However, a quick internet search told me a little more, that he is famous for complaining and "trash talk", as well as not being quite as good as he thought he was. Yet none of this comes across in the lead. The first paragraph could literally be about any generic football player. It isn't until the FOURTH paragraph that I see what he's famous for. I'd be inclined to trim back this lead, and cut some of the listiness of his achievements and perhaps summarise these in one or two sentences. Because at the moment, as a reader, it's hard to see the wood for the trees.
  • Prose: Throughout (including the lead), we have some very repetitive prose which makes this a hard read. Almost all of the sentences follow the same structure: "Mitchell/He [verb] [some information]". Partly because of this, the sentences are very disjointed and there is no flow to the narrative. For example, in "Early Years", we have: Father - School - Sports - Baseball - Baseball Stats - Drafted for Tampa Bay - Negotiated with Tampa Bay but signed for college basketball - Basketball role and number of points and his team won - His performance in the final (and a hint of his temper, which seems huge in the context of what happened later, but is here downplayed totally) - Football roles - Football award (is it football? Not clear without following links) (New paragraph) Visited one university, signed for another - Reason he made his choice. Now, all these sentences are just lined up. There is nothing that pulls them together, or tells a story, or makes one flow into another. It reads just like a series of 13 unrelated facts placed next to each other. This is evident throughout the article and someone needs to have a very close look at this.
  • Sourcing:
  • I had a close look at "Early Years", and noticed that we are using a local newspaper to source most of this, and in the sources, Mitchell is not always the focus. Although the information is present and correct in the source, I wonder can we not find a better source than using a series of articles from the time. Are there no overview sources which summarise this a little better? This may also be a reason that the prose feels so disjointed and repetitive; the source contains just one fragment of information, so each sentence contains just one fragment of information. Perhaps some better sources are needed, if they exist. If not, we may need to look at how the information can be rearranged to make it flow better.
  • We may need to be alert for close paraphrasing. For example, we have "the son of a pastor" in both our article and Ref 3; "where he lettered in cross country, baseball, football, and basketball" (article) "who is lettering in four sports" (ref 4) [as written, it is hard to rephrase this, but could we not say it a different way instead of using "lettered"?]
  • The sentence "He had brief contract negotiations with the Devil Rays, but decided to attend college instead of signing with a professional team" is not supported by ref 8, which says that Tampa Bay took a look at him, but went with someone else, and does not say that he chose college as an alternative to signing for them (incidentally, ref 8 has some good material for expanding the detail in this section and making it flow); We have "He chose to play on the West Coast mainly because of the opportunities presented for his career after football", but looking at ref 15, it seems more like he was considering a career in TV/film, which explains his choice of location, rather than it offered opportunities for a general career.
  • This is just from that one section which makes me question how widespread the issue is throughout the article. I would recommend the main editors look carefully to see if everything in the article is attributable to the references given, and see if there are any other examples of close paraphrasing (where it is always better to be cautious).
  • Also, a more minor issue, we list him as a pinch hitter in baseball, when the reference simply says that he performed that role in one game; we need a better ref than this if we are going to say he was a pinch hitter.
  • Finally, the early life section is padded with lists of statistics and what he did. Some of these could be cut back and summarised in one or two sentences, and instead we could give more of a narrative of how and where he grew up, and how he came into sport. I wouldn't insist on this, but my personal preference would be to remove much of this information and replace it with something like "At Kathleen High School, he was a successful athlete who played several sports and was a cross country runner. Owing to his success in baseball, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays briefly considered signing him as part of the 1997 Major League Baseball Draft. As a guard in basketball, he was part of the team that won the 1997 Class 4A boys' high school basketball state championship. Following his performances on the football field in 1995, he was chosen for the Ledger's all-Lakeland second team."
  • We need to link Bruins in Early Life as they have not been mentioned in the main body previously.
  • There are various places where the prose needs a little more work as well, but I would recommend looking at the issues of sourcing, sentence structure and narrative cohesion before getting a copy-editor to take a look. Sarastro (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Sarastro's comments suggest this nom is somewhat premature; after acting on the above recommendations, you might consider Peer Review and/or the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2020 (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) 7 January 2020 [12].

Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 I edit

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about ... another cantata by J. S. Bach, a particular cantata, well beloved: Part one of the Christmas Oratorio. The article was the first attempt to give more attention to the six parts of the oratorio, composed to be performed on six occasions during the Christmas season. It received a detailed GA review by The Rambling Man. - Enjoy! Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today, the article was moved to the official name Jauchzet, frohlocket! Auf, preiset die Tage, BWV 248 I, without discussion, edit summary "more common". I had considered that when I created the article a year ago, but decided against it, as a lot of German, with two more commas, instead of the short and unique call that seems common enough (to me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite reliable sources for the shorter title: you deciding to abbreviate based on a reasoning not found in reliable sources is imho not sufficient. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admitted that your choice is official (Bach Digital). I only informed, and gave my reasoning for a shorter and still unique and recognizable title. Adding: When the piece is performed (which I can't help having in mind), there's a long break between the two parts of the official title, one imitating the timpani, the other the trumpets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please cite reliable sources for the shorter title. The applicable policy is WP:AT. Quoting from that policy: "... Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria ..." – so, starts with finding "independent, reliable English-language sources" for whatever article title you'd prefer, even if the current article title is the "official" one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Alt text should not duplicate caption
  • File:WalterGelobet.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m fixing the template tags, the other details may need Gerda to go in, as I don’t have enough German language to adjust. Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the two images showing music, I really don't know what else to say for an alt text. Suggestions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you expect a sighted reader to learn by seeing those images? The alt text should convey the same information, as much as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know that in general, but for a musical score, even a reader who sees it would have to understand how music is written, and how far would I have to go explaining that? It's so complex on that first page that I feel helpless, and it's a bit described in the prose about the movement. - I found this link, - is that what's needed? I added it to the commons as better than none. Will add it to the article as well, but am busy today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

I expect- hope- to support this article, but have quibbles, to follow shortly. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shout for joy, exult!; these lyrics should also be in the article body
    done, - I tried to present some variants, but understand. --GA
  • Lead: A choral introduction is..slightly confusing put - a very Germanic construction (have many german relations and do it myself at times :)); remove the opening choral and we have "A introduction", to give a sense of how odd this reads
    Do I get it right that you don't want to use "introduction"? - We could say movement, instead, or is there another word for that the first movement is not yet the story which begins with the first "scene" in the second movement? --GA
  • Lead:scored four vocal parts and a festive Baroque orchestra with trumpets - scored for four voices, don't like "festive"; too modern - themed?
    Which word would you suggest to say that this orchestra is unusually opulent - rich - multicoloured. I don't know any other music by Bach besides the Mass in B minor with so many different instruments. --GA
    I might have a try at this myself. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Link timpani
    Fine, but an exception, - normally in these cantata articles, we link instruments in the scoring section to avoid a sea of blue. --GA
    Dont assume that everybody is as absorbed as you. Anyway its not heavily linked already. Yes a blue word please. Ceoil (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see that I linked? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ok. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several movements rely - overstated: several out of 9?
    "three" then? which is a third in numbers, and possibly more than 3/4 in duration, because it concerns th long opening and 2 long arias, - how would you say that? "The extended opening movement and both arias"? --GA
  • Unusually for Bach, it opens with the timpani (kettledrums) alone. As the article is quite technical - "The chorus", rater than "it", as I gather that is why it is unusual
    Rather: the movement. Almost no choral first cantata movement by Bach begins with the chorus, that also would be an exception. But whatever music by Bach: no other begins with the timpani alone. - Our timpanist said he played more than 20 performances, but still has a funny feeling in his stomach before that lone entrance. It's five even-looking notes, but has to be like a spoken sentence, with stressed "syllables" and accent, such as a trill. - Everywhere else in Bach's music, timpani play with the trumpets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sequence comes from the secular model - 'Is inspired by', 'borrowed from', or is 'in the tradition of' (all very different things), rather than "comes". What is a secular model
    Let's begin at the end: the secular model for Jauchzet, frohlocket" (rejoice ...), as said a few times, is Tönet, ihr Pauken (Sound, you drums). If you were a composer wanting to express rejoicing, you'd probably not chose timpani alone, or singers singing like timpani, but Bach simply took what he had done in the secular cantata, where it expresses the text. What yould you suggest? "follows" perhaps? --GA
    Follows seems most apt in this case. Ceoil (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    done
  • I am pleased Gerda brought this here Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for a thorough look, very helpful already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cant parse "Laßt uns den Namen des Herrschers verehren!" (let us revere the name of the sovereign)[1] is set mostly homophonic part with strings and woodwinds. - is set mostly homophonic
    sorry, muddled when changing, please check again --GA
  • Rathey observes how ontemporary listeners may interpret the dominant trumpets as royal instruments announcing the birth of a king; get they might interpret the trumpets as royal; its a stretch that they would be aware of their role in "announcing the birth of a king"
    The idea is that trumpets were used for the sovereign, be it the elector or God, - perhaps you can help wording that, - I tried. Could be even worth a line in the Dresden court section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the soprano sings line by line the sixth stanza - line by line? How is this different from "sings each line", and why are we even saying it. Ceoil (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Help, please, to say, that the lines from the chorale are interrupted/reflected by the recitative, line by line. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sources There are more sources than cites. Suggest you move those not used to "further reading". Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which one do you think of? --GA
Some of the sources are also external links. I would avoid this. Needs trimming, but otherwise all cited material is of the first rank, in that they represent the foremost scholars I would have expected after research today. Not seeing any formatting issues. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. CassiantoTalk 07:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: still reading through, and editing as I do so. Ceoil (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis edit

I'm going to redo this edit – also drawing attention to the terse, and incorrect, prose in these two paragraphs that have now been moved to the general article, with partial rewriting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.g,

  • Incorrect: "...Thomaskantor (director of church music)..." Bach was both Thomaskantor, and Director musices of Leipzig's principal churches. These are two independent functions: before Bach's time these offices were sometimes held by different musicians. Only "Director musices of Leipzig's principal churches" translates to "director of church music". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terse and incorrect: "They allowed him responsibility ..." The responsibility was "given" to Bach, not "allowed" (it was his job description, not something he could choose to do or neglect). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Francis, I think you should have discussed your move of the background section once reverted.
  2. In a FA, there should be brief background, not only a link to another article. A see also to a broader coverage somewhere else would be fine, but I don't think moving it away from here completely, to the other article, serves the reader of this article.
  3. For Bach's time and after, Thomaskantor has become a synomym for his position, correct or not, therefore that posiotion needs a brief description. The fact that in earlier times, parts of his functions were held by different people, seems truly of little interest for this article. I need to jump, real life. --Gerda Arendt (talk)
Re. "For Bach's time ..., Thomaskantor has become a synomym for his position" – incorrect: Bach definitely preferred the "Director musices" title, which, in this context, is also the correct one. In Bach's time Thomaskantor rather referred to his job as teacher. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow,
--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This source sees is it differently: The Thomaskantor, with obligations at different churches. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I think this ineligible for FA qualification: I commented on one sentence (the first one I read...); similar comments can be given about almost any other sentence: the quality is far below what is expected of an FA, and its GA qualification should, imho, probably best be stripped from it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hack job
When I said "for Bach's time" I didn't mean "in Bach's time" (but: when we look at Bach's time).
Regarding the "terse" prose, my initial wording (1 November, taken from another cantata where a bit of background seemed needed because it is too little known that he was not only responsible for the Thomaskirche, nor are his cantata cycles that well known) was this:
"Bach was appointed by the town of Leipzig, in the Electorate of Saxony, as its Thomaskantor (director of church music) in 1723. The position made him responsible for the music at four churches, and the training and education of boys singing in the Thomanerchor. Cantata music was required for the two major churches, Thomaskirche (St. Thomas) and Nikolaikirche (St. Nicholas), and simpler church music for two smaller churches: Neue Kirche (New Church) and Peterskirche (St. Peter).
Bach took office in the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity. In Leipzig, cantata music was expected on Sundays and feast days except for the "silent periods" (tempus clausum) of Advent and Lent. In his first year, Bach decided to compose new works for almost all liturgical events; these works became known as his first cantata cycle. He continued the following year, composing a cycle of chorale cantatas with each cantata based on a Lutheran hymn. His third cantata cycle encompasses works composed during Bach's third and fourth years in Leipzig, when he composed new works less regularly. He thus accumulated a repertoire to draw from for the occasions of the liturgical year, including Christmas."
It was changed, possibly by Jmar67, a good copy-editor, and/or Ceoil who wrote many featured articles. You are quite welcome to copy-edit as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These two paragraphs are largely off-topic to the current article & rather terse reading, with several questionable (e.g. Thomanerchor is to a large extent an anachronism) passages. I have no time to devote to something that comes so far from what should be eligible for a GA (leave alone FA) context, and isn't even in the text of the current BWV 248/I article. BTW, I did rewrite it: see current opening paragraph of the Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 I#Background section. I threw out the off-topic, and added a summary of the current Christmas Oratorio#History section (WP:summary style approach). What are you complaining about? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for a GA or FA eligible article I expect better than a hack job (with minimal adjustment) of text written for other articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further, "four churches, where he trained and educated boys singing ..." is missing the point big time: he didn't (certainly not in 1734), and that is well documented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception topics: missing (at least) Spitta's less favourable comments about the parody operation, describing the first movement of BWV 248 I as one of the least successful of such recastings from Bach's hand (Spitta doesn't use the expression hack job but his comments are not far from it if I remember correctly – the author appearing exceptionally harsh on his favourite composer). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below: "... If you can't address the concerns, just say so, and we'll have done with this FAC – if you expect others to do the work for you: OK, I'm candidate, but then first stop this FAC procedure which rather hinders than helps." --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda frankly its not on Francis to add. The burden of comprehensiveness is on the nominator, and this looks like a great suggestion for making the article far more resonant and interesting. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(was below before but belongs here:) I was not up to write "reception" for this individual cantata, - perhaps for the oratorio as a whole, same as for recordings. If you, Francis, however, think it should be there, then feel free to write it. We obviously have a different concept of collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about collaboration, its about comprehensiveness. The two points being disputed above are addressed by FA criteria 1.b: the article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I was not up to write "reception" for this individual cantata, - perhaps for the oratorio as a whole,..." – well, my point really: this article should not have a "legacy" or "reception" section that is larger than that of the general article on the oratorio. Currently it has, like this morning it had a larger "context" or "history" section than that of the oratorio article: imho it is simply not possible to get this article past the post of FA criteria as long as the general article on the oratorio is so wanting, because content has to be distributed rationally between the general article and the article on an individual cantata. This morning, thus, when I tried to get that straightened out for the "context"/"history", I was immediately countered by a revert based on counter-productive GA/FA reasoning. So for clarity: let's strip GA from this article, stop the FAC procedure, and build the articles in harmony (which indeed will require moving around content back and forth between the general article and the individual cantatas' articles), after which can be decided whether individual cantata articles and/or the oratorio article are up for GAN and/or FAC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, before I forget (rather for the general oratorio reception section): if I remember correctly CPE Bach is very much at the base of giving much importance to the cantata vs oratorio distinction which we've become accustomed to (e.g. thus also in the BWV in a different chapter) – also not something we'd want to repeat in six cantata articles and leave unmentioned in the oratorio article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page manner
Gerda Arendt (and others): please refrain from modifying my comments on this page (including, thus far, partial deletion, moving around, changing the comment before my reply without following the applicable talk page rules, sectioning off with new subtitles thus cutting up a discussion, etc.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a discussion from where - in a FAC - (only) the nominator's introduction should appear, and yes, I inserted a new header to a question which should have been answered by yes or no, with a brief explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should a cantata article have background about Bach's job in Leipzig and his cantata cycles? edit

I think yes, and believe that it may be the same wording as for other cantatas. What do others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. All articles are nested in context. Excluding a discussion of Bach in an article about Bach's work is erroneous. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all for an appropriate context sketch, at which the removed one failed miserably: the context sketch that replaced it is at least a beginning of a more appropriate one. Elaborating a bit: the second paragraph of the removed one indicated as context:
But did, however, fail to mention:
--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have restored a shortened version of the removed 2nd para, but would expand per Francis' comments directly above. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that we have to mention Picander and late cycle. Both contain only few extant works, and seem a bit off-topic to me. They can be found in the navbox. This cantata "belongs" among the late cycle only by no better grouping. As part of an oratorio, it seems to be outside the normal cantatas, - actually some debate with energy if it is even a cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, is it possible so to give a brief sentence or two on the arguments around its inclusion within the late church cantatas. For lay readers like me, such grounding is very interesting, and useful. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hard for me, ask Francis who wrote all the cycle articles. An obituary for Bach mentioned five cantata cycles, and musicologists tried/try to match. Only the 1st and 2nd are more or less complete, filled with extant works for the many occasions of the liturgical year. The cycle that we call 3rd is already a combination of cantatas from two years, and the later two cycles seem really more the imagination of musicogists than reality, - or we lost much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Picander's is a rather complete cycle of librettos! Only we have rather few compitions by Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's resume:
  • BWV 248 I has no relation whatsoever to Bach's 1st cantata cycle (1723-1724)
  • BWV 248 I has no relation whatsoever to Bach's 2nd cantata cycle (1724-1725), nor to any chorale cantata later associated with that cycle
  • BWV 248 I has no relation whatsoever to Bach's 3st cantata cycle (starting 1725, and concluded likely some eight years before BWV 248 I was composed)
  • The Picander cycle of 1728–29, fairly early in the Picander-Bach collaboration, shares with BWV 248 I, of which at least the music resulted from a later collaboration between Bach and Picander, that both were the result of Bach-Picander collaborations.
  • The late cantatas are still the group to which BWV 248 I belongs, whether it is a loose group or an incompletely transmitted cycle (several cantatas in this group are secular cantatas on a Picander libretto later turned into a church cantata, as is BWV 248 I), and, furthermore, some of the context of BWV 248 I is explained in the Late church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach#Christmas to Epiphany section.
In short: 1st, 2nd and 3rd cycles should *not really* be mentioned in this article, Picander cycle and late cantatas group are indispensable to sketch the context of this cantata. All I see is Gerda not prepared to admit what shoddy work her hack job had resulted in. To put it clear: if the Picander cycle, the late cantatas, and BWV 248 I's relation to both, are not represented in the article, then 1st, 2nd and 3rd cycle should absolutely not be mentioned while not related, and the worst kind of WP:COATRACK I saw in a long time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was me rather than Gerda restored hoping to kick start more than a one sentence background section, but now am clear, and this last point on context seems actionable. Ceoil (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to Thomaskantor: I believe that "Thomaskantor and Director of Music" would be misleading, - readers might think that the St. Thomas parish hired him for the church, and the city for the other tasks, while he had no church contract, afaik. "Thomaskantor" is a common term, but wrong, - same as Frankfurt Cathedral, no cathedral. We could write a more "correct" section without "Thomaskantor" but wouldn't readers miss something? I really don't know. Thoughts welcome.
Thomanerchor: of course - like Thomaskantor - it's a name from a later time, buut it's our article title, as the current. Open to suggestions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, please take it from me, I should, if I were you, stop defending the indefensible, afaics you're only showcasing your incompetence in Bach-related matters. If you can't address the concerns, just say so, and we'll have done with this FAC – if you expect others to do the work for you: OK, I'm candidate, but then first stop this FAC procedure which rather hinders than helps. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vami_IV edit

I have taken the liberty of making some small copy edits. They include small grammatical corrections (spellings and punctuation), the removal of edit scars such as forlorn brackets, and the elimination of duplicate links per section.

Prose
  • The two links to the Gospel of Luke on WikiSource "Readings and text" both go to Luke 2:1. The second of these pieces of linked text also references a "3-7". I do not know if this means Luke 2:3-7 or chapters three to seven.
    Not sure if I understand the question. The first link and a later one begin at 1 and list the verses that Bach set: 1, 3-7. (He did not compose verse 2.) A further link also begins at 1, and goes to 14, because those were verses of the precribed readings for the day, from which Bach deviated. Perhaps that might be said specifically? The third link (mvmt 2) has 1, 3–6, and the last (mvmt 6) has 7. --GA
    So "3-7" is Luke 2:3-7? Could you add the "2:" suffix in that case? —Vami
    Sorry, I don't see 3-7 alone, - where would that be? ---GA
    "Luke 2:1, 3-7". —Vami
  • "viola (Va) and basso continuo." Preface these with an "a" to better denote the singular.
    it means "a viola part" which can be played by several players, and "basso continuo" is a group of players (here: cello, double bass, and organ). --GA
    "A viola part" is still a singular viola part. Please add? The basso continuo part is also still a basso continuo part. It might be plural in referring to musicians but not to parts. Speaking of, adding the word "parts" somewhere to the sentence would really clarify what's being discussed. —Vami
    When you have a concerto, you won't say "for a violin and orchestra", but "for violin and orchestra". ---GA
  • "at first timpani then trumpets." the timpani?
    again not sure, - timpani is a plural word, because - see picture - the (one) player needs two for the opening motif. --GA
    Ah, my error. —Vami
  • "the voices, now in imitation, dominate" Imitation of what?
    link added, - one voice imitating the other, singing a similar phrase but later. --GA
  • "but arrived at the solution in a revision" Solution to what?
    the original and unique thing we now have - which better word would you suggest? --GA
    Something like "but devised the existing version in a later revision". —Vami
    taken, missing however how unusual that version is ---GA
  • "contrasts the birth of Our Lord with poverty." I would not say this is exactly neutral.
    I don't recall having written that, - will check copy-editing. --GA
    • "While the compassionate text addresses the baby"
      what else? "tender" perhaps, "loving"? - You have the translation to go by. --GA
      I'd just change it to "refer to baby Jesus". —Vami
      There's more: the attitude of the singer to that baby, called "herzlieb" which - as existing translations show - is not possible to translate in a simple word, - I though "compassionate" might be it, but else? "beloved" seems already not stong enough. The whole stanza is about the singer offering room in his or her heart for that baby, - not only about the baby. I tried a more literal translation in the article, - did you see? ---GA
    • "refer to his godly nature"
      For Bach, the trumpets were royal instruments, King or God made little difference. How would you say it, contrast of helpless fragile baby and powerful ruler? --GA
    Oh, didn't know that. That is worth putting in a footnote, in my opinion. You could even use it more than once with the right syntax. That, combined with removing the above highlighted text, is my recommended course of action. —Vami
    • This another question about how much background do we need, The thing about the trumpets is in linked articles Bach cantata and Baroque instruments, - do we need such a footnote in every cantata with trumpets? --GA
      They should be where they're relevant or interesting, like here, with the same trumpets used for addressing royalty addressing Christ. —Vami
  • "Christmas tradition for many German-speaking people" The weasel word 'many' could be deleted here with no loss in quality to the article.
    Without qualifier, it would mean "all", no? --GA
    No. The omission of a qualifier does not constitute an absolute "all". It has wiggle room. —Vami
    taken then ---GA

X –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, - I will look and reply after two article which need finishing today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked now, - please see what I understood and what not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and some action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem, directed at yours truly, moved from above:

  • I cannot accept your comments at face value or see merit in them through a varnish of bias. You have a history of disruptive editing that has been repeatedly taken to ANI, to your detriment. You also have a history of argumentative and disruptive behavior towards Gerda Arendt, this article included, and other WP Classical Music editors. I recommend that you withdraw your comments and desist in your edit warring with the nominator of this article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

@Gerda Arendt: I've placed this on the Urgents list hoping to get some more attention, as it hasn't seen enough activity. Usually we archive nominations without support by now, but things have been unusually slow this month. --Laser brain (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving this open a little longer, because people might now be in the mood of rejoicing and banishing complaints, and thus comment. I apologize for not having much time to offer right now, therefore only dealing immediately with questions of correctness and prose.
We do face the question of the topic of this article being part of a larger structure, the Christmas Oratorio, comparing to an episode within a series. We will have to discuss and decide how much (background, reception ...) content should be - once for all of the parts - in the oratorio, and what should still be here to make it readable without too many clicks elsewhere. I believe we can solve that with some patience. I don't see any harm in a bit of bachground, even if it's the same wording as for similar works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 December User:Gerda Arendt invited, in a comment addressed at me, to fix issues at the Christmas Oratorio article ([13]). Yesterday I found time to start taking up that suggestion, and, time permitting, will continue to do so. Like happened yesterday, also in the future updates to the Christmas Oratorio article might necessitate updates to the Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 I article. I hope, different from what happened yesterday, to proceed with such updates without red tape formatted in the way Gerda framed her revert yesterday ([14]) – in other words if the FAC hinders again in sound updating of article content it should immediately be suspended. Gerda, can you live with that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some things I don't understand, such as "red tape" for the simple request to discuss when reverted. Can we keep it simple? Please look how Ceoil and Vami structured factual comments, which can be handled one by one. I fondly remember peer reviewing by Brian Boulton, the best model for us all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... don't understand ... "red tape" ...": red tape (click the link and read).
Repeating the question: if the FAC hinders again in sound updating of article content it should immediately be suspended. Gerda, can you live with that? Simple question, simple answer please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Magnificat. You didn't answer my simple question if this article could/should have a background question even if Christmas Oratorio has one. (I believe should.). Thank you for improving Christmas Oratorio! If this FAC caused it, it was already good for something. Go ahead, take over what you need there and improve, just please don't remove it from here where it has been discusse before you took part. - I can't answer a question that implies that I might not survive something on the internet, or do I misunderstand it? - Today is Sunday, - I need time for church, writing on a carol, take a walk, sing Magnificat. Please don't ping me until tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is leading nowhere good. To again reiterate my point above (1) Gerda please expand both the background and critical reception sections as recommended (2) Francis, your points are largely actionable, so no need to "cancel" the nom. Re hack job cobbled together from other pages, we have been here already as a community, and though its not ideal, see for example the 4 FAs on Nicholas II of Russia's daughters. Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt: could you please stop implying in edit summaries that my edits to the article are somehow not "correct", like you did here – Of course the edit was correct, so I had to revert your less correct version. Such "correcting" of something "correct" into something "less correct" is somewhat irritating: I still propose you withdraw this FAC, and such irritating behaviour does not really help to change my views on the matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking about the hat note the usefulness of which I dared to doubt. I am sorry that you feel intimidated by me adding a "!", to link to a redirect that I know exists. I am also sorry that I didn't check that the other redirect also exists. - The coordinator can archive this any time, as made instable. - Thomaskantor: I'd like to point out that the sources used in this article say that Bach had not two positions, Thomaskantor and director musices, but that these are two names for the same functions, director of music for the city of Leipzig (not a specific church). - I have singing to do these days, not arguing, not writing a reception section which I plan to do later. Merry Christmas to all, rejoice, rejoice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not commenting on the "I doubt that we need any hatnote ..." part of your edit summary (which was less irritating – although seemingly more or less ignorant of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidance), but on the "... let it be correct" part – it was "correct" before you changed it to something less correct, so I changed it back.
    Re. "the sources used in this article say that Bach had not two positions, Thomaskantor and director musices, but that these are two names for the same functions" – which sources? (see also St. Matthew, Leipzig#Neukirche: Before Bach the Neukirche had consecutive "director musices", including Telemann and M. Hoffmann, different from the then-time "Thomaskantor", i.e. Kuhnau). Bach had only one contract, that is true, which made him as well "Thomaskantor" (Thomascantor referring to his tasks at St. Thomas church and school, the place where he lived) and director musices of four churches. Also being director musices of the Paulinerkirche was not automatically included in the Thomascantorate (even in Bach's time: Kuhnau had been director musices there until his death, combined with the Thomascantorate, Bach never had full music directorship for that church). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To sum this up:
    • As *director musices* Bach had to choose which music was going to be performed in the churches where he held that position (only the music, not the text of vocal music: in 1739 Bach had to abandon a new version of the St John Passion while he had failed to have its text timely approved);
    • As *Thomaskantor* he was responsible that pupils and personnel of St. Thomas ***school*** (and other musicians including the Leipziger Stadtpfeifer) performed the music which he had chosen in his director musices capacity: Bach delegated the Thomaskantor part of his task to his prefects (which led to a conflict with his superiors a few years after the Christmas Oratorio was performed: on that occasion Bach was "humiliated" by having to conduct the singing of the St. Thomas school pupils in church himself).
    • Bach did not have to provide any new music: for this it is indeed indifferent whether one calls him Thomaskantor or director musices, while neither part (nor any other part) of his job description in Leipzig even mentioned composition of new pieces. Indeed, Bach would have kept his employers much happier if he'd continued performing cantatas by Telemann (which his employers estimated much higher than Bach's), the passions by Johann Walter included in the Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch, etc.
    --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Francis, you talking to me doesn't belong under coordinator notes, but once you started I reply here: the office of Thomaskantor at Bach's time (not before - irrelevant to this cantata) is described in two sources that I used, by Christoph Wolff [15] and the book edited by Buelow [16]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "once you started I reply here" – I didn't bring up the Thomaskantor/director musices issue in this section: in fact I think this the 3rd or 4th section on this page where you bring that issue up, thus splitting up its discussion over several sections. So, I'm completely tired of your fractioned way of discussing – especially when in the end you reproach others what applies to yourself.
    Wolff has "cantor and music director" in the chapter title (I used [17] instead of the link you gave, while that one didn't work): what is good enough for Wolff, is good enough for me, so please stop your resistance against that normal qualification of Bach's office in Leipzig, it is "cantor and music director", and there's nothing odd about using that double qualification.
    Buelow, on the other hand, seems a bit confused (and confusing), making a mishmash of different customs in different times, e.g. he has Kuhnau delegating choristers to the Neue Kirche, while in Kuhnau's time that church didn't resort under the Thomaskantor (see above), and several other inaccuracies and incompatibilities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is wether we link to Thomaskantor, specific about the position as dircetor of music in Leipzig in a long tradition which is kept until today, but then we need to mention the term, or would create an Easter egg, or some generic Director musices as your present version does, Francis. Merry Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm typing this they're giving Telemann's Jauchzet, frohlocket on Klara ([18] – 15:05). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Can I ask all sides to strike out the snark and comments on other editors, please? It's frankly unbecoming and not needed here. If it continues, we may have to ask some folks to stop commenting on this FAC, which would be a shame. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 may need to be alerted to the name change in the article, since that might affect bot processing of the close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second Ealdgyth's comment. In retrospect this has never really appeared that close to achieving consensus to promote, and with the recent comments from Andy and Josh I think it's certainly time to call a halt and to ask everyone to work together as best they can to address concerns and perhaps take to PR before another shot at FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Not getting involved in the intramural debates re Bach, but have a few comments. I see nothing that would bar a support.

  • "Bach hoped to become court composer, and dedicated his Kyrie–Gloria Mass in B minor, BWV 232 I (early version) to Augustus.[12]" can the (early version) be moved into text, say in "and dedicated the early version of his ..."
    You will have to ask Francis, because I'd never write that. For example I'd call the piece Missa as the title page does, not a Kyrie-Gloria Mass. The details of that work's history and versions seem pretty remote to a single cantata, part of the Christmas Oratorio, imho. --GA
  • " the alto aria an aria from Laßt uns sorgen, and the bass aria an aria from Tönet, ihr Pauken!.[17]" sometimes repeating a word is the smoothest way through, but can the second set see one smoothed? (perhaps, if the sources support, "and the bass aria one from ...")
    taken - I dropped "aria" twice, - it should be per default that an aria is modeled after another aria (not a chorus or recitativ, and the details can follow in the description of the movements. --GA
  • " The cantata forms Part I of his Christmas Oratorio, which was performed on six occasions during Christmas time, beginning with Part I on Christmas Day." This strikes me as ambiguous between whether the oratorio had six parts or was performed six times.
    Could you help with wording that the parts were assigned to the the different occasions? I thought "Part I on Christmas Day" would be enough, no? There should be list somewhere - such as in the Oratorio's article to which we could link. --GA
  • "in keeping with his endeavor to transfer operatic features from Dresden to Leipzig.[32]" A little greater clarity might be helpful.
    Should be UK English. He introduced some features (recitative+aria pairs, virtuoso vocal writing etc) from the operas he heard (and liked) in Dresden to the Leipzig church music, to say it simply. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking! I just spent some pleasant hours singing numbers 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 from this cantata, and more from Parts II, III, V and VI! A great way to begin the new year in a group of volunteers who all love to sing the music just for the fun of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "Bach hoped to become court composer". As you mention the hope, I think you should say that he was later appointed.
    no need in the context of this part of the oratorio, especially as it was just a decoration without consequences in money and work --GA
  • "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Epistle to Titus, "God's mercy appeared" (Titus 2:11–14) or from Isaiah, "Unto us a child is born" (Isaiah 9:2–7), and from the Gospel of Luke," Why or between the first and second alternatives, whereas it is and between the second and third?
    perhaps say how else it could be expressed that there was one epistle reading, a choice of two, and one gospel reading --GA
  • I suggest "The two prescribed readings for the feast day were firstly from an epistle, either to Titus, "God's mercy appeared" (Titus 2:11–14) or from Isaiah, "Unto us a child is born" (Isaiah 9:2–7), and secondly from the Gospel of Luke," Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    fine, taken slightly reworded --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer first to "Dürr" and second to "Alfred Dürr". It should be the other way round.
    thank you, good catch, he probably got inserted further up after the linked mentioning --GA
  • " with the chorale comparing to the Amen confirming the prayer" I am not sure what this means and why is "Amen" capitalised?
    Perhaps it's too German: normally prayers end with the word "Amen". not so in English? Would a link help? --GA
    I am still not clear what you mean. Is it "with the chorale followed by the prayer, ending with amen"? You do not need a link but "amen" should not be capitalised in English. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Always learning. Here, we have a long quote from English, with Amen capital, and whe I sing music, I don't recall any lowercase amen, not in Latin, nor German, nor English, not only when it starts a sentence, but with every repeat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Further: it's not me speaking but the source, comparing the sequence 1) gospel recitative 2) recitative 3) aria 4) chorale to 1) Bible reading 2) reflection 3) prayer 4) amen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that amen is often capitalised, but I have checked three dictionaries and the Wiki article and they all show lower case as correct unless the first word in a sentence. The quote may be too technical musically for me to understand, but how about "with the chorale which is compared with the amen which concludes the prayer". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rathey observes how contemporary listeners may interpret the dominant trumpets as royal instruments" I would say "observes that rather than how. Also contemporary to Bach's time or now? Bach's seems to make better sense but if so the sudden change to the current sense is confusing.
    "that" taken. should we say "in Bach's time", or what, to be clear? - Itried a bit of rewording for clarity, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your new version is OK, but I would just have changed "may interpret" to "may have interpreted". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    fine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have an image of the first page of the manuscript. I would expect information on where is is preserved and its printing history.
    I wonder how much should be this single cantata, and how much in the oratorio's article (which also doesn't have it yet). Will think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These comments are minor and the article looks fine to me as very much a non-expert. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to read and make helpful comments. I fixed bits right away, but may take more time for thinking about the publication history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Laser brain edit

Hi Gerda, I'm revisiting this and seeing lots of commentary but little in the way of solid support or opposition, so I'm recusing to offer some contructive criticism. I think the writing needs more work to be at the level required for a Featured article. I find the prose to be difficult to read and tease meaning from in many places. Examples:

  • "Bach had been presenting church cantatas for the Christmas season in the Thomaskirche (St. Thomas) and Nikolaikirche (St. Nicholas)" Here you've provided seemingly incomplete English translations for Thomaskirche and Nikolaikirche. I've had to click through to discover that they are churches and no English speaker would say something like "in the St. Thomas".
    Not my sentence, it's from the background section which Francis took to the oratorio article and replaced here. (subtitle: hack job. Germanchurches are often referred to by just the name of the patron saint, such as St. Martin (where I live), - however, Catholic churches. Protestants don't support sainthood, so trying to say St. Thomas for Thomaskirche is in a way misleading. Just musing. I'd prefer to write the German name with a piped link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The text of the opening chorus is a free paraphrase" You've paraphrased the cited source which reads "paraphrased freely" but just switching the word around from an adverb to an adjective isn't a good way to paraphrase. The modification actually makes the meaning more difficult to understand aside from being too close to the source.
    What would you say for "not a close paraphrase"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the remainder of this paragraph difficult to understand, particularly the comparison between a recommended Bible-reading method and the musical piece. "[W]ith the chorale comparing to the Amen confirming the prayer" is not something I can wrap my head around, although maybe I haven't had enough caffiene this morning.
    As explained above, it's not me but the source comparing the sequence of "biblical text - recitative - aria - chorale" to Bible reading - reflection - prayer - amen. I found it interesting. Perhaps you don't, or could find a better way to say so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout I think comma usage around clauses is much too dense and makes reading difficult. Many sentences can be rewritten to create a smoother, more cohesive reading experience. A good example: "One of Bach's secular cantatas, Laßt uns sorgen, laßt uns wachen, BWV 213, also known as Hercules am Scheidewege (Hercules at the Crossroads), on a libretto by Picander, was performed on 5 September 1733, on the 11th birthday of the son of the elector."
    This read in November: "Bach also composed cantatas in honour of the elector's family, such as Laßt uns sorgen, laßt uns wachen, BWV 213 (Let us take care, let us watch over), a dramma per musica describing the story of Hercules at the Crossroads. It was performed on 5 September 1733, the 11th birthday of the son of the elector." Afterwards, copy-editing took place, perhaps not always beneficial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are just a few examples but I don't think it's at the right level, yet. I'd be happy to work with you on copyediting outside of this process. --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking. I'm on vacation, Christmas is over. You could just close, help with copy-edit, and take it from there. I had seen this as part of a six-year project, but as Francis began 4 of the 6 planned articles, I still hope life will be long enough for the remaining two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does Frances having began the articles affect your work? Is there some background I don't know about? --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you think about an article such as Herrscher des Himmels, erhöre das Lallen, BWV 248 III. I know that I won't interfer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... and yes there's history --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Note that I started typing these comments a little while ago, so some things may not be current!

  • What does the MOS say about translating foreign titles? I think some readers might find the unformatted "Jauchzet, frohlocket! Auf, preiset die Tage (Shout for joy, exult, rise up, praise the day)" a little confusing. Further down, you have "Thomaskirche (St. Thomas) and Nikolaikirche (St. Nicholas)", which feels like a different style. You definitely use a different style with "Tönet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten! BWV 214 (Resound, ye drums! Ring out, ye trumpets!)"
    I am not sure that I understand the question, sorry. I don't see the style difference. --GA
  • "is a 1734 Christmas cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach as the first part of his Christmas Oratorio" Do we need a verb for the as? written as, considered as, performed as...
    Can you help wording that? This cantata IS Part I. Not "writtem as", not "considered as", not "performed as". The oratorio - as Bach planned and first performed it - tool six days to be performed, in six parts, each part a cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the oratorio, the libretto by" I confess I don't really know what aoratoias or librettos are. This all feels a bit technical for the first paragraph. Nor do I know what "reflecting texts" are. And what does scene mean in this context? recitative? secco recitative? I worry this is all a bit technical for the lead.
    I am afraid that we won't get around these terms. A scene is the same as in theatre. "Recitative" is a good English word for the Italian "recitativo", and any wording around it would be unprofessional and clumsy. There's a link for those who don't know. - We do have featured articles on similar topics, such as BWV 22. --GA
  • Three further thoughts on the lead: First, I don't really have any impression of how significant this piece of music is. Second, I don't really like the one-line paragraph. Third, the lead is too long, according to WP:LEADLENGTH; the article is about 13,000 characters "readable prose size", which puts this firmly in the "one or two paragraphs" category.
    You are right, lead should follow content, and publication and reception are not yet written - as explained further up, so not yet reflected. --GA
  • "Dürr notes" Is it worth introducing this person? Also, I note two names in the footnote; should the claim definitely be attributed to only one of them?
    Now - because of a comment by Dudley Miles, above - linked, with first name, on first occurrence. Dürr is (still) the pope on the subject, having written The Cantatas by J. S. Bach. My mistake, sorry. --GA
  • "Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ" Worth a link? Nothing wrong with redlinks if the subject is notable.
    It was linked in the infobox, then (piped) under Christmas Day, and again under "Readings and text". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph one of the subsection titled "1": Could you check your quotes match with LQ?
    Nor sure what you mean. Don't even know for LQ stands for, sorry.
  • In the final line of the article, I learn that this is one of Bach's most performed pieces; I feel I probably shouldn't have had to wait until then. I appreciate the note about limited scholarlship, but more scholarly/critical appraisal would, I think, add to the article, which currently focuses on just describing the music.
    Yes, you are right, - my problem is that I am not sure about performances in the world, where German is less common. In Germany, it's what Handel's Messiah is in the English-spealing world, THE piece performed around Christmas - now often several cantatas in one concert, such as I to III and VI. I doubt, however, that it's true for the rest of the world. Help welcome. Thank you for looking, and valuable comments! - I hope that your concerns will be met by Christmas 2021 if not 2020. On vacation right now, with limited service ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Inspired by an ongoing discussion on the FAC talk page, I'm trying to be more willing to oppose articles that don't feel of FA quality to me. Right now, I think the inconsistent quoting/titling/translating style, the lead (long/technical/limited info on "impact"), and the lack of assessment (sholarly, critical, historical, etc.) mean that this isn't an article that feels FA-ready to me. I'd be happy to withdraw the oppose when these things are addressed. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Please note that I am participating in this year's WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2020 (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) 1 January 2020 [19].

Cahuzac affair edit

Nominator(s): TheBull369 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Cahuzac Affair - which shook the French political world to its very core. In a time where wealth dissimulation is at the forefront of numerous discussions, the importance of this article to both France, and world politics is undeniable. TheBull369 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Sub standard article, poor prose (grammar, style, formatting, MoS, pretty much everything). Not a full study of the subject, and nominated by someone who has not made even one of the (only) 76 edits on the article. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note -- Yes, it really reads more like an essay than an article, I'm not sure how it got to A-Class in any project so clearly premature for FAC. Given the procedural issue of no edits by the nominator I'd generally simply delete the nom page but these comments may give a guide to anyone seriously attempting to improve the article, so I'm going to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/January_2020&oldid=938135029"