Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2021

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 January 2021 [1].

Billy Bates (baseball) edit

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Billy Bates, who scored the winning run in Game 2 of the 1990 World Series. After scoring his run, he never played in Major League Baseball again. Also, he raced against an unchained cheetah and won. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are there no images available of this person? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately yes, there are no free photos, but I have added in some other photos. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hog Farm edit

I'll try to take a look at this soon. Might be claimed for WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 19:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • His full name of William Derrick Bates is never really directly cited anywhere
  • Link pinch hit in the lead
  • Find a way to work in a link to 1983 Texas Longhorns baseball team.
  • Are college statistics for him available?
  • It seems like there should be more to say about two All-American seasons than a single sentence.
  • Link the Milwaukee Brewers in the collegiate career section
  • "Though the Ports only had two future MLB position players on their roster" - Gloss what a position player is, so that it's understandable for non-baseball fans.
  • "Individually, Bates batted .298 and tied for fourth-best on the team, with 18 stolen bases in 59 games played" - It's unclear as to if batting .298 or stealing 18 bases is tied for fourth-best on the team.
  • "The eight home runs that Bates hit and his 75 RBI became the highest of his career at any" - Reintroduce RBI in the body.
  • I'm concerned that the first two paragraphs of the Rise to the majors section are more about his teams with just a couple statistics thrown around, rather than substantial content about Bates himself.
    • There's not much to say about Bates, so some coverage of how the teams did is nice. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of Gantner's injury is WP:UNDUE detail for this topic. All we need to know for Bates' article is that Gantner hurt his knee in a game against the Yankees on August 15 and that Bates was called up. The game situation/further details/etc. are better off in Gantner's article.
  • "although Dale Sveum was bearing down on the starting spot" - Not sure that "bearing down" is quite encyclopedic tone.
  • "and despite a 2–1 Brewers' loss, Bates' play was complimented" - By whom?
  • "By April 27 Bates was hitting .103 over 29 at bats, as Molitor came off the DL and expected to take over at second: Seth Livingstone of The Telegraph called the switch "merciful"" - Semicolon would be better than a colon here.
  • The Nashville Sounds stuff is not about Bates at all - we're just given a couple season game highlights. We aren't even given Bates' stats.
  • " in Milwaukee spring training camp, players threw a cap on the ground and addressed it as if it were Bates" - Was this in 1987, 1988, or both?
  • "Before the World Series, Bates raced against an unchained cheetah in a promotional event for the Cincinnati Zoo at Riverfront Stadium." - Specify the year
  • His final MLB statistics don't seem to be cited anywhere
  • It's never cited that Game 2 of the 1990 World Series was on October 2.
  • His batting/throwing handedness is never cited.
  • What makes Hirsch a high-quality RS? That seems to be a really obscure publisher.
  • Anything post-2010 known about him?
  • "in a 100-yard race" - Use the convert template to show this is meters, also.
  • There are several spots where the content is not really about Bates himself - rather, it's just telling about his team, or his manager having a career-high in wins, or detailed game situations. In my opinion, this veers off-topic in multiple places. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a first look. I'll give it another read-through soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article meets 1b or 1c of WP:FACR - there just seems to be an excessive focus on Bates' surroundings and not on Bates himself. There are also further available web sources that contain details about Bates himself not found in here. See [2], [3] has a couple details, [4] says that his name appears in the UT Longhorns baseball records books 32 times and gives some examples, when we're given basically nothing about his college career besides an overview of what the Longhorns did in the '83 CWS. These are just a few example sources; I didn't have to look very hard online to find them.

Oppose on 1b and 1c and suggest withdrawal. It doesn't seem like recent sourcing has been particularly stoutly perused, and there are many places in the article where the article omits details about Bates and often focuses more on Bates' surroundings than Bates himself. I'd recommend taking this to WP:Peer review. Hog Farm Talk 16:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, I did spot this earlier but the nominator was in the middle of responding so I thought I'd give them that chance -- do you still recommend withdrawal? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: - I'm indifferent to withdrawal at this point, but my oppose still stands. The issues with the big chunks of off-topic have been mainly resolved, it looks, like, but I'm still concerned about other elements. This article is not comprehensive. Another relevant source with more details [5] - he was apparently a hero of a college world series game. Or this, which talks about him a good deal. Given that I'm finding these sources and extra detail in a matter that's not difficult, I don't think this article is comprehensive, thoroughly sourced, or was really quite ready for FAC. I'll leave it up to the FAC coords to determine if this is an actionable oppose or not, but I don't think this one is ready. I think the work to get it ready is doable and shouldn't be hard, but I'm not sure that FAC is the best place for that work to be done. Hog Farm Talk 17:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment -- I am going to archive this and recommend rework take place outside the FAC process, followed by PR, as suggested above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 January 2021 [6].

Lodger (album) edit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 13th studio album by the English musician David Bowie (rest in peace). It was the final release of his so-called "Berlin Trilogy", a set of albums that are considered some of the most influential music ever recorded. While Lodger is generally considered the weakest of the trilogy, in comparison to its predecessors Low and "Heroes", Lodger's reputation has grown significantly over the years, whole influence has been seen in genres like world music. The article just went through a GA review so I feel it's in pretty good shape to become an FA. I also feel much more confident about this one than I did Hunky Dory. I'm looking forward to hearing anyone's comments or concerns. :-) – zmbro (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed, but have you considered adding a sample? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I actually have no idea how to do that. Would that be essential? – zmbro (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a requirement. The reason I mention it is because it is quite typical of FA-level album articles, and I was surprised not to see one here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'll see what others say about it. – zmbro (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

To be completely honest I've lost interest in this Ian Rose you can go ahead and archive it. – zmbro (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 January 2021 [7].

1997 Football League First Division play-off Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, another candidate on the most valuable single football match on the planet. Worth a read, used an official video to enhance the game summary, which includes an almighty BANG when Don Hutchison falls from a great height and dislocates his shoulder. Hopefully it's all up to scratch having just passed WP:GAN thanks to a review from Casliber. As ever I'll endeavour to get to any comments and queries on the candidate as soon as I practically can. Cheers in advance for your time and consideration. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack edit

  • Final is capitalised in the article title, but not the infobox title. Is that intentional?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "which was" in the first sentence is probably unnecessarily elongataing the opening. As a comparison, the 1998 final does away with it?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before be adjudged to have crossed the goalline", I'm guessing this should read "being"?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their advantage last just four minutes", minor adjustment needed.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and had losing the previous season's final", sentence doesn't quite work.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "running out of his area and kick the ball into touch", same again.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Kachura replaced due to injury? Might be worth noting if the source supports it as it seems strange for United to sub off their top scorer in the first half with no explanation.
    Welllll, if you watch the match replay, he jogs (un)happily off the pitch, the commentators "speculate" that it's related to a "niggling hamstring injury" as he leaves, but later there's more speculation over whether it was purely tactical. So, I left it...! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I guessed it would be along those lines but was just wondering. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linighan needs linking in the match details section as he isn't mentioned prior to this. He's also listed as Linigham in the following sentence.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No captain icon for the Sheffield United side?
    I haven't found an explicit source for that. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, Holdsworth. He introduces the team before the match, and although he's not wearing an armband (that I can see) I think that's sufficient. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than a few minor points noted above, this another article in great shape. Kosack (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks, I've responded above. Cheers, The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of my comments have been addressed, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild edit

Lead
  • "while the clubs placed from third to sixth place in the table". Either delete both "from" and "place", or rephrase to avoid "placed ... place".
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The top two teams of the 1996–97 Football League First Division season gained automatic promotion to the Premiership, while the clubs placed from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals; Sheffield United ended the season in fifth position, one place ahead of Crystal Palace." I think this is trying to do too much work for a singe sentennce.
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sheffield United ended the season in fifth position, one place ahead of Crystal Palace. The winners of these semi-finals competed for the final place for the 1997–98 season in the Premiership. Wolverhampton Wanderers and Ipswich Town were the losing semi-finalists." It may just be me, but this reads a bit arse about. Consider naming the four semi-finalists first, then saying what happened to them.
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Winning the final was estimated in the media to be worth up to £10 million to the successful team." I realise that this is the lead and a summary, but a non-aficionado is likely to assume that this is the match prize money.
    It's how it's discussed in the RS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that you don't believe that non-footballing readers will be mislead? Or that you think they may be but are content for this to be the case as the RS is similarly misleading?
It's not misleading at all, it's just not explicit about how that money is won. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it would improve the article if it were explicit in this respect.
The RS say what the article says. And it's factually and verifiably correct. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, as I am sure you are aware, I am not addressing any of those points. Perhaps you would care to address the one I am making?
Well not really, I can't make up stuff that I don't have RS for. The reports used all have that terminology, along the lines of "winning the match is worth around X to the victorious team". That's how it's phrased for the citations for this year. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made an early change". Again, seems in-group language to me. And "early" and then stating when smacks of redundancy. Perhaps 'Sheffield United replaced Pyotr Kachura with Gareth Taylor midway through the first half' or similar?
    Early is important because making a seemingly tactical substitution midway through the first half is unusual. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK
  • "for the London club". As it is not obvious to a non-football fan that Crystal Palace is/was in London and the club's location has not previously been introduced, this doesn't, IMO, really work. I don't personally see what it adds and would suggest deletion.
    The reader literally goes on in the next sentence to read "Crystal Palace's victory marked the first time a club from London..."
Err, that's my point. Once the reader has been told that Palace are "a London club" you can refer to them as such and expect a reader to understand. But not before. Not even a sentence before.
Ok, I tend to assume the reader will use context provided, but okeydokes, reworded. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route
See my comment below on the use of Wikilinks.
I understood that the text of an article should explain itself and that Wikilinks were there for readers who wished for more detail on a topic or term, not to provide a basic understanding of the text. Eg Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style says, among other things:
  • Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
  • Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
  • The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.
I'm sorry, I simply don't agree that we need to explain in every article that uses the term away goals rule what it means. Similarly two legged tie and aggregate score, these are all English terms and they are certainly not "highly technical". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a counter-example: e.g. 1st Missouri Field Battery. This, for some reason, feels obliged to describe in a footnote what is meant by the common English word "bore" yet leaves our readers to guess at what is meant by Trans-Mississippi Department, James rifle (not even a rifle!), 6-pounder smoothbores, "case shot, and canister", rifling, caissons, etc etc. I've read the article and I'm happy that the relevant linking provides a sufficient way of me working these all out, but I don't think FAs should now be forced to come with a glossary of terms attached. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure how how another nominated article "feels" is relevant to this point.
It's about consistent expectations across featured articles. The examples given above are way more technical than "aggregate score" (for example) which is a dictionary definition. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that a non-specialist reader should be required to work out what the prose of an FAC means. I believe that the section of the MoS I quoted above supports this
I'm not going to add footnotes for phrases which are wikilinked and are actually plain English. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would indeed be preferable for the text to be clear in line to a non-expert, to terminology being explained in footnotes.
I am left unsure whether you are arguing that "leg", "on away goals" and "yellow card" or "booking" are 'plain English', or that there being a Wikilink for each allows 'working these all out', or both. Or one for some and t'other for others? I am trying to get to grips with why you feel the current prose is acceptable - I am entirely open to being persuaded - but am struggling, which is quite probably due to my slow rate of comprehension, to get to grips with just what you are saying. Any chance of explaining for each of these why you feel that the current situation is broadly comprehensible and why each meets the three points above from the MoS? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My acid test is that I have been through dozens of these reviews and not one single reader, be them football aficianados or otherwise, has found a single issue with the linking to explain plain English terms. I won't be adding countless footnotes to explain terms that are linked and which, to what appears to me to be the vast majority of readers, fully comprehensible. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Match
Ah. When I first read it I assumed that you were including any appearances as a player. "was making his twelfth appearance as a manager at Wembley Stadium" or similar would avoid this potential misunderstanding.
If the above suggestion were to be adopted, this would, I think, be clear(er).
Well then there'd be complaints about the repeat of manager. It's clearer now, but probably not as plain as you would like it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not. It is still not clear what constitutes an "appearance".
It says "the first of his managerial appearances at the national stadium, in which he led Everton to " so if that's not clear, I don't know what else to say. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep the discussion at first mention then.
  • "Kevin Muscat won the ball which fell to Dyer". I don't follow this. If Muscat won the ball, how did Dyer end up with it?
    He won the ball in a tackle and the ball ended up with Dyer. That's why the video is linked, so it can be verified. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you have just written is clear to me. Why can the article not read similarly, to spare the likes of me having to watch the video in order to understand the text?
Because the way I wrote it above is hardly engaging prose. I could make it "... won the ball but it fell to Dyer ..." if you think that makes it clearer? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do, it would.
I've added "then" to make it clear what the sequence of events was, but in general I'm not going to write down basic dumb prose I'm afraid. It's supposed to be engaging. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems clear to me. Thanks.
See above for my comment on Wikilink usage.
Post-match

A nice little article. I enjoyed reading that. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild cheers, all comments addressed and/or responded to above. Thanks for the comprehensive review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that TRM. Some response to your responses above. Where they are missing I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some further thoughts above on your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Responses above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some queries and suggestions above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Responses above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As a report on the game, this is excellent. As an encyclopedia article where insider knowledge is not a given it falls, IMO, slightly short. There are some areas where what is meant is not clear, there are also cases where a general reader is required to click through a Wikilink for a sentence to be comprehensible, which by my reading of the MoS is deprecated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how this approach isn't being applied evenly across all FACs here, but never mind. I won't be adding a glossary of terms for basic English here, but I really appreciate the other comments which have been useful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here or if I have to stick to my "own section", as I would at ArbCom! But as another reviewer of this article, I have to say I agree with TRM that adding definitions for every piece of common football terminology would be detrimental to the quality of this article. The generally accepted convention is that we don't have to define every last piece of jargon in an article as long as it is well-known to anyone familiar with, but not necessarily expert in, the subject. Yellow cards, away goals and legs are ubiquitous terms for anyone who follows soccer, even in just a casual way. A newspaper article on this same game would not give definitions for those terms. And, as noted, pretty much any FA you choose to read contains some words which aren't defined and aren't obvious to someone who doesn't know the subject. To take another example, in Gog the Mild's own FA, Siege of Calais (1346–1347), I see the phrases "The city was an ideal entrepôt from an English point of view" and "their lives were spared by the intervention of England's queen, Philippa of Hainault, Froissart's patron, who persuaded her husband to exercise mercy". I honestly don't know what "entrepôt" or "patron" mean in this context, but I wouldn't expect their definitions to be spelled out in that article; the supplied Wikilink is sufficient. I know we generally shouldn't resort to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, but when examples of this phenomenon occur in almost all FAs, it's hard to see this as an actionable oppose. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The application of this curio of MOS is not being applied consistently at all. Acamptonectes was promoted a day or so back with the following terms just linked, not explained:
I am afraid that we will soon be expected to explain things like corner, volley, dribbling, etc in every single article about football which uses them. I don't think that's what we want, this is not a paper encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, hope you don't mind a comment from me. Your review was excellent but you're hung up on the jargon issue. We do expect readers to follow an article with a certain level of technical language, with wikilinks to help them because we're an encyclopedia. Imagine a Brittanica article on nuclear fission without any scientific language that non-physicists don't know? We don't dumb down... nor do we unnecessarily confuse things with excessive jargon. We walk a tightrope. This article is fine IMHO. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller, of course I don't mind a comment. And I try hard with all of my reviewing (and my responses to reviewers when I am nominating) to remember that there is a strong possibility that I am simply wrong. I opposed here with some hesitation and after a lot of consideration. I still believe that I am correct to oppose, although as I pointed out in an attempt to start a conversation on TRMs talk page "It is ridiculously close." As TRM declines to discuss the outstanding issues with me it seems unlikely that we will make progress. Which is a great shame, as, as I said above, it is "A nice little article. I enjoyed reading that." Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Gog, we're making progress just fine, as the consensus clearly demonstrates. But as I noted, most of your review comments were extremely useful. To oppose on this point seems most unusual given the vast array of terms noted above in an FA you yourself promoted, but that's how it rolls around here I guess. Cheers again. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Looked over it again - I feel it is fine in comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber many thanks for taking the time to give it a read through. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil edit

A great read, that once again reminds me why I'm missing out by not being into football. Some things:

  • But his shot under challenge from Carl Tiler went across the face of Sheffield United's goal and out for a throw-in - wot
    He made his shot while he was being challenged by Carl Tiler, and said shot went across the face i.e. parallel with the goal line, and instead of being caught by the goalie or out for a goal kick (because it was parallel with the goal line) it went out for a throw-in. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thats much clearer. It was "out for a throw-in" that confused. Can you rephrase those few words. Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not being cheeky, but it already says that exactly and concisely. What would you recommend? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nash punched clear a corner on 77 minutes - at?
  • reworded lightly - what does punched clear a corner mean. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well the cross from the attacker was "cleared behind" which is common speak for kicked off the pitch over the defender's own line, and a corner is awarded to the attacking team for doing that. It may be a touch "in-universe" but I've linked as many terms as possible. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil cheers. Let me know if you have any suggested alterations based on my responses? Best wishes, The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No that's it. Nice work, as always gripping from the opening sentence. Support Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and much appreciate your suggestions, easy to get into a "not seeing the wood for the trees" scenario. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Amakuru edit

  • Route to the final:
    • "Crystal Palace faced Wolverhampton Wanderers in their play-off semi-final" - since we've already established in the previous paragraph that we are going to call them "Wolves", should we not just call them that here? I don't see any other instances nearby that would make it jarring...
      That's what happens when you listen to reviewers at FAC and don't tidy up after yourself....! Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the first leg taking place at Selhurst Park in London" - up to you if you think this needs actioning or not, but a completely uninitiated reader might not be aware that Selhurst Park is CP's home ground, or indeed that they are based in London at all.
      Jeez, what a mess. Actioned but unhappily. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "through Jan Åge Fjørtoft who" - a comma after Fjørtoft?
      Comma added. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with a rising shot which hit" - similarly, a comma after shot might help parse the next part. (initially I thought the "before" referred to Kachura rather than the shot)
      Funny, I always get told I use too many commas. Added. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "With the scores level at 3–3 on aggregate at full time, half an hour of extra time was played but no further goals were scored, with Sheffield United advancing to the final on away goals." - could consider splitting into two sentences.
      Splitttted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background:
    • "where he led Everton to victory" - could change to "in which he led..."
      Fair. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I enjoyed that cup final over Watford because we won it ... that's the only way I will enjoy Monday. If we win". - full stop should be inside the quote I believe, as it terminates a full sentence.
      Tsk. Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ray Houghton, the Crystal Palace midfielder had suffered defeat in the previous season's play-off fina" - there should be a comma after "midfielder"
      Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we see ourselves winning this one". - same as above re full stop
      Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "late-February" - probably shouldn't have a hyphen
      Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Alan Kelly who" - maybe a comma? I suppose things like this *could* be written in a comma-light fashion, but if that were the case I'd expect there to be no comma after "bench" in the following sentence.
      I beg to differ, there seems a natural pause in the latter case and not in the former. But hell, if that's all that's left to debate, I'd invite you to change it your preference!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "worth £8–10 million to the winning team" - actually on reflection this one's probably just about OK, but will mention it anyway - neither of the two sources actually directly suggests this range of 8-10 million. In fact, one of them says "10 million" and the other says "up to 8 million", which are of course mutually exclusive estimates. If the Guardian is to be believed, the actual figure might even be less than 8 million. Ah well.
      Well it's the best way to summarise the two sources I suppose. I would colloquially say "anything up to £10m", but that doesn't seem encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We sometimes mention kit colours at this point. The report and graphics from the details section [8] seem to cover this, but could mention it in prose too.
      I don't see the kit mentioned in that reference, I could "estimate" the colours from the video I suppose? I was told by a woman in Laura Ashley that I was colour blind though, so if you can see it, perhaps you could do it... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if it's not sourced then where did those pretty strips down below come from? But I was assuming that the intention was for "...for the red and blue contingent..." and "...the men in white dropped..." from that reference to more or less not-quite-verify it. To be honest I'm not that fussed, so we can just leave it as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First half:
    • "Kevin Muscat won the ball which fell to Dyer" - which came first, the "falling to Dyer" or the "Kevin Muscat winning the ball"? It's kind of phrased as if the ball fell to Dyer first, but I suspect you meant the opposite.
      Amazing how controversial this sentence is turning out to be. Which came first? Muscat winning the ball. I could add "then" between "which" and "fell" if it's so confusing? I'm tempted to delete the whole thing as I seem to be the only person who gets what I wrote...!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "volleyed the ball from the edge of the penalty area which was deflected behind" - the penalty area was deflected behind?
      Can't reword suitably without a quick repeat, so split sentences. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "while he was attended to off the pitch" - sounds a bit colloquial, maybe change to "while he received attention off the pitch"?
      Addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second half:
    • My only observation here is that the phrase "X minutes later" appears seven times within the section, giving it a slightly repetitive feel. If there's any way to rephrase, please do. You could even lose a bit or precision with a "shortly afterwards" or something.
      Actually eight times within two sections but I'm not going to argue that it might be repetitive. Will tidy this up. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It was even worse if you included "one minute later". So much for precision. Axed a load and made it vaguer. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, my seven within the section was including the one minute later cases...  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-match:
    • "Hopkin made his debut for Scotland against Malta less than a week later" - this feels slightly out of place, tucked in the middle of analysis of his winning goal. Was the call-up a direct result of the goal or his performance in the match? Might be worth clarifying that, and probably moving it a little later in the paragraph.
      Moved to the end of the discussion of Hopkin. I offer no causality between his goal and the call-up/performance, that's down to the manager... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's about it. Excellent article other than these minor points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru all addressed and/or responded to above, many thanks as always. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, all looks good. Happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - pass edit

Support from ImaginesTigers edit

Hi there, TRM. I've seen you kickin' about. I'm still a pretty new FA reviewer, so bear with me if I make an arse of myself. Instead of leaving comments re: prose, I prefer to just go through and copy-edit to save us both time. If there's anything you don't like, feel free to revert. After that, I'll do some spot-checking, and we'll see where we land. You can expect the review within 24 hours, I think, but I'll let you know if something comes up. Catch you soon! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ImaginesTigers, of course, Wikipedia is a collective effort and nothing is stopping you from getting stuck in. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry for the delay, but so much has come up today, wiki-wise. I'll be spending about 5 hours driving tomorrow and packing up my old house to move, and I've another FAR to finish before this one. I will get to it either before or on Thursday. Sorry again, TRM. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers No problem, that's what happens when you have your own nomination going. No rush, take your time, good luck with the move, this will be here when you're ready! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TRM. I'm going to edit as I go, but I've already seen some things that don't make sense to me (as someone who doesn't at all play football). I asked a friend who does play football, and he understood what they meant, but to me the language is just unclear. I'm going to flag these up here with "(IDIOT)", because I don't know how to reword them.
  • (IDIOT): Lead. "The winners of the semi-finals played against each other for final place for the 1997–98 season in the Premiership."
    I'm sorry, that's a mess after various "fixes" from comments above! I've reworded. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a goalless first half, both sides had chances to score in the second half." I understand that the first clause is pertinent, but the second half seems a bit silly. I think I know what you mean, though (they had openings and squandered them), but maybe reword to seem a little less silly for idiots like me?
    Well that's exactly what it means. The first clause is really intended to indicate it was 0–0 at half time, the second clause to indicate the game had chances for both sides rather than being (a) without opportunity or (b) completely one-sided. I added "further" to reinforce that both teams had chances in the first half too. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (IDIOT): I don't know what a "curling strike" is. Is it a football term?
    It's a strike (of the ball) which curls (because of spin). It's less a football term, more a description of the kind of trajectory of a shot (e.g. like the opposite of a straight shot). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very cleanly written so far! Concise.
    Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really needs broken up and reworded: "With a minute of regular time remaining in the first half, Rodger's ball into the box found Dyer but his shot under challenge from Carl Tiler went across the face of Sheffield United's goal and out for a throw-in."
    Split up. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much everything. I've contributed so little that I won't be claiming this for the Cup, but I think the article is in a good spot. I Support the nomination. If you're still hanging for spot checks in a few days, let me know. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, no spot check required, it passed a source and image check a while back. Cheers though. I'll take a look at your comments in a moment. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers thanks, I've responded to your comments above and made some minor adjustments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Sorry for not giving you more! It’s straightforward and concise. Commendable job, TRM! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I think this is oven-ready now, the subjectivity over whether terms need more explanation is somewhat diminished by the fact that most of the reviewers are non-football aficionados and they support. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, TRM, for taking over my job. I'm sure glad you're around to tell me how to handle your nominations! (now taking off snark hat). Let's see what @Gog the Mild: thinks, shall we? Ealdgyth (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought all you co-ords were already rushed off your feet. Never mind, no harm no foul! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Gog thinks is

Oppose. As a report on the game, this is excellent. As an encyclopedia article where insider knowledge is not a given it falls, IMO, slightly short. There are some areas where what is meant is not clear, there are also cases where a general reader is required to click through a Wikilink for a sentence to be comprehensible, which by my reading of the MoS is deprecated.

As TRM has neither engaged with me nor changed anything since I first wrote that my opinion is unaltered. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true at all. I engaged with you after you came to my talk page. I explained my position along with the position of every other reviewer of every other single one of these (and many other similar) FACs which is contrary to your own. I also requested a level playing field yet that seems abundantly not something you're prepared to offer. So that's just fine, let's just look at the consensus here. FAC is not about bending the demands of every single reviewer unilaterally, and in this highly subjective issue, I have gauged the general readership to be capable of understanding the three plain English phrases that you identified. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no freaking clue what any of the three terms mean, if that helps. (I'm assuming it's "Two legged tie", "away goals rule", and "aggregate score" - I do have some inkling of what "yellow card" means, but that's about it.) So... no, I'm not seeing that the oppose is not actionable. Whether it outweighs the other supports is something we'll have to see ... I'd like to see a review or two from someone who is not male and/or not necessarily familiar with sports-speak. As someone who has had to explain LOTS of historical and equine terminology in various FACs, it doesn't seem like a problem to me. Work it out ... without WP:POINTy comments on other FACs ... (yes, I do read the FAC pages...). Ealdgyth (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've made my position clear. This is not necessary for the vast majority of readers who have opined here and elsewhere. There is no POINTED comments anywhere, just a list at a lot of other FACs of terminology which is by far more complex than three basic English terms here. Please stop trying to make something where there is nothing. I'm looking for consistency in approach, not to see articles promoted with literally a dozen or more unexplained technical terms, some not even in English. Please also put back the terms you removed from the links. This has a consensus to promote. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unwatching. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so can we now assess the consensus which has formed please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Please also put back the terms you removed from the links." Was that addressed at me? I haven't touched the article. Please make it clear wwho you are addressing, as the comment is indented like a reply to me. And the coordinators assess consensus, not the nominators. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry about that. Thank you for fixing, TRM. The problems of slow connections. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you removed text from the links on this talk page in your reply, hence why I indented it as a reply directed at you. I've replaced them, don't worry. And FWIW, a number of those reviewing here are not familiar with sports-speak (e.g. Ceoil said clearly A great read, that once again reminds me why I'm missing out by not being into football. before supporting). As have a number been in the past with no trouble at all. As for And the coordinators assess consensus, not the nominators., I don't recall saying anything different. I said so can we now assess the consensus which has formed please?. Never mind, something odd's playing out here when articles are recently promoted with more than a dozen highly technical terms going unexplained and yet this is now suddenly in need of a reviewer who is "not male". Unbelievable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assess the reviews at the actual FAC. There is an outstanding oppose and, yes, the fact that one reviewer said they weren't familiar with football and thought just the links were fine is helpful, but I can't just dismiss the valid oppose either. That's why I said I'd like to see another review from "someone who is not male and/or not necessarily familiar with sports-speak" ... which is perfectly reasonable. We already expect to see reviews from folks outside MilHist for MilHist and for folks outside the pop culture for pop culture. Generally, it's a good idea to have reviews from outside the subject area. And any time there is an outstanding oppose, we tend to want MORE reviews that take into account that oppose before promoting. If that upsets you, I'm sorry. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you've got at least two supports from people who have said they're not experts or particularly interested in the subject. Wanting more reviews doesn't upset me, I have nothing to hide, but I won't be adding a glossary of terms to each of these articles just because someone doesn't understand the word aggregate (for example) which is a plain english term "a whole formed by combining several separate elements." As a non-sports fan, you probably don't know what a corner is in this context or dribbling but we're not suddenly going to insert parenthetical explanations for every term or footnotes for every term. It's never been the case in the past, it isn't the case for every other FAC recently promoted, so it's odd that it's the case here. The terms are linked, and that is more than adequate given they are in plain English. And finally, we're asked to ensure that a FA "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". The unnecessary detail is about the generalities of association football and in no way specific to this individual match. But I'm in no rush and I'm sure other reviewers will have other opinions on words they don't understand. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • at Wembley Stadium, London. - as this is the lede sentence, could we say England? I know that London is in England, yes, but I don't think we lose anything from stating this. We would for pretty much any other time we mention a city. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I usually treat this scenario is that if it had not been the London, I'd contextualise it with the country, but as it stands it's pretty unambiguous really. Plus I never really want to get involved in the debate over whether it should be England or the UK etc... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably the only point that I'd still argue about. The country this taking place in is important - there are lots of football leagues, and looking at it the playoff final isn't always played in England (nor are all the teams from England). I don't really see that anyone would say "London, United Kingdom", especially when in a sporting context when there is no United Kingdom leagues or teams. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lee Vilenski okay, added England (I see you do that for the snooker articles, so why not). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sixth in the table - could we say league table? In the context, it's obvious this is what is meant, but there isn't really a reason not to say it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • regular time - might be worth a link here.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no link which is appropriate, it's just plain English: I suppose I could say (i.e. not extra time) but I don't think that's what our readers would need. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • I do feel a simple sentence stating how the semi-finals worked - i.e that it's a two-match tie home and away - would help Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But then we get into the whole "what does home and away mean"? I explain the concept of the two legs in more detail in the following paragraphs, i.e. "... the first leg taking place at the former club's home ground of Selhurst Park ..." and then "The second leg of the semi-final was played four days later at the Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton.... so it's there in plenty of detail. And play-offs is linked to the relevant article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four of Crystal Palace's players had scored ten or more goals during the league campaign: Bruce Dyer (17), Hopkin (13), Shipperley (12) and Freedman (11).[11] Kachura, his club's player of the year,[12] and Walker were joint leading marksmen for Sheffield United with 12 league goals each,[13] while Fjørtoft, signed from Middlesbrough in January for £1 million, had scored 11 goals in 19 games - this is worded well, but is weighted a bit weird to me. It states that Palace have four, but we are made to count that United had three that did this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly all I'm doing is linking the top scorer(s) I could find for United, and Fjortoft's remarkable scoring record of 11 goals in 19 games, rather than those who scored double figures. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neale Barry from Scunthorpe was the referee for the final. - is this really a background item? I'd think it would make more sense at the start of the match, as it's similar to the attendance and kick off time, etc Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is background. The referee for the match is selected way in advance of the match, sometimes it's even controversial! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggested that rarely had "[Wembley] stadium witnessed a better finish to an indifferent game of football than the inspired goal by David Hopkin" - I don't really like this. Obviously this is a little metaphoric (stadiums can't view anything), and if the quote doesn't start that way, maybe it's worth clipping, maybe that Lacey suggested that there hadn't been many matches with a better finish to an "indifferent game" and that the goal was "inspired" or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly reworded, I know what you mean, it's journo speak, hence why it was all in quotes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • their overall share value - as we aren't talking about football, worth a link to share prices? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple times you mention that United failed to get into the play-offs the following season on goal difference, is it worth mentioning a bit more on this? Losing out by 1 goal is much different to say 10 goals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list.

Lee Vilenski cheers, I've made various changes and responded to all your comments above. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Very nice article.

Comments from Dweller edit

  1. Is it possible you can hide resolved issues above, or is that discouraged at FAC these days? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying really hard to find fault with this article, but struggling rather. You've got a good template for them, haven't you? I'll keep looking and chime back in when I can. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the done thing to hide the comments so you'll just have to put up with it as it stands. As a non-non-male non-football supporter (obv, supporting Norwich is the opposite of supporting "football"), I'd be delighted if you could just let me know if it's readable. We've done the sources, the images, the links etc, to death here. But onwards we go! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've tried really hard to spot glitches, errors, typos, inaccuracies, obscurities, lack of referencing, whatever, but I can't. It's a dang good article. Interesting seeing the mention of Ipswich... those were real glory days, competing near the top of the second tier. May they return some time in the future. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're too kind. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius edit

I will take a look at this article later. From a quick skim I can't find anything egregious, but I'll look more in depth soon, maybe tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In their following season they finished bottom of the 1997–98 Premiership and were relegated back to the First Division. - In the phrase "relegated back", the word "back" is redundant.
    Yes, in the context of the sentence you're right. I've removed that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's a completely different situation to any of the other appearances there — but it's just as big, because of the prize which is at stake". - First, should this be a spaced en-dash or an unspaced em-dash? The rest of the article uses a space en-dash. Second, I'm wondering if the period should be placed before the quotation mark, since this is a complete sentence, and the other complete-sentence quotes in this paragraph have a period before the quote mark.
    I'm sorry, I thought it was an en-dash, I've replaced it to be sure. And yes, a complete sentence so the full stop goes into the quote, per MOS:LQ, which is something I think I get wrong at least twice on every nomination. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortly after, Nash punched clear a corner which was kicked back to him, forcing him to catch the ball before Fjørtoft was able to head it.[50] A minute later, Dyer's cross was cleared behind by Sandford for a corner, which Shipperley headed wide.[51] - If I'm understanding correctly, the first sentence happens not long after the 75-minute mark, and the second sentence happens a minute after the first. When did the first sentence happen?
    The "shortly after" rewording came about after a previous reviewer (correctly) objected to the overuse of "x minutes later". If you look at the video time stamps, there's about two minutes between the first sentence and the second, but I don't want the report to become almost a timeline of events, rather just mix up the phrasing a little. If you'd rather get the precision back in there, I'll need to think of another way of expressing it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, in that case, the phrasing right now is fine. The precision was something I was just wondering a little about. Epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically all I had after reading through this article closely. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius thanks for your review, much appreciated. I've addressed and/or responded to all your comments above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: No problem. I support this article for promotion as I can't find anything else that needs to be fixed.. Epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, always good to get diverse input, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JennyOz edit

Placeholder, just a note to say I hope to review this in next day or so. JennyOz (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM, I've added comments but have a few more minor bits to do tomorrow.

I'll be back. I had added a placeholder to 3 reviews but RL celebrations didn't allow requisite editing concentration!! JennyOz (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JennyOz many thanks as ever for your diligent and highly detailed review (part 1). Much appreciated as always, look forward to the next tranche! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got back. I have made a couple of very minor tweaks. Some wlinks may seem obvious but I reckon they're harmless - I won't be at all miffed if you undo any. I have added a few replies above and below are a couple of new comments. I have just read the other review comments for the first time. (I purposefully don't read them before reviewing.) That's a lot of reviews!

  • Howard Kendall, the Sheffield United manager, was making his twelfth appearance at Wembley Stadium - perhaps: Sheffield United's Howard Kendall was making his twelfth appearance as a manager at Wembley...
  • Ref 63 Hopkins sends Eagles soaring into heaven - I can't access, does the title have Hopkins instead of Hopkin? I'm presuming it's their typo, not yours.

That's me done I think. I am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: as this nomination has seven supports, can I nominate another solo candidate please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on closing edit

So, we've now got a lot of supports (8?) and one firm oppose that doesn't look like it'll change. How do the delegates handle this sort of circumstance? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I’ve apparently upset TRM ...I’m going to let Ian take over, as I have no wish to upset TRM further. @FAC coordinators: -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a prose. I have been three days in clinic with emergency surgery for my husband, but did have time to catch up on the reading regarding this nomination, and I think pretty much everyone is missing the boat here. The problem is not MOS; it's prose related. And comparing a football article to a biology article misses a lot of points. What has always been the case at FAC is that sentences should be understandable, with or without an indepth understanding of what is covered in a wikilink, and whether or not that wikilink can be easily summarized in a few words (which, away goal cannot), and whether or not the reader intends to expand their knowledge by clicking on a link. For example, the statement, "No further goals were scored, with Sheffield United advancing to the final on away goals" has no meaning whatsoever for the non-football person. One cannot begin to guess what that means without clicking on the link. And yet, this is so easily solved by simply providing the context that it is a tie-breaking mechanism. If just those few words were added for context, then the reader who doesn't know what an away goal is no longer needs to know any further detail about what an away goal is, and can click on the link if they choose to learn more. But they know, then, in this article, for context, that it is a tie-breaking mechanism, and that is all that is relevant for this article. This is not a MOS matter; it is a basic prose matter-- the sentence is jargon and not understandable to a non-football person. I expect to convert this oppose to a support (once the other examples are similarly fixed), apologize for the hurried typing, and won't be able to add more today as I have a long drive back to the teaching clinic for post-surgery visit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The snarky edit summary is unnecessary;[10] I presented you a very easy way forward, simple fix, and regret you decided not to take it. I would have done more to help if not for emergency surgery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nine supports and three non-football reviews and at least one "non-male" review and you weigh in like this? No, this is hugely problematic. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I continue to oppose the wholesale addition of explanations for every footballing term, if the "away goals" issue is really the only remaining bone of contention standing between a fail (or withdrawal) and a pass, then - at risk of stirring further controversy - I'd say let's just tweak it. Indeed, I have invoked WP:BOLD and had a stab at doing just that - the text now reads "No further goals were scored, and Sheffield United advanced to the final as a result of having scored more away goals than Ipswich". Does that satisfy your concern, SandyGeorgia?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: Please withdraw your withdrawal before they close the nomination. One or two opposes isn't going to cancel out 9 supports, given that many of the people supporting (myself included) did not find things especially confusing. Just wiktionary the links. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do prefer that wording, but I don't see how a single phrase could ever be enough to correspond to an oppose. If away goals is too much of a term that is not understandable, then rewording to this doesn't make it much clearer. You'd have to suggest that someone knows what an away goal was... and that they knew what an "away match" was. In the context of football, away goals is quite the basic term. There does have to be basic knowledge, or we'd have to explain what a "goal" or "sideline" was each time it was used. I fear for every article if this is the approach as I'm yet to see an FAC pass without a single jargon term used. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, I did not have time to detail the other examples; I am off to a one-hour drive each way in bad weather to a teaching clinic following emergency surgery. I had time while sitting in waiting rooms over last three days to read the various arguments. I can follow up tomorrow; I suggest that withdrawal is premature, and I expected this to have a very easy solution. That is, every term does not have to be defined; sentences only need context. Perhaps you will have time to do similar on other areas of contention before I return home and have time to catch up, bst regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

oops, ps, sorry, to your direct question ... "No further goals were scored, and Sheffield United advanced to the final as a result of having scored more away goals than Ipswich". Does that satisfy your concern ... no, the problem is that the non-football person does not understand that away goals are used as a tie breaking mechanism in such cases ... adding something about that will solve the whole dilemma in the fewest possible words ... not in a place right now to be suggesting wording, which you can do better, but something like ... No further goals were scored, so a tie-breaking mechanism was needed, and Sheffield United advanced to the final as a result of having scored more away goals than Ipswich. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: first of all, I wish you and your husband all the best and hoping he makes a speedy recovery from his surgery. I can appreciate that the affairs of Wiki take a back seat at such times. Thanks for the above replies and I will answer those points here and you can come back to this or not whenever you are ready. On the specific point of the away goals, I thought myself that this would strike the balance between being concise (which is required by FA criterion 4) as well as being understandable to a broad audience. I honestly don't think the addition of "so a tie-breaking mechanism was needed" is required. We established already that the match finished 3–3 on goals scored, and that extra time (overtime) was therefore utilised. There were still no further goals scored, so it goes without saying that some form of tie-breaking mechanism was still required. The text now says explicitly that Sheffield United advanced because of their superior number of away goals. If that isn't a tie-breaker, then what else would it be?
On the more general question I'm obviously disappointed that this wasn't, as I thought, the only example of text that could be clarified. I genuinely cannot see any difference between the jargon used in the football articles and the examples raised concerning biology and military history articles. I genuinely don't know what an entrepot is, which means that Siege of Calais (1346–1347) definitely could be made easier to understand with the addition of a few words. But would that addition be desirable? No, I don't think so. We discussed this point at length in the Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#MOS:LINKSTYLE_question thread last week, and as far as I can tell there was a general sense of disquiet at the sudden appearance of objections along these lines. The bottom line is that we need a consistent to be followed, football and biology aren't fundamentally different. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article is being held to standards that are inconsistent with articles on other topics ... but more to the point, incompatible with an encyclopedia. I've seen the MOS and a small section of it is being used here to contradict the overwhelming mass of what it's driving at. An article about nuclear fission could not be written coherently in this fashion, even a simple article, never mind a Featured one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point. Acamptonectes was promoted this month. The fourth word is "genus" - wikilinked, but not explained - (it could have said a classification of species). In a similar way, just in the lead, we have "tail fluke" (a fin), "platypterygiine" (type of icthyosaur), "morphology" (stucture) etc. I agree with all of those decisions. Adding the explanatory text would have made it less readable, not more, and the promotion was a good one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I am on real computer, I will catch up first on the general thread at wt:fac, then follow up here, sorry that a medical emergency intervened, where I was able to read from iPad but not keep up with iPad typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know there was a general conversation at FAC. Makes sense though, as I can see this might be us struggling with a manifestation of a wider problem - as I point out above, I think science articles (to pick one topic) will fail FAC rules on this MOS point or be gibberish, both of which are undesirable. I'll try to have a look at it tomorrow. Sorry to hear about your medical emergency, Sandy. Of course that takes priority. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies once again for piecemeal posting; here is a better list and description of where I get lost in the jargon. (Disclaimer: having spent my entire adult life around soccer, it is still full of bewildering rules and strategy for me.) Looking at this version; the confusion occurs in the Route to the final section.

  • Sheffield United finished the regular 1996–97 season in fifth place in the Football League First Division – the second tier of the English football league system – one place and two points ahead of Crystal Palace. ... So, I understand they were sort of kind of tied at fifth and sixth place, but I do not know what the "two points" refers to at all, or why it is relevant. And looking at the chart of points in the text, I don't see a tie at all.
    @SandyGeorgia: I think the confusion here is because you are reading the word "tier" as tie. When it says the "second tier", it refers to the fact that there is the top league (the Premier League) at the first tier, and then the league in which these teams played (known at the time as the Football League First Division) was one tier below that, i.e. the second tier. Every year, three teams are promoted from tier 2 to tier 1, while three teams from tier 1 are relegated to tier 2. So Sheffield United and Crystal Palace were not tied for position at all, the former were 5th (with 73 points) and the latter were 6th (with 71 points), hence the two points behind. I don't know if my explanation here clears things up for you, but the problem for this article will be that if we have to go into something like this much detail then it's going to end up too wordy. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think that was my confusion; I think I got that part, but maybe I am still missing something? I understand they ended up within points of each other; I don't understand what those points are based on, and I don't understand why there is a two-legged tie when the points aren't tied. It is possible that I am more confused than I can convey in typing :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what the issue is. So, the football league always has a four team playoff, with teams finishing the end of the seasons ranked third through sixth playing. The league portion (before this) has every team play the other teams (twice) and they score 3 points for a win (1 for a draw). At the end of that league, the top two get promoted to the premier League, where the other four 'fight' for the third promotion spot in a knockout formula. This contains the four teams, and the third highest team plays the sixth, and the fourth plays the fifth. I think the word "tie" here you are confusing with the team's being equal - rather than as being a fixture. It being a two-legged tie means both of the original two "semi-finals" are contested over two matches where each team plays at home in one of the matches. I fear that the word "tie" is causing grief, but it has quite a few meanings. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (I penned a long reply at the same time as Lee it seems, but will post it here anyway!) - Ah I see... I think... So the points are based on the teams' performance over the whole season. Three points for every game won, one point for a draw (i.e. if the game finishes level - what you'd probably call a "tie" in US sports, but the term tie isn't used in that sense in UK soccer), and zero points for a defeat. At the end of the regular season, the two teams with the highest number of points get promoted automatically. Teams 3 through 6 then compete in a four-team playoff competition for the last remaining promotion place. Three plays six over two legs (i.e. two separate games, one at each team's stadium), and four plays five over two legs. The total number of goals for each side from the two legs is added up to give an "aggregate score". If that is level then they play 30 minutes of overtime, and if it's still level then the tie-breaking mechanisms kick in. The two legs taken together are referred to as a "tie" (nothing to do with tied in the sense of being level, it's a completely different usage!). After completing those two ties, the winners of each of them play each other in a single one off final at the national stadium with the winner gaining the promotion spit. It's that final, the 1997 edition, which is the subject of this article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both missed out on the two automatic places for promotion ... this (automatic promotion) is explained in the lead, but the lead is a summary of the article. Automatic promotion is not re-explained here, so I have to backtrack to understand how this works, by reading the lead. It would be helpful to have everything in one place.
  • Sheffield United finished seven points behind Barnsley (who were promoted in second place) and twenty-five behind league winners Bolton Wanderers ... again, what are these points? I see a table of points which has no meaning for me. How are they determined? And, this is the first mention of Barnsley and Bolton, so I have to again go back to the lead to see they were the two automatic-- would it be helpful to mention that in the lead? There is a lot to unpack in this section.
  • Crystal Palace faced Wolves in their play-off semi-final, with the first match of the two-legged tie taking place at Crystal Palace's home ground Selhurst Park in London on 10 May 1997. ... I do NOT feel a need to understand whatever a "two-legged tie" is at this point, but still have no idea what it references. But when I click on the two-legged tie article, I get no clarity. I think it means a tie that is settled based on two matches. But I can't even determine why it's a tie to begin with, based on the points presented in the table. How are those points determined and why aren't they used exclusively? And why can't we just say that ties are broken by having two matches, one at each of the home fields?
  • But when I click on the two-legged tie article, it gets even more muddled because I find that
    First leg: Team A 4–1 Team B, and
    Second leg: Team B 2–1 Team A somehow aggregate to 7–3 instead of 6–2. 'Tis a mystery. In this match, how do 3–1 and 2–1 end up at 4–3? Nowhere do I understand in this article how "aggregating" works.
    That article lists:
    First leg: Team A 4–1 Team B
    Second leg: Team B 2–1 Team A
    And gives the correct final score of 5-3 to team A. Not sure where you got 7-3 from. An aggregate is simply the addition of the scores. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Lee; the 7 was a typo (for 5). And I now see the problem; I am adding vertically, rather than noticing that the first score lists Team A first, while the second lists Team B first (d'oh). I now see the 5–3.
    So, in fact, it is now clear to me that an aggregate score is nothing more than the sum of the goals from the two matches. It is unclear to me why we can't just say that. So, if I am now understanding everything, until we get to the separate tie-breaking mechanism of "away goals", this whole thing amounts to ... for some reason there was a tie (although it is not clear from the points chart how that came to be considered a tie, since the points are not equal), and then two matches are played between the tied teams, one at each team's field, and an aggregate score is calculated as the sum of all goals scored in the two games by each team. Is that correct so far? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost (see above comment about the team's not being equal in score). The issue I suppose with saying anything other than aggregate, is that is the official terminology being used. If a team wins 4-2 after two games, the scoreboard will say 4-2 agg(regggrate).
    Generally in English sports, we rarely have matches simply continue because there is not a winner (the old style of FA Cup used to have unlimited matches for each round), and there is usually some sort of list of criteria a match should end in. This can include extra time, away goals or a penalty shootout. In my eyes, I don't think we gain anything extra from saying that there was a tie-breaker needed as we state the team qualified for the next round due to scoring more away goals (or more goals in the match they played not at their home stadium). I'd agree it might be warranted if this was an article on that particular match, bit this is an article about the final. For the same reason explaining how teams scored points for the league table is much less important for a one-match final, so is the different ways in which the team could qualify for the final, where those same rules don't apply. Even more so as we do have an article (well a section in another article) on the play-offs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru and Lee Vilenski: OK, some of the pieces are beginning to come together now, but I am still swimming in a sea of confusion :) Give me some time to sort through this new info and see what I actually understand now. It may make more sense for me to type up on the talk page of this FAC my understanding now of what the text is saying, so we can see if I in fact am understanding. Is there an article somewhere that explains the points presented in the chart, as in Amakuru's 20:55, 29 January 2021 post ? And would it be possible to spell out the abbreviations in the points chart ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, despair not ... I remember going through something very similar to this on a baseball FAR, where it was astounding to me to realize that not everyone understood you had to go around all four bases to score, and you had to touch the bases as you rounded them. :) We take much for granted on sports we know! And I have had a life-long struggle of trying to understand soccer ... and now you all are telling me, I think, that World Cup is different ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the World Cup is something different but does have some similar themes (that also has a play-off and league tables and such). I think the point being made here is that we couldn't write every baseball article explaining how a player scores, but there will be users who don't know this. A topic on a football article should expect someone to know how the game is played, and shouldn't have to explain something so integral. From my area of expertise, I would link to a pot, but I wouldn't explain it in detail, as it's integral to the game, like a goal is in football. I understand the need to know things that are specific to this competition, such as how there is a rule that the semi-finals needed away goals - but that wouldn't really be suitable for this article. I think you have been undone by the use of the word "tie", but this is written in briteng (as it should), which would use this type of term. You could mention that the team won 4-3 cumulative score, but any reader familiar with the topic (even slightly so) would wonder why you wouldn't use the correct verbiage. I think if I read a similar topic on a subject I wasn't familiar with, I would find lots of such cases, but that does not mean that the article isn't accessible, just that I don't have a suitable knowledge base to get the most of the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect we are more in agreement than you realize. No, we don't need to change basic terminology like "aggregate" to "cumulative" to clarify. Just as we expect baseball to define terms like home run, walk, strike, hit, RBI, we don't expect every article about a baseball player or a baseball game to redefine those basic terms-- links suffice in those cases. Just as we expect the FA association football to define terms like "header" (and now it does), we don't expect every article about a football game or player to define a header. If you're reading about a football game, a "header" is pretty clear in context. Since I don't see anyone asking here for terms like "header" to be defined, I think we generally agree. But this article is about playoffs, and it is impossible to understand how the teams got to those playoffs from what is on the page now. I think, based on what you all have told me now, I could try putting together something here on talk for your review. It would not take many more words to clear up the confusion (and me typing it up may illustrate where the confusion is). But I need two things: "Jan Åge Fjørtoft who held off Chris Swailes and beat Richard Wright in the Ipswich goal" is still indecipherable to me ... could someone tell me what that means? And where does one find an article about the points presented in the chart, as in Amakuru's 20:55, 29 January 2021 post ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sandy, I'm about to go to bed now but will hopefully be back to contribute to this discussion again in more detail tomorrow. Just to answer a few of your questions in no particular order:
    • I would interpret the phrase you are asking about above as meaning roughly: "Jan Åge Fjørtoft was running towards the goal with the ball at his feet. Chris Swailes, a defensive player for Ipswich, was attempting to tackle him. But Fjørtoft managed to avoid being tackled by Swailes (he "held him off"), and was able to kick a shot towards the goal. That shot went past Richard Wright, who was the goalkeeper (a single specialist player on each of the teams who is allowed to handle the ball, and would be described by the phrase "in the Ipswich goal"). Wright attempted to stop the ball going past him, but he failed to do so, hence he was "beaten". Then the ball went into the goal and Sheffield United took a 1–0 lead." I think you'll agree with me that we wouldn't include the text I've just written in our article though... someone who follows soccer would think I'd gone slightly mad if I wrote to that level of detail!
    • I suspect the article Group tournament ranking system is the one you're looking for, which explains how this kind of points system works. There's also the slightly more football-specific Three points for a win article, but that one focuses more on the change from teams getting 2 points for a win (as they used to back in the old days, up until the 1980s or so) to the present system of their getting 3 points.
    • Re the focus of this article, it's worth bearing in mind that this isn't actually the article about the playoffs themselves - that would be 1997 Football League play-offs, which covers all of the playoffs for that year in tiers 2, 3 and 4, but is clearly in a woeful state right now with very little prose of any sort. The article we're reviewing here is about the first division playoff *final*, which is one single match on a specific date. The "route to the final" section is akin to say the background section in an article about a battle, and although you'd expect it to touch on the main points, it doesn't need to go into all the fine detail for that background. The matches described there are not the focus of this page. Cheers again  — Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Hopkin equalised midway through the second half ... is "equalised" BrEng for "tying the score"?
  • The home side went ahead in the 40th minute through ... I don't know why "home side" is mentioned (is that elegant variation to avoid naming the team), but I am forced then to read backwards to sort out which team was "home".
  • ... through Jan Åge Fjørtoft who held off Chris Swailes and beat Richard Wright in the Ipswich goal ... no idea what this says. What exactly did each of these three players do?
  • The return leg took place at Portman Road ... now I am guessing that a new term, "return leg" is the second match in a tie that is broken by somehow aggregating the scores of two matches, although I have yet understood why it was a tie to begin with, and why aggregate scores are not a sum. But now a new term to deal with.
  • With the scores level at 3–3 on aggregate at full time ... so, more confusion, at this point, the aggregate scores are summing correctly (1–1 and 2–2 add to 3–3).
  • So, next I understand that because of this 3–3 "aggregate" tie (even though I don't yet understand aggregate), extra time is played (note that all of this is very different, for example, from baseball, where you just keep playing until someone wins). During that extra time, no one scored, so some new and different tie-breaking mechanism (away goals) comes in to play. I don't need to know the nitty-gritty ins and outs of what away goals are, but it would be helpful to know that in such cases, the tie-breaking mechanism is based on which team scored more goals on the playing field of the other team; that should not be that hard to say.

Much less clear is the how it all came to be a tie to begin with (based on the mysterious points in the table), and how aggregate scores and points work. I hope this helps explain what is not understood. I anticipate getting this sorted quickly so I can strike my Oppose. We should avoid having other readers have to try to dig in to the various Wikilinked articles to try to understand this. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I note the suggestions above that the withdrawal request itself be withdrawn, but that hasn't happened and in any case we don't have consensus to promote. Whether inconsistency in accessibility standards across FAC is a factor in that is something being discussed on WT:FAC, which is the appropriate venue for it. Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 January 2021 [11].

Danger: Diabolik edit

Nominator(s): PatTheMoron (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1968 movie by Italian horror master Mario Bava - based on an enormously popular Italian comic series, it underwent a troubled production history due to changing producers, directors and actors multiple times before hitting the big screen, where it did okay but not spectacular business, especially compared to its "sister" movie, Barbarella, which was made by many of the same people. Like many of the films that would come to influence the likes of Austin Powers and other spy spoofs, it was largely forgotten until the 1990s saw its home media and MTS3K revival, before being left to rot in out-of-print purgatory during the 2010s in the wake of the MCU and the Dark Knight Trilogy, before slowly and surely coming back to Blu-ray this year, given that most of Bava's other films (including many of his less significant works) have received the HD treatment and that it has influenced the likes of Edgar Wright. I believe that the article is FA-worthy because it now covers many of the bases that Andrzejbanas initially had difficulty finding info and sources for, and more fully accounts for Bava's work on the film, as well as its legacy, critical standing and influence. PatTheMoron (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Just making sure if you let Andrzejbanas know you nominated this article he worked on. I've asked for permission to nominate others work before. GamerPro64 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GamerPro! PatTheMoron has discussed it with me by the by. I'm totally comfortable with this. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth edit

Removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this one. DVDBeaver is self-published home video review site, and should not be used. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this one. Similar to DVDBeaver. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Diabolik_(caverna).JPG: given that what's pictured is a set design and this is a screenshot from a film, I don't think the current tagging is appropriate or sufficient
  • File:Diabolik_e_Eva_Kant.JPG: similarly, not sure this would qualify as a simple photograph vs art. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those images were from the Italian page and on Commons. I thought it would be a waste to not use them to illustrate some of the article's points, although I can see the argument being made that the tagging might not as helpful as I intended. Any ideas, Andrzejbanas? PatTheMoron (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A photo in Mario Bava: All the Colors of the Dark actually does show Bava preparing the matte painting for that scene, but I'm concerned that putting that particular image in the article may be copyright-unfriendly, which is why I've leant towards the already-used screenshot. PatTheMoron (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is in commons, doesn't mean we should try and squeeze all the use we can out of them. Often images are of low quality and can't really illustrate a point very well. Having them isn't make or break for the article honestly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GamerPro64 edit

Gonna review this now.

  • "Although De Laurentiis set aside $3 million with which to make the film, the final budget came to only 200 million lire." What does that mean in terms of the exchange rate of US dollars and Italian lire? GamerPro64 03:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PatTheMoron: are you still working on this? I want to review this more because I want this article to become a Featured Article. GamerPro64 23:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi GamerPro64! Sorry for the delay, I've been a bit busy and tied up with other stuff at the moment, but I mainly wanted to make sure that any info from sources that possibly aren't FA-friendly was removed for the time being. I'm having trouble finding a source that accurately shows the exchange rate from lira to dollars, but apparently 200 million lira was worth around $320,000. PatTheMoron (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for nearly four weeks and has yet to gain any supports. Unless it attracts more interest over the next two or three days it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am regretfully archiving this. After more than four weeks it has attracted little interest. The two weeks wait before renomination will not apply. However, PatTheMoron can I suggest having some willing, and preferably experienced, reviewers lined up when it next appears here. Call in some favours, or perhaps do a few more FAC reviews to accumulate some favours. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 January 2021 [12].

Suzanne Lenglen edit

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, one of the first global superstars of tennis. Lenglen was virtually unbeatable, winning 287 out of the final 288 matches of her career. She gained immense popularity through her balletic playing style and vibrant personality, and first drew attention to herself by winning a World Championship tournament a few weeks after turning 15 years old. Her popularity forced Wimbledon to move to a new venue more than twice the size of the previous one to accommodate all of the fans who wanted to see her play. While still in her prime, Lenglen spurned amateur tennis to turn professional. She was the first top amateur player to turn professional, kickstarting the professional era. In one year of professional tours, Lenglen made more money than Babe Ruth in the year Ruth hit a record-setting 60 home runs.

A former featured article from the Stone Age of FAC reviews, this is your chance to get a former FA back to featured status and to review one of the most vital articles in tennis history. If passed, this would be my third FA; here are the first two: Kim Clijsters (also tennis) and Erin Phillips (Australian football). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

I think resolved, but not confirmed yet. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1922_(instant)_(cropped).jpg: when/where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death?
    • The publication date on BnF/Gallica is listed as 1922, and the author is an agency (Agence Rol), not a person. I think the Template:PD-old tag may not be the correct one. (The rights on Gallica are listed as "public domain".) Does Gallica have its own public domain tag (such as Template:PD-GallicaScan?), or is there a broader one related to the EU or France (such as Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure)? A bunch of the other images below have the same issue. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or is it even simpler than that and do the Gallica images listed as "public domain" (with the author as Agence Rol) just count as Template:PD-author? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only if Gallica is the copyright holder - are they? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe BnF/Gallica owns the image itself. (They own all of Agence Rol's collections, and Agence Rol merged with other agencies in 1937.) Does that mean BnF/Gallica also owns the copyright? (or alternatively, does no one own the copyright because Agence Rol is gone?) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Separately, I found Template:PD-BNF as a tag option. Would that alone suffice, or does it also need a US tag? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That tag would suffice for French status, but it would need a separate tag for US. Owning the images does not automatically mean one owns the copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, then would the PD-BNF plus the generic PD-US work for all of the Agence Rol Gallica images from before 1925 (all but one)? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Assuming they were all published, not simply created, before then. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen,_Elizabeth_Ryan,_1914_(light).jpg
  • Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen_playing_baseline_1914_(cropped)_3.jpg
  • Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1920_Cannes_(cropped).jpg
  • File:1919_wimbledon_final_(instant)_(cropped).jpg: as per the UK tag, image description should specify research to verify anonymity
    • If the image was published in a newspaper and the author wasn't specified in the newspaper, does that suffice? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mlle_Lenglen_et_Brugnon_(cropped)_2.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • France 1921. (I'll switch the tags to PD-BNF + PD-US, and clarify the publication info.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Mallory_and_Lenglen_1921_St_Cloud_(cropped)_2.jpg
    • France 1921. (I'll switch the tags to PD-BNF + PD-US, and clarify the publication info) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not resolved yet. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Mary_Browne_%26_Lenglen_(Tennis)_LCCN2014710151_(cropped).jpg when/where was this first published?
    • US 1926. (I think the two for this one should suffice, and clarify the publication info) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Suzanne_lenglen_1920.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
    • As the image was published in Lenglen's book (that she wrote), would it be correct to say that Lenglen is the author? (If yes, she died in 1938.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any attribution in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I just noticed! It was by the Maull and Fox company (which was taken over in 1928), but not Maull or Fox themselves because they were already dead. Would Template:PD-UK-unknown make sense here with no individual author identified? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but as above you'd need to include evidence of research into anonymity. Was the author identified in any other source? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, I found that the firm was continued by Fox's son Herbert Fox (1870–unknown) and Frederic Glover (who joined in 1890). Does it suffice to assume that neither lived past 80 years old (to use the Template:PD-old-70 tag)? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Commons uses commons:Template:PD-old-assumed for cases where the author's date of death is unknown but reasonably assumed to be over 70 years ago, but only for works published over 120 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I just realized the book was published in the US (and I can't find the photo published anywhere else). In that case, would just a regular PD-US tag suffice (since it was published in 1920).
                  • Was the book only published in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The publisher was based in the US. I imagine the book was circulated elsewhere, does that affect anything? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If it were simultaneously published elsewhere that might affect things as far as Commons goes, but if it was published US and only circulated elsewhere - and assuming you're corrected that the photo was not published elsewhere - that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lenglen_Wills_Match_of_the_Century_1926_2_(instant)_(cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Silly question, but is the PD-US tag for images published before 1925 or for images published at least 95 years ago? (because the 95th anniversary of this photo is less than two months away) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the moment it's 1925, in a couple of days it'll be 1926 - the turnover is start of year, not the exact anniversary of publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay. As an alternative, would Template:PD-1996 apply to this image? (I see it was used for Maurice Ravel, which has a similar state in that it is also listed as public domain on Gallica, and has no identified individual author.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1926 +70 would put this after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, I replaced this image with a non-free one that I believe to be fair use. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • The "unique historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself is the subject of commentary, not just what is depicted - eg. Tank Man. It's not clear to me that that is the case here. Suggest replacing that tag and expanding the fair-use rationale, particularly as regards purpose of use - what do readers gain from seeing this image over and above just being told that they thought the match was over when it wasn't? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hmm, I picked that image in particular because I thought it was a unique historic image where the image itself is what's important and the subject of commentary. Is it within reason that a sports photograph could be a unique historic image? Or is the issue that I didn't discuss the image in the prose? If the latter is the case, I reworded the section to mention the image. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It is conceivable that a sports photograph could be a unique historic image; I'm just not convinced yet that this one is. The text notes that photographers captured this moment, but I'm not seeing commentary rising to the level of "transformative" as per the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The Engelmann book states, "The most famous photograph of that instant shows the two women meeting at the net and a hand extended toward the photographer from the corner of the picture. Someone seemed to be signaling to the photographer to stop taking pictures. But why? Something was not right... One writer compared the false "out" call to the false armistice announcement on November 7, 1918 when millions of Americans reacted hysterically to a report that World War I had ended." Does that suffice to justify fair use? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Okay. Suggest elaborating on the fair-use rationale to include some of this detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Amakuru edit

  • Early life and background:
    • "Several years after Suzanne was born, her father sold the omnibus business and relocated the family to Marest-sur-Matz near Compiègne in northern France in 1904" - were the selling of the business and the relocation separate events? If so, it would be worth separating them out so it's clear. And if they're actually part of the same event, then we should chop either "Several years after..." or "in 1904", since both indicate a point in time.
      • I don't know exactly when the selling of the business happened. Changed it to "her father sold the omnibus business, after which he relocated the family". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nice Lawn Tennis Club" - we have an article for this, so link to it
    • "loved to play diabolo" - it may be just me, but "loved to" doesn't quite sound like formal encyclopedic language. Is that what the sources says? Could consider "enjoyed" instead.
    • "through attending tournaments on the Riviera where the world's best players" - a comma after Riviera might help the flow a bit here.
    • "the world's best players would compete" - just "the world's best players competed" would be preferable.
    • "Having played the sport recreationally in the past, he bought Lenglen a racket from a toy store" - are his playing in the past and the fact that he bought her the racket specifically linked? If not, could either split it up, or rephrase to something like "He had played the sport recreationally in the past, and he bought..." or similar.
    • "to practice with friends" - since the article is tagged as British English, this should be "to practise", I believe.
    • "She quickly showed enough skill for tennis to convince her father to get her a proper racket within a month" - was the previous racket not a proper one then? Toy stores might also sell such things, so if the previous one was actually a toy then maybe say so. Also, should be "skill at tennis"?
      • Clarified the second one was from a tennis manufacturer. "skill at tennis" Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Three months later in September, Lenglen" - a comma after "later" I think, as "in September" is an appositive phrase.
    • "a proper tennis court" - second use of "proper" this paragraph... not totally convinced it's an encyclopedic word, and could change at least one of them to something else.
      • I feel like alternatives (e.g. real, actual) would be less encyclopedic. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, yes. Real and actual don't improve things much. But all these words seem quite vague to me. I might say to my kids "this is a proper tennis court", but I wouldn't expect to say it in a formal letter. What was the real difference between the "improper" rackets and courts and the "proper" ones that she moved on to? Maybe defined in terms of their being to official standards or something. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        For the racket, the first one was from a toy store (and not intended for serious use) and the second one was from a tennis manufacturer. For the court, one of the differences is that the first one was grass and the second one was clay, which was ubiquitous in France for tennis courts at the time (and still is, I think). But the real big difference was that for the first one, I think her father just drew the lines himself. The grass was also just the grass in their backyard; it wasn't designed to be used as a tennis court (maybe it wasn't even flat, for instance). (Like... you can kick a football in your backyard with the garage marked as a net, but that doesn't mean your backyard counts as a football pitch.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the singles handicap event" - a link might be useful, to aid readers in understanding what this is
    • "towards the end of the fall" - "autumn" in British English
    • "They only showed restraint in their criticisms when she was sick, leading to Lenglen becoming comfortable with being ill" - I'm not quite sure what this means. Did she fake illness in order to avoid their criticism?
      • Sort of, but more like "it was not clear whether she was actually sick". I added "That trait made it difficult for others to ascertain whether Lenglen was sick when she was showing symptoms." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1912-13: Maiden titles:
    • "Lenglen entered her first open singles event" - does "open" mean non-handicap? A link or clarification might help
      • Changed to "standard", and clarified "standard non-handicap" at the beginning of this section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After her opponent defaulted" - a link of some sort would be useful, so unfamiliar readers can know what this means
    • "not won a title" - "failed to win a title"?
    • "a tie" - link to what this means?
    • "Nonetheless, when Lenglen returned" - why is this "nonetheless"? I'm guessing maybe you mean that "winning one match" in the prior event was a bad thing, in which case probably add in "only one match" or similar.
    • "She won her next event in Lille as well. Both titles came within a few weeks of her 14th birthday" - might work better as a single sentence with a comma rather than two short sentences.
    • "the latter of which by default" - any reason why?
      • No, it was more common to default at that time for reasons that would be considered "non-serious" by today's standards. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow! I'm impressed with the article so far anyway, so I'm likely to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1914: World Hard Court champion:
    • "Cannes" - link, as it's the first mention
    • "was regarded as a huge surprise" - should probably say by whom
    • "Wimbledon" - link
    • "Racing Club de France" - link
      • I think the article is more for the club rather than the actual facility. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "where she only lost three games" - "in which she lost only three games" sounds better
      • Split in two: "Nonetheless, she won three matches to make the final against Germaine Golding. She defeated Golding for her first major title, losing only three games." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "when she had already lost" - maybe "given that she had only lost"?
  • World War I hiatus:
    • Can't see any issues here.
  • 1919: Classic Wimbledon final:
    • "in the challenge round" - although we've already introduced the "challenge round" concept, we're generally calling the event "the final" in this section, so would make sense to clarify
      • I think the statement from the 1914 section establishes that the challenge round is the final: "The format gave the defending champion a bye until the final match, known as the challenge round." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1920: Olympic champion:
    • "Ryan was able to defeat Lenglen in mixed doubles at Cannes in windy conditions" - should probably say who the partners were
    • "was also a rematch of the previous year's final" - should probably drop the "also", as it's a bit repetitive
      • It refers to the fact that both the singles and doubles finals were rematches. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "only losing three games" - not sure why, but I feel like "losing only" is more formal than "only losing". There are quite a few examples of this, so maybe go through and change them all.
    • "after their opponents withdrew prior to the match" - I assume "the match" means a bronze-medal playoff, but probably worth clarifying
  • More to follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only singles defeat post-World War I:
    • No issues with this section at all, looks great.
  • Start of 179-match win streak:
    • "and only lost twelve points" - change to "and lost only twelve points"? Not sure why, but as above this rings better.
    • "who had defaulted against her in the United States" - wondering if this is really necessary here... we know that she defaulted from above, and it's not directly relevant to Lenglen's easy win the following year. Up to you though.
    • "to end Lenglen's amateur career" - this sounds slightly odd, as if it was the streak which ended her career. Could maybe consider "which lasted for the remainder of he amateur career" or similar.
      • Changed to "This tournament began a 179-match win streak that Lenglen continued through the end of her amateur career". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1923: Career-best 45 titles:
    • "with a mixed doubles loss to Ryan and Lycett" - I don't think we know who her partner was in this event?
    • "She faced the most adversity in the final" - in which event? Presumably the singles, but should say so.
    • "However, while partnering with Jean Washer, she was defeated ..." - again, clarify the event. Guessing mixed doubles.
  • 1924: No major titles:
    • "she also did not win a major tournament in a year where majors were held for the first time since 1913" - the wording here is quite confusing. Initially I thought this was saying that there had been no major tournaments played since 1913, and it was only when I noticed that this did not tally with the mention of Wimbledon in previous paragraphs that I figured out the real meaning!
      • Changed to "she also did not win a major tournament for the first time since 1913 aside from her hiatus due to World War I" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1925: Open French champion
    • The lead uses the terminology "Open French champion", but the body does not use this exact term. Presumably "open" means open to international players in this context (in contrast to the now-replaced usage of open to mean a non-handicap event earlier in the article). Maybe match up the title and the wording in the body somehow?
      • I changed the "non-handicap" from "open" to "standard" above because I don't think "open" is actually used that way. "open" is commonly used to indicate "open to internationals". I was hoping that was clear from "the inaugural edition open to international players". The title is really "open French champion", but the "open" is capitalized because it's the first word. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1926: Match of the Century
    • "retiring" - is this the correct terminology? Moving from amateur to prefessional wouldn't seem like a retirement to me, but I guess if that's what everyone says...
      • I think it's fair to say "retiring from amateur tennis to professional", just as one might "retire from professional tennis to become a coach" today. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After the linesman clarified the shot was good and a delay of at least several minutes to clear the court" - the two parts of this conjunction seem to be a verb and a noun respectively, which doesn't sound correct. Probably best to change to "After the linesman's clarification that the shot was good and a delay..."
    • "Wills's season was cut short when she needed to have her appendix removed following her second round victory at the French Championships"
  • More to follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • United States tour (1926-27):
    • "an offer of 200,000 francs to turn professional in America" - (1) this should probably be either "the US" or "the United States"; (2) is there a reason why she was offered a francs contract the previous time, but a $ contract this time?
      • First part done. Second part: it was a different person making the offer. / I am following the book. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The singles matches were almost best-of-three sets" - should this be "almost all"?
    • "after Lenglen became ill and had decided to play" - mixture of tenses here... should be either "after Lenglen had become ill and decided to play..." or "after Lenglan became ill and decided to play..."
      • Changed to "where Lenglen had decided to play just a one set match in spite of being ill to avoid disappointing the fans" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "an attendance of 13000" - should have a comma in the number as it's five digits per MOS:DIGITS. Ditto "10000".
      • Done.
    • "from ticket sales between $1.50 and $5.50" - doesn't seem to quite scan. Maybe change to "sales of tickets priced at" or similar.
      • Done.
  • British tour (1927):
  • Aftermath:
    • "Lenglen was widely criticized for her decision to turn professional" - this seems to be a case of WP:WEASEL, as this wide criticism is not attributed to anyone. Can we give some examples of who criticised her?
      • The next sentence is meant to be the two main examples. Do you think that is clear? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, that's OK then.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "criticized" - British English does actually optionally allow for "-ize" endings, but it should be consistent. Further down the article I see "organised" and "organising", so make it consistent one way or the other.
    • "Paul Féret was reinstated"- just Féret will do, as we already introduced him further up and referred to him as Féret already as well.
  • Lenglen vs. Mallory:
    • "The strengths of her game were..." - whom does this refer to, Lenglen or Mallory?
    • "When they first faced each other in the final of the 1921 World Hard Court Championships" - think there should be a comma after "other", as I think they only met in the 1921 final once 😊
    • "Unlike in their previous match" - previous sentenced started "Like..." which makes this sound slightly repetitive.
      • I did that deliberately to highlight the contrast. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I see now. It didn't quite read that way when I saw it at first... Could we do "But unlike..." in the second part?  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Her health prevented them from playing doubles together at the tournament" - again, is this Mallory or Lenglen, and was there a real prospect of their playing together? The last sentence of the previous paragraph talks of them playing against each other at doubles.
      • Yes, they had entered the doubles together. Clarified. (I originally had it in the 1921 section also, but removed it.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lenglen and Ryan:
    • Is there a reason this sub-section uses "and", whereas the previous one uses "vs."?
      • Yes, it also talks about what they accomplished together as doubles partners. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "at a handicap event at Monte Carlo" - "in Monte Carlo" might work better to avoid repetition of "at"
    • "twentieth such title" - since we say "19" in digits in the prior sentence, might be better to say "20th" here.
    • "third greatest female player" - probably insert a hyphen in "third-greatest"
  • OK, will pause again there. This is a long article to get through! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes:
    • (d) - we've said "U.S." elsewhere rather than "US" so make it consistent.
  • Playing style:
    • "Elizabeth Ryan described her style of play as, "[Lenglen] owned every kind of shot..." - this doesn't seem to quite scan "Lenglen owned every kind of shot" isn't really a style of play. You'd expect an adjective to appear after "as". Maybe rephrase slightly so that the quote stands by itself.
      • Changed to "Elizabeth Ryan described the skill in her style of play, saying," Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "topspin" - is there a link available?
    • "backhand" - ditto
  • Achievements:
    • "highlighted by a" - maybe just "with a"... not sure if the singles record "highlights" the overall record, particularly as they're both in the high 90s
      • Changed to "She compiled a win percentage of 97.9% win percentage in singles and had a win percentage of 96.9% across all disciplines. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "287 of 288 matches" - I think this is singles only, right? Maybe clarify
    • "Maureen Connolly" - already linked her above. Margaret Court too.
  • Mythical persona:
    • "10000" - comma as it's a five-figure number
    • "She was known for a story ... It was said that ..." - these things should probably be attributed.
      • It's meant to be part of the story. (It's unclear how much of it is real.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Fashion:

    • "that other players had been preferred before her time" - doesn't scan, needs a grammar tweak I think
  • Honours:
    • "Cross of the Legion of Honour" - is there a link for this?
  • Personal life:
    • "advice on tactics for beginning tennis players" - maybe "beginner"?
    • "on what was need" - should be "needed"
  • I think that's about it! Good read all round, and very informative, thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for getting through all of it!! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a problem, I actually didn't know that much about Lenglen so it's been fun reading about her. Thanks for all the fixes above! I'm still not mad keen on the use of "proper" here but that's just me I guess, and not enough to derail an otherwise excellent nom. Happy to support. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder for TRM edit

Nice work, I'll add some comments in due course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for more than four weeks and has only one support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it picks up more interest over the next two or three days it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would the support(s) and review(s) carry over if they were completed and I need to renominate? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. Although my experience is that reviewers are happy to re-review - they don't like to see their initial review "wasted". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am regretfully archiving this. After nearly five weeks it has attracted little interest. The two weeks wait before renomination will not apply. However, Sportsfan77777 can I suggest having some willing, and preferably experienced, reviewers lined up when it next appears here. Call in some favours, or perhaps do a few more FAC reviews to accumulate some favours.
Okay, thanks for waving the two-week requirement! I'll try to find reviewers. I've done that before (and it's worked), but I didn't do it this time because I'm not really in any rush. (I don't have anything else to nominate.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 January 2021 [13].

1992 Football League Second Division play-off Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some might say this match was the beginning of a new era in English football. A very rich man became a majority shareholder in an unfashionable yet historic club, convinced a Scottish footballing legend to come out of retirement to manage them, spent millions on players and got promoted into this new-fangled ventured called the Premier League. But they weren't finished. Three seasons later they were the champions of England. This isn't where the story began, and certainly not where ended, but it's a pivotal moment in the history of the most-watched football league on the planet, and something which is as unlikely as the Foxes winning the league.... As ever, my utmost attention will be paid to each and every comment, and as Cloughie said about disagreements: "We talk about it for twenty minutes and then we decide I was right." Thanks in advance for any and all interest in this candidate! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller edit

Big fat placeholder. I'll be bigly and fatly commenting here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from WA8MTWAYC edit

Ugh, I don't like the outcome of the match, but this article is great. Some comments from me.

WA8MTWAYC thanks very much for your comments, I've addressed them and/or responded to them all above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please withdraw the nomination. The snarky back-channel emailing and biting has taken its toll, the establishment wins. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 January 2021 [14].

Willie Mays edit

Nominator(s): Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Willie Mays, one of the greatest and most famous Major League Baseball players of all time. I've put a lot of work into this to get it from a lower-quality B Class article to GA status. A recent peer review suggested it was too long, so I've cut it down from over 13,000 words to 8,500 in response. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia edit

I will review as I find time; meanwhile, please see this comment on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SFgiants17, this article is impressively researched and reflects a lot of work, and you did just what reviewers suggested at the Peer review by trimming the article to gain more focus. With that said, I don't think the article is quite ready for FAC. Another route might have been to seek further input from the people who engaged at Peer review before launching the FAC. The prose could still benefit from a good bit of fine-tuning, which can be accomplished more efficiently and pleasurably without the time pressure of a FAC, where reviewers may be reluctant to engage if they have to keep revisiting to strike issues resolved (see User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content for my suggested approach to FAC ... for one of the great greats, there are a good number of baseball writers who would probably be willing to help, if given time).
Here are just a few samples where some prose gurus might help:
  • The first sentence is labored/lengthy: Willie Howard Mays Jr. (born May 6, 1931), nicknamed "The Say Hey Kid",[a] is an American former professional baseball center fielder, who spent almost all of his 22-season Major League Baseball (MLB) career playing for the New York/San Francisco Giants, before returning to New York City to finish his career with the New York Mets.
  • Mays was raised by his father and two girls, or his father raised Mays and two girls? Mays was raised by his father,[10] as well as two girls named Sarah and Ernestine.
  • It's not clear why the opinion of a high school coach is worthy of inclusion: His coach, Jim McWilliams, said Mays was "the greatest forward passer I ever saw," and Mays drew comparisons to Harry Gilmer in a local newspaper.
  • where does the quote end ? Though he turned 18 in 1949, Mays did not graduate from Fairfield until 1950, which Barra calls "a minor mystery in Willie's life.
  • Teammate of Mays or his father ? Later that year, Mays joined the Birmingham Black Barons of the Negro American League, managed by Piper Davis a former teammate with Mays' father on the industrial team.
  • Mays is the godfather of Barry Bonds, whose father was a friend of his when they were Giants teammates. Golf was a hobby of Mays's, though he was unable to continue it (or drive a car) after 2005 because of glaucoma.

These are samples; we could go line-by-line on this FAC to polish the prose, but I believe a faster route would be to engage experienced baseball editors like @Wehwalt, Therapyisgood, and Giants2008: on a new peer review where there is less pressure. You've done the hardest work already (sourcing and putting it all on the page), but the kind of polish that is needed will make for a very long FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

@SandyGeorgia: I don't mind addressing comments here, but you're probably right that reviewers might be reluctant to give it that much attention. Would you recommend that I withdraw this nomination now and seek their help in a new peer review? Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my recommendation, but I am also hoping that one of the three editors I pinged will have a look to offer an opinion on whether this can be addressing at FAC, or is better approached off FAC. One of the could have a different opinion than mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll await their opinion, then. Also, the comments you listed above took less than five minutes to address; I have fixed them. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Source review by Ealdgyth edit

Nomination Withdrawn edit

It seems, based upon the feedback I have gotten, that the next step in improving the article is to solicit more feedback from experienced editors in another peer review. Therefore, I am withdrawing the nomination at this time, as I wish to get back to work on this article. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. The usual two week wait will not apply. Good look with your further work on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 January 2021 [15].

Lê Thánh Tông edit

Nominator(s): Laska666 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Vietnamese king Le Thanh Ton, the last "great" king of classical Southeast Asia. Laska666 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

(t · c) buidhe 00:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI, the editor was recently reported at ANI[16] (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal I would suggest taking this article through the good article process and/or seeking a peer review as a first step; unfortunately at the moment the article seems to be well off the FA criteria. Some specific concerns:

  • Given the length of the article as a whole the lead should be considerably longer
  • Some areas are lacking citations, for example the second paragraph of Early life
  • Style problems, including inline external link, hyphens used where dashes should be, repeated wikilinks, etc
  • Issues with neutrality of phrasing, for example in the statement that "The luxury of spending the energy of his youth in study made him the most erudite man of his generation". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps because this sentence is word for word the same as the source. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild edit

Per Nikkimaria I don't think that this is yet ready for FAC. As well as the issues identified above, there is:

  • A lot of duplinking.
  • On the only source I checked, uncomfortably close paraphrasing. "In 1470 Thánh Tông issued a edict against people shaving their heads unless they were legitimate Buddhist monks or temple wardens suggests a suspicion of people seeking to impersonate temple dwellers to avoid field work. Despite this seeming inclination to curb the activities of monks and priests, in 1467, amidst an invasion of crop-destroying insects, the king sent Daoist priests to exercise their occult powers against the calamity; he also ordered that sacrifices be made to "all the deities" to stop the infestation." against the source.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Hog Farm edit

I found the same copyright violations as Gog, to the extent that I almost wonder if "copying and pasting" is a better phrase for that than "close paraphrasing". These copyright violations need cleaned up before the article is taken to FAC. FAC is supposed to be for articles that are ready, not ones that have significant issues. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've removed a ton of copyvio - direct copying from GBooks sources - and have listed the article at WP:Copyright problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - Thanks for doing that. Although my oppose still stands, as I think if an article has to actively be listed at copyright problems, it shouldn't be at FAC. Hog Farm Talk 05:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Archiving per above -- I'd suggest Peer Review or looking at the FAC mentoring scheme before considering another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 January 2021 [17].

The Keys to the White House edit

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a prediction system for US presidential elections. It has been peer-reviewed and no major problems were found. So I am now submitting it for FA consideration. Kurzon (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I asked UCLA for a free image of Keilis-Borok and they gave me it. I told them to contact the Commons OTRS to confirm the release, they haven't done it yet. Kurzon (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, either that needs to be confirmed or removed before the article is promoted. (t · c) buidhe 17:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

Hi Kurzon, I am very interested in American politics so I am familiar with this theory. After reviewing the article, I do not think it is ready for FAC yet. Some of my concerns are a very short lede, not enough sources to verify the information (as 12/20 of the sources are Lichtman, who is the creator of the theory), and an extremely short criticism section (that can be expanded as "Reception" to include positive reviews of the theory). I suggest that more sources are referenced and more information is added. I also suggest that this article is nominated for good article status before it is brought back to FAC. Good Article criteria is easier to achieve and considered a "step" towards Featured Article status. Please post below or on my talk page if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- premature nom, per issues noted above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 January 2021 [18].

Project A119 edit

Nominator(s): Thanoscar21talkcontributions 21:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the plan to drop a nuclear bomb on the moon. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 21:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi Thanoscar21. You appear to have made only 1% of the total edits to this article, which goes against the FAC instructions that nominators should be main editors of the article in question. That said, I note the two top contributors, Grapple X and Boundarylayer, haven't been active on WP for a while. Nonetheless I'd be dubious about allowing this nom to continue -- do you have access to all the sources used in article? My thought ATM is it would be better if we dropped this nom for a while and you perhaps teamed up with Hawkeye7, who's made more edits than yourself here and is familiar with this sort of subject. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, sorry, I must have missed that! I'll drop this, can you close it? Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontributions 22:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to co-sponsor the article. It was Grapple X's project. As far as we could tell, the article contains everything about the project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, I'm going to remove my name and add yours, if that's okay with you. You can add your sigs once you see this. Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontributions 22:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do that! I can only co-sponsor a nomination. I cannot be the sole nominator because I already have another article at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right then, I'll just strike it out and withdraw my nomination. Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontributions 23:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, maybe you can work out a co-nom in future, or else save this one for a solo nom down the track, but will archive for now at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

List of awards and nominations received by BoJack Horseman edit

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that the article is well-written, comprehensive, and has everything needed for a list-article to pass the FL-criteria. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry. You've got it over there now, and @FAC coordinators: will close this one soon, as the real work will take place at the FLC nomination. Hog Farm Talk 00:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2021 [19].

Typhoon Jebi (2018) edit

Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the costliest typhoons in Japan's history. Jebi caused powerful winds and heavy rain over a large swath of Japan, causing widespread damage to infrastructure and power outages. Notably, it shut down Osaka's Kansai International Airport by partially flooding it with storm surge and cutting it off from the mainland by damaging the single access bridge. Jebi was part of a sequence of natural disasters that significantly impacted Japan in the third quarter of 2018, coming after floods in July and succeeded by an earthquake and another typhoon. Note: I have no proficiency in Japanese and relied a lot on manipulating machine translations to make sense of and locate Japanese sources; I believe the translations are accurate enough and have in some instances double-checked with a friend that can read Japanese. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Typhoon Jebi (2018)/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah edit

Will review the new and improved article sometime in the next few days. Would appreciate a review for Michael's Met if you are able to. NoahTalk 14:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Typhoon Jebi, known in Japan as Typhoon Number 21[1] and in the Philippines as Typhoon Maymay, was the costliest typhoon in Japan's history in terms of insured losses and the strongest to make landfall in the country since Yancy in 1993. This is a lot for one sentence.
  • became the twenty-first named storm of the 2018 Pacific typhoon season on August 27 This needs a source.
    • I added it to the Meteorological History and sourced it there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • significant impacts occurred across the Kansai region probably need a better word to describe this since it was only one impact throughout the area
  • larger second eyewall --> larger, secondary eyewall
  • midlatitude should be hyphenated
  • Check your usages of then and also; I learned from Sandy that most are just fluff.
  • issuance of a typhoon warning for the islands link to TC warnings/watches page
  • Matsumoto, Nagano was destroyed missing a comma
This was what I found. NoahTalk 03:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: should be done with those. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Hurricanehink edit

  • Are there impacts for the Russian Far East? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found some sources in Russian but am presently uncertain whether they can be considered RSes. I'll do a little more digging and see what else I can find. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources I've found (Izvestia, RBC, Vesti, Rossiyskaya Gazeta) all appear to be state-owned or state-linked (but such is most Russian-language media). English sources don't cover impact in Russia at all - it appears to have been greatly overshadowed by impact in Japan. Given this is an apolitical subject I'm less skeptical of state-owned/linked media than usual, but I would prefer some confirmation before going ahead and adding them to the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Would you be able to give a full review? I would hate to see this fail solely due to lack of reviews. NoahTalk 19:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Should "named storm" be linked?
  • "and made landfalls over Shikoku and near Kobe early on September 4" - given that Shikoku is an island, and Kobe is a city (but only the 7th largest), I felt like they should both be the island listed (so central Honshu instead of "near Kobe").
  • "Jebi was the strongest typhoon to make landfall in Japan since Yancy in 1993 and left significant effects across the Kansai region. " - the first part of the sentence talks about the entire nation, but the second part focuses only on a certain part. Then, you talk about the wind records. I suggest reordering the 2nd lead paragraph
  • "Heavy swells produced by Jebi caused large waves along the coast of Taiwan that resulted in seven fatalities (including a suspected suicide) from September 2 to 3. " - I think the wording could be stronger
MH
  • You give a note for JMA, but not JTWC. How come?

More later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be an aftermath section. Right now, there are maybe two sentences. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from LightandDark2000 edit

The article looks good to go, for the most part. I'm planning to give this one a full review within a week. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article states that Jebi caused US$13–14 billion in insured losses. Is there a more recent damage estimate for the overall damage? I'd like to know how much more damage the storm actually caused, especially when compared to Typhoon Hagibis. However, I won't make this one a requirement if no such reports are out there.
  • and left nearly 3 million customers without electricity after blowing down power lines. For how long? I'd like the length of time to be included, if possible.
  • The JTWC similarly upgraded the system six hours later. Since both the JMA and the JTWC use different classification systems, you might want to mention that the JTWC upgraded the system to tropical storm status.
  • The JTWC analyzed that Jebi intensified into a super typhoon by 18:00 UTC on August 30 with winds of 260 km/h (160 mph), In the note, you should also mention that this is equivalent to a strong Category 4 hurricane or stronger on the SSHWS scale. And maybe also specify that Jebi became a Category 5-equivalent super typhoon in the prose.
  • The cycle completed by 21:00 UTC on August 31 while Jebi began to curve northward through a weakness in the subtropical ridge. Add a comma after "August 31". It currently reads like a run-on.
  • began to accelerate Jebi north-northeast, change "north-northeast" to "north-northeastward".
  • Jebi's remnants actually dissipated on September 9. Maybe mention that Jebi was tracked by the JTWC until September 9, and cite the JTWC's track data, if necessary (in the absence of other sources).
  • an elderly man in Kawagoe was injured when he was blown over by a strong gust and a woman was hit by a flying object. Add a comma after "strong gust".
  • and the previously flooded runway reopened on September 14. Change "previously flooded" to "previously-flooded".
  • Link Typhoon Cimaron in the article prose.
  • Strong winds collapsed the roofs of a school and kindergarten; at the former, the falling roof fractured a girl's ankle. I assume that "kidergarten" here refers to the girl. If this is the case, please change "kindergarten" to "kindergartener", since the term is incorrectly used as it is right now.
  • impacted Japan in October and became one of the costliest typhoons on record This is in the "See also" section. Change "October" to "October 2019", because Hagibis did not strike Japan in the same year as Jebi.

These are all of the issues that I've managed to identify during my first read-through of the article. Overall, it is very solid and likely on the cusp of FA status. However, I would like to see the issues resolved before formally lending my support for an FA promotion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Cyclonebiskit edit

On the whole there has been a great amount of work put into this article, but it's still severely lacking in content. There has to be more information on aftermath and recovery efforts given the breadth of damage across Japan. From skimming the article, I see only two sentences relating to national aftermath and plus information on the Kansai International Airport. Further, I don't really see any damage information from Shikoku (where Jebi first made landfall) though this may be due to the bulk of impact being to the east. Given the significant amount of missing content, this article is still below FA status and should not have passed GAN. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done

  • I'm seeing some scholarly literature that hasn't been included, eg this or this - can you comment on the search/selection strategy?
  • Infobox should specify that damage estimate is Japan only
  • Some of the See also entries warrant citing
  • What makes XE.com a high-quality reliable source? tenki.jp? Artemis? BIGLOBE? Jiji? Geosciences?
  • FN31 date is incorrect
  • FN53 doesn't match author formatting of other sources
  • FN54 is missing agency credit. Ditto FN87, check for others
  • FN68: author doesn't match source

Also wondering: why did a Japanese organization assign a Korean name? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review this.

  • There are a lot of dup links.
  • "broke wind records at 100 Japanese weather stations". Exactly 100 weather stations?
  • "nearly 3 million customers without electricity". I think that they would be better described as 'people' than "customers".
  • Assuming the source says customers (haven't checked), this should not be changed to people - one customer may represent a household of multiple people. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the adverse weather conditions". This can perhaps be taken as read? Optional: delete.
  • "affected the storage of livestock". Are livestock stored?
  • "Storm surge inundated part of Kansai International Airport". Either 'A storm surge', or 'Storm surges'.
  • "The JTWC analyzed that Jebi intensified". That is not grammatical. Perhaps 'The JTWC analysis suggested that Jebi intensified' or similar.
  • Link super typhoon.
  • "Racing poleward". Racing seems unencyclopedic and inappropriate. And are there figures for how fast it was moving?
  • "before later declaring it post-tropical". One of "before" and "when" is redundant.
  • "while heavy rains and storm surge flooded". Either 'storm surges', or 'the storm surge'.
  • "which was significantly higher than the previous record set by Typhoon Cimaron just 12 days earlier" Which was?
  • "The maximum storm surge produced by Jebi was 3.29 m (10.8 ft) in Osaka, surpassing the previous record of 2.93 m (9.6 ft) from the 2nd Muroto Typhoon (Typhoon Nancy) in 1961." Surpassing the previous record at that one location, or setting a new, all-Japan record?
  • "with Chubu Electric Power reporting 695,320 blackouts". I am unsure what this means. Is it that 695,320 people (or househplds, or customers) lost electricity due to one blackout?
  • "Numerous incidents resulted from Jebi's high winds and heavy rain." This seems redundant to me. Optional: delete.
  • The paragraph which starts with "Numerous incidents resulted ..." is very long. Suggest splitting.
  • "at least five more people in the eponymous prefecture". "eponymous" is not the correct word. Suggest 'same'.
  • Link coastal defenses.

This looks to be in good shape. Unlike Cyclonebiskit I am unconcerned by the paucity of information on recovery efforts; that seems to me to be at least arguably outside the scope of the article. I would however be interested to hear why there is so little information on the damage at Shikoku. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: information on aftermath/recovery relating to tropical cyclones has been a staple of these articles since the project began as far as I'm aware (definitely since I joined in 2007). It's an essential part of completely covering the topic. In some cases, the aftermath of a tropical cyclone is more significant than the initial impact in some areas (re: Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyclonebiskit. This is, I think, only the second storm article I have reviewed (from over 200 FAC reviews) but it seems to me to cover "Typhoon Jebi (2018)" perfectly well. A lot of detail on the aftermath may even have me objecting that it fails to stay "focused on the main topic" (criterion 4) - but that is hypothetical. I can see that the aftermath is going to be more important from a human perspective than the storm, which otherwise is just weather. But that, it seems to me is either a separate article, Aftermath of Typhoon Jebi (2018), or, if combined, in need of renaming Typhoon Jebi (2018) and its aftermath. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:, having an aftermath is pretty standard for tropical cyclone articles. See Typhoon Rusa and Typhoon Maemi. Having an aftermath would be a content fork, unless there was so much to cover (such as Reconstruction of New Orleans). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

coord note with two opposes I'm going to say that it needs to be worked out on the talk page rather than here. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 January 2021 [20].

2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) edit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd Armoured Division was formed in 1939 in the UK, and was built up over the course of 1940. While at home, it was assigned to a counter-attack role to any potential invasion of the UK. It then departed for Egypt, and had a substantial portion of its forces reassigned after arrival. The remnant of the division drove across land to Libya, suffering numerous mechanical breakdowns en-route. Shortly after establishing a presence on the frontline, Erwin Rommel launched his first offensive in Africa. This swept Allied forces from Libya, with the exception of Tobruk, and back into Egypt destroying the division in the process. Due to logistical, mechanical, and command difficulties, the historical consensus is that the division stood little chance to stop Rommel. The article has previously been worked on by the GOCE, and has passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

image review edit

  • Possible to increase the text size on the maps?
  • File:British_2nd_Armoured_Division.svg: what's the date of the design's creation? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for looking over the images and maps.
    I have updated the template for the insignia and placed a year of design as c.1940. The divisional HQ was formed in late 1939, and troops were not assigned until the following year. Based off the wording used by Chappell, the insignia was adopted prior to the division leaving for Egypt in late 1940.
    As for the maps, I have played around with them some. Do the tweaks work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not super thrilled with the maps - perhaps someone at the lab could help? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, hopefully there will be an answer before this FAN comes to an end.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this - File:AfricaMap2.jpg - of any use? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Map Workshop was not able to assist over the last few weeks, so I have removed that request. The map that Gog indicate, I have updated and used.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

I reviewed this at GA and believe that it meets the Featured Article standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

Hi EnigmaMcmxc, as I have reviewed and contributed to "your" articles before, I intend to simply make many of the changes which I would normally laboriously write out as suggestions. But if there is anything you don't like or don't understand feel entirely free to revert and post the diff for discussion. If you would prefer a more "traditional" style of review, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the division was deprived of forces for a short while". I am not entirely sure what you mean by "forces". Sub units?
    Yes, and I have made a tweakEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forced to make do with leftovers". Is there a more encyclopedic way of phrasing this?
    Tweaks have been made, do they work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division arrived in Egypt in December 1940 and was stripped to support Operation Lustre, an expeditionary force to Greece. The rest of the division moved". Possibly a little more detail here of which sub units were transferred to what?
    I have made changes, do these work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that the quote commencing "'tank-heavy' … with too few ...", being well over 40 words (54),should be in a block quote.
  • "According to French, this thinking predominated". Which? You have just listed two.
  • "in the Panzerwaffe (Tank Arm)". 1. Why use a foreign language phrase? 2. Suggest dropping this phrase, the "German counterparts" of the "the British armoured formations" hardly seems to need explanation.
  • "The issue was broached a month later". Do you mean 'broached again'?
  • "Following the outbreak of the war". As this is its first mention I would suggest stating when it started, and perhaps even naming it.
  • "the 1st Light Armoured Brigade comprised four armoured regiments". But you then list three.
  • "The division had 77 Vickers light tanks". Between the seven brigades? So the Heavy and Light Brigades were similarly equipped?
  • "the 2nd Armoured Division had to make do with what remained." Do the sources give any further detail on this?
    Evans is used to source the political embarrassment part of those sentences. I do not have access to Hughes, Broshot & Philson, and this was a left-over the prior version of the article prior to my expansion of it. Based off the existing wording and other sourced context, I have reworded.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the division had 17 new Cruiser tanks". Optional: explain what a cruiser tank is.
  • "the 102nd (Northumberland Hussars) converted to being solely an anti-tank unit." Does "soley" add anything?
  • "had the strength of a brigade group". Perhaps give an idea in line of how this compared with a division, for the uninitiated?
  • "had to rely on overland routes from Tobruk". Possibly give an idea of how far this was in miles?
  • "Once operations got underway, Neame also predicted the 2nd Armoured Division's tank numbers would rapidly dwindle due to breakdowns." Should this be 'Neame also predicted that once operations got underway, the 2nd Armoured Division's tank numbers would rapidly dwindle due to breakdowns'?
  • "The British underestimated the scope of Axis reinforcements". What does "scope" mean? Size?
  • "and preparations closing in on El Agheila". How can preparations close in?
  • The "March" section has a map - which is not up to FA standard - which seems to lack a caption/key.
  • "at least eight tanks in return". Is it not known how many tanks were claimed?
    Jentz quotes British and German records at length. This particular sentence is sourced to the British after action report that stated "The ranges given by Tank Commanders in their fire orders varied from 900 to 1500 yards, and at least 8 enemy tanks are claimed to have been put out of action by our surviving gunners." Jentz indicates that the German records only show three tanks knocked out, and an unknown number damaged.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several instances where the accuracy of conversions seems to me to be spurious. Eg "900–1,500 yards (820–1,370 metres)" or "2 miles (3.2 kilometres)".
    I am not sure if I am following here. The miles to km appears to be the correct calculation: roughly mi/5 then *8. As for the yards, the convert template appears to have rounded slightly. I have added an extra component of the template to remove the default rounding, which brings the figures to 900–1,500 yards (823–1,372 metres) instead. I have added this same part to most of the other templates to provide more accuracy for the mi-km conversion, epeically over larger distances.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These figures exclude 6RTR, who had abandoned all of their M13s". 1. It should be the 6RTR. 2. If 6RTR had abandoned all of its tanks, why does the total exclude them?
  • "and omitted the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade" I am not sure what "omitted" means in this context?
  • "Following the new instructions". Should "the" be deleted?
  • "the main coastal road". "main" suggests another (non-main) road. If there wasn't one, "main" isn't necessary.

I have got as far as the start of "Demise" and am going to pause. See what you think of the copy edits and the above and I will have another look. My thoughts at the moment, which are subject to change, is that this is a basically solid article which isn't quite there yet. Specifically:

  • The prose is choppy, sometimes unclear, and tends to change tense. (I was surprised, just, to discover that it had gone through GoCE; I was going to recommend that.)
  • It needs a map showing just the relevant area of Libya with all, or nearly all, of hte places mentioned in the text on.
  • Most of "Axis offensive" is, to my mind, written in too much detail. It could do with boiling down to 50-70% of the current wordage.
  • There are little inconsistencies - eg, every unit name should have "the" in front of it - and occasional words or phrases which seem unclear.

So I am currently leaning oppose. Nothing which can't be fixed, but possibly not during this FAC nomination. But let's see if I can be pleasantly surprised. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and review. I have started working on the points that you have raised. I will take a longer in-depth look through the article too to tweak out some of the minor inconsistencies that you pointed out. Would you suggest another GoCE pass, in addition?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am plodding my way through the article. Lets revisit in a day or two :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest doing what you are doing. Work through my points, where you agree check to see if they apply more generally. Trawl through the article with the more general points I made in mind, and see if any others spring out at you. Once that is done, and it is a job and a half, I'll have another proper read through and let you know what I think. Does that work for you? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked through the article, copyedited for tense, consistency, and to cut out the fluff. I have also attempted to address the various points that you raised above, at the same time. I have also left a few comments for specifics.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demise onwards
  • "and both were refused" → 'and both demands were refused'.
  • Was "Cyrenaica Command" the formal and official title?
  • "He was informed that the rest of his division nor any other force" → 'He was informed that neither the rest of his division nor any other force'.
  • "and supplemented by infantry". Perhaps 'supported' rather than "supplemented".
  • "Demise": IMO the second paragraph is unnecessarily detailed.


  • "at what great risk and cost had these tanks been shipped across the seas from England to the Middle East! Churchill's courage, energy and determination in sending munitions to Wavell had been frustrated because others failed to ensure that the equipment sent was at least battle-worthy". Being over 40 words, this should probably be a block quote.
  • "this division had not, in fact, had an opportunity for adequate training as a team. It was a collection of units, three of which had only joined shortly before the action, rather than a trained formation. The breakdown in control and administration was largely due to this fact". Similarly.
  • Noting the further quotes in this section, can I point out MOS:QUOTE: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
  • "the disaster that overtook [the division] was in part caused by the fact that it had no railhead and could not be provided with sufficient motor transport to enable it to build up a sufficient reserve of supplies some 350 miles (563 km) from the nearest base" - block quote.
  • "350 miles (563 km)". Seems false precision to me.
  • "(Died on 5 January 1941)"; "(captured, 8 April 1941)": one starts with an upper case, the other doesn't; inconsistent style (either would be acceptable).
  • Note e: add "tanks to the end.
  • There are several hyphens in page ranges where there should be en dashes.
  • Where more than one page is cited, use 'pp.', not "p".
  • Playfair 2004a and 2004b both lack publisher locations.

I am afraid that I am leaning oppose more than ever. The lack of interest from other reviewers may mean that I do not have to formally declare, but IMO this still needs attention to some basic details, a copy edit, a (further) serious trim, and several quotations largely or wholly rendered in Wikipedia's voice. None of these are individually fatal, but together they start to indicate a nomination not quite ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand if this will fail this time around, and greatly appreciate the above comments and your overall opinion. I will, in the coming days, on the points that you have raised. When my current C/E request gets worked, I will put this article up for another FAN c/e pass (although that may be some time, and this will potentially fail in the meantime).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are waiting for a GoCE Requests slot, you are allowed to have two up at a time, so if that is the case I would suggest withdrawing this, putting in a GoCE request, perhaps flagging up the diff of my summary comment above[?] and getting on with what other work you can do on it yourself. When you re-nominate, I would be happy to have another look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. I have entered a GOCE request to have the article worked on. I have looked through the FAN page, but I am failing to see how to withdrawn this request. I feel like I have done that before, but I am failing to see how at the moment. Is it possible to assist in withdrawing this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You ask the coordinators. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination has ben withdrawn at the nominator's request with no opposes, and so may be re-nominated at any time. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 January 2021 [21].

Hurricane Bud (2018) edit

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first land-impacting Category 4 hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. Through some digging, I found the storm had done a decent bit of damage in Mexico. NoahTalk 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images edit

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 20:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Destroyeraa edit

  • These two sentences - "Bud originated from a tropical wave that departed from western Africa on May 29. It traveled across the Atlantic Ocean before entering the Northeast Pacific Ocean late on June 6." - can be combined. Something like "Bud originated from a tropical wave that departed from west Africa on May 29, traversing the Atlantic Ocean before entering the Northeast Pacific Ocean on June 6."
  • This doesn't sound right to me and would be rather lengthy. NoahTalk 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, west Africa → West Africa. It's a proper noun of a subregion.

Some additional comments:

  • The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first forecast on June 4 that a low-pressure area could form during the next several days. Where? You mentioned the tropical Atlantic above that but the source says in the EPac.
  • the NHC forecast a near 100 percent chance of development while the system was around 400 mi (645 km) south of Acapulco, Mexico. I'm not sure if this is worthy of inclusion. We don't want to get too specific about what the NHC does.
  • Cut that out and merged in the next sentence. NoahTalk 13:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention "Bud" too much in the MH. Try to replace some of those with "the storm" or "the hurricane."
  • This should be better now. NoahTalk 13:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 20:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Good to go. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 15:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  • The infobox gives a damage figure of "> $167,600". The lead states this figure is specifically at one particular mall. The text provides figures that add up to that number from specific stores, but notes that "Total damage from the storm in the Plaza Patria mall is unknown". Given that context, I don't think the phrasing in the lead is appropriate, nor do I think this figure should be included in the infobox. Sure we know that the damage was at least that much - but given the scale of what is not included, that could mean anything. (Also are there no sources that provide any other damage figures?)
  • I will just remove the field entirely per off-wiki chatter and change the lead to have a general statement for that damage. There really aren't sources for damage totals in third world countries unless the storm "beats the hell" out of them. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead further states that "At least 100 additional structures were flooded in the city [of Guadalajara]". The text counts over 100 structures damaged, but damaged doesn't necessarily mean flooded
  • Source mentions affected by flooding or something similar, but affected could honestly mean anything so I changed the lead. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says 90 passengers were evacuated from a train, text says from a station - which is correct?
  • The train was trapped in the station by the floodwater according to the sources, but it isn't really necessary to mention being rescued from the flooded train and then taken out of the station. Removed mention of the station. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says "More than 60 homes in Maruata, Michoacan, had roof damage". However, the text says more than 60 homes were damaged, and of those "most" had roof damage - those claims aren't the same
  • Text is correct. Replaced the roof damage with wind and flood damage. NoahTalk 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says the storm "slowed the growth of wildfires in the Southwestern United States". The text mentions two fires, only one of which is in that area.
  • Mentioned the two states instead. NoahTalk 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do preparations at the Marquis Los Cabos hotel in particular warrant mention?
  • It's really the only preparations that could be found for the city where the storm made landfall. I can remove it if you find it frivolous. NoahTalk 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flash flood watches were issued for parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and southwestern Colorado." - the source supports the latter two, but I don't see mention of such watches in Arizona, nor do they appear on the map shown
  • Removed Arizona from this spot. NoahTalk 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given these issues, I'd like to see someone spotcheck the Spanish-language sources (which unfortunately I'm not able to do) before striking my oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the lead accuracy issues for MX sources appear to be sloppiness on my part when writing it up. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I think everything is fixed. (Note that I support making Hurricane Bud (2018) FA) MarioJump83! 12:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioJump83: I have asked for the sources to be checked with the utmost scrutiny, which is what Nikki wanted. She won't consider lifting her oppose until after that occurs. NoahTalk 13:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a list that I will source review on the talk page of this FAC, and will chip away at them. Meanwhile, I listed three things there that should be addressed throughout, and left sample edits: 1) there is more than one El Universal, 2) please add |trans-title= to citations so our readers can know what the source is about in English, 3) there are incorrect curly quotes, and double curly quotes, and double quotes on titles that should be converted to single straight quotes (quote within quote). More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added links for all of those El Universal refs just to be sure people know which one it is. NoahTalk 03:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I translated the citations and I believe all the quote issues have been fixed. NoahTalk 04:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LightandDark2000 edit

  • I think that the figure is appropriately included in the infobox. However, I would like to see if there are any more recent sources that have a more comprehensive damage total.
  • As I said above, unless countries report the totals and tally up damage, you won't see any total damage reports. This is especially the case for third world countries like Mexico. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, I see More than 60 homes in Maruata, Michoacan, had roof damage. I also noticed that there appears to be an inconsistency when this phrase is compared to what's in the main body of the article. I would like to see this inconsistency resolved.
  • Fixed in Nikki's review. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were some other issues/inconsistencies that I also noticed in the lead. I would refer to Nikkimaria's comments above for those.
  • Fixed in Nikki's Review. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding a note in the lead specifying the NHC's definition of a major hurricane, since not everyone reading the article may be familiar with that term.
  • There already is a note in the lead. It is at the end of the first sentence mentioning major hurricane. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you should also mention that Bud's remnants caused flash flooding in the Southwestern US, since this is another significant impact of the storm.
  • Added a brief mention. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked in lead and met. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed capitalization and linked. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked in lead again and fixed in article. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't link large geographic regions that everyone should be familiar with (Ex: United States as a whole shouldn't be linked, but SW region should). NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The system continued to organize, spawning a tropical depression around 18:00 UTC "Spawning" sounds a little awkward here. I would suggest changing it to "becoming".
  • Bud reached its peak intensity as a Category 4 major hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 140 mph (220 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 943 mbar (27.85 inHg) at 00:00 UTC on June 12, while located 200 mi (325 km) southwest of Manzanillo. This reads like a run-on right now. Add a comma after "major hurricane".
  • the cyclone's eye had warmed and become well-defined, Currently a little awkward at "and become". I would change this to "and had become".
    Removed. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the convection was decreasing in the northern half of the storm. You don't need the "the" before "convection".
  • This one was fixed... Just forgot to add a comment here. NoahTalk 02:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already linked in the met and on the synonymous upper-level winds for the lead. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mid- and low-levels of the storm split apart, You could be even more specific by changing this part to "The mid- and low-level circulations of the storm...". It's more explanatory that way.
  • A Radioshack lost over MX$100,000 (US$4850) worth of products. Change "US$4850" to "US$4,850".
  • Added the missing comma. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heavy rainfall from Bud caused the waters of the Laguna Negra of Puerto Marques to become contaminated with sewage, which in turn sparked a die-off of four fish species. Since it's only 4 species, could you consider naming them? Especially if any of them are threatened or endangered.
  • Actually... I missed the part saying "at least" four species. The source doesn't specifically mention which ones died off. It lists ones sensitive to pollutants and discusses how officials state things need to change or X will die. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flash flood watches were issued for parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and southwestern Colorado. The given source doesn't mention Flash Flood Watches being issued for Arizona. Could you provide one that does?
  • Appears it never happened. Im not sure what happened, but it likely was accidentally added since that area was in drought along with the other states. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bud left mostly minor damage in Baja California Sur. I would change "left" to "left behind".
  • bringing much needed rainfall to the drought-stricken region. Change "much needed" to "much-needed".
  • Rain from Bud slowed the growth of the 416 Fire in southwestern Colorado and a fire in southern Wyoming. Could we get a name for the fire in southern Wyoming? Since it's just one fire.
  • Source doesn't mention a name and I couldn't find any that do state a name. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are all of the issues that I came across. Overall, the article is pretty solid and close to being an FA to me. However, there are a handful of issues that need to be addressed first before it can be promoted. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With these changes, I'm formally supporting this FAC nomination. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis edit

Recently noticed the wave of storm FAs. I'll try help this nomination.

Comments on the lead edit
  • "Hurricane Bud was a Category 4 hurricane that brought winds and severe flooding to Mexico"-- Link Mexico?
  • Not done per MOS:OL. Most countries should not be linked. I also removed a few links from the lead I saw were in violation of the MOS. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the second named storm, hurricane, and major hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season." Supported by a source. Leads are usually encouraged to have as less references, if they can be covered about in the body. Does this qualify the exception?
  • It is just a piece of introductory material that relates the storm to the overarching season topic. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meant to do that originally but placed the brackets at the wrong spot. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...hurricane late on June 10, and further to a major hurricane on June 11." Probably "...hurricane late in June 10, and further to a major hurricane the following day" sounds more natural?
  • Did the part about the following day. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...one death occurred in Mexico City"-- I think omitting "death occurred" will make it less repetitive.
  • " peak rainfall total of 6.50 in (165 mm) was recorded in San Lorenzo"-- Perhaps linking to whatever "San Lorenzo" the lead is referring to?
  • Sadly there isn't anything to link to. There isn't an English Wikipedia page for San Lorenzo, Sinaloa. It also doesn't exist in Wikidata or even on the Spanish Wikipedia. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ninety passengers had to be evacuated from a train in Guadalajara after it became submerged in floodwaters." Trivial, but if I were to be the writer of that sentence, I would have it "A train in Guadalajara was evacuated after it became submerged in floodwaters."
  • Removed from the lead. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Guerrero state"-- why should there be the word "state", when the linked article is all about the Guerrero state?
  • Removed that sentence as 100 people being evacuated is just as trivial as 90. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Severe flooding along a street in Mexico City"-- duplicate link. GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the second link. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Meteorological history edit
  • "...that departed from the western coast of Africa"-- perhaps linking Western Africa within "western coast of Africa"?
  • Linked over the whole phrase. NoahTalk 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...over the tropical Atlantic"-- perhaps expand to "...over the Atlantic Ocean"?
  • Atlantic ocean is too broad... I didn't see a link existed for tropical Atlantic, but it does. I linked to that marine region. NoahTalk 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wave tracked over northern South America"-- Link South America?
  • "...and later entered the Eastern Pacific Ocean"-- Link Pacific Ocean?
  • "The wave tracked over northern South America and later entered the Eastern Pacific Ocean late on June 6. Convection increased a little on June 7 before significantly increasing a day later as a result of a passing Kelvin wave. A low-pressure area formed early on June 9"-- Since both are supported by ref 3, the citation should just be cited after "June 9" since it's repetitive.
  • "Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm, receiving the name Bud." The way "receiving the name Bud" is position at implies that "Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm" is what gave it the name Bud. If it isn't, then I suggest separating them; if there is an etymology as to where it comes from, probably worth adding an "Etymology" section.
  • The storm reaching tropical storm intensity is what resulted in the naming. We usually don't add etymologies unless it is a foreign name for a storm. Bud is a commonly used English word to boot so I don't think is needed in this case. NoahTalk 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The storm tracked generally northwestward over the next few days under the influence of multiple high-pressure areas and ridges that were located over the western United States and Mexico." Is that citation overkill? If no, suggest breakdown (i.e. "The storm tracked generally northwestward over the next few days[6] under the influence of multiple high-pressure areas[7] and ridges that were located over the western United States and Mexico.[8][9]"; not saying that it is right, just showing an example of a breakdown). GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the issues with that statement. NoahTalk 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Preparation edit
  • Linked the several mentioned items. NoahTalk 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Impact edit
  • "Rainfall totals of 6.20 in (157.6 mm) was recorded in Andrew Weiss, Sinaloa, and 6.01 in (152.6 mm) of rain fell in Alamos, Sonora." Suggest removing "of rain fell" as it is repetitive. And is "Rainfall totals" a spot-on wording? GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I adjusted the beginning of the sentence and removed "of rain". NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Jalisco and Colima edit
  • "A Radioshack"-- correct it to "RadioShack", then link it to RadioShack, perhaps?
  • Corrected and linked. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Water up to 16 ft (5 m) deep completely submerged a light-rail train"-- link light-rail?
  • "Parks and Gardens personnel used chainsaws"-- perhaps clarify what Parks and Gardens is?
  • "Parks and Gardens" is capitalized like this and is under a city gov't so I stated department. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Colima state"-- similar concern with Lead point 8, above. GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Guerrero and Michoacan edit
  • "In Guerrero state"-- similar concern with above.
  • "...beaches in Michoacan"-- duplicate link, if you apply the last point in "Comments on Preparation".
Comments on Elsewhere edit
  • "A palapa"-- duplicate link, if above point applied.
  • "Several hectare of chop suey crops"-- Link chop suey.
  • "The La Olla and San Renovato dams overflowed due to excessive rainfall from Bud, causing extensive road flooding and damage throughout the historical district in Guanajuato City, Guanajuato.[63][64][65][66]" Now that's a seemingly citation overkill.
  • Removed a generic flooding reference that doesn't mention the specific dam names and also a Spanish video reference. NoahTalk 23:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Mexico City"-- duplicate link.
  • "...at the Taos Regional Airport in New Mexico." Link New Mexico?
  • Linked at the mention of flash flood watches earlier on. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the 416 Fire in southwestern Colorado"-- Link Colorado?
  • Same reasoning as the above. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are comments on a thorough read. Additionally, I would note that some sentences have double cites (i.e. "Blablabla.[1][2]"), and I would usually do a breakdown, if applicable. There also seemed to be no alt text on the infobox image. GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added alt text there. NoahTalk 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the references, a decent number are simply saying something similar (when compared to the others on that sentence) and have mostly minor differences from each other. I don't think breaking them down further would enhance the understanding of the article. NoahTalk 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all my comments resolved. GeraldWL 06:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SG comment: I can't tell if dates are mdy or dmy (there is a mixture); I could run the script to standardize them, but I don't know which to standardize to. Since it's a Mexico hurricane mostly, would dmy be preferable, or was it written to mdy ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In text, in the references, or a combination of both? NoahTalk 19:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not understanding the question ... for consistency, why would in text differ from citations? Ipad typing, sorry for brevity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference dates have the MLA date style. The text is written as a normal United States-named storm. NoahTalk 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confused :) So, the citations use dmy, but the body of the article uses mdy. And Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines is unintelligible MOS gibberish. But, what the switch in style means is we cannot use a script to make sure dates are correct in either the body or the citations, and we cannot use a template to tell other editors what date format to use. So, I'm not sure this is a good idea, even if someone can figure out what MOS is saying. Anyway, I was only trying to fix a faulty dash on a date range, which is done now. [22] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SG comment: Once sourcing work is done, be sure to put citations in ascending order, sample: Heavy rainfall from Bud generated currents that swept away a child who was crossing a road in the city.[63][29] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Jason Rees (Wikicup Participant) edit

I strongly feel that the MH needs love and consolidating as it should only be two to three paragraphs rather than four. After all, Bud wasn't overly significant when compared to other systems and isn't particularly deserving of a four-paragraph MH.
1: "Hurricane Bud originated from a tropical wave that departed from the western coast of Africa on May 29. The system had minimal convection as it propagated westward over the Tropical Atlantic during the next several days.[3] The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first forecast on June 4 that a low-pressure area could form in the Gulf of Tehuantepec during the next several days.[4] The wave tracked over northern South America and later entered the Eastern Pacific Ocean late on June 6." Combine these three sentences into something like "The origins of Hurricane Bud were from a tropical wave, that moved off Africa's west coast and into the Atlantic Ocean on May 29. During the next week, the wave propagated westwards, before it moved over northern South America and entered the Eastern Pacific Ocean during June 6." In conjunction with this I feel that the sentence "The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first forecast on June 4 that a low-pressure area could form in the Gulf of Tehuantepec during the next several days" needs removing as it isn't relevant and is something that the NHC do all the time.
2: "Convection increased a little on June 7 before significantly increasing a day later as a result of a passing Kelvin wave. A low-pressure area formed early on June 9;[3] as a result of the system increasing in organization, a tropical depression developed around 18:00 UTC while located 330 mi (530 km) south of Acapulco." --> This would be better presented as "Over the next couple of days, atmospheric convection surrounding the system significantly increased, before an area of low pressure developed during June 9. Later that day, the National Hurricane Center initiated advisories on the system, as it had developed into a tropical depression, while located about 330 mi (530 km) south of Acapulco. Also where is Acapulco?
3:Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm, receiving the name Bud. At that time, the storm had developed banding features – significantly elongated, curved bands of rain clouds – that were wrapping around its center. The storm tracked generally northwestward over the next few days under the influence of a mid-level ridge that was located over Mexico -> Combine these two sentences into something like: As the system moved north-westwards around a ridge of high pressure, the depression intensified into a tropical storm and was named Bud by the NHC as bands of atmospheric convection wrapped into the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Rees (talk • contribs) 00:26, January 11, 2021 (UTC)
I have implemented these suggestions with some tweaks to avoid having excessively long sentences or removing time references. NoahTalk 01:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@Gog the Mild: I am guessing this should be insta failed per Nikki, Jason Rees, and SG's remarks. There appear to be significant concerns that need to be addressed that multiple others missed in past reviews. Even if I am able to fix the article in a timely manner, two opposes warrants immediate failure. NoahTalk 01:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: I strongly feel that you are giving up on this FAC way to quickly, as I feel that the issues raised are fixable with a little bit of work.Jason Rees (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noah, I haven't yet seen anything that will lead me to oppose on sourcing; it does need some elbow grease, and perhaps you would rather do that off-FAC, but I haven't found anything horrid yet :) It will just take me some time to get through all of the Spanish-language sources on talk ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Noah I don't think that it works quite like that, although my more experienced colleagues, @FAC coordinators: , may correct me. If you wish to withdraw the nomination to work on it off-FAC, that is fine; you have but to ask. The opposes seem to me to be on fairly readily actionable points - although it may be that I am underestimating the work involved. And opposes are often struck. I don't personally see the need for a quick fail, although clearly you have a fair bit of work to do to turn these two reviewers around. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild and Hurricane Noah: please let me know where you all stand on this, and whether I should continue examining the sources on talk; I am quite behind on a number of things, and would like to prioritize my time :) I can continue to chip away at these if you are still moving forward with the FAC, but I am wondering because the so-far minor issues I have found have not yet been addressed. Just let me know if I should continue (going to check a few more now). Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly won't have the time to finish this. I hadn't anticipated my class workload being so great, but I will have 120ish 2–20 minute assignments per week for a single class (foreign language). That's why I haven't been fixing anything recently. I will have to put this one off until I no longer have such a great burden. I will try to fix all the issues with this in the summertime. I guess until then, I will be on an extended hiatus away from WP. I hate to abandon this since it has come very far, but I just won't have enough time to do WP and my studies. NoahTalk 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck with your studies, Noah, and do not hesitate to seek me out in the future for help with Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for confirming that Noah, I'll treat this as a withdrawal. Look forward to seeking you back here in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 January 2021 [23].

Royals (song) edit

Nominator(s): De88 (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the 2013 debut single by New Zealand singer Lorde. Several editors suggested an immediate withdrawal of the first nomination. After a copy-edit request, a peer review evaluation, and other fixes, I believe this article can now qualify for the coveted bronze star. De88 (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see in the previous nomination a couple of editors recommended looking at WP:RECEPTION, but the advice there doesn't seem to have been followed -- see the discussion at that essay of "A said B", for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Royals_Lorde.ogg: purpose of use should be specific to the article - here it's the same as the one for Lorde
  • File:Royals_by_Lorde_(music_video).png: purpose of use as written is insufficient to justify a non-free image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by The Ultimate Boss edit

This song is literally one of my favorite tracks from 2013! I have so many memories while listening to this song. I would LOVE to see the article at FA. I therefore support! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Ultimate Boss: Keep in mind that FA is first and foremost about the prose—see criterion 1a. A mere adoration for the song is not a strong reason to support, HĐ (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • Please add ALT text to the infobox, and make sure all of the images have appropriate ALT text.
  • Since the Golden Age Studios link is currently a redirect, I am not sure if it is necessary to link it in the infobox.
  • The infobox says the song was recorded in July 2012. The body of the article says that was when the song was written, but leaves it a little vague on when the actual song was recorded by just saying during a school break. I would specify this in the prose.
Since the articles do not mention a specific time frame of the recording process, would it be best to delete it from the infobox?
  • This is more of a nitpick, but would it be possible to revise this sentence, It was written by Lorde and producer Joel Little, who were brought together by Lorde's A&R representative Scott MacLachlan., without repeating "Lorde" twice.
I rephrased it but I'm not sure if it made any improvements to the sentence.
I have revised it a little more. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please link extended play and spell it out when you first use it in the body of the article (in this sentence: Lorde and Little wrote songs for the EP The Love Club in three weeks.).
  • I am a little confused by the EP title. In the lead and the cited part above, it is simply called The Love Club, but later in the article and in the EP's Wikipedia article, it is called The Love Club EP. Which way is the correct way?
I shortened it to avoid repetition. Should it be added back?
  • I understand what you mean. I think it would better to use the full name to avoid potentially being misleading, but I do not have a strong opinion on this and will leave this up to other reviewers to discuss. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, writing a song about the symbols of luxury displayed by some pop musicians, does Lorde mention any specific pop musicians? If not, that is okay. I was only curious because examples are given for the hip hop-influenced artists later in the section.
I just remembered that she mentioned pop musicians and the only example she mentioned was Lana Del Rey. I changed it.
  • Does the citation provide any further information to expand on this sentence: Lorde's interest in aristocracy also inspired the song.?
Yes, the source mentioned Marie Antoinette and Henry VII. I went ahead and added this information to the article.
  • The sentence in on Lorde being influenced by hip hop-influenced artists and specifically Watch the Throne has a lot of great information, but is quite long. I think it may be better to make the last part into its own sentence. Maybe something like: During the songwriting process, she criticized their "bullshit" references to "expensive" alcohol and cars.
  • Continuing on the same part, I think the "bullshit" quote is fine, but I do not see a reason for the "expensive" quote. I think you can either paraphrase it or use the word without the quotation marks.
  • I would see if there was a way to add a description for Sean Parker as he is not someone I recognize right away and I would be curious if other readers would have a similar response.
  • I am uncertain about the placement of this part, a hybrid between Adele and Ellie Goulding, since it feels a little tack-on at the end of a sentence.
I deleted this from the article.
  • Link Ann Powers.
  • For the NPR citations, I would use NPR rather than National Public Radio as it is mostly known and references itself by the acronym.
  • For the Foreign Policy sentence, include the writer's name in the prose. In the same section, I would also add the writer's name for The New York Times sentence that is also about conspicuous consumption.
  • I would link conspicuous consumption, income inequality, consumerism, and cultural imperialism in the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section.
I had linked all these but the user who conducted the copy-edit removed them.
  • I agree with Mike Christie that further work could be done the "Critical response" subsection. I do not think it would take too much work. This subsection just needs further sentence variation as it gets somewhat repetitive.
I actually used another FA to guide me in restructuring this section. I was under the impression that writing too casual can weaken the syntax and flow of a paragraph, but it seems like the exemplars on here use a more relaxed writing style.
I would not refer to it as a more casual/relaxed writing style, but to each their own. Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would go into a little more detail on why Véronica Bayetti Flores finds the song racist. It does not have to be long, but a little more of an explanation would be beneficial to readers. It may also be helpful to make the part on the song's perceived racism into its own paragraph, as it does not really fit with the earlier sentences that praise the track.
  • Is there a reason for using Slant rather than Slant Magazine?
I noticed that other publications are written this way as well. I'm not sure if this is incorrect or not.
  • I was only asking because the Wikipedia article uses Slant Magazine as part of the full title for the website. I have done further investigation, and at least on their contact page here, they use only Slant so the current wording appears to be correct. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would highly encourage you to archive your citations to avoid link rot. For me, citation 82 no longer work and goes to a "page not found" screen.
To be frank, I have no idea how to archive citations. Is there a Wiki guide for this?
Here you go, Help:Using the Wayback Machine. Just visit the Wayback Machine and then save each of your links there. It's a good practice to archive web links because, say, 5 years from now a number of them will be dead. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could also use the IABot to more easily archive larger groups of citations. I have used it to archive the citations in this article. The IABot sometimes does not cover everything so I would go through to see what it missed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article. It is very admirable to work on a song that just got massive amounts of coverage and is without exaggeration very influential on music as a whole. I am glad to see this up for another FAC. A majority of my comments are mostly nitpicks. I will read through the article again once all of my above comments are addressed, just so I can make sure that I do a thorough review, but I think this should cover everything. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much for all the feedback you provided. I appreciate it! De88 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses. I will look through the article again today to see if I missed anything. In the future, please avoid using graphics such as the green check mark as it can slow down the page load time and is discouraged in the FAC instructions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence, Birdy's "Wings" replaced it seven days later., seems unnecessary. What song replaced "Royals" at the top of any chart seems rather trivial to me. I have the same comment for the earlier bit on Eminem and Rihanna's collaboration "The Monster". It not really notable what song hit number one right after this.
  • I think the audio sample is still useful. I do not think Nikkimaria was saying to remove it completely (although I cannot speak for them), but rather to better modify the purpose of use so it is specific to this article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I tried to fix the reception section to include more information on the media attention that the comments from the Feministing blogger received. I feel that the audio sample could be removed as there is already an image in place and it sort of clogs the section. De88 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. As I have said above, I would recommend that you remove the done graphics. Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Putting this as a placeholder. As I am increasingly busy irl, there may be a delay in my reviewing the article. As this song plays an important role in my teenage years, however, I'll try my best to do a comprehensive review on the prose, HĐ (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment: the lead says "Royals" sold 10 million, but the source in the "Certifications" section says 22 million. Why so? HĐ (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was a number that the chairman of Universal Music New Zealand gave in a documentary. However, there are no written sources for this, just re-uploads of the documentary on YouTube. Should I change it and add the 10 million number instead? De88 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this case keep the 10 million figures, HĐ (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • brought together by her A&R representative Scott MacLachlan I don't think MacLachlan is really notable in the lead
  • number one in New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and on the US Billboard Hot 100 I'd suggest separating US from this sentence. A Diamond certification by the RIAA is also noteworthy imo
  • of all-time of all time
  • Perhaps some inspirations for Lorde to write "Royals" would be helpful
  • I remember Lorde saying that pop songs don't really reflect the lifestyle of teenagers, so she decided to write this song as sort of an anti-pop song that could speak on her generation's behalf. After all, as this song is noted for its representation of teens' disinterest in luxurious stuff, it's worth mentioning in the lead
Is there a source for this comment? I remember Lorde used to be adamant about not labelling herself as an anti-pop star (she always said she was a pop star) so this is interesting.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't those two points sort of already mentioned in the first paragraph? "The track's lyrics express disapproval with the sumptuous lifestyle presented in songs and music videos by pop and hip hop-influenced artists." I feel that adding the inspiration and anti-pop song bit would be repeating information twice since it is implied from the previous sentence that the lavish subject matter of those songs inspired her to write about this topic.
  • I understand, but I want to see some sort of elaboration, especially on the track's relation to Lorde's teenage background. I remember in an interview she said that popular TV shows (like Skin) did not truly reflect that normal daily lives of her and her peers, so this song was sort of a response to the trendy stuff we see on TV. Its importance to a young generation of teens is notable, don't you think? HĐ (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The minimal production should also be mentioned in the lead

Writing

  • During the songwriting process, she criticized their "bullshit" references to extravagant alcohol and cars.[12] According to Lorde, their songs include references to lavish lifestyles that did not represent her reality.[11] These two sentences can merge
  • She considered writing a song about the symbols of luxury displayed by some pop musicians, such as Lana Del Rey This discusses the same thing mentioned in later sentences. Consider grouping them to convey a central idea: she wrote this song in response to the luxury discussed by mainstream/hip hop artists

Release

  • She decided to release She released
  • sent it to online stores "released" would fit better; "sent to online stores" may not mean that the song was officially distributed, but rather an offer
  • Consider adding the record labels that released "Royals" to US radio (i.e. Republic/Lava..)
  • Consider separating the T-Pain remix into a single sentence

Composition

  • Its minimalist instrumentation has been compared to Grimes,[29] Animal Collective and James Blake,[30] while its synth-influenced sound was likened to that of Purity Ring and Noah "40" Shebib.[31] Attribution needed
  • Is Pop Music Theory a trustworthy source?
  • it is followed by the chord progression it follows the chord progression
  • Lorde's vocals were compared to those of Amy Winehouse,[34] Lana Del Rey,[35] and Florence Welch[35] for their low-pitched vocals Ditto with the attribution issue
  • Shouldn't the commentary on the song's lyrics be in the third paragraph?
  • The track's message was compared to Nirvana's 1991 single "Smells Like Teen Spirit"[45] because it "decried the pop industry of which it became a part".[39] Attribution + consider putting the sources altogether at the end of the sentence
  • On first glance there is ref format inconsistency. I'll leave it to the source reviewer
  • Are there some specific lyrics that receive interpretation?
I am not sure. When "Royals" came out, publications seemed to analyse the song as a whole, rather than taking apart specific lines.
Thank you for your explanation, HĐ (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come... HĐ (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Has there been any progress on this FAC so far? HĐ (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: Apologies for the late response. I plan to edit the article with everyone's suggestions later this week. De88 (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article using most of your suggestions. Let me know if I missed any. De88 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I'm happy to do this, but I see that @De88: hasn't made any edits to the article in ~3 weeks; are you planning on continuing this nomination? I'd rather be sure of that before spending time going through the 300 sources. Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24, De88 seems to be moderately active, so I am checking if you are still able to do the source review? If not, I can post a request on the FAC talk page. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Gog the Mild, will do so soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just borrow this section to leave a placeholder of my own! :) I'd be happy to review and I should have time later in the week but I'd like to see some of the outstanding comments addressed first to avoid unnecessary duplication. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay well there is going to be quite a bit of (probably tedious) work required here, which I apologize for in advance
  • There is quite a bit of inconsistency with retrieval dates and the linking of publishers/works. The approach here doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent; e.g. all have retrieval dates/are linked, or none do. For linking specifically you can also link just the first mentions. For spotting missing retrieval dates you can do command/control f "retrieved" and see what's missing either
  • When you have bundled refs you're inconsistent about using bullet points, e.g. ref 6 & 125 vs ref 27 & 28. Personally, I think the inclusion of bullet points makes it far easier to read, but again, the issue here is lack of consistency, not a stylistic thing
  • you format refs 8 and 121 from youtube differently
  • ref 26 missing author and date
  • ref 31 is missing a publisher/work
  • ref 32 and 175 appear to be the same ref
  • ref 53 is missing the year and I'm not convinced it's a high quality reliable source, especially to warrant calling the song "racist"
  • ref 94 has an extra "("
  • ref 90 has the wrong date and missing author
  • okay I've gone through ref 94 thus far, and I still have some reliability/quality concerns but I need to go through the rest first. Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be able to dedicate time to fixing the article today or in the upcoming weeks as I begin school tomorrow. Apologies for this. I hope someone else can take over and improve the page if that is possible. De88 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: considering the comment above, and the fact that this is the second-to-last oldest nomination, I would recommend archiving. Happy to continue a source review if this is resubmitted to FAC in the future. Aza24 (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Aza -- one their own these might not be stoppers because someone else could probably rectify them but if you still have a way to go in your review, and taking into account the other open comments on the article, then yes we would need to archive this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis edit

  • Background and Writing section - the repetition of "in half an hour", "in one week", "in three weeks" could be varied to make the prose more interesting.
@SatDis: By varied, do you mean finding more general terms, such as "written swiftly" or "in less than a month"?
  • I was thinking something like Lorde wrote "Royals" in half an hour at her home in July 2012. Within one week during a school break, she and Little recorded the song at Golden Age Studios in Auckland. Lorde and Little had written all of the songs for the extended play (EP) The Love Club EP in less than a month. SatDis (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Lorde's interest in aristocracy what inspired her name? Perhaps this could be mentioned in that (3rd) paragraph as well, even if just as an endnote?
  • Release section - the sentence beginning She decided has "because" twice in it - try varying it up.
  • The song provoked an immediate reaction on social media what exactly does this mean? Could it be expanded? The reaction could be positive or negative, and "provoked" makes me lean towards negative (but I know it wasn't).
  • sent it to online stores - could that be changed to published or something similar?
  • from SoundCloud and release it to online stores I think this needs to be "released". SatDis (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception section - the album's highlight - specify which album, e.g. the highlight of the album "Pure Heroine"
  • Chart performance - being from Australia, I find interest in this paragraph.
  • sales of tracks on the album counted toward the EP's sales and therefore could not chart separately. Could this be worded as The EP's sales were recorded as a whole and therefore tracks on the album could not chart separately.?
  • Likewise, "Royals" spent two weeks change to The EP spent two weeks. I just think the idea that the EP charted as a single and not the song by itself needs clarity.
  • ARIA awarded it nine platinum discs; could you say ARIA accredited it as platinum?
  • I think this line needs to be removed completely The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) has certified it six-times platinum for shipping 420,000 units.[118], as you state it was certified 9 times platinum in the following sentence. Also, that reference didn't support the information - remove it.
  • The prose says it charted in the ARIA Singles Chart, but the table says Digital Singles Chart (there is a difference, but seeing as it's both #2, I'm wondering if it's the same?). I would stick with ref [117] for both and purely state the regular Singles chart.
  • This one is unaddressed. I'm wondering if it's Singles or Digital chart? SatDis (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cover version section - You say television series Reign, but could you push that up to television series Suburgatory and then just link Reign?
  • Hopefully these comments help. SatDis (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Could you respond to SatDis's comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for the late responses. I just fixed the article using these suggestions. De88 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, take your time! Thanks for making those changes... just a couple of responses above.SatDis (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 January 2021 [24].

Charing Cross tube station edit

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of Charing Cross Underground station a station with an interesting developmental history including be combined from two separate stations and the introduction and later withdrawal of platforms for the Jubilee line. DavidCane (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we remove the tooltips usage throughout the article? We generally just use acronyms explained on first usage (which you already do). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can, but there are so many acronyms, many of which are similar, that I thought it would be useful to save readers have to scroll back up to see which is which. What do others think?--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an argument the article should be at Charing Cross (tube station)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to explain acronyms if they are not used again in the lede, such as Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway (CCE&HR). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. I see I've defined it further down when it is first used in the body.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The station was served by the Jubilee line between 1979 and 1999, acting as the southern terminus of the line during that period. The two earlier stations were connected together and given the current name when the Jubilee line opened. - as a non-rail fan, I don't think this explains when Charing Cross became the station it is now, did this happen in 1999? I think this needs better wording. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was in 1979. The two earlier stations were connected below ground with a new passageway and the Jubilee line had escalators which when up to new intermediate concourses.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Planning is uncited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a simple introductory paragraph that leads into all of the following which are cited. I think those individual citations demonstrate this.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • South Eastern Railway's pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I started writing this a long time ago and someone moved the page in the interim.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an odd paragraphing structure in this article, quite a few one or two sentence paragraphs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to avoid referring to too many railway companies in a single paragraph to help keep them distinct from one another so there are a few ocassions where the paragraphs are quite short. The alternative led to some very dense long paragraphs which were difficult to follow.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waterloo station, City of London, Cannon Street, West End, Knightsbridge, Aldwych are duplicate links. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • City of London, Cannon Street, West End, Knightsbridge dealt with. I can only find one link to Waterloo station, and one to Aldwych in the text, though Aldwych is linked in the succession box and Aldwych and Waterloo are linked in the navigation boxes.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note "o" is uncited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 30 notes in this article, are they all necessary? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are quite a few, but I use notes for supplementary information that is not directly needed to tell the history of the station, but which is, nevertheless, still important to explain. It keeps the body text tight without deviation. This is the sort of subject that has a lot of secondary information--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we change the reflist to not change the column widths, {{reflist}} is very clever, and can do this on its own. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK for the notes list, but the short format citation style leaves a lot of white space between the columns without a specified width. A width of 20em means that they fit more compactly together.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the external links is a bit ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? The links to the London Transport Museum provide a lot of interesting historic photographs of the station throughout it's history that are not readily available by other means. I think these provide a valuable addition to the article. Although old, many of these are previously unpublished so not out of copyright and cannot be used on Wikipedia directly.The Abandoned stations site shows the now closed Jubilee line platforms in operation. The Square wheels site provides a nice illustrative progression of the changing names for the station and the others that changes along with it.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use in media needs some work, why is it important that they have had things shot there? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given their prominence on the London street scene, an "In the media" section is not uncommon on London Underground articles. Particularly where the station is used in films and TV. The closed parks of Green Park and Aldwych tube station both appear regularly as other Underground stations.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about the music video for cry is uncited. I'm also not sure why it gets more WP:WEIGHT than movies being shot there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not deliberately given more weight, just that the previous set are all films and television. I could merge this into a single list of film, television and other media. The best way to cite this would be to link to the video on Youtube or Vimeo, but the two versions on Youtube and the version on Vimeo do not appear to be officially sanctioned and we're not allowed to link to them in that case. She left the music business and does not seem to have any official site, but fresh digging did find a citation. Which I have added.--DavidCane (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee, have you formed a view on this one yet, or is there more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I've taken a look through the article, and it seems suitable to me. Great job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lee.--DavidCane (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments edit

This is odd; how do we determine who the publisher is, and should there not be an accessdate? "Out of Station Interchanges" (XLS). Transport for London. 19 February 2019.

Prose
  • As the Jubilee line platforms and track are still maintained by TfL AS OF DATE NEEDED for operational reasons, they can also be used by film and television makers requiring a modern Underground station location.
  • This section heading is odd since it's not new, it's old ... Proposal for new connection Maybe, 2005 proposal for connection?
    • "New" in the sense that it would be a "new connection" rather than a "new proposal" Changed to "Proposal for connection to Docklands Light Railway".--DavidCane (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent developments could be improved to avoid MOS:CURRENT problem as it becomes dated.
    • Section retitled and information updated now planning decision has been granted.--DavidCane (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, have you formed a view on this one yet, or is there more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the delay; for some reason, I still can't grok the pingie thingie and lose track of pings.
I am not comfortable with the prose here. There is a lot of WP:PROSELINE; subsequent paragraphs starting with "On date X, Y happened".
Because I'm trying to deal with each proposal separately, which might cover a year or two, I have sometimes had to make specific reference to the year rather than use wording like "the following year" or "the same year". The 1880s section has a number of instances where this was necessary to retain chronology.--DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a train person, but there are too many statements that I don't know what they mean, eg, "Tunnelling under the mainline station was done in compressed air to prevent any damage from ground movements."
    • Tunnelling in compressed air prevents water seeping into the tunnel through the open excavation at the front of the tunnelling shield. Where the excavated strata is permeable (e.g. gravel) and water-bearing, this can be a problem and lead to collapse. I have added a note on this.--DavidCane (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are examples were the prose could be more straightforward and less passive voice, such as:
  • In 2016 and 2017, the two ticket halls were separately closed for refurbishment with interior finishes and lighting being replaced and new ticket barriers being installed. --?
  • The two ticket halls were closed on two occasions: in 2016 to replace interior finishes and lighting and in 2017 to install new ticket barriers.
    • That's not what's meant. The ticket halls were closed separately and when closed had all of the works mentioned done in one go, so that the station could stay open. I have rephrased.--DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward way to start a sentence: 1884 saw the proposal of two cut-and-cover lines to link Charing Cross with one of the northern terminals.
Rephrased.--DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The construction of sentences is often awkward: As had the opening of the C&SLR ten years earlier, the successful opening of the CLR in 1900 spurred another set of proposals for new lines with routes criss-crossing London.
Changed a word.--DavidCane (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything worthy of an oppose, but neither can I find the prose warrants a Support, and think independent eyes for a copyedit might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not spotted your additional comments earlier. I've added a note re: tunnelling in compressed air and will review the prose tomorrow.--DavidCane (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Seeing some sandwiching between the images and infobox
    • Running at 100% zoom in the Vector skin, it only seems to be a minor problem at around 1400 pixels wide and then there's only two or three lines where the text is sandwiched between the two and then there are around 50 to 60 characters. Wider than that and narrower, then that the problem goes away.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why use div align in captions?
    • When the images were added the caption_align=center parameter did not work properly and the only way I could centre align them was use the div method. It seems to work as intended now. Removed as they are working as planned.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the maps would benefit from being scaled up
    • I'd be happy for them to be bigger, but I didn't want to overwhelm the text with them. What width do you think. They should all be the same size. --DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would suggest |upright=1.2. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. Done for the maps in the planning section. I have had to increase the size of the map in the multi-image box in the 1860s-1870s box manual by multiplying it be 1.2 as the upright function does not work in that template.--DavidCane (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:An_iron_tube_for_the_Waterloo_and_Whitehall_Pnumatic_Railway.png: image description states the image is from an "issue of Scientific American" - what issue, or what date? It also has a tag stating the image is in the public domain because the author died over 100 years ago - who is the author and what was their date of death?
    • I've traced the image to the front page of the edition from 16 March 1867 (Volume 16, Issue 11) (Interestingly Scientific American wants to charge $7.99 for a copy when it's available for free from on the Internet Archive). Our version is sharper than that in the Internet Archive version. There are two inscriptions, one bottom left which looks like "Seitz Del". This could be the same as an "L. Seitz, Del" that appears on another engraving in Scientific American in 1869 and this also from 1869. I can't find any indication who this might be. The second inscription is something like "E.N.Y" in the bottom middle. Again, can't find anything on this. Nevertheless, the correct copyright notice should be {{PD-US-expired}} because it was published before 1925. I have detailed this in the image description.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Street_railway_journal_(1906)_(14760781405).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, please add a more specific copyright tag
  • File:David_Gentleman_Charing_Cross_2.jpg: what's the copyright status of the mural?
    • The artwork will be copyright, but "freedom of panorama" will apply to this.--DavidCane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Freedom of panorama in the UK does not cover 2D graphic works. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would this one be better? It's a wider view focused less on the mural.--DavidCane (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I would say the mural is still the primary focus of that image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Arguably, this is part of "a building" of which photographs are permitted. Alternatively, a fair use argument could be made for inclusion of one of these on the basis that it is a small portion of a much larger work (up to 100 m long) used to provide readers with an understanding of the character of the work.--DavidCane (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think the building argument holds water, but you're welcome to try for a fair-use argument if you don't think the character of the larger work can be demonstrated using a portion that is not copyrighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't see how a portion might not be copyrighted.--DavidCane (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • For example the motif from the following example is out of copyright. If you mean you want to demonstrate only this particular mural, then yes, fair use would be the only potential avenue. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The group of three images are included to show the stylistic differences of the decoration use for the three lines, so I'll add a fair use argument.--DavidCane (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Charing_Cross_tube_stn_Bakerloo_platform_motif.JPG should include a tag for the original artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, have you formed a view on this one yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue still outstanding is the mural, which now has a fair-use rationale but a CC tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I left this in place as the image was originally released on that basis. Should the CC tag be removed because of the copyright of the part of the image that is the mural?--DavidCane (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep the CC tag for the photo, but you'll need a fair-use tag for the mural. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fair use tags for this article and the artist's article are in place, though the bot's seem to getting confused by these and the simultaneous CC tag.--DavidCane (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass edit

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref one says "XLS" ref 2 says "XLSX" – assuming they should be the same?
    • I've fixed the citation template for the first.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • retrieval date for ref 1 missing.
    • citation template updated to include this.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 141 really isn't a reliable source (same with 160 – the same site), it's a blog and seems to be self published.
    • 141: It is a blog, but about three quarters of the way down the page you will see the copyright notice for the maps and the link to the Freedom of Information Request and Answer page where TfL has posted the originals. These, link to PDF or HTML versions (first plan in each set) which the author of IanVisits has rotated and cleaned-up. Therefore, I think the plan is verifiable and the source can be ascertained. The link to the equivalent map for Green Park was accepted when that article went through the FAC process in 2018.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 160: As indicated above, this is included primarily for the photographs of the subway areas. Ref 161 links to the Westminster City Council Planning page with the specifics of the approval, including drawings.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your justification seems sound here. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates missing in refs 155, 163, 167
    • 155 and 163: Done. I've used 8 May, which is the date the article was transferred from my sandbox.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 167: Done. citation template amended.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs that don't begin with "978" are ISBN 10s and should be updated to their appropriate ISBN 13 equivalents. (use the converter)
  • Not ref related but you have some double links: London Waterloo station, City of London, Aldwych tube station and Bank and Monument stations
    • Done for London Waterloo, Aldwych and Bank and Monument. The second link for City of London is against "the City" which is linked to clarify that this is distinct from "the city" in a generic sense. This was to address a comment on the talk page.--DavidCane (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks not done – can be done if requested by coords
  • Reliability looks fine other than refs 141/160 Aza24 (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright thanks for your work here, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This nomination is four weeks old and has only attracted one support. I put it on Urgents a few days ago, but it needs to attract several further reviews over the next week or so if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Six weeks in and only two supports. This needs at least one further substantive review over the next two or three days, or it is liable to be archived on the next coordinator progress check. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DavidCane, this is now the oldest outstanding FAC and while it has had an encouraging flurry of activity it also has a number of unaddressed comments. I realise that RL is RL, but it would be a shame for this nomination to be archived at this stage. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David and Ealdgyth, if you're able to let us know how things stand after the nominator's latest round of actions/responses, that'd be great. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to oppose, but I think the nom and I are at an impasse in regards to prose and organization and I don't think I'll be adding further comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
not there yet. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'm making some minor copyedits as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • The BS&WR and CCE&HR are mentioned in the 1890s section as two of the numerous proposals of the late 19th century. Once we say they were approved the article moves on to other proposals, and the reader has no way to know that these will ultimately be the first to be constructed. I'd suggest signposting this a bit, e.g. with "The BS&WR and the CCE&HR would become the first two lines through Charing Cross to be completed, though it was several years before construction began on either line" at the end of the second paragraph of the 1890s section.
  • How much of the material in this article would re-appear in articles about some of the other stations -- e.g Leicester Square, or Piccadilly, or Embankment? I'm wondering if it would be better to organize some of the planning discussions in a more summary-style way. A reader looking for information about the history of the station needs to see the history of planning, but a reader interested in reading about the history of half-a-dozen stations doesn't expect to see half the article repeated in each case. What's your guideline for deciding what to include in this article and what can be left to articles such as Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway?
    • I've tried to be quite strict about what information has gone into this article about the lines and limit it as far as possible to only as much background as is necessary. For this reason, some further pertinent information has been put into the notes rather than the main body text to avoid overloading the reader with detail. So, for example, talking about the B&SWR through Charing Cross, I have discussed where its termini were going to be, as much information about its construction as is necessary to describe when the station was constructed. But information about the wider background of the BS&WR (e.g. Whittaker Wright) is put in the notes. Charing Cross has a particularly long and complicated planning history being both the objective of east-west and north-south route proposals and I can't think of another station on the system that was so drawn out prior to a station being opened. I don't think there would be much duplication with other station articles; the GA article on Embankment station is one I took through the GAN process ten years ago and there's very little on Charing Cross or Trafalgar Square excepting for the discussion of the name changes. The article for Green Park station is an example that follows the same pattern and had some of the same issues with rival companies vying to build along a similar route. I think you will find that this avoids duplicating much of the discussion on the PC&NELR and B&PCR. If expanded in a similar way to this article, Piccadilly Circus would need to mention the Piccadilly, City and North East London Railway in a similar way to Green Park and Leicester Square would need to mention the North Western and Charing Cross Railway and its successors, but, from memory, I don't think that either would have much more to discuss. In both cases the stations were built from the outset to act as interchanges with both lines through each station being under the control of the UERL. The articles on the CCE&HR, the BS&WR, the GNP&BR, the CLR (as well as the C&SLR and UERL which get minor mentions) are all ones I wrote and took through the FAC process and I think that there is a minimum of doubling of information.--DavidCane (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I'm convinced. I've written articles myself that have unavoidable duplication of material and I understand it can be necessary; it seems you're keeping it to a reasonable minimum. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • work on the Fleet line's stages 2 and 3 did not proceed: we haven't said what these stages were planned to include.
    • Mostly covered in note af. I have extended a sentence in first paragraph of "Reconstruction and integration for the Jubilee line" to indicate where the rest of the plans would have taken it.--DavidCane (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally this is in good shape. Two of the points above are minor, but the organizational question seems like a bigger issue. I'd like to be convinced that the content of the article will not have to be extensively duplicated in other articles before I support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Eddie edit

  • Shortly Eddie891 Talk Work 19:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the year the mainline station opened." what is this mainline station? Probably my ignorance or I'm just missing something, but I'm not sure what it refers to
  • "but the scheme was again unable to raise funds" perhaps "sufficient fund(ing)(s)" unless they really didn't raise any funds
    • I've clarified. As per the standing orders, some money would have had to be deposited into the Court of Chancery when the original bill was submitted, but the prospectus for the railway issued in December 1871 failed to attract sufficient investment.--DavidCane (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the whole scheme was rejected in 1882" perhaps "parliament rejected the scheme in 1882" for clarity?
  • "The scheme was the first railway in the UK to propose" I'd suggest ""The scheme was the first in the UK to propose"
  • I feel as though the article is missing a paragraph or so of background on the context of the subway building scene in london-- so many subway companies come up and its just kinda leaves me asking "what's going on here?" (i.e. a sentence explaining how subway plans get approved, a sentence about where all these companies are coming from, a sentence briefly talking about charing cross as a region) Might just be me, though
    • I have added a brief note on the private aspect of the railway companies and the approval process. Like the Railway Mania of the 1840s, it was a free-for-all in terms of who could conceive and promote a railway scheme - generally a consortium of businessmen. There were a lot of optimistic and speculative schemes and some of the schemes were scams and promoters were frauds (not the ones mentioned in this article). Parliament would consider any scheme put before, and, given the potential upheaval of the proposed routes in the urban centre of London there was a bit more scrutiny on routes than for lines in open country. Initially, there was not much consideration of the viability of the schemes. It was only after the up swell of tube schemes in the 1890s and 1900s that Parliament tried to be more rigorous in trying to coordinate the various scheme.--DavidCane (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Charing Cross as a locale is described in the lead section where the local points of interest are described.--DavidCane (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two stations were to be provided" -> "Two stations were to be built" or "Two stations were provided for", perhaps
  • "The promoters failed to appear and the bill was declared " pr'aps "failed to appear in parliament"?
  • "The CCE&HR submitted a bill" date?
    • 1901, as per the section heading and first sentence.--DavidCane (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the extension to Victoria as being not in compliance with standing orders." The link is not remotely helpful in figuring out what 'standing orders' means here
    • There's been some changes and there's now a separate page at Standing Order which I have linked to. See note i for specifics on the standing orders applicable to railway schemes at the time.--DavidCane (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to provide an interchange with that line and the B&SWR. It was approved." date might be useful
  • "and steep gradient needed to pass the tunnels between buildings on the route" may just be me, but I think this is open to misinterpretation (are there tunnels between (connecting) buildings or the tunnels are passing between (by) buildings or something else) and could be clarified.
    • In the gap between the buildings to avoid them. clarified.--DavidCane (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of the CLR scheme, including all of the southern loop line, and the entirety of the CCH&DR scheme " could read as though the CCH&DR was part of the CLR scheme, suggest flipping (The entirety of the CCH&DR scheme and the majority of the CLR scheme)
  • "The P&CR proposal was modified from the previous year and was now intended" maybe smth like "the P&CR proposal from 1901 was modified to run beyond" or something that eliminates the awkward "was modified [...] was now intended"
  • "Between Piccadilly Circus and Ludgate Circus, the route was similar to the CLR's loop line proposal." is this sentence intentionally uncited? If so, why?
  • "The two stations were not connected below ground and to make interchanging between the lines easier, " unclear what two stations- also, I think the comma would be better as a period here
    • The BS&WR and CCE&HR stations. Reworded.--DavidCane (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "protect the system from flooding caused by a bomb falling in the river that might breach the tunnels" I think the 'might' would fit better elsewhere, maybe " protect the system from flooding in the event that a bomb fell in the river and breached the tunnels"
  • "The concrete seals were removed after the crisis " date? some would argue the crisis didn't end until WWII did
    • The seals were removed by 8 October when stations reopened and services resumed. I have rephrased this slightly.--DavidCane (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The location of the station was not specified." intentionally unsourced?
    • There's no particular way to cite this. Produced by town planners rather than railway engineers, the County of London Plan was general in its suggestions and covered much beyond railways. It gave no indications of station locations except for the blobs on the map. The 1946 report by railway experts, basically said it was impractical to operate a mainline station at deep level and would be vastly expensive to construct the routes proposed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "None of these proposals were developed by the mainline railway companies, the London Passenger Transport Board or their successor organisations" ditto?
    • The fact that we don't have any of the things proposed is clear, but I don't have a citation.--DavidCane (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although permission had been granted, " date?
    • 1971 and 1972. In note ah already, but added to text.--DavidCane (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No further work has been done on these proposals." so why do they merit a sub-section? A report that nothing came of
    • On the same basis as all of the other proposals described above. Transport planning is a slow process in London and it may well come back to life at some point. There are plans being developed now for an extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant & Castle to Lewisham and beyond. The first part of this follows a route along the Old Kent Road that was originally proposed in 1898.--DavidCane (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(sometimes informally abbreviated as Charing X)" not mentioned anywhere else in the article
  • "The station is in fare zone 1." not mentioned anywhere else in the article
  • It's a bit unclear in 'Reconstruction and integration for the Jubilee line' when exactly they were combined by passageways-- I see, in order, 1) proposals for a new route 2) construction 3) the line name change 4) tunnels 5) running tunnels east of the new platforms ,whatever that means 6) ticket hall enlarged 7) new entrances 8) elevator shaft 9) combined station is opened. I just feel like there's something missing, when the decision was made to combine the stations an why
    • running tunnels are the tunnels the trains run through between stations. Those east of the new jubilee platforms were built for the continuation of the Stage 2 works, but not used. The stations were combined because it was always a problem having Trafalgar Square and Strand so close but not connected at low level as noted earlier in the article as the rationale for extending the CCE&HR to Embankment.
  • I feel like this article is weighted heavily towards 'planning' and there's some missing stuff about the actual station. Among the questions I have after reading through the article are: what does the station look like? What was the reception to it? Was it designed by a noted architect? Now, I'm not familiar with the source material, but it just feels a bit unbalanced to me
    • Compared to other stations, the number of attempts to get permission to build a station in the area is unusual. Most didn't have the extended period of failure, hence the large planning section.
    • There are images of the ticket halls and platforms and the passages. There are more images via the Commons Category link in the External links section where there are also further links historic pictures at the London Transport Museum.
    • The station has never had a station building at ground level. Unlike the Jubilee line extension from Green Park to Stratford which did have noted architects, the station was designed in-house by London Transport, so nothing to mention on that front.--DavidCane (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's just about it from me, mostly minor things, a few bigger questions-- mostly coming down to my complete lack of background knowledge and probably easily resolvable. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eddie891: Thanks Eddie. It's always useful to get comments from someone not familiar with the subject matter and terminology.--DavidCane (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from David Fuchs edit

review forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Sorry for the delay, it's a hefty article to get through.[reply]

  • Where's the source(s) supporting the "Planning" subsection? The nearest proximate source is Badsley-Ellis but that's two sentences into the next subsection.
    • As noted in one of the responses above, this introduction section is essentially just explaining what the following sections are going to lay out in detail with sources.--DavidCane (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't Parliament be capitalized, as we're referring to a specific parliament here?
  • The choice to have {{abbr}} templates throughout the history when referring to the railways feels something like a crutch that avoids the more useful idea of minimizing having to use the alphabet soup abbreviations where possible. If a rail line is only getting mentioned two or three times in total, you're essentially giving it undue weight. In the W&WR paragraph, for instance, you don't actually need to keep mentioning the name as it's clear in context we're talking about the same rail line throughout. Likewise I think I agree with some of the discussion on the talk page that it starts getting into a blow-by-blow in-the-weeds approach to the early history, when streamlining and summarizing would make it reach much, much better. Especially when the great majority of this content is being covered by just one author, it feels like it's not justifying its length, and the fact that it's got more than a dozen footnotes to support the content is evidence that it's really starting to get too specialized.
    • As I've noted above, the number of schemes proposed for the area was exceptional due to its position at the intersection of favourable east-west and north-south routes. This exceptional position warrants being discussed and one of the aspects on the history of the London Underground that is less well known is the variety of schemes that were proposed. I think that this warrants coverage which is as minimal as possible for each scheme without ignoring any.--DavidCane (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked through the article and there are 32 railway companies mentioned. In most cases, these mentioned more than two or three times. I have removed some abbreviation use for the W&WR where used in one paragraph, but left the abbreviation as it is mentioned later. I have removed abbreviations for the CC&ER, the LCS, the KCCC&WS and the C&WR. I have kept the HStP&CCR (used four times including in a note) because of its cumbersome name and the CCH&DR (used 4 times) to distinguish it from the CCE&HR. I have also kept NELR (used four times) to distinguish if from the PC&NELR.--DavidCane (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might just be me, but I found the many, many proposed tube site images more distracting rather than helpful, given that they are mostly the exact same image with different dots. It also suggests the above-ground topography didn't change, which seems unlikely.
    • I initially put all of the dots on a single image but they made it hard to place the labels for clarity. By dividing them into five groups on separate images, it also means that it is easier to find the locations that are relevant to that part of the text and not have to scroll back up to a single image.
    • After construction of the mainline station in 1864, above ground topography changed only a little up to 1906. Victoria Embankment was constructed in the around 1865 and Northumberland Avenue and Charing Cross Road were constructed in the 1870s, but the basic street layout around Trafalgar Square, Whitehall, Strand, Duncannon Street, etc. and the blocks of buildings were unchanged. Stanford's 1863 map is here and an 1868-73 OS map is here.--DavidCane (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New tunnels branching from the original route south of Green Park were to be constructed, and the line to Charing Cross was to be closed."—so... this never happened? The verb tense suggests not, but it's never made clear and the next sentence suggests the tunnels being bored are those selfsame "new tunnels".
    • Changed to "would". The first sentence is describing what was going to happen the next the details of when it happened.--DavidCane (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Jubilee line platforms were closed and walls constructed across the intermediate concourses at the top of the two banks of escalators." Citation?
    • There are some photos (here and here) and videos (here (0.29)) and an article that mentions the "unassuming maintenance door", but nothing that would probably be considedred citable. --DavidCane (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No further work has been done on these proposals." Citation?
    • No citation, but there is no evidence of any work to progress the proposals further. This is a long-term plan and there have been none of the consultations on such an extension that TfL does in these cases.--DavidCane (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidCane: Any thoughts on the unaddressed comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now dealt with.--DavidCane (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth edit

  • What makes the following high quality reliable sources? And not just "another FA uses it" but what makes it a reliable source.
  • I'm assuming that the "Capital Transport" listed as a publisher is a specialty publisher? Or is it connected with the organization running the Tube?
    • Capital Transport is an independent specialist publisher of transport-related books. The Jubilee line and Northern line books by Mike Horne are published in Association with London Underground Limited and the Bakerloo line book is published in association with the London Transport Museum.--DavidCane (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted in passing
    • Under Ticket hall refurbishment section "but did not served Charing Cross until the Northern line ticket hall reopened" "did not served"? Is this a Britishism? I would normally expect to see "did not serve"
    • Under Closure of Jubilee section "and are worked empty to one of the Charing Cross platforms" ... jargon here is ... unclear to nonspecialists and would need some updating
    • Under proposal for connection section - "No further work has been done on these proposals." is uncited.
    • Under "reconstruction and integration" section - "Works on fitting out the tunnels and stations began at the end of 1975, but serious delays in the progress of the works prevented the line from opening in 1978 as intended. Tracks and signals were commissioned and trial running of trains on the line began on 14 August 1978, but works on the station was delayed by industrial action at the escalator contractor." - couple of things here - "works on the station" ... britishism again? I would expect "work on the station". Also "industrial action" ... is this a strike?
      • Perhaps not so much a Britishism as a construction industry term (within which I work), separating out the different types of work by the different construction trades and therefore thinking of them in terms of a collection of separate works. Changed.
      • Industrial action might have been a strike or it might have been a go-slow or a work-to-rule or some other issue. Horne is not specific, mentioning "industrial relations", so I have avoided using the term "strike". I have added a link to industrial action.--DavidCane (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have time to look through the whole article but I would hope that there aren't any more jargony or unclear wordings...

Ealdgyth (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JKBrook85 edit

  • Great work, DavidCane! I read through it this evening and support it. I have one suggestion you might take up. In the "Planning" subsection of the "History" section, I think it'd be useful to have a sentence or two explaining why Charing Cross, rather than any number of other busy squares/intersections in London, was the site of so much underground railway interest at the inception. Were there political interests who supported it? Was it for economic reasons? What made this location special? (Or was it not special, and this was just part of a wave of underground activity at the time?) JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. The preference for an underground station at Charing Cross was partly because of the mainline railway station, partly because it is the centre of London (distances to and from London are measured from here) and partly because it was on a useful north-south axis and an east-west axis for new transport routes. I'll think about how to word this in a note.--DavidCane (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

I've been meaning to get to this for a while. Apologies for the delay.

  • Do we need the list of tourist attractions/notable buildings at the end of the lead?
  • I sort of agree with David F above that the abbreviations hamper readability, and not all of the early history seems to be directly relevant to Charing Cross. Is there anything more that can be distilled? The detail is certainly fascinating (I have a copy of Wolmar's Subterranean Railway and thoroughly enjoyed it) but I wonder if some of it would be better off in either a split out article or a higher-level one, especially as many of the abandoned schemes wouldn't have resulted in the station we know today. Bear in mind this an article on one station on the network; we only need enough background to place it in context and allow the reader to understand how it fits in.
  • Aside from that (whether you think splitting or distilling is possible or useful or not), there are several points where you go into more detail about routes than is necessary for the entry on the station. See my next-but-two bullet point and some of the sample edits I've made.
  • What does footnote "d" have to do with Charing Cross tube station specifically? Ditto "c", "f", the second sentence of "g", "i", "j", "k", "l", "n", "p", "q", "r", "s", "ae", "af", "ag", "ah".
  • The second proposal, the London Central Subway) looks like a stray bracket.
  • The Victoria, City and Southern Electric Railway proposed a line from Pimlico to Peckham Rye connecting Victoria with the City, Southwark and south-east London Fine as far as Peckham Rye (not directly relevant, but knowing the two points being connected is useful context if someone wants to look up their geographical location to CX), but the rest is venturing away from the topic at hand.
  • While the bills were awaiting their final readings, the LUT was taken over by Speyer Brothers, the financiers of the rival Underground Electric Railways Company of London (UERL).[81][n] The LUER's planned route was similar to that of the UERL-owned B&PCR.[o] Under Speyer Brothers' control, the LUT withdrew the LUER bill and the remainder of the LSR proposals failed.[84] I see why this is important, but I feel it could be shortened or phrased in a way that relates it more directly to Charing Cross tube station.
  • The GNP&BR proposed a modification of the previous year's B&PCR for a branch southwards from Piccadilly Circus. This time the branch would run under Leicester Square with platforms under King William Street and a station building at the junction of Agar Street and Strand. The tunnels would then turn eastwards under Strand to continue to Mansion House in the City of London where it would connect to the MDR's deep-level line.[89] Between Piccadilly Circus and Ludgate Circus, the route was similar to the CLR's loop line proposal.[90] We only need the details that are relevant to Charing Cross.
  • Construction of the BS&WR began in August 1898 Might it be worth spelling the name out again to remind the reader given that this is one of the few companies that actually managed to build a line serving Charing Cross?

Overall my impression is that this is a well-written, meticulously researched history, but in places it ventures off into becoming a history of the London Underground and various proposed schemes, which (interesting as they are) are not directly relevant to the station. I think it could be trimmed by a couple of hundred words (+ lots of footnotes), which would also improve readability. If the detail is not already included in another article, it certainly should be somewhere, just not here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis edit

I found myself getting interested in the history of the Underground lately, so hope I'll be useful in this nomination. After all comments have been resolved, I will support this nomination.

  • (Lead) If we remove the brackets (previews don't have brackets), it'll be "Charing Cross is a London Underground station at Charing Cross." This sounds weird. Perhaps change it to "Charing Cross (sometimes informally abbreviated as Charing X or CX) is a London Underground station at the junction of the same name, located in the City of Westminster."?
  • (Lead) "On the Bakerloo line it is between Embankment and Piccadilly Circus stations" add comma "and on the Northern line it is between Embankment and Leicester Square stations."
  • (Infobox) Please add an alt text.
  • (Planning) No references? I AGF that more specific references are cited below, but if you could address?
  • (Planning) "...submitted to Parliament"-- Link Parliament of the United Kingdom?
  • (1860s and 1870s) "...and the year the mainline station opened." Link Charing Cross railway station?
  • (War and new plans) "The location of the station was not specified." Not referenced.
  • (Reconstruction and integration for the Jubilee line) "Strand station closed on 16 June 1973 so that"-- perhaps "Strand station was closed on 16 June 1973, so that"?
  • (Proposal for connection to Docklands Light Railway) Suggest changing subsection name to "Docklands Light Railway proposal).
  • (Proposal for connection to Docklands Light Railway) "No further work has been done on these proposals." I'd rather not have that sentence, as readers can know directly that there are still no work done since there's no word on it in this article. If there is future work, it can also outdate quickly.

GeraldWL 08:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius edit

I've had London Underground articles on my radar for a while, but it took until now for me to see this. I did have some concerns:

  • a year after the opening of the Metropolitan Railway, the world's first underground railway, and the year the mainline station opened. - the year the mainline Charing Cross station opened, I suppose. Is it necessary to mention that the Met was the world's first underground railway? Because that part of the sentence is getting into run-on territory.
  • The section under Whitehall was opposed by the government and it was removed so that the line was to terminate at Charing Cross, but the whole scheme was rejected by Parliament in 1882. - could this be split into 2 sentences? Do we know why the revised routing was rejected?
  • There are a few paragraphs that are single sentences, which I would consider combining. The 1900s section is pretty content heavy (we're already getting into third level subsections). I would suggest combining some paragraphs in the 1901 section, particularly.
    • Proposals for the 1901 parliamentary session that planned to serve Charing Cross included three new lines and the extension of one already approved. - should this be combined with the next three paragraphs? However, the three following paragraphs may be detailed enough to warrant keeping these separated.
    • The CCE&HR submitted a bill for an extension of its approved route south from Charing Cross to Westminster and Victoria. - should this be combined with the next paragraph?
  • I guess I don't get this, because things were done a bit differently here in NYC, but was Parliament the authority that gave final approval to the routes? Maybe that's the reason why the companies had to resubmit their bills every session.
  • The bill was rejected for not complying with standing orders in 1905,[93] and resubmitted for the 1906 session with the station moved to the junction of Agar Street and Strand.[94] Again the bill was rejected for procedural reasons and it was not presented again.[95][q] - I suggest the "resubmitted for the 1906 session" part can be moved to the next sentence.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sadly, after looking at the article again, I can't support the nomination at this time. While it's fairly well written, it doesn't satisfy WP:FACR#2B, "a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings", and to a lesser extent WP:FACR#1A, "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". This wasn't easy to write, as I'm not one to oppose an FAC lightly.

  • It is fairly concerning that there's no unified layout or design section, not even a synopsis. The history section, meanwhile, takes up almost all of the article. The history section is great, actually, but counterbalanced by the fact that any information about the station design/features is missing or is situated in an unexpected place. For example, to the extent that the article explains how the platforms are arranged, it's hidden in several sections in the history. The history section shouldn't be so confusing that it needs to be summarized (which I see the nominator has disagreed with, but which is a valid point).
  • The planning section goes down into a third-level subsection, but no other section in this article goes down into anything more than a first-level subsection. I do think the planning section should be cut down by a couple hundred words. For the subject of this article, only the BS&WR and HStP&CCR (CCE&HR) are directly relevant to the creation of the station, while the others are for proposals at the same site or nearby, which may or may not have affected the creation of the Bakerloo and Northern line platforms.
  • The "Connections" section is basically a bulleted list crammed into one bullet. The "Use in media" section has a brief sentence as to "why" the station is used in media, but otherwise is a bulleted list without too much context.

Please don't take this personally - it has plenty of potential as a future FA nom. However, I'm finding the article to be disorganized for anything other than history. I would suggest following through with the GAN that was withdrawn, or opening a PR, before resubmitting this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Amakuru edit

  • Sorry to be a downer, and this is probably a decent B-class article, but the structure isn't there for me yet for it to be able to support it as an FA. Examples:
    • There is far too much material in the "Planning" section which has little to do with the subject of this article, namely the Charing Cross tube station. A brief history of the tube would be good for context, but not to this level of detail. Bearing in mind that the station opened in 1906, and is exclusively a deep-tube station, having so much about cut-and-cover proposals for the 1860s and 1870s seems tangential at best.
    • Text is choppy and not really the sort of brilliant prose required by criterion 1(a). Just as one example, the "1901" section has six separate paragraphs, each of which only has one or two lines when viewed on a wide monitor.
    • And in fact, on that note, why is this divided into year-by-year sections anyway? I would expect a history to be composed more of logically connected stories of the planning process, rather than arbitrary breaks at year end. The later sections, starting with "Construction and opening" do a much better job on both of these issues, in fact.
  • Other miscellaneous thoughts:
    • The "Use in media" could give more detail in the form of prose, rather than just a bald list of films using the platforms. This is quite an interesting aspect of this tube station, and I would like to see some info on what sort of scenes were filmed on the abandoned platforms, how the crews did their work, whether they needed to close the rest of the station at any point etc. And do they have specific trains which fulfil this role, or do they just sequester trains from elsewhere on the network?
    • I'm quite surprised there's no description of the layout of the station, and how many platforms there are etc. (This might be all contained somewhere in history, but would be nice as a separate detail). See for example Herne Hill railway station#Description, which gives details of how that station is configured.
    • I also agree with David Fuchs that there are a few too many maps with dots on them, and it's not quite clear how they add to a reader's generally understanding of this tube station.
  • Anyway, this does have a good foundation and my advice would be to go away and tidy up the prose, and consider getting a WP:Peer review on it which would iron out any issues and hopefully get it back here for a shot at FA.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note edit

Nearly ten weeks in and two formal opposes, and concerns from other reviewers make archiving inevitable. Personally I feel that there is an FA in the material you have, but it needs to be presented in a better way. I would recommend following the advice of @Amakuru and Epicgenius: and putting it in for a PR. Some of the reviewers who have commented above may be willing to assist with this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 January 2021 [25].

Huey Long edit

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 21:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Huey Long, the governor of Louisiana and a US Senator. A proponent of radical solutions to end the Great Depression, he was assassinated in 1935. ~ HAL333 21:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth edit

They have been removed. ~ HAL333 01:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Were they replaced or just removed? If removed, was there another source that supported that information or did you also remove the information it was sourcing? If replaced, what were they replaced with? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced as many as I could with Brinkley's Voices of Protest. If the remaining sources didn't support it or I couldn't find a replacement, I just removed the material. ~ HAL333 18:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment edit

Too long. Possibly even far too long. Over 11,000 words on a state governor who died at 42! I am minded to oppose on criterion 4 as it could, and IMO certainly should, be written in a more summary style. The prose style is not very crisp, and is discursive to the point that I am unconvinced that criterion 1 is met. The more I dip into this, the more I feel that the nominator would do best to withdraw it and ask GoCER to give it a thorough overhaul. Apologies if I am being over blunt here, but I suspect that this is a nomination which could use a lot of time and effort without progressing very fafarmr at this venue. Of course, other opinions may well be available. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I appreciate people who get to the point. Although I disagree with the complaint of length - other FAs on politicians whose highest office was senator are just as long, if not longer - I can understand your objections about the prose and will withdraw this FAC. Is it okay if I leave this open for a bit more? I want to see what other issues I need to address so that I don't have go withdraw this nomination a second time. ~ HAL333 13:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can leave it open for as long as you wish. I have recused from coordinator duties to comment on this. Even if I hadn't I wouldn't be archiving it until and unless it collected some formal opposes. (Or was promoted or timed out of course.) One reason I was blunt was to "break the ice" for others who may have a similar opinion but be hesitant to be ill-mannered enough to pass it on. Or to inspire others to skim the article, think "What on Earth is Gog talking about?" and contradict me. By all means let's see what happens. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too disagree with the length complaint, and would (either way) urge Gog to point out specific sections that could do with trimming. I also see no relevance in the "died at 42" – Alexander the Great died at 32 for instance; likewise, there are politicians who lived to 80 and could probably do with an article a quarter of this size. Age is by no means a determining factor in how long an article should be, the content/relevance/importance of their life far outweighs this. Aza24 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's too long, but not terribly so. Why not reduce the 5-paragraph "Share Our Wealth" to one and transfer the material to the main article? I think the same could be done elsewhere as well (perhaps the "1928 Louisiana gubernatorial election" section?) Anyways, it looks like an interesting read; I'll consider reviewing later. Esculenta (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Esculenta that more aggressive summary style would be beneficial. Ideally an article like this would be somewhere in the 45-55 kb range, imo, for the right balance between comprehensiveness and readability. (According to an online calculator, reading this article would take over an hour). Summary style is a good way to ensure that the information does not disappear from the encyclopedia, while enhancing readability and conciseness. (t · c) buidhe 23:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cut down on The Share Our Wealth section, as Esculenta helpfully recommended. If I do that to the entire article, I think that I can lose a quarter to a third of the article's length. But 50 kb would be extremely small - around half of Wendell Willkie's FA (a contemporary political figure who never even held office). I am really confused by the complaints about the size. Why is it okay for other FA's like Hillary Clinton's 321 kb article to take over an hour to read at 250 wpm or for the 269 kb John McCain to take almost an hour? (At 250 wpm it would take 45 minutes to read Huey Long.) ~ HAL333 19:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably best to focus on the merits of this article, rather than ones promoted when standards were different and which were shorter at that point. WP:TOOBIG suggests "> 60 kB Probably should be divided ... > 50 kB May need to be divided". The article is currently 61 kB plus quotes and notes. There are exceptions, but IMO, on a sampling rather than a detailed read, there is a fair bit of scope for a more summary style and places where it does not "stay[] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - that makes sense. I've started working on a few subarticles: Huey Long in culture and United States Senate career of Huey Long. Just so I know what I should work towards, would you say that the assassination section is decent summary style and acceptable for a FA? ~ HAL333 04:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a full FAC review, but yes, the assassination section looks fine. Good prose, reasonable summarising. I could quibble over minor aspects, but I have certainly seen worse in FAC nominations which have subsequently been promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have probably written worse in articles which have subsequently been promoted. :-( Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After more edits, I was able to remove 14 kb and 1000 words. ~ HAL333 20:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this in to GoCE Requests was, IMO, a good move. Consider overtly bringing the attention of whoever picks up the request to my comments. (I used to do a lot of copy editing at GoCE.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please look at the alt text picture captions for readers with disabilities. Several pictures do not have any alt text or just say see caption. Games of the world (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to withdraw I really appreciate all of the comments and advice. I hope to nominate this again in a few months when I have been able to fully address the issues. Thanks! ~ HAL333 23:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 January 2021 [26].

Don't Smile at Me edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the debut EP by Billie Eilish. I would appreciate it if someone told me the sources that are unreliable on the article so I could replace it. Thank you~ The Ultimate Boss (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the top of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: "If a nomination is archived ... [n]one of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it."
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) 3 January 2021 [27].

The Masked Singer (American TV series) edit

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most popular television series in the United States at the moment, The Masked Singer. Given its concept and production, I hope you'll find it an interesting read. I happened to create it in 2018 and have conducted a significant expansion since April this year. This article was previously nominated for Featured Article twice, both of which were archived due to a lack of response. I would like to ping @Kingsif: who promoted it as a Good Article in April, @Nikkimaria and Wehwalt: who conducted successful image reviews in the previous nominations in June and August, and @Aoba47 and SandyGeorgia: who commented on a Peer Review in November. I look forward to anyone's comments and have plenty of time to address them as I am done with school until January. This remains my first FAC. Heartfox (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All images are appropriately licensed, including those with non-free rationales. I see there's one additional image from last time, when I did the image review and passed it, and the new image is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Aoba47 edit

I am currently wrapping up a review and a source review for two separate FACs so I will not be able to post comments for this right now. Once those reviews are done, I will turn my attention here. I will try to post comments in a week, but if for whatever reason I do not post anything further by this time next Monday, please ping me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I participated in the last peer review so I have already posted quite a bit of comments so this review should hopefully go by relatively quickly.
  • In the "Format" section, I would avoid having citation two randomly in the middle of a sentence. In the same section, it is not clear what citation is being used to support the final two sentences so please clarify that.
The citation is placed there because it specifically refers to the "90 second" figure, but not the rest. Should this be moved to the end of the sentence even though it doesn't pertain to the whole thing?
  • I just found the placement of the citation in the middle of a sentence in a paragraph that uses very little citations to be strange. I will not press this any further though. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to which "final two sentences" you're referring to. Is it the ones with no citation at the end? I always thought plot/format sections didn't need citations unless it's controversial or not stated in the show. In the section, the "90 second", voting worth 50 percent each, and final two sentences in the second paragraph aren't obvious/stated explicitly in the show so there are citations, but I just assumed the rest of the section can cite the show itself. There aren't really sources who explain the format well enough. I also did cite av media for a time but it seems kind of weird to just cite one episode when it applies to all idk. Do you have any advice?
  • I was referring to the final two sentences in the same paragraphs. Apologies as I should have been clearer. I personally prefer to cite everything, but I know that is not required and other FAs have gotten through without this. I will not press this any further. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify which citation is used to support this sentence: Nick Cannon hosts the show; his role was considered unclear in July 2020 after making anti-Semitic statements that Fox said "inadvertently promoted hate". Four citations are used in the following sentence so it is not immediately clear what is being used to cite this sentence right now.
I've duplicated numbers 6 and 11 at the end of the sentence.
  • I believe time slot should be two separate words. It is presented like this in the Wikipedia article, and after I did a quick Google search, it seems like people put it as two separate words.
I have left a message on the template's talk page, though I have doubts over whether there is consensus for a change as it is spelled that way on multiple templates. I don't really want to remove a template and do the table manually just for one word :/
  • I see now. I was not aware that the timeslot part was a part of the template. It should be fine since it is a part of the template. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was initially confused by this sentence, The fact that performers never sing the same songs was also thought of as an "ill-advised" decision by critics as they felt it inhibits fair comparisons., since it seem pretty obvious to me that they would all sing different songs, and I was not initially aware that the same song structure was done for King of Mask Singer (and possibly other iterations). Could you possibly make this clear in the prose?
I have changed it to While contestants on the South Korean series sing the same songs during a duet round, producers' decision not to do so in the American version was also thought of as an "ill-advised" decision by critics as they felt it inhibits fair comparisons. Is this okay?
That clears it up for me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • For this part, conducting an admitted parody, I do not think "admitted" is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem uncontroversial; removed.
@Aoba47: I have responded to your comments above with some of my own. Heartfox (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the edits and clarifications. The "Format" section is good as it currently stands. Apologies for my confusion on this part, as you are correct that the show can be used as the primary source. I would like to wait until one of SatDis' comments is addressed below (the last one on the citation for those stream and video on demand releases). Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! Heartfox (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis edit

I will leave some comments for this article soon. SatDis (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC) I have provided some comments from the perspective of a casual reader which will hopefully help to make your article even better than it already is.[reply]

  • "who use various clues" - I feel like this sentence could be tightened a little bit. Maybe something like employs panellists who guess the identity of the celebrity performers based on provided clues which they interpret throughout the course of each season.
Does the program employs panelists who guess the celebrities' identities by interpreting clues provided to them throughout each season work?
  • ... the use of code names, disguises, and non-disclosure agreements is extensive, as is a team of security guards. Could you say ... the production company makes extensive use of code names, disguises, a team of security guards and non-disclosure agreements.
Does the program makes extensive use of code names, disguises, non-disclosure agreements, and a team of security guards work?
  • The growth of the Masked Singer franchise has been credited to the show's success This seems a little superfluous - maybe The success of the Masked Singer franchise has inspired other television formats featuring extravagant costumes, including a similar South Korean reality series.
It's cited in the cultural impact section; the success of the Masked Singer format in the United States (through this show) inspired other countries to adapt the franchise. There wasn't any versions outside of Asia before the U.S. one.
  • I'm a little intrigued by the Format section - not much is cited and some of it is spoken in a way only familiar for those who watch the show. For example, All masked singers and during a non-voting performance... "masked singers" is not really a recognised phrase to a casual reader, and neither is a "non-voting performance" - does the performance vote? Also, group-exclusive episodes - what is this?
  • Apologies for interrupting this, but I think it is a fair point to use the show as a primary source for this section. I had a similar question in my set of comments, but it is similar to how in the Bluey (2018 TV series), citations are not used for the character descriptions because the show is used as the primary source for that. Whether or not, the prose is understandable to an unfamiliar reader is a separate issue, but I thought I should hopefully help with this since I raised a similar comment above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:TVPLOT, "Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given." This is the case here, except parts which are not sourced from the show itself (e.g., officially "90 seconds" long performances, and the 50 percent vote split) do have citations given.
I understand your concern with the way in which things are described; it's kind of hard to explain. I have reworded your concerns to Voting does not occur for certain performances; all contestants in an episode occasionally sing together as a group, and each episode concludes with the eliminated celebrity singing an encore unmasked, and the best I could come up with for the second one is Since the second season, the contestants are initially divided and only compete against others in a designated subgroup. I have also removed the single usage of "masked singers".
  • I think the "Panellists and hosts section" could just be a paragraph in the "Format" section. Also, his role was considered unclear. Could you just say that he faced controversy? And is that important to the "Format" of the show?
I'm not sure I agree with removing the subsection and making it a paragraph. The format of the show and the people on it are two different things, and it's probably useful for navigational purposes to make it a different section so that information can be easily found in the table of contents and scrolling on the page. It is not normal for a reality competition show to lack a section dedicated to the panelists/judges and just put them in a paragraph. There's also a consensus on the talk page to mention that he faced controversy, but just writing "facing controversy" was thought of as too vague by other editors.
  • They are available for streaming in the United States on Hulu, Fox's website, and the Fox Now mobile app through video on demand. Citation?
Added refs.

I will endeavour to leave further comments. SatDis (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: I hope I have addressed your comments above. Please let me know if you have any concerns/further ones. Heartfox (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your responses. Thanks @Aoba47: and @Heartfox: for explaining the use the show as a primary source for the Format section. With the latest amendments, which were written very nicely, that section reads fine to me. I am pleased with all other responses! Just a few more comments below;

  • I know it's typically personal preference, but just wondering if you might use the additional s for "Plestis's", "Los Angeles Times's" and "NBC News's"?
It may be more of an American thing to forgo the additional s, I don't really know. At least one other editor who regular edits the article prefers the s' for everything.
  • In the "Casting" section, the first two sentences begin with the word "After". Consider varying this.
Thanks for catching that. I've changed it to "since"
  • In the same section, it reads Jeong was... signed on due to his and McCarthy Wahlberg and Thicke due to their. Maybe change the second "due to" to "because of" or something similar, to vary.
Thanks again; changed to "because of"
  • An interesting point while reading was the critical reception of the show! I didn't realise it was sitting at 52% and 36 out of 100. Fascinating! I believe you captured that in the lead as well.
Reality television shows don't really tend to be reviewed per season, so most of the reception there is based on the premiere, but we're kinda stuck with those aggregations only because they haven't been updated/more added since. I'm glad you found it well-articulated in the lead, though!
  • One tiny nitpick - Critics felt the panelists spoiled the show. The use of the word "spoiled" is delicate for me, as it might be interpreted as the panellists actually spoiling who is under the mask with their comments, as if they already know. Maybe a synonym like "weakened" or "diminished"?
Good point, I've switched it to "undermined"

All citations look fine with me, and the article is written excellently. These were all the suggestions I could find, hopefully they help. SatDis (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SatDis! I have responded to your suggestions above. Heartfox (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making those changes, I now support this nomination. I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my featured article review. Thanks so much and good luck with your nomination! SatDis (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I hope to take a look at Hi-5 in a couple days. Heartfox (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Just a courtesy reminder to ask if you will still be leaving comments, maybe after Christmas? Hope you've had an excellent holiday. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder edit

Placing this as a placeholder. On first glance, the article is in good shape and seems to be FA-ready. Given that this has gone through two unsuccessful FACs because of lack of attention, I will commit to review this so that it won't be archived. As there may be a delay in my review, please bear with me.. HĐ (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth edit

  • Not the proposer, but I can tell you AwardsWatch is well-respected in film and The Playlist is a popular review source that also gets background info on media; both are carrying interviews in this case, so there may be different considerations re PRIMARY, though. Kingsif (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I've responded above. This is my first FAC so I'm not really sure what responses you're supposed to write. Heartfox (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing good - you gave your reasoning, and now we'll work together to get the issues resolved. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: With all due respect, I feel your expectations are unrealistic. Almost everything in this article (as are almost all pop culture articles—it's not about a dinosaur!) is based on interviews, even if they're not formatted as such. I have gone through literally every possible relevant published content about the series up to December 14, 2020, and I stand by the article's sourcing 100%. Not everything is going to come from Variety. My comments are further outlined below:

BUILD Series interview with Nick Cannon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRuLAuqsLK8

Interviewer's question at 2:22: "... "why did you want to host this show?"
Cannon's answer: "... so I heard about the phenomenon that was going on around the world with this concept, and it's also already been a global hit, and I was like you know what this is different and unique enough that I would get in front of the camera again, and here we are."
Paraphrasing in the article: "After being fascinated by the Masked Singer concept when presented with it and noticing its success in other countries, Cannon joined the show..."
So if the person interviewing him was from Variety, then this source would be allowed to stay in the article?? Oh, it was produced by AOL? Too bad, it's not Variety. I'm sorry but this is just so stupid. If you go to the timestamp indicated in the reference it is obviously not selectively edited. The most I will move on this is change the timestamp to the beginning of the interviewer's question. I feel this is totally unnecessary to remove. The video isn't available outside of YouTube. Here's an archived version of the show's website, with "Oath Inc." (Verizon Media) at the bottom. The video is also visible under the header "New This Week". You can see him wearing the same outfit. If you have an issue with the paraphrasing then I will obviously make changes based on that, but I'm not going to remove it just because you think "too much is up in the air". It's not. It's clearly his words. Why does the cite interview template even exist if you're telling me you can't cite someone as the author because it's an interview? This is very weird.

Daily Bruin: https://dailybruin.com/2020/09/14/the-masked-singer-creatives-discuss-artistic-intricacies-of-emmy-nominated-show

I fail to see what is so controversial with this that it might not be high quality enough to cite quotes from their own interviews with the show's crew. Nevertheless, I will remove it if you insist.

AwardsWatch: https://awardswatch.com/interview-marina-toybina-costume-designer-of-foxs-the-masked-singer-season-3/

It's an interview the show's costume designer she did with an awards-focused niche outlet after she was nominated for an Emmy Award. What in the world is not high quality about this? Why would an outlet like this sacrifice their credibility and forge her own words? Why would she give them permission to display her own costume concept drawings if it was not respectable? I refuse to not have a costume section in the article because you think they could be faking the costume designer's own words.

The Playlist: https://theplaylist.net/marina-toybina-covid-challenges-masked-singer-20200806/

Same as above.

Decorating Pages Podcast: https://www.decoratingpagespodcast.com/podcast/episode/48588fed/james-pearse-connelly-everybody-forgets-the-size-of-the-mouth

Are we supposed to wait for some Variety spy to report on how the show is filmed behind the scenes? It's the set designer saying how the clue package sets he designs are filmed. I don't see any reason to remove this. He didn't speak to Variety about it. So what?

On Camera Audiences: https://web.archive.org/web/20180710224638/http://on-camera-audiences.com/shows/The_Masked_Singer

There's one source per season, showing that for three seasons, it was filmed there. Again, if you want me to replace it with some other source that mentions Television City, I can, but they don't explicitly say that it was filmed there for all three seasons.

Media Village: https://www.mediavillage.com/article/robin-thicke-of-the-masked-singer-promises-a-post-super-bowl-shocker/

I don't see it as unreliable, but I will remove it if you insist because it is not really essential to the article.

Media Play News: https://www.mediaplaynews.com/tubi-begins-streaming-the-masked-singer-episodes/

Same as above.

Programming Insider: https://programminginsider.com/

Variety doesn't report on final Nielsen ratings for shows, yet that is what is reliable. Nor does Deadline Hollywood. "If Variety didn't consider it information worth reporting, why should we?" is not really a great view... Have you ever thought they have a financial incentive to publish certain things? They're not a non-profit organization. They publish what gets clicks, and final ratings is not something that attracts a broad audience. For whatever reason, they decided to not publish DVR data for those weeks. This is where Programming Insider is used. TV ratings are one of the best ways to express how successful a show is in an article. I'm not going to have a half-filled table in the "television viewership and ratings" section, and a misleading table in "The Masked Singer: After the Mask" section. Sorry, it's the only thing available. If Variety was available, of course it would be used. But it's not, and just because it isn't doesn't mean a viable alternative shouldn't be used. Yes, the website does look a mess but it's only citing the numbers, and there is no reason to doubt the numbers from people with at least a decade of history reliably doing so. I'm not going to remove it, sorry.

TV Series Finale: https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/the-masked-singer-season-two-ratings/

I don't see it as unreliable, but will remove it if you insist because it is not really essential to the article.

The article uses the highest-quality sources possible, and I stand by them. I have made further explanations above, but cannot remove Build Series, AwardsWatch, The Playlist, Decorating Pages, and Programming Insider as doing so would sacrifice the comprehensiveness of the article, and I do not at all see them as such low-quality as to question their reliability, particularly when all but the latter are citing people's own words (which aren't even controversial... it's just like basic facts... like "I sew x this way" or "we started using green screens in y season"). Heartfox (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of these sources, the absolute most I would remove is the Build Series ref as it is not essential, and the ratings table for The Masked Singer: After the Mask which uses Programming Insider as it is perhaps not that important to have that much detail for a short mini spin-off (viewership for each episode is already given in the list of episodes article), though Programming Insider would continue to be used for the December 18, 2019, February 2, 2020, and the May 20, 2020, viewership in the series' ratings table as there is no alternative. I appreciate your comments greatly and thank you for your time reviewing the article. I think spot checks are also required? I'm not sure. Heartfox (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you think my expectations are unrealistic but the criteria are what they are. They don't just require something be reliable but that it be of higher quality. There is indeed some understanding that what is high quality varies by subject matter, but that doesn't mean that using podcasts is going to necessarily meet the requirements of the FA criteria. I don't expect everything to be from Variety, but I do expect that the understanding that just as we up the requirements for prose at FAC, we also expect better than average sourcing.
if you want to try to demonstrate that these sites meet the criteria - you can look at User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet#User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet for some advice. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: I honestly don't really want to try. I spent a while writing the stuff above. For certain statements of fact, "better than average" sources just don't exist for a reality television show. Ultimately, I would rather write something where a casual reader can learn something new or an interesting fact about the subject of an article than not include it because it dares to cite the set designer's own words about how his designs are filmed. My priority is helping people. I'm eighteen years old and I think I've written a damn good article. I have made a good-faith attempt to use the highest-quality sources possible throughout, but clearly, that's not enough yet. Respectfully acknowledging the helpful contributions and support of the three other reviewers, I would like to withdraw this FAC as I do not see a path forward here, and would rather spend my time on Wikipedia elsewhere than continuing to beg someone to accept my justifications for including particular sources. Heartfox (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 3 January 2021 [28].

Die Hard edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1988 action film Die Hard, considered one of the greatest action films ever made, it made a star out of Bruce Willis and launched a franchise of sadly diminishing results. Still, the original holds up for giving us a vulnerable action star and charismatic uber villain Hans Gruber, played by the late, great Alan Rickman. One of the best OSTs as well IMO. This one means a lot to me as it is one of my favourite films and one of the few films me and my dad both liked and could watch together, plus it is nearly Xmas, seems the perfect time to finally elevate this article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • Closer is a tabloid. What makes it a high-quality RS?
  • For Looper.com, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#Reliability_level_of_Looper.com?. Not much discussion there, but it's not promising.
  • What makes /Film a high-quality RS?
  • What makes Film School Rejects an okay source?
  • Ref 37 is missing the publisher. Also, I can't tell if this is an AMC staff post or an AMC blog. If it's an AMC blog, it's probably dubious
  • Filmtracks.com appears to be self-published
  • Why are we citing an advertisement in Variety? Advertisements send off red flags of probable bias that may be strong enough to effect reliability
  • For bmi.com and afi.com, instead of giving the website as the publisher, use the spelled-out name of the organization publishing it.
  • What makes highdefdigest.com an high-quality RS?
  • Instead of loc.gov as the publisher, use Library of Congress
  • We need page number(s) for the Schneider book
  • Ref 129 use The Guardian, not TheGuardian.com
  • Ref 136 is missing the publisher
  • Ref 136 is an unreliable source per WP:FORBESCON - Forbes is okay if its not a contributor piece, but that's marked as a contributor piece
  • " "Elf #6 Greatest xmas film of all time" - Wrong title
  • See this. There's no strong consensus that Screen Rant is even an RS, so it's certainly not a high-quality RS. It's used multiple times.
  • I have strong doubts that comicbook.com is a high-quality RS
  • WP:VG/RS lists Den of Geek as an RS, but there's a difference between RS and high-quality RS. It's used a lot, so I'd like some good reasoning as to what makes it more than just barely reliable.
  • What makes DVD Talk a high-quality RS?

Overall, I'm having doubts that the best overall sources are used. None of these are really scholarly sources, while scholarly sources have given these attention. See [29], [30], [31], etc. I'm not particularly comfortable with the fact that this article relies heavily on blogs and pop culture sites, but doesn't use much scholarly stuff. Source checks not done yet. I don't feel like this is a particularly prepared nomination, with the errors in titles and missing publishers and formatting issues and missing page numbers. I'm going to walk back the oppose I slapped on this for now, but I'm having some issues with the sourcing in this one. Hog Farm Bacon 23:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks
  • "Thorp was inspired to write Nothing Lasts Forever after watching the disaster film The Towering Inferno (1974)" - Source says Tellingly, he experienced the dream on the very night he saw the 1974 disaster film The Towering Inferno - Is this really directly saying there's inspiration?
  • "His finished screenplay was delivered on a Friday in June 1987. It was greenlit by Saturday, in part because 20th Century Fox needed a big summer film for 1988" - Checks out
  • "De Souza used blueprints of Fox Plaza to help him lay out the story and character locations within the building" - Source doesn't mention Fox Plaza by name, but it seems to be implied
  • "The under construction Fox Plaza offered both; only four or five stories were occupied at the time" - The source makes it clear that four or five is Jan de Bont's estimate, maybe needs a little attribution?
  • "This figure makes it the tenth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1988 behind Big ($151 million), Cocktail ($171 million), A Fish Called Wanda ($177 million), Rambo III ($189 million), Twins ($216 million), Crocodile Dundee II ($239 million), Coming to America ($288 million), Who Framed Roger Rabbit ($329 million) and Rain Man ($354 million)" - Seems like maybe the citations should be attached to the sentence as well, not just relegated to a footnote
  • "The enduring popularity of Die Hard led to a wide variety of merchandise produced for fans including: clothing; Funko Pops" - Checks out
  • "and unranked by Esquire - Checks out

Overall, I don't really have any significant concerns to faithfulness to the sources, but I am quite concerned about the quality and choice of sources used. Hog Farm Bacon 02:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still Working
  • Closer is a tabloid. What makes it a high-quality RS?
It is owned by Bauer Media Group which is a major conglomerate, it is international, it has an editorial team and the author of the article has a page on the site detailing their relevant work and education history. For the content of the article, I do believe it is reliable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced this with a Maxim source i was able to find Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes /Film a high-quality RS?
According to the sources in the sites SlashFilm, it has won several awards for its content from sites we would consider reliable, it has an About page which details the notable people and other reliable sites that have referenced /Film and it is recognized by Rotten Tomatoes for review purposes also . I don't have any concerns about the site being reliable for the information it is sourcing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Film School Rejects an okay source?
It is referenced by reliable sources like The New York Times, the LA Times, CNN, etc and has also been awarded by reliable sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37 is missing the publisher. Also, I can't tell if this is an AMC staff post or an AMC blog. If it's an AMC blog, it's probably dubious
A blog on their website is surely their blog? Either way I've replaced it with a JSTOR reference. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filmtracks.com appears to be self-published
It is self published, but like SlashFilm, it is also widely recognised and respected, despite its terrible website design. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we citing an advertisement in Variety? Advertisements send off red flags of probable bias that may be strong enough to effect reliability
Replaced Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For bmi.com and afi.com, instead of giving the website as the publisher, use the spelled-out name of the organization publishing it.
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes highdefdigest.com an high-quality RS?
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of loc.gov as the publisher, use Library of Congress
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need page number(s) for the Schneider book
It's an e-Book, there aren't any page numbers. I've added the chapter. I can guestimate the page number by counting pages but it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the chapter's fine under those circumstances. We just need more than just the whole book. Hog Farm Bacon 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 129 use The Guardian, not TheGuardian.com
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 136 is missing the publisher
  • Ref 136 is an unreliable source per WP:FORBESCON - Forbes is okay if its not a contributor piece, but that's marked as a contributor piece
Per both above re:136, removed it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "Elf #6 Greatest xmas film of all time" - Wrong title
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this. There's no strong consensus that Screen Rant is even an RS, so it's certainly not a high-quality RS. It's used multiple times.
Maybe things have changed since those discussions because ScreenRant has a Fact Checking Policy, a corrections policy, an ethics policy, an Ownership, Funding, and Advertising policy, a full editorial staff, and a press kit. It's not a rinky dink publication by any means. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have strong doubts that comicbook.com is a high-quality RS
Replaced with the AV Club. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:VG/RS lists Den of Geek as an RS, but there's a difference between RS and high-quality RS. It's used a lot, so I'd like some good reasoning as to what makes it more than just barely reliable.
It is a speciality website and an expert in the topic. It is referenced by and used by what we would consider reliable sources like The A.V. Club and the Telegraph, the New york Times, Radio Times, etc, it is involved with a legitimate publisher in Dennis Publishing, and I passed a source review with it for Trading Places just 2 weeks ago when it was spotchecked by Aoba47 who does regular checks for FAs, and apart from the Hart Bochner interview, it's not used for any contestable information. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes DVD Talk a high-quality RS?
I think this is reliable, but I've replaced it with a BBC source. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This figure makes it the tenth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1988 behind Big ($151 million), Cocktail ($171 million), A Fish Called Wanda ($177 million), Rambo III ($189 million), Twins ($216 million), Crocodile Dundee II ($239 million), Coming to America ($288 million), Who Framed Roger Rabbit ($329 million) and Rain Man ($354 million)" - Seems like maybe the citations should be attached to the sentence as well, not just relegated to a footnote
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thorp was inspired to write Nothing Lasts Forever after watching the disaster film The Towering Inferno (1974)" - Source says Tellingly, he experienced the dream on the very night he saw the 1974 disaster film The Towering Inferno - Is this really directly saying there's inspiration?
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The under construction Fox Plaza offered both; only four or five stories were occupied at the time" - The source makes it clear that four or five is Jan de Bont's estimate, maybe needs a little attribution?
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per the comments below this part, it is an object of popular culture, so it makes sense that popular culture websites are going to cover it and are going to be used. I do not believe in using documents to source an article that the majority of people cannot access, i.e. JSTOR. Anything in the article should be easily checkable by anyone, not just the haves. I do not believe that popular culture websites, by default, are not reliable, though if information is particularly contested, a secondary source can be used. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Hog Farm feedback. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: - I've got no issue with the use of pop culture websites, and I don't think they're inherently unreliable, but I'd like to see at least one or two scholarly in there. You can access JSTOR through WP:LIBRARY, and EBSCO as well. I'd recommend using the Wikipedia Library. It's free, available to most editors, and it's helped me out a lot - I'm from a rural area with iffy local libraries, so that's where I get a lot of scholarly sources. I'll give this another formatting check, but this is getting fairly close for sourcing. Hog Farm Bacon 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at the library but I will check again and see if I can find anything useful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to tentatively opppose on sourcing per Laser brain below. I can help try to get you copies of sources through WP:LIBRARY or possibly my university (if applicable). I just don't think this is quite up to the comprehensiveness standards. I hope there's no hard feelings about this. I don't like opposing at FAC, but it's not quite ready at this point. Hog Farm Bacon 18:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my oppose due to the new sources. I'll give it another formatting look soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second round

I'll be giving a second run-through on formatting.

  • Use of Title Case vs Sentence case in the reference titles is inconsistent. Compare "They're making a Die Hard board game" vs "The Undying Influence of Die Hard". Pick one method and stick with it
  • Ref 122 to Ayers 2008 is flagging a no target error. The Ayers 2017 in the sources should be Ayers 2008, per the date of the journal article.
  • Not seeing where the Durnford ref in the works cited is used
  • In the long citation for the Shivers ref, you give the relevant page range as 12-15, but then you cite page 16
  • I feel like the note should probably have a citation

Almost there on getting everything correct with the sourcing. Hog Farm Bacon 15:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shivers and Durnford were in the same magazine, I'd accidentally reused Shivers instead of switching to Durnford for page 16. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is considered one of the better Die Hard sequels.[171]" - needs attribution to the specific source, as the cited source does not indicate an overall consensus, instead is just the work of a single writer who does not mention if there's a consensus on this. Hog Farm Bacon 18:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed it, I could add a few sources saying the same, but it would still be opinion, it's generally top 3 of 5 films, which is like a B or a C. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog Farm Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain edit

Oppose on 1b and 1c based on a tentative library search. Here is a list of scholarly sources I found through Gale General OneFile. These should be consulted to determine what and how much can be written about the theme of the "hero archetype" present in this film, comparisons to other similar characters and actors, etc. I wouldn't consider this article comprehensive or fully researched until such time:

It does appear that the film and Willis' character have been written about in academic journals, so I'd recommend a thorough consultation using JSTOR and EBSCO as well. --Laser brain (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ping Laser_brain Hog Farm Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looking promising on first readthrough. I'm striking my 1b and 1c opposition at this time and will do a more in-depth reading. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser_brain, have you had a chance to take a look yet? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: Apologies but I haven't had a chance to type up any notes. It looks promising and I don't anticipate any showstopper type of feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser_brain sorry to harass but like Hans Gruber hanging from Nakatomi Plaza by a wrist watch being unclasped by John McClane, time is running out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs edit

Forthcoming, but is there a reason the article has been under indefinite pending changes protection for the past two years? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs I don't know but I would guess it is because people often try to change the genre in the lead to Christmas film to be clever. No other part is really changed by other users. My version has a section explaining the CHristmas aspect in the Legacy part, so there's no excuse for it now apart from trolls. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Desperate for work, Stuart was offered the job of adapting Thorp's novel into a screenplay." He was offered the job because he was desperate for work?
  • "McTiernan and De Souza made alterations to the script throughout filming, including adding and changing scenes, and altering the ending"—kind of clunky to repeat "alter" twice in the same sentence.
  • For the lead, I don't think you need ranges for budgets and grosses, just give us the rough numbers ($140M?) and focus on the ranges later (the budget itself doesn't seem so important to be mentioned in the lead versus other production details.)
  • I find myself agreeing with HJ Mitchell that the prose isn't quite there yet throughout. Take it from me, a guy who loves semicolons, they were a bit overused, as are excessive commas creating run-on sentences. Also an issue is that there's a lot of admirable efforts to pack information into a sentence that ultimately leads to less clear prose and makes it harder to read since I ended up stumbling on points.
  • I definitely think most of the henchmen should get their names struck and their fates elided. There's just too many names to keep track of, if you aren't familiar with the film it implies an importance that isn't there in the text, and makes it harder to follow.
    • Examples of chonky sentences: Willis, who was known mainly for his TV work, was eventually chosen and paid $5 million for the role, an unheard-of figure at the time that attracted considerable controversy towards the film prior to its release.—I'm left with questions about what was the controversy (was it the choice of Willis, was it the money, this wasn't a controversy afterward?)
    • McClane offers him a gun, and, when Gruber attempts to shoot him, he finds the gun to be empty.—the final "he" is unclear that it's Gruber, since you just said "him" right before it referring to McClane.
  • I think in general you can axe all the "then-X" markers throughout. Especially when a time frame is understood, you don't really need it.
  • The first two paragraphs of the critical reception feel like grab-bag critical quotes, not anything organized by any principle.
    • Likewise there are several places where a single critic's opinion is given the imprimatur of total summation by their placement in the text.
    • The final paragraph doesn't seem to have any cohesion either. How do Schwarzenegger and the Catholic Church connect?
  • Checked current refs 10, 11, 24, 29, 35, 39, 42, 44, 58, 72, 85, 88, 101.
    • 24 doesn't mention the Willis casting anecdote.
    • 58 doesn't mention the confetti used for the fall effect being shot out of a cannon.
    • 44 doesn't mention the lens and shooting frame rate; this appears to belong to ref 58.
    • 88 doesn't mention anything about the rental performance of the film.
  • I don't think the fair use rationale for File:Die Hard 1988 Rickman Stunt.jpg is that strong, in that you can't really see what's going on so its utility is pretty minimal.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming, but is there a reason the article has been under indefinite pending changes protection for the past two years? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs I don't know but I would guess it is because people often try to change the genre in the lead to Christmas film to be clever. No other part is really changed by other users. My version has a section explaining the CHristmas aspect in the Legacy part, so there's no excuse for it now apart from trolls. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Desperate for work, Stuart was offered the job of adapting Thorp's novel into a screenplay." He was offered the job because he was desperate for work?
  • "McTiernan and De Souza made alterations to the script throughout filming, including adding and changing scenes, and altering the ending"—kind of clunky to repeat "alter" twice in the same sentence.
  • For the lead, I don't think you need ranges for budgets and grosses, just give us the rough numbers ($140M?) and focus on the ranges later (the budget itself doesn't seem so important to be mentioned in the lead versus other production details.)
  • I find myself agreeing with HJ Mitchell that the prose isn't quite there yet throughout. Take it from me, a guy who loves semicolons, they were a bit overused, as are excessive commas creating run-on sentences. Also an issue is that there's a lot of admirable efforts to pack information into a sentence that ultimately leads to less clear prose and makes it harder to read since I ended up stumbling on points.
  • I definitely think most of the henchmen should get their names struck and their fates elided. There's just too many names to keep track of, if you aren't familiar with the film it implies an importance that isn't there in the text, and makes it harder to follow.
    • Examples of chonky sentences: Willis, who was known mainly for his TV work, was eventually chosen and paid $5 million for the role, an unheard-of figure at the time that attracted considerable controversy towards the film prior to its release.—I'm left with questions about what was the controversy (was it the choice of Willis, was it the money, this wasn't a controversy afterward?)
    • McClane offers him a gun, and, when Gruber attempts to shoot him, he finds the gun to be empty.—the final "he" is unclear that it's Gruber, since you just said "him" right before it referring to McClane.
  • I think in general you can axe all the "then-X" markers throughout. Especially when a time frame is understood, you don't really need it.
      • I don't think this is universal. McTiernan's then-girlfriend could be his now wife or still girlfriend or they're completely separated like 6 months later. I've removed two or three of them, though I'm dubious about it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs of the critical reception feel like grab-bag critical quotes, not anything organized by any principle.
    • Likewise there are several places where a single critic's opinion is given the imprimatur of total summation by their placement in the text.
      • I need more clarity on what you mean here. A critics opinion is their opinion and I've put their opinions in there. If I summarise at the start of the sentence, I use multiple sources, so maybe this isn't what you are talking about. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The final paragraph doesn't seem to have any cohesion either. How do Schwarzenegger and the Catholic Church connect?
      • It's just a final paragraph for things that don't fit anywhere else. I just thought it was an interesting anecdote because Schwarzenegger was likely going to be McClane if he hadn't turned it down, and Davi is a member of the cast. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked current refs 10, 11, 24, 29, 35, 39, 42, 44, 58, 72, 85, 88, 101.
  • I don't think the fair use rationale for File:Die Hard 1988 Rickman Stunt.jpg is that strong, in that you can't really see what's going on so its utility is pretty minimal.

Coordinator note edit

This is coming up to four weeks since it was nominated and has yet to attract a support. I shall add it to Urgents, but it needs several detailed reviews over the next two weeks if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"'Tis Christmas Gog the Mild it's the time of miracles." But yes, please add to the urgents and don't close it too soon. Comments are positive, I just need more of them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there are three ongoing reviews, but feel free to ping me for a review if one of them stalls for good. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain, Eddie891, and David Fuchs:, courtesy copy to @Darkwarriorblake and FunkMonk:: nearly five weeks in and no supports, or even completed reviews. Normally I would be timing this out. If any of you are likely to complete a review over the next week or so I would be grateful if you could so indicate. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Gog- this has been on my list for a while-- I've been meaning to get around to it, but I'm intending to re-watch the movie first (totally just to review it better, not because I want to watch it :P) and then comment, and I just have had a struggle finding the time. I can promise comments from me by this time next sunday at the latest. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on getting to this after the holiday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is in its eighth week and still has no supports. It seems - correct me if I am wrong - that Laser brain has dropped out; that David Fuchs will continue to review "after the holiday"; that Eddie891 is waiting for "Harry, Funk and David's comments" to be resolved; that FunkMonk is waiting for the Harry's issues to be resolved; and that Harry, while reporting "progress", feels that both the plot and lead sections need work and comments "David has raised some good points above and I'd like to see them resolved before I do a full review".
So, can any of you persuade me that this nomination is likely to achieve a consensus to promote in the near future? Because from where I am sitting it seems that a lot of good work has been done, but that this may best be continued off-FAC pending a resubmission which will hopefully run more smoothly. Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear why all the reviewers are waiting for each other. It's not a junction. You can continue moving forwards regardless of what other people are doing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to continue my review soon, but it can be demotivating to do a full review just for an article to be archived right after (has happened quite a few times), so I was waiting to see what would happen. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that we're making progress and I'm happy to remain involved for as long as that remains so, whether at FAC or not. Nonetheless, there is more work to do (I don't believe my concerns have been fully addressed, not all of David's have, and I haven't thoroughly reviewed the second half of the article yet). It might be worth archiving to give it a better chance with a new FAC at the top of the list once all the outstanding comments have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The plot has been trimmed significantly, to its detriment for someone unfamiliar with the film. I have done as you asked. I have also removed the semi-colons and the only thing I haven't done is make the lede summary longer because I believe it to be unnecessary and a sufficient overview of the setup. Anything more would be going into twists or plot developments, which is not the purpose of the lede. I have addressed your concerns as stated. Unless you are prepared to read the rest of the article and continue your feedback, you should be courteous enough to strike your oppose and exit the discussion rather than hold it up. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Darkwarriorblake: you have already been warned. Reading that I came very close to immediately archiving this nomination on the grounds that a nominator with your apparent attitude towards reviewers who are giving up their free time to try to get this article up to standard doesn't deserve to have it left open. Please reread what Ealdgyth wrote below and please take it to heart. You are not going to get this article to FA standard by alienating the people trying to help you. I am away from Wikipedia for 24 hours. When I get back others who have made contributions to this discussion may have made clear where they stand and I shall decide whether there is any merit in keeping this nomination open. They don't owe you a "Support", they owe you their honest opinions. That can be difficult, but when you receive it it behoves you to be grateful. Petulance is unlikely to make any of them feel more charitable. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unwatching. My oppose stands. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given current time constraints with an upcoming arbitration case, I don't think I'm going to be able to do the line edits necessary to put myself in the support column within the timeframe of the FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone, this review has gone on long enough; work on improvements to the article -- in concert with any of the reviewers who want to be involved -- should be done outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891 edit

I've seen the movie-- it's been a while and I'm not encumbered by background knowledge

  • Skipping plot & Characters for now-- will come back to it
  • I'm concerned that while you have cited a few excerpts from Die Hard: The Ultimate Visual History, the book itself doesn't seem to have been incorporated

Actual review forthcoming Eddie891 Talk Work 02:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie891, thanks for your time. The Ultimate Visual History is mentioned in the Merchandise section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of Harry, Funk and David's comments, which bring up some valid points, I think I'll wait to comment in more detail so as to not overwhelm you. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'll have a look soon, I recently watched a documentary about the making of the movie on Netflix, and it is a few days before Christmas, so would be a missed opportunity if this was archived before I could review it... FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blue-collar and Ronald Reagan appear to be duplinked.
  • Since subjects of images should preferably face the text, the photo of John McTiernan should probably be right aligned.
  • "On Christmas Eve 1988" I don't remember, but does the film really state the year? And is it relevant in a plot summary?
  • "(equivalent to $1.38 billion in 2019)" Is this really relevant in a plot summary about a fictional event?
  • " McClane throws some C-4 down an elevator shaft. The explosion kills the pair, ending the assault." I think this would flow better as a single sentence. Oddly broken up now.
Thank you for reviewing this FunkMonk. I'll replace the Mctiernan pic with a face on one that is available on Wikimedia. I just need to do it at home so I can crop it. I've changed the rest. The $1.38 billion, I get a lot of FA where I am told I need to convert things i.e. measurements, and I personally find the figure interesting as it gives me a context for how much that value means in todays money so I think it would be of benefit to a casual reader. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the image FunkMonk Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he disaster film The Towering Inferno (1974)" Why not just "he disaster 1974 film", since you use that style for other films mentioned?
  • "a permanent two-thirds hearing loss in his left ear from his stunt work for the film" Which stunt?
  • "He was let go early to elicit a genuine look" Earlier? May convey it better, but depends on what the source says.
  • "is a recreation of the Nakatomi rooftop that is destroyed" What does this mean, that it shows it after being destroyed, or that the miniature was destroyed? Could be worded less ambiguously.
  • "an American Indian stuntman" What is meant by this, a native American or an East Indian? if the former, might be better to say Native American?
I see that's what the source says, quoting the actor, so perhaps put it in citation marks? FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "A monument to the working class" seems very vaguely related to the subject. If you want decorative photos, why not some that are more relevant of locations, people mentioned in the section, or similar?
Done. I can't really think of a better image to use that is relevant to that section. The Working Class aspect was one of the more interesting takes on it. I'm open to suggestions. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an image of Odysseus kicking ass, as this is directly referred to in the text (unlike the statue)? FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ever-increasing depiction of increasingly" Seems like redundancies, what does the source say?
  • "The earliest known release of Die Hard on DVD" This makes it sound like it's the first sighting of some mythological being. Surely the first DVD release is known and not ucnertain? So why not just say "Die Hard was first released on DVD" or similar?
  • Roman Catholic Church could be linked.
  • Most of the Thematic analysis section is written as fact, when it is all interpretation by various writers, it appears. It would probably be best to give in-text attribution for these claims, especially the more outlandish ones. Who called him "Christ-like", for example?
  • Perhaps this free recreation of the film's logo[32][33] could be used? For example under Release?
  • "Instead, positive reviews and the limited release had made it a "must-see" film." The critical reception section almost makes it seem like it got overwhelmingly negative reviews? Is something missing? Or that mainly critique has been focused on when summarising it?
  • There are many other cases of years for films given in parenthesis, not a big deal, but would be nice if it was consistent.
Hi FunkMonk, I've addressed most of these. I will take a look at the theme attributions as this will take a little longer. I have replaced the image with something closer to "Odysseus kicking ass"! The review section and the "strong reviews" part, the reviews are positive generally about the film and Rickman, and mixed on Willis. When reading the reviews they are generally positive but don't give you any detail to adapt since they then tend to focus on criticizing the genre in general for becoming mindless and loud. For example, Canby's review says "appeal to audiences who require a constant stream of explosions and loud noises, calling it the "perfect movie for our time". He described it as an intense but fleeting experience akin to "snorting pure oxygen", which is technically a good review because audiences did want that and did respond to it, but he's writing it like he's too good for it. I get that the year in parentheses does change, but it tends to be contextual. If I'm describing the film, i.e. "the 1984 supernatural comedy" versus just namedropping a film like "Ghostbusters (1984)". I can change it to the former throughout as the genre I think is important for some films that are less known. Just let me know. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good, ping me when you've done the theme attributions, then I'll have a closer look at that section... FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also massively influential on filmmaking.[16][122] It redefined the action film genre." Could this maybe become one sentence? Seems a bit staccato-like now with these very short sentences after each other, which are basically related anyway.
FunkMonk I have made some changes to the Themes section and altered the above sentences. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good to me so far. I think I'll continue the review once the discussion below is somehow resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry edit

Oppose. Prose in the lead is choppy with lots of short sentences in quick succession and over-use of semicolons. Lead does not adequately summarise the plot, which is in fact barely mentioned. Then the plot section is far too detailed (not so much a summary as a scene-by-scene run through) and again suffers from choppy prose and excess semicolons. The prose gets better further down but I'm not convinced it's written in an encyclopaedic tone or to a professional standard throughout. I haven't scrutinised it line by line below the cast section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How am I meant to address any of this? Semi-colons are allowed. The summary of the plot in the lead is a sufficient overview of what the film is about. What else could I possibly mention? The plot is within the word limit of WP:FILMPLOT and addresses important events as it is in every other film article on Wikipedia. This is like complaining that the article is about Die Hard. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How you can address it is not up to me. When a reviewer raises a concern at FA, it is for the nominator to resolve or else seek a ruling from a coordinator that the concern is unactionable or lacks a basis in the criteria. In my experience, such rulings are few and far between, and "professional standard" is the very first criterion. Semicolons are allowed, but I feel that seventy of them in 11,000 words is excessive and hampers readability. I disagree that Die Hard follows New York City police detective John McClane (Willis) who is caught up in a terrorist takeover of a Los Angeles skyscraper while visiting his estranged wife is an adequate summary for the lead. The plot section is actually 706 words, right at the top of the 400–700 words recommended by WP:FILMPLOT and, as I say, consists not of a summary of the most important events, but a scene-by-scene run-down. Have a look at this edit for the sort of thing I mean. That was a fairly trivial copy edit but took out 70-odd words and improved the flow, and that's just from three small paragraphs. Finally, I don't see that this is at all like complaining about the subject matter. It happens to be one of my favourite films and I'm excited to see it at FAC, but FAC is (to quote a current discussion on WT:FAC) "an intentionally difficult process", intended to produce the very best content Wikipedia has to offer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The plot summary close to word limits. Just maybe shortened below that while maintaining what it has on it since it has better description on how events like that happens, not with what you're doing. It's not an improvement in the encyclopedic tone of description of the plot summary. Film article has in the lead sections have shorten plot summaries, which is a sufficient overview of what the article is about. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at a random sample of film FAs and most had around twice the length of plot description in the lead. The lead cannot be an adequate summary of the article if a section that accounts for nearly 10% of the prose is summarised in about 25 words. The plot section is excessively long and detailed and it does not flow well. I made a sample edit showing some of the details that could be pared back and ways to make it flow better (for example, not listing every single villain, cutting some of the less important details, combining short sentences even if it meant not strictly following the chronology of the film—which is explicitly allowed by MOS:PLOT and MOS:FILM). I'm not advocating any particular change, just offering potential solutions to help satisfy WP:FA? 1a, 2/2a, and 4, because the nominator asked "how am I meant to address any of this?" and I thought an example might help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead plot description would be entirely individual to each article. There is nothing more to say than a cop is caught in a skyscraper with terrorists and his wife. That is the crux of the plot. That is literally why there is a section describing how "Die Hard in a [insert location]" is a shorthand. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have expressed concern about the plot with this article well before this FA, as there is far too much weight given on naming all the "bad guys" in the film when really only about 4 need to be named (Hans, Theo, Karl and Tony); the rest, while they may be named in the script and credits and briefly called out, are all effectively interchangeable characters with minimal characterization or plot relevance to the story. From a WP:WAF standpoint, the emphasis on naming and tracking all their fates is very poor, and while I've argued in the past on the talk page to change this, I've not gained traction then. But as it's been raised for the FAC, I'll take a stand that it is a poor summary with the names all included and that the attempt that HJ Mitchell had done earlier (just now) which removed most of that flowed much better. --Masem (t) 22:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Masem, been up for nomination for a month and you don't come over here to contribute and stop it being de-listed, but finally come over to help block it. Thumbs up buddy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: That's uncalled for. Please strike it. Nobody is trying to block the article from being promoted. The purpose of FAC, per the instructions, is to "generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria" (emphasis original), which is what I have been attempting to do, and Masem is offering support to my concerns because opposing an FAC can be a lonely business. Hostility and sarcasm will not get you the input you need for the FAC to pass and will only discourage reviewers. Working with, rather than against, reviewers might just get the article its star. Pinging @FAC coordinators: in case they wish to weigh in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked with every editor above. None of them whacked an oppose on their first comment by saying there were too many semicolons for their liking. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There, trimmed the plot, removed a bunch of semi-colons. The lead summary is sufficient for the overview of the plot. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've seen this. The work so far is definitely taking the article in the right direction (in my opinion at least) but I feel there's more that could be done to improve the plot section. I still feel it contains too much detail and is too wordy in places. I made an example edit of the sort of tightening that it could benefit from. I'll leave the discussion of the lead for now. Also noting that David ahs raised some good points above and I'd like to see them resolved before I do a full review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have less comments on other editors and more working together towards seeing whether the article is of FA standard or not. We shouldn't have to discuss what the nominator or the reviewers are doing (or what other nominators or reviewers have done in the past). We should concentrate on the improvement of the article. I know it's stressful to have an oppose placed, but it's not a reason to start commenting on the reviewers themselves - confine the discussion to the comments made. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:17, 26 December 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 January 2021 [34].

2 Hours Doing Nothing edit

Nominator(s): GeraldWL 07:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indonesian man who became viral just by doing nothing for two hours. It then became a huge sensation, since many are bored due to the pandemic and they need something to keep them sane, a good example of the roller coaster of Internet culture. It was brought to GA in Dec 5, and received a (lonely) PR just recently. Pinging page creator Jeromi Mikhael and GA reviewer Some Dude From North Carolina, if interested. GeraldWL 07:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sadly, I'm going to have to oppose this nomination for a single, yet crucial reason. The criteria for an article to become a good article is largely, and I mean largely different than that for an article to become a featured article. To start, I believe this article is not "comprehensive", but rather, "broad in its coverage" (See GA#3 and FA#1 for what I mean). Plus, some could say some of the article's information could violate FA#6, which states that the article should "stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 23:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the article is not comprehensive, which is "complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something." This article talks about all aspects about the video, the virality, the production, the legacy. And it does not go to vague details— I don't see how. The fact that it's short does not make it incomprehensive, if that's what you're referring. GeraldWL 12:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to agree with Some Dude From North Carolina. ~ HAL333 23:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. The prose is not FA standard and there are numerous grammatical errors. Graham Beards (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards, if you can give examples as to how it is not FA standard, that would be appreciated. I have done various grammar checks, and the PR lacks response, which prompts me to just go full-on FAC. I expect some kind of comments and not just a strand of vote. GeraldWL 08:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"only in 2:20:39 did he placed himself" Graham Beards (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards, I changed it to "at"; the "2:20:39" is the video's timestamp. GeraldWL 08:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the only error. Can I suggest something like this:

The 2-hour-20-minute-52-second long video features 21-year-old Muhammad Didit Delon in his bedroom sitting on the floor against a mattress and staring into empty space. Apart from twelve seconds (at 2:20:39) Didit remains tense throughout. A viewer counted Didit blinking 362 times.

Graham Beards (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards, I partially implied it to see if others feel good on it; I did not move the blinking thing to save space, and mainly because I think it's another alternative to the current that seems good. GeraldWL 09:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an example. Other sentences are completely unintelligible: Vice considered it to be a trend in Indonesia, but found similar international videos such as "Doing Nothing For 8 Hours Straight", as well as Sitting and Smiling. You need to get an independent copy-editor. The prose isn't even up to GA standard. Graham Beards (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards, exactly one of the many reasons I placed this for FAC. No comprehensive comments were given in the PR; GOCE's process is also slow. As for the Vice sentence, it refers to exactly what it says: although it is considered a local trend, it seemed to also be rampant internationally. GeraldWL 09:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you are misusing FAC and you should withdraw the nomination. Graham Beards (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards, that's not what I'm referring to in literal sense. I meant that, unless you're just passing by, I expect some comments and not just strand of vote. That way it's not just "Oh this is a lame of a FA, oppose", but also how it can be FA in the future, if were to be not nominated. I did some adjustments, see if you find that fine. Also, please indent your comments. GeraldWL 10:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unwatching. Graham Beards (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that's not a sign of WP:UNCIVIL. GeraldWL 10:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerald, I admire your attitude in nominating this article, and the polite but firm way you have defended your position above. Nevertheless, the article is clearly not FAC ready. Among other issues, Graham Beards is quite right to insist that the English and grammar need attention. In terms of actionable comments, I would suggest you:
  • Submit it to GoCE. I am aware that there is a waiting list, but am grateful that it exists at all. FAC is not a forum for carrying out basic copy edits.
  • Find an experienced FAC nominator who is prepared to mentor you, and then listen to what they say.
  • Review 10 or 12 further FACs. Not only will this and the ensuing interchanges give you a better feel for what is required at FAC, but you are likely to build up some goodwill such that editors are more likely to look the article over prior to resubmission - either at PR or less formally.

I look forward to seeing this back at FAC, subject to appropriate improvements and the usual two-week waiting period. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2021 [35].

Cups (song) edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2013 hit single by Anna Kendrick. I want to give huge thanks to Ceoil; because of them, the article looks way better than before. Any feedback would be appreciated! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment edit

I have to say the nominator is irresponsible with their own article, as they brought this back to FAC after Ceoil helped out on prose issues, which has nowhere near been exhaustive. This nominator did not engage in the comments brought by other reviewers in the last FAC, but now is requesting for another review without consideration of comments regarding prose issues, most notably the unorganized structure of the reception section (WP:RECEPTION) and the lengthy commercial performance section (WP:CHARTTRAJ). I also have concerns regarding the thoroughness of research, given that there could be more in-depth commentary on the significance of this song and the viral video.

If the nominator is willing to respond to comments and suggestions, then I am more than pleased to review this FAC. If things turned out to be like the last time, when the nominator straight-up called other editors "jerks" when they pointed out prose issues, then this is not going anywhere. HĐ (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HĐ, I'm have matured a bit and am ready to hear any criticism for the artlce. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HĐ; I don't think they were irresponsible in re-noming necessarily, as the last FAC ended with two near supports, and they were encouraged to continue. The temperament issues were, as noted previously, regrettable, but of frustration, and frankly understandable in the circumstances. I think another go is fair, all round, espically as as Ultimate Boss has been asked to do so. I have high hopes myself, and note they are are far more responsive to feedback this time around. Ceoil (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the nominator has been responsive the feedback, I am happy to review this article. Some quick comments:
  • Per my previous comments, the commercial performance section is needlessly detailed. (i.e. At that point, sixty-nine percent of its chart points were from digital sales, thirty-one percent from streaming, and none from radio / "Cups" completed the fourth-longest rise to the top 10 for a woman in the Hot 100's 55-year history; Kendrick was only beaten by Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats" (2006), and Faith Hill's singles "This Kiss" (1998) and "The Way You Love Me" (2000)) Keeping in mind that Billboard chart records can be easily broken because of the volatile streaming market, I would suggest keeping the following details only: chart debut; peak position; certifications; and possibly some factors that contributed to the song's popularity
  • It shows Kendrick looking around the room in disbelief before breathing heavily. What does this have to do with the song's chart success?
  • There are four references for "Cups" incorporates lyrics from the 1931 song "When I'm Gone" by the Carter Family. Wouldn't one only would suffix?
  • The first paragraph of the "Background and composition" section largely deals with the covers of "When I'm Gone" (i.e. what does Charlie Monroe have to do with this?) Unless a cover is directly influential on Kendrick's version (such as the Lampshades' cover), then I'd consider removing them all.
  • the film's producers liked her performance, they wrote it into the film's script in place of "I'm a Little Teacup" grammar
  • I don't think sources like People or Elite Daily are reliable in terms of music commentary
  • Is there any response from Lulu and the Lampshades, the ones who first thought of the cup game? HĐ (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Claiming. Hog Farm Bacon 20:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked both of the YouTube links. They both are from the official channels of the performing groups, so they are in compliance with WP:COPYLINK

  • Is the information cited to the Russell source really on all three of those very widely separated pages?
I would think so. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
  • WP:RSP lists that there is no consensus that Business Insider is a reliable source, and the ongoing RFC about the source at WP:RSN isn't too promising at the moment. Not convinced that it's the sort of high-quality RS needed for FAC.
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure about OK! - Looks to be a little tabloidish, has had some scandals in the past, and is owned by the company that published the incredibly low-quality tabloid National Enquirer for many years.
There is an article about the david letterman performance on the Huffpost [36]. Would that be a better source? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RSP says that there's no consensus as to whether Bustle is reliable or not. For FAC, we need sources of the highest quality.
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indicate that the Pressparty source is a press release. I believe there's a parameter in the cite web template that handles that.
  • Cosmopolitan is listed as a situational source at WP:RSP. I think that source is a bit below the high-quality RS needed for FAs, and the Cosmo usages in this article don't seem to be that publication's best work, either.
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no consensus about the reliability of Vice as well, according to RSP. Again, the sourcing standard for FA is higher than that of GA.
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Daily News isn't the best source for determining due weight, so when it's the only thing cited for "In January 2015, Jim Huish, a member of the Tennessee band Amber's Drive, performed "Cups (When I'm Gone)" with guns, which he fired at red containers" I have to question as to whether or not that detail is WP:UNDUE
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indicate that the UMG source is a press release
Done. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with whether you use sentence case or title case in the reference titles.
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, but we're getting there. See [37] for an example edit. It's not a major sticking point for me, but some editors will take WP:FACR #2c to mean that the titles have to be formatted consistently. From the looks of the article, it'll probably be easier to use sentence case on all of them, where only the first word and any proper nouns are capitalized in the titles. I would do it myself, but I've got another article I want to work on tonight, (and will be away from a computer for a lot of the next week), so I probably won't be able to get to that myself. Hog Farm Bacon 23:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, I have fixed the issues. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
  • "The original song was written by A. P. Carter, and later adapted by British musician Luisa Gerstein of Deep Throat Choir" - Not in the source that I can find
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kendrick recorded a 76-second cover version titled "Cups (Movie Version)", which was released on January 1, 2013, for the "Pitch Perfect soundtrack"" - Source gives the 1/1/13 date, but the page is not for the Movie Version cover, and I don't see where 76 seconds is. The length of the track linked to on the Apple store is 2 minutes 6 second, or 126 seconds.
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Kendrick was asked to show her singing ability before filming began, she performed "Cups"; the film's producers liked her performance so they wrote it into the film's script in place of "I'm a Little Teapot"" - Strays from the source, which names the song as "I'm a Little Teacup"
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mash-up was later released on the soundtrack Pitch Perfect 3 (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)" - Pass
What do you mean when you say pass?. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By pass, I mean that there were no issues there.
  • "Digital download[17] "Cups (Movie Version)" – 1:16" - Source is about a different version, so cannot be used to cite that detail.
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song spent 44 weeks on the US Hot 100" - Checks out
Removed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove it. "Checks out" was my (unclear) way of saying that there was no issues there.

I'm going to be opposing on the sourcing for now. A large number of the sources used do not rise to high-quality RS, and about two-thirds of my spot checks had issues. As SandyGeorgia warned you in the peer review, source reliability will be strongly questioned in another FAC. This doesn't seem to have been prepared for. If these are quickly addressed, I'll strike the oppose and give formatting another look, but this is not close as of the moment. Hog Farm Bacon 20:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, thanks a lot for the review. I have addressed all of the issues. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultimate Boss - I'm striking my oppose, as significant work is being made to correcting the sourcing stuff. Please bear with me, as I'll be a bit picky as I go along, but the biggest issues look to have been resolved. If we can get a passed source review out of the way, that'll hopefully go a long way towards getting this passed. I'm willing to work with you in spots where you're unsure of how to handle this. Hog Farm Bacon 23:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, thanks a bunch! I’m off from school until the 4th of January, so I’ll have no problem when it comes to responding on time. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take another look later tonight. Hog Farm Bacon 00:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • I'm not convinced ref 83 has the exact correct title. Maybe try a teahouse question about finding an editor who speaks Dutch to perform a better translation for you
I will bring it to the teahouse. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title for ref 87 should be Pop Songs – year end 2013
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 85 should be title Adult Contemporary Songs – year end 2013
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 86 should be Adult Pop Songs – year end 2013
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is "The original song was written by A. P. Carter and British musician Luisa Gerstein." in the Tidal source? I can't find it. I may just be not seeing it, though.
Changed the source. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45 and 46 are dead. I tried to use the IAbot to fix it, but I couldn't get it to fix those links, so I guess someone will have to go through the WP:WAYBACK to fix those.
Ref 45 works for me, but ref 46 doesn't. I don't know how to fix it through wayback. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think something must not be working with that Tidal ref on my computer. It's used to cite complex text in three spots, but all I'm getting to show up is a link to play the song online and a link to another album by Kendrick. Is the stuff with all those details showing up for you? Rich media pages sometimes don't load right for me cause I have iffy rural internet.
It works for me. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's another batch. I think this is it from a formatting standpoint; I'll go through later and do some more spotchecks. You've put quite a bit of effort into the sourcing just during this FAC, and it's commendable. I've made a couple minor adjustments myself, revert if you don't like them. Hog Farm Bacon 05:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I think that should cover the issues for now :) The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 06:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so here's an archive link for the Adult Pop Songs chart reference, which is dead [38]. Put this in as |archive-url= and then for |archive-date use December 21, 2019.
For the Pop Songs chart reference, which is also dead, use the url [39] and the same archive date as the other one.
HĐ - These dead references are invoked in a chart citing template down in the chart history section, but they are now dead. I'm half-asleep and not feeling like messing around with templates tonight, and I'm about to go on wikibreak, so would you be able to try to work those templates to allow the archive so it functions? You're a music-area editor, so you're probably more familiar with those templates than I am. Hog Farm Bacon 01:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. Sadly, I don't think you can add archiveurls to the template {{single chart}}. In this case, the nominator will have to manually update the archive-urls, HĐ (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that additional spot checks should probably be conducted, but my internet is running too slow today to effectively load most of those websites due to too many images and such on them, and since I'm going to be gone for about a week, somebody else will probably have to step up to the plate for those. Hog Farm Bacon 01:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil edit

Will resume copyedit by the weekend. Place holder for now. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cups (When I'm Gone)" debuted at number 93 on the US Billboard Hot 100 in the week ending January 12, 2013.[4] Sixty-nine percent of its chart points were from digital sales, thirty-one percent from streaming, and none from radio.[4] With radio playing the remixed version of "Cups (When I'm Gone)" the song reached the top 40 in its 21st week on the Hot 100, rising from number 44 to number 36. - I don't understand how that works.
I put down what the sources said. The chart keeps track of the song streams, radio plays, and digital sales. The song was even more popular when it was remixed and sent to radio. That's why it was a sleeper hit. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. P. Carter and later recorded by the Carter Family.[1][2][3] - implies that Carter never realsed the track. Is that true. Ceoil (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give update here when you have resolved these, so can resume review. Ceoil (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, resolved the issues. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was released on April 12, 2013, via Kendrick's YouTube channel.[15] Because of the song's success, record company executives asked Kendrick to make its music video.[58']]. This sound a little bit backwardly stated. First he his receiving awards, then he is being asked to produce the video in the first place. Or maybe I'm mixed up, but can you make clearer. Ceoil (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, changed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No its not. The section still starts with video was directed by Moore and choreographed by Jones, and then Kendrick was asked "to make its music video" because the track was so successful. Or am I missing something. Ceoil (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the article tiled Cups, when you refer(ed) to it in the body a number of times as "Cups (When I'm Gone)". Note, I have edited a few of these out, double checking that that was right. Ceoil (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, it is known for its name as "Cups". The reason it's named "Cups (When I'm Gone)" is because that is the most popular version of the song though. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go with what the sources say, which is Cups. Full stop. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, done. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would reinstate Republic senior VP and head of radio and video promotion David Nathan promoted the track by saying, "Anyone that has a preteen knows 'Cups'. Pitch Perfect is a cultural phenomenon and we're very happy to be a part of it as support by a record label high boss is no small thing. Ceoil (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that the quality of sources are e dramatically improved. Ceoil (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cups" incorporates lyrics from the 1931 song "When I'm Gone" by the Carter Family. - Lyrics and melody? Ceoil (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, it just incorporates the lyrics. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers — Prose edit

Hi there. Thanks for nominating. I've only carried out a few reviews in the past because I'm really new to the process, so I hope you understand that this is a learning process for me. I'm writing this after having read the article, and I feel bad but this will be my first oppose. Although it's been noted that there are problems with the article's structure. I'm only going to comment on the prose, which is the primary basis for my opposition. I don't think it meets the criteria required for a Featured Article. Understand that this is not a comment on your abilities as an editor—but as an article, this isn't ready.

The first point of concern was the presence of really obvious mistakes, like this: It also peaked within the top of the US Billboard Adult Contemporary chart, becoming Kendrick's first track to top any Billboard chart It was certified triple platinum [...] There's a missing period there. There are other typos, for example Wrtiing for the Chicago Reader' [...]. There's also unnecessary italics (given for a listicle). I don't understand why "Cup Clap technique" is capitalised; I thought maybe that was from the sources, but it isn't.

The typos are obfuscating the fact that the writing does not satisfy criteria 1a: "engaging and of a professional standard." Even with those fixed, the writing is jilted; all three sentences in that paragraph open with a consecutive "it". The lead should generally be the strongest part of an article—it’s the part which most readers will take in most. A glaring problem like that only sets me up to read the rest of the article with extreme caution.

The jilted quality of the prose continues throughout. I had to repeatedly re-read things throughout. For example:

[...] Kendrick said she taught herself to play the cup song: "[very long, superfluous quotation omitted]." When she appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Kendrick said that she came up with Beca Mitchell's "Cups" audition scene. Pitch Perfect's original script called for Mitchell to perform the nursery rhyme "I'm a Little Teacup" (1939) for her audition. When Kendrick was asked to show her singing ability before filming, she performed "Cups"; the film's producers liked her performance, and wrote it into the film's script in place of "I'm a Little Teacup"

There's just so many double words in these sentence. There's double, triple "cups"; there's double Mitchell; there's no natural flow to the sentences. It’s jagged. It is really hard to describe what good prose is, but I recommend reading Tony1's tips for good writing. The Reception heading really does need work. It’s really reliant on quotations. There's an excellent essay about copyediting Reception sections that I recommend, too. Both have been really helpful to me.

If another reviewer feels that the writing is much improved by the end of this process, then they should let me know and I can reconsider. As it stands, I think the article needs to go back to the workshop for a while. That won't be what you want to hear, because I see that the article has been through a number of attempts, but I do agree with the first commenter that it’s still not ready. Wishing you the best. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers, thanks for your review. I did re-write the lead and get rid of a lot of quotes in the critical reception. Although, I totally understand what you mean and respect your oppose. Maybe my abilities to write here are bad. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this FA doesn't pass, then don't be dissuaded. I've watch-listed this page, so if it doesn't pass, then I will do my absolute very best to talk with you on the article's talk page. If you have spare time over the holidays, I really recommend reading those two guides I linked at the end. Open the one on reception side-by-side with your article, and try to follow its advice. It will really help. Don't be dissuaded, The Ultimate Boss. I know you're young, and in a few years I know you'll look back on this and think it’s all very silly. You'll get there, and you're really trying. Nobody's out to get you here at all—I hope you know that. FA is a really high bar. It’s the highest bar Wikipedia has. Keep your chin up! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D edit

Please see and respond to my comments in the previous review, and ping me when this is done, including explaining why any of my comments have not been actioned. I am not going to re-review given the frequency with which the article has been nominated, and the nominator's conduct in the previous nomination. As it looks like some of my comments haven't been actioned from a quick check, I am oppose for now but happy to be convinced otherwise when my comments are acted on and/or adequately responded to. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the nominator has self-requested (and received) an indefinite block. That's a shame, but probably also a cue that this should be archived. Hog Farm Bacon 05:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I agree that this nomination should be archived given that the nominator is no longer active. Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/January_2021&oldid=1003640342"