Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2019

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2019 [1].

Almost There (album) edit

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m nominating this article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria and was quite close, in my opinion, to passing the last nomination, which stalled due to lack of discussion. This has waited the customary two weeks and I’m excited to finish the job hopefully!

This is the first studio album from MercyMe, a Christian rock band, and was released back in 2001. It got highly positive reviews from critics, mainly praising the lyrical content of the album. Although the first single flopped and initial sales were poor, its second single, "I Can Only Imagine" became a number-one hit on Christian radio in 2002 and then inexplicably crossed over to adult contemporary, top 40, adult top 40, and country radio in 2003 and 2004. The album was a mainstay on the Christian charts for years and peaked at number one in September 2003 - two years after its release. It has now been certified triple platinum, making it one of the best-selling Christian albums ever, and the single is also triple platinum, the best-selling Christian song ever. Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File review edit

Not many comments here, eh? Anyhow, to get the ball rolling:

ALT text is only so-so; normally we want the ALT text to fill in for the image and not to describe it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for commenting! Was starting to worry this might get archived with nothing at all said. I’ve modified both alt-text (the one of the concert) to be more clear as to what it is. The alt text for the album art is pretty standard AFAIK (since album art is generally decorative), but I’m not an expert by any means on alt text so any advice there is welcome.
For the samples, most album articles (including good and featured articles, like the recently promoted All Money Is Legal) have at least one or two audio samples and I think there is a very solid case for having at least one audio sample; I typically include at least two audio samples to provide a decent sample of the album’s overall sound. I am definitely open to strengthening the case for audio samples here or for including a different audio sample - “House of God” might be a bad sample to use since it received relatively little coverage, so perhaps something like “Bless Me Indeed”, “I Worship You”, or “How Great Is Your Love”, which have more fleshed-out coverage of lyrics and music. The point of a sample should be to explain something the reader can’t get by just reading, but I do think there should be at least one audio sample for the benefit of the reader. Toa Nidhiki05 14:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'll need to explain why a song sample improves the article quality. Is it somehow representative for the album and are there sources discussing this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although the current wording might need to change. “I Can Only Imagine” and “House of God” are the two extremes of the album - one being a ballad, the other being a hard rock song. There used to be a third one that represented what the album usually sounds like, but it was removed during GAN iirc. “House of God” specifically is mentioned multiple times by sources, with the following sentences in the body:

"House of God" was noted as being one of the album's more rock–oriented songs.[13][14][16] The song utilizes "driving" guitars[20] and a "nasty" guitar riff,[16] and invites the listener to enter the house of god.

Specifically, the song received note for being among the album’s most rock-oriented tracks, and its guitar work was specifically mentioned in two different reviews. An earlier source in the article notes the band fought their record to include it on the album as a counterbalance to the more adult contemporary-leaning tracks on the album.
As for Imagine, there is more content on the song article itself. I’m actually leaning you way on removing it since the information doesn’t tie into the album much at all, but I think replacing it with another song is a good idea - having “House of God” as the only sample doesn’t represent the album. The one that leaps out to me after checking the sources is “How Great Is Your Love”, which has an arrangement sources specifically comment on - the use of string instruments and electronic ones, vocal harmonies and vocal delays, and drum rhythms. This seems like sufficient coverage for a sample IMO, and I think I can gather all of that in the chorus and the bridge.
So the long and short of it: I think the Imagine sample can be nixed, and then I can update the “House of God” rationale to be sufficient and also develop one for “How Great Is Your Love”. I can go ahead and write out an example for both if you’d like. Toa Nidhiki05 18:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and done this, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've added stronger justification for "House of God" (tying it to the band's desire to include a rock song), removed the "I Can Only Imagine" sample, and added a sample of "How Great is Your Love" with justification. Give it a look when you can Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, given how little discussion there is on "I Can Only Imagine", I'd say that one does not meet WP:NFCC#8. Regarding the other, I'll need a second opinion; @Masem and Nikkimaria:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above suggests there may be more to say about "House of God", but I don't think there's sufficient justification to include the sample presently. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I Can Only Imagine" had already removed, not sure what you mean. I've modified the reasoning for "House of God" to note specifically the song's guitars. The sample features the "nasty" guitar riff at the end of the simple and the driving guitars in the chorus. Toa Nidhiki05 18:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Nikkimaria: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus: in case you haven't seen it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon thinking, I don't think any of the samples should be on this article as they don't add enough to a general album article. On the articles for the songs themselves they might be fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this just an opposition to samples on this article, or opposition to album samples in general? I’ve examined around half of the FA album articles and only a handful lack audio samples (and one of them was a movie soundtrack). The concept of samples isn’t generally seen as problematic for album articles. Toa Nidhiki05 21:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 July 2019 [2].

Columbine High School massacre edit

Nominator(s): AceAlen (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Columbine shootings. It has been edited a lot and fully meets the criteria for FAC nomination. Has all the information on the background, shooting and aftermath. Including on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. It is a good nomination. AceAlen (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This hasn't received any commentary yet, but I'm going to archive the nomination as premature. There are some obvious deficiencies in the article including numerous unsourced statements and a lot of choppy prose that needs work to form a cohesive narrative and avoid WP:PROSELINE. I'd recommend going through a peer review process or working with someone at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC before renomination. --Laser brain (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2019 [3].

Bullfrog County, Nevada edit

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a strange loophole created by the Nevada State Legislature to deter a nuclear waste dump from being placed in the desert and to at least profit from that dump if it was. Made from the uninhabited area around the proposed dump, it created jurisdictional issues and was sued out of existence by the county it was created from within two years of its creation. I know it's rather short, but there's arguably not much to say about it. I look forward to hearing your feedback! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919 edit

This is an interesting and above-average article, but it may be premature to consider it for FA status. I'm especially concerned that it is sourced almost entirely from contemporaneous journalism, when even a cursory search indicates there are several relevant academic sources that have not been used. (For example, I quickly found this 1996 book about Nevada politics from the University of Nebraska Press and this 2011 book about nuclear waste policy from Vanderbilt University Press.) The one academic source that is cited (once) says in its abstract that the creation of the county was partly a consequence of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, but that act is not mentioned in the article. There is also no mention of criticism that creation of the county suggested Nevada wanted the nuclear site, which is mentioned in some of the sources and in a congressional speech by then-Senator Chic Hecht of Nevada. Less critical, but still part of the FA standards, it seems like the article could be more fully illustrated with relevant images of places mentioned as part of the county (e.g., Yucca Mountain or the Nevada Test Site) or people involved in its creation and dissolution (e.g., File:Richard_Bryan.jpg). Given that some of these concerns may require a longer cycle to ensure adequate research and incorporation of new material, I'm doubtful about them being solved within the FA process itself, so I'm regretfully setting out an oppose at this time based on criteria 1b, 1c, and 3. --RL0919 (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your feedback. The Waste Policy Act is mentioned in the article, and I have linked it. The sources I have cited so far indicated that there might have been a conflict of interest in the creation of the county, and I think I can add those rather easily. I think the remainder of your concerns, such as sourcing, could be addressed in an FA cycle, and I'd like to be able to address them in the FAC process if possible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm skeptical, else I would not have opposed. But I'll keep an eye on the progress and if you can address it all (and of course pending whatever else comes up from other reviewers) then I can withdraw my opposition. --RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chris857 edit

"The name derived from the Bullfrog Mining District in the area, in turn named due for the color of the area's gold ore resembling a bullfrog."

  • This could use a copyedit - is it trying to say that gold in the area is the same color as a bullfrog? (though looking at photos, bullfrogs seem to come in many colors). Perhaps: "...in turn named because the area's gold ore has a similar color to a bullfrog."

Chris857 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about "The name derived from the Bullfrog Mining District in the area, in turn named due to the area's gold ore being colored like a bullfrog."? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Taking a quick look, I think the outstanding opposition is valid and actionable, and should be addressed outside of the FAC process. Please do the appropriate work to obtain and cite high-quality academic sources and ping reviewers as appropriate before re-nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2019 [4].

Crusades edit

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Papal sanctioned military campaigns starting in the 11th century and continuing to a point that in time that is a matter of debate for historians Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • For both the Latin/Byzantine and Teutonic Order maps, suggest duplicating the legend in the caption
  • File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg: source link is dead
  • File:ConquestOfConstantinopleByTheCrusadersIn1204.jpg: first source link is dead
  • File:Friedrich_II._mit_Sultan_al-Kamil.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Akra1291.jpg, File:La_Rendición_de_Granada_-_Pradilla.jpg
  • File:Deutscher_Orden_in_Europa_1300.png: possible to translate the description?
  • File:"Галицькі_хоругви_у_Грюнвальдскій_битві_15_липня_1410_року".jpg: do not see that licensing at given source
  • File:Saladin_and_Guy.jpg: why is this believed to be PD in Syria? Also source link is dead
  • File:Ice-battle.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nikkimaria:—are this ok? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack edit

Reading now, but probably will need a second read. Great to see an article of this importance here. However, I think this still needs work in terms of readability and comprehensibility. Preliminary suggestions below:

  • The background section focuses on the debates of current historians. However, this section should be primarily help the reader without prior knowledge to get into the complicated topic. I would start with introducing all relevant parties (and all important associated information), providing much more basic information as background. For example, the background section could make use of a map showing the relevant empires just before the beginning of the Crusades.
    • @Jens Lallensack:—Can you give examples here please. I look at the background and don't really see current historical debate in the background, or do you mean lede? I am a bit heads down with this so a second pair of eyes is helpful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The background section revolves around the question if the Crusades where a "surprising and unexpected event" or not. This is actually from the first sentence of that section. It thus directly dives into complicated, very specific questions. Consider that this is a Level-3 vital article and thus should be as accessible as possible. A background section is supposed to provide the reader unfamiliar with the topic with the context necessary for comprehending what follows. What do you think about starting with the basics: Introduce the main powers in both Europe and the middle east first (the constellation just before the first Crusade), together with the most important facts and histories that the reader needs to know in order to understand the rest of the article. Only then I would discuss the question why the Crusade actually started, and if it was foreseeable or not. This is my personal opinion, and I might be unreasonable, but I am just worried that the article makes it unnecessarily difficult for, lets say school childs, to comprehend the background section, and I myself didn't found it an easy read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thinking on this @Jens Lallensack:—the info is inportant but take your point. What about if I summarise where the background is, and add a section lower titled something like 'Cause'? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sounds good to me! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Green tickY—@Jens Lallensack: how does the Background section look to you now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Opinion was split further due to a lack of dialogue leading to differences of custom and this resulted in the Christian Church to splitting along Latin/Orthodox lines – a convoluted sentence, perhaps rewrite more concisely, and mention the term schism?
                • Green tickY—Reworded but didn't metion Schism to keep this simple as you suggested Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • This status quo was disrupted by the western migration of the Turkish tribes, particularly the Seljuqs. – link Seljuqs (as first mention), also state when this migration happened.
              • Egypt had been ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969. – Needs more explanation; it does not become clear that Egypt was conquered by the Seljuqs. I would add more background on the Seljuqs (e.g., when did they conquer Egypt)
                • Green tickY—THis isn't background or cause—it is covered in detail in the 11th century section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the succession of information is not ideal yet in the background section. You are talking about the Christian world first, then about the Seljuqs, then about Christians (the Byzantine Empire) again.
              • There is still redundancy between the background and the new "causes" section.
              • Maybe it makes sense to have the "causes" section as a subsection of "background" (or as a major section just after the "background")?
              • --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make sure that every person is introduced at first mention. E.g, instead of just "Peter the Hermit", I would write "the priest Peter the Hermit". I think it helps the reader a lot to get a first impression of what is behind those names.
    • I've gone through the article and tried to do this for everyone who is simply named, or only identified by an epitet, adding "count", "king", and such to give better clarity on why someone mattered in the time. Some figures were harder than others and I chose identifies like "French Noble" or "Franciscan Friar" to help identify them. I'm pretty sure I got everyone. Lord0fHats (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you @Lord0fHats:—@Jens Lallensack: does this cover your points? I don't want to amend LordOfHats fine work if it does—if you still think it needs work how about I work through again and extract some of the names to Notes. If it works for you two it would would read narratively to those who only want a certain level of detail but the detail would remain for those who want more. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing the Peoples Crusade, I miss some info about the reasons for the massacres of Jews. Similar massacres occurred in later Crusades, so this might be an important point to elaborate on a bit more right at this point.
    • I think the point is that there was a level of religious intolerance in Latin Christianity, not sure the drawing the reasons out adds much value to this article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an overview article of this level, it is loaded with names. This makes it challenging for the reader. Two ideas: 1) Maybe you could check if some of the names could be removed, keeping only the most important ones. 2) When names that already have been introduced are mentioned again later on, it is difficult for the reader to remember "who was that". So it might make sense to remind the reader by repeating their status/function. For example, instead of "visited Zengi's son and successor", you could say "visited the son and successor of Zengi (the governor of Mossul)".
    • I'm going to try and work on this later. I'm familiar with the Crusades, but not so much that I know everyone involved by name and was confused more than once as the article went on. Additionally, some figures don't seem to be named at all (The sultan of Baghdad and the Abbasid Caliph are both mentioned but not named) and someone might need to help with that. Lord0fHats (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third decade saw campaigns by Fulk V of Anjou, the Venetians, and Conrad III of Germany and the foundation of the Knights Templar. – This article needs to be readable for people without any prior knowledge, especially since the Crusades are such an central topic. This sentence is an example of how the reader may get lost: What is the relevance of the Knights Templar for the Crusades? They need to be properly introduced at first mention.
  • Egypt was ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969, independent from the Sunni Abbasid rulers in Baghdad and with a rival Shi'ite caliph – considered the successor to the Muslim prophet Mohammad. The caliph's chief administrator, called the vizier, was chiefly responsible for governance. – This is the kind of background information that is also needed elsewhere in the article. This specific information comes too late in my opinion; why not moving it to the "background" section?
  • In 1163 the deposed vizier – I can't quite follow, it was previously stated the invasion was halted, so how comes the vizier got deposed?
  • Doge Enrico Dandolo – "Doge" should be linked, and ideally explained, at first mention.
  • However, the French Crusaders eventually had their excommunications lifted. – What "French Crusaders"? I thought it was the King of Germany and the Doge of Venice?
  • When the original purpose of the campaign was defeated by the assassination of Alexios IV Angelos, they conquered Constantinople, not once but twice. Following upon their initial success, the Crusaders captured Constantinople again and this time sacked it – this reads quite confusing. They conquered Constantinople twice and than sacked it? Not sure how to understand this.
  • to prevent an alliance between the Latins and the Mongols – Also, important players such as the Mongols need to be properly introduced. They appear out of nothing in the text.
  • You use both the terms "French" and "Franks", are these synonyms? If so, this is confusing; I suggest to stick with one term.
    • Green tickY—No, they are not synonyms. French is used for the subjects of the King, and residents of France at the time, Frank is explained in terminology, it is the generic term for any Western European/Latin Christian crusading in the Levant. Used to differentiate Latin and Greek Orthodox Christians. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

minor points:

  • The Western chronicles present the First Crusade as surprising and unexpected event – "a" missing?
  • The resultingGregorian Reform – space missing
  • They were joined by Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin I of Jerusalem – But I guess Baldwin I didn't had this name ("of Jerusalem") at this point already, before the Crusade?

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

second look: Thanks for all the improvements so far. I'm still not completely convinced about the background section though.

  • I still think there should be more general background. I would even start with the spread of Christianity and the Umayyad conquests (Muslim conquests is listed under "Further information", but no word in the text about this). Something similar to the second paragraph of the "Historical context" section of the First Crusade article, but with less detail. Just to get an idea where the Seljuqs and Fatimids are coming from.
  • Frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world existed across the Mediterranean Sea. – Needs a date. Since when?
  • Muslim control for more than four centuries – Also, this needs a point of reference. Four centuries before the start of the first Crusade? The preceding sentence states "From the 8th century", so this has to be assumed to be the temporal point of reference, but this can't be.
  • and Norman adventurers led by Norman nobleman Roger de Hauteville (Roger I of Sicily) conquered the Muslim Emirate of Sicily. – Maybe it does not hurt to mention this, but is there a direct relevance for the crusades?
    • Green tickY— This illustrates the frontier conditions and is analogous to the Reconquista. In addition the Kingdom of Sicily, the de Hautvilles and the Normans conflict with the papacy and the Byzantines are all covered later and have significant importance Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legal rights of Christians in the Holy Land are explained in detail, but other aspects lacking, I just have the feeling this is still quite unbalanced.
    • Green tickY—@Jens Lallensack: How does it look now. The realtions between faiths at the point of the First Crusade is crucial while other factors of life in the Levant are not. If you explain how and why you think it is unbalanced I will investigate Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jens Lallensack:—are you able to support this now? Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the fixes, it is much improved. However I still haven't read the rest of the article. First bunch of issues below.
  • The three-month march to Antioch was arduous – should be mentioned that this city was Muslin-held; one can guess from what follows, but it disrupts reading flow.
  • massacring the Muslim and many Christian Greeks, Syrian and Armenian inhabitants – "Greek", because of "Greek inhabitants"? I would also add "orthodox" to the "Christian" for better accessibility.
  • Some Islamic contemporaries promoted the idea that there was a natural Islamic resurgence under Zengi, through Nur al-Din to Saladin although this was not as straightforward and simple as it appears. – This somehow interrupts the Saladin narrative, and makes the text quite difficult to follow. I also does not become clear why it was not "as straightforward and simple". Maybe just delete this sentence.
  • Saladin imprisoned all the caliph's heirs – I cannot right follow here. In the previous sentences we learned that Saladin became ruler of Egypt. Did he really imprisoned the heirs before he seized Damascus and Syria?
    • Green tickY—now this is interesting but perhaps overly detailed so I have deleted Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • King Louis VII and Conrad III led armies from France and Germany to Jerusalem and Damascus without winning any major victories. – This is the only information the article gives on the effects of the second Crusade in the Holy Land. Would it worth adding that they were defeated by Seljuks, reached Jerusalem, and started a failed attack on Damascus? Maybe make the point that it was a failure?
  • King Guy of Jerusalem – linked more than once
    • Green tickY—not only done this one but remove all overlinking through the article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a result, much of Palestine quickly fell to Saladin including, after a short five-day siege, Jerusalem. – Here it would be helpful to know where King Guy of Jerusalem went (as he remains important in what follows, not clear where his army was coming from when he lost all of his lands).
  • On 28 August 1189 King Guy of Jerusalem besieged the strategic city of Acre – Information appears a bit detached (ok, the bigger picture becomes clearer later). But I think it would be helpful here to state if Acre was under Crusader control but fell to Saladin, or if it was always under Muslim control.
  • The journey to the Eastern Mediterranean was – Who was travelling here? It lacks a clear connection to the preceding information. I suggest to move the sentence "His successor as Pope, Gregory VIII issued a papal bull titled Audita tremendi that proposed a further Crusade later named the Third Crusade to recapture Jerusalem." right before this one, to keep together what belongs together.
  • due to insufficiency of numbers – not sure if this is needed, could be removed?
  • a new military threat to the civilised world – this would mean that the Golden Horde was not civilised. I doubt we can make this point.
  • Baibars had three key objectives – Comes a bit out of nothing, does not connect with the former. Is it possible to combine this with the sentence where Baibars is first mentioned and introduced?
  • The Crusader states were fragmented, and various powers were competing for influence. – Again, no connection. Also, this sentence is so general that it does not really tells us anything new, and seems redundant to the first sentence of the paragraph.
  • The fleet returned to France, leaving only Prince […] This ended the last significant crusading effort in the Eastern Mediterranean – leaving him where? In Tunis? That is not eastern Mediterranean.
  • Religious fervour enabled amazing feats of military endeavour – "amazing" is not neutral, and inappropriate here imo.

@Jens Lallensack:—all done, what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nevell edit

In the legacy section, I think it would be worth mentioning the use of crusading imagery by extreme right-wing groups, cf Koch 2017. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There should be room for Carol Hillenbrand’s The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will have a look and cross check. She was cited as a source but the text the citations were supporting have been edited out over time. Unsure if there is any benefit of adding the source just for the sake of it. When there are detailed comments will look to tie together with this suggestion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Green tickY—good idea, restored Hillenbrand. I will add further references when they come up during the FARNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: Thank you for bringing this article to FAC. Topics like this are hard to address and it’s encouraging to see someone tackling it. I appreciate it takes a lot of time and energy, and I hope it’s been rewarding. The outcome is that the 130,000+ people who read this page every month have a very useful source of information. Adam Bishop said the topic might be too big to be dealt with on Wikipedia. Given its complexity and impact, it’s possible he’s right but I’m glad we’re trying!

I’ve put some comments below which I hope will help improve the article. Not all of them need to be ‘actioned’, and some of them may just be food for thought.

Lead: The lead mentions the Rhineland massacres, but in such a way that makes it sound like an isolated event. I think it would be worth adding a bit more context that the crusades inspired religious hatred against non-Christians, which was acted out on Jewish communities across Europe on multiple ocassions.

Terminology: On a few occasions the term 'class' is used to refer to different social groups. I'd be cautious about using it, since ideas of class are often closely linked to working, middle, and upper class which are more reflective of early modern and modern society than medieval.

What is meant by 'frontier conditions'?

  • Green tickY—as you asked I have reworded slighly, what is meant, and I seem to remember the source is Asbridge, is that these were the border between jursidictions but in the medieval way this led to occasional friction (typically violent raiding, banditry etc) while inhabitants on both sides actually had a lot in common (socially, economically, politically) and at other times significant contact. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images: The images relate to the text, but I think could be shuffled a bit. Royal MS 16 G VI is aligned with the paragraph before where Philip II (who is depicted) is mentioned. That's not too big an issue on a desktop, but on mobile view there's a substantial separation between image and text. A whopping 65% of readers of this page are on mobile so it's worth considering.

Of the 14 images, three are maps, ten are illustrations from illuminated manuscripts, and one is a 19th-century painting. It's a nice mix from a range of periods, but it's missing physical things - artefacts from the period which would evoke a sense of the crusades. Some of the manuscript images were created a couple of centuries after the events they depicted, are there options on Commons which are closer in time? I realise we have to work with what we’ve got, but I’d prefer to get within say 50 years if possible.

With the manuscript images, thank you for including the shelfmarks! Would it be useful to include the folio number too, or would that add too much clutter? At the least, it would be useful to have them on the image description pages.

Content: I’m unsure how much to include about the Children’s Crusade since it kind of didn’t lead anywhere – the current text seems enough if we’re sticking to high-level detail, but I think Gary Dickson’s book should be cited. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about how to discuss the Children’s Crusade.

The information on the Baron’s Crusade feels a little light to me. What’s your opinion on including more information, and how would you go about it?

There’s not much about the material culture of the crusades. The crusades led to the construction of castles and churches, and the use of relics (such as the Holy Lance) make for an interesting study which should be mentioned.

Thank you for adding content on the use of crusading symbolism in the present day. It’s a topic which is frankly unpleasant to deal with but is important to address. I wonder if it needs to be more explicit though. For example, ‘certain circles’ begs the question ‘who?’ when we are able to say that it’s the extreme right.

Clarity: 'historical analysis has demonstrated it was foretold by a number of earlier developments' makes it sound like the Crusades were prophesied. If I'm understanding correctly, the point is that there were conditions which make such a conflict more likely.

"... this marked the beginning of politically motivated Crusades" the absence of the French king from the First Crusade was politically motivated, so evidently a concern from the start. Perhaps this needs finessing, though I'm not sure about an alternative wording.

Nit-pick: directions (ie: north, south, etc) are sometimes capitalised, but since they’re nouns rather than proper nouns they don’t need to be.

  • Green tickY—picked this one up.......thought I would start with the quick ones Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: The article does a good job of weaving changes in interpretation into the text. It is strong on the political and military history, but I’d like to see more social history woven in. The level amount of information is generally appropriate: detailed without being overwhelming. There are occasions where it would have been easy to go into more detail (accounts of battles for example) but on the whole the article strikes a balance between a high-level view and enough detail to be engaging. That said, I think there are gaps to be filled as outlined above. To keep the article a manageable length, it might be worth considering trimming a little detail from the First Crusade. I can see why there’s a lot of emphasis on it, but that’s also where we’re seeing more detailed accounts of events in the article.

An article like this is fiendishly difficult to write because there are so many factors to consider. What we have here is a good page. I don’t think it’s Featured quality just yet, but that’s not to say it couldn’t be. This is a very important topic, perhaps more so today than five or ten years ago, and efforts to improve the page are greatly appreciated! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod edit

If I look at this later, will I find my unaddressed comments from the last FAC have been addressed? I'd also hope we can hear from @Adam Bishop: and @Ealdgyth:. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pings don't work unless they're part of a signed comment initially so @Ealdgyth: @Adam Bishop:. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In part, probably, the article doesn't really get much attention these days including a peer review with no comments, so it really needs constructive feedback from someone who understands. There is more on the Crusader States and the root causes, histiography is tighter etc. There may be gaps that you can call out on that can be fixed as part of the FAR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following along but I haven't had a chance to make any meaningful comments...to be honest I find that the topic is actually too huge for Wikipedia to deal with properly. But I don't want to be too pessimistic, so I'll try to find some time to look it over in depth! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Adam Bishop:—your comment made me smile, I think you might be right Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish edit

Well, I don't think there is anything outstanding on this FAC at the moment—apart from the points made by @Jens Lallensack: on the complexity of names and the points from @Richard Nevell:. I will pick this up after there is further comment in one hit. I am off to Puglia now, so I won't be responding for a couple of weeks. Hopefully there will be loads then and we can crack on with getting this done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: No rush as far as I'm concerned - have a good trip! Richard Nevell (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus edit

A general impression I have from reading the first part this article is of somewhat awkward punctuation in places. There are missing commas in some rather extended sentences, and unneeded commas in others. If you tried to read it aloud you'd probably see what I mean. For example:

  • "One of Urban's aims was to guarantee pilgrims access to the Eastern Mediterranean holy sites that were under Muslim control but scholars disagree as to whether this was the primary motive for Urban or those who heeded his call."
  • "A power struggle between Church and state in medieval Europe began around 1075 and continued through the period of the First Crusade over whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics that is now known as the Investiture Controversy."

There are some excessively long paragraphs, which don't allow the reader to take a mental breath while reading. See the Background section, for example. Personally, I think it could use a grammarian to go through it and improve the flow. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have put in a request to GOCE but it is 37 on the list. Will try and clean this up myself in the meantime Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

With no support for promotion after six weeks I think it's time to archive this nom and bring it back after a couple of weeks, when hopefully the copyediting that's been suggested above is complete. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2019 [5].

Sega edit

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the house that Sonic built! Sega is the world's most prolific producer of arcade games, but is best known for its video game consoles and its creativity. In the modern day, Sega's not quite the same as it was, now being part of a corporate conglomerate since its acquisition through a takeover in 2004, but it has a legacy unique in video games as a company that was ahead of its time in its innovations, including modern online gaming.

This article is the culmination of years of work on Wikipedia, by myself and several other editors. Sega's video game consoles are already a featured topic, and this article serves to represent the work of all of the editors on Sega through the last decade or so. I want to extend to all of them my personal gratitude for their hard work. For the reviewers, I thank you ahead of time for your comments. Red Phoenix talk 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Eric Corbett edit

There are lots of problems with the prose, of which I'll give just a few examples here:

  • "By early 1992, production had ceased in North America, having sold between 1.5 million and 2 million units" So "production" had sold between 1.5 and 2 million units?
  • Inconsistent use of US vs. U.S. as in "US territories" and "U.S. bases".
  • "Sega was founded by Martin Bromley and Richard Stewart as Nihon Goraku Bussan[c] on June 3, 1960, which became known as Sega Enterprises, Ltd ..." So Sega has the power to rename dates?
  • There are too many paragraphs beginning "In/On XXX", and too many of them follow one another.
  • "The Sega Saturn was not as successful as its predecessor, the Genesis" As an image caption that is a complete sentence which should be terminated by a full stop. This issue occurs throughout the article.
  • "Dreamcast and continuing struggles (1999-2001)" In other headings the correct ndash has been used.
  • "... claimed would allow video games to convey unprecedented emotions" How can a game, as opposed to a character in a game, display any emotion at all?
  • "His sentiments were not unique" "Unique" is an unusual adjective to be applied to anyone's sentiments, "shared" would be a more idiomatic expression.
  • "Sega was forced to cut its profit forecast by 90%" Elsewhere percentages have been expressed as "80 percent and 12 percent of the market respectively"; ought to be consistent.
  • "... and having too many games being developed" Does this mean "having too many games under development?
  • "Sega's main headquarters is located in Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, Japan." Why "located in" rather than just "in"?
  • "Previously, Sega has had offices in France, Germany, Spain, and Australia" The verb tense "has had" makes "Previously" redundant.
  • "... have been more negatively remembered." very awkward. Perhaps "remembered less fondly"?

I would stress that these are only examples of the work that needs to be done on the prose, not an exhaustive list. Eric Corbett 16:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, thanks for your quick comments. I understand your review and prose concerns; I would admit I'm not the best prose writer in Wikipedia. So far, I have addressed what you have posted, though I state that just to note that this has been done. I had a copyeditor go through this article a while ago, and I will ask him for a second pass. A couple of notes, whether for yourself or future reviewers, on what I did to address these concerns:
  • Split the "production" sentence into two separate sentences.
  • Using "U.S." unless otherwise contraindicated (i.e., the symbol for the U.S. dollar (US$) or website USgamer.
  • Hilarious, if Sega had the power to rename dates that would be surprising. Rephrased to remove ambiguity.
  • Reworded a number of in/on paragraph leads.
  • All images double-checked for where they need a period or not, and inserted/removed accordingly.
  • Put "unprecedented emotions" in quotes - this is actually what Ken Kutaragi said, in reference to the PlayStation2's "Emotion Engine" chip.
  • Changed wording to "shared" rather than "not unique".
  • All % signs changed to "percent".
  • Yes, too many games under development is the meaning, and fixed.
  • I've never known "located in" to be an issue, but a certain copyeditor I know has told me if I can cut a word, cut it, so it has been removed.
  • "Previously" removed.
  • Rephrased the last sentence entirely. "Less fondly" isn't really video game terminology, so I tried to use words consistent with other video game articles.
If you do have time to leave more comments, I will appreciate it. I'm a firm believer in taking feedback in stride to make articles the best they can be. Red Phoenix talk 22:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised to discover that video gamers have invented a new form of English, although perhaps I shouldn't be. I think there could still be some tidying up of the prose, but I recognise the hard work that's been put into this article, so I won't oppose on that basis. Eric Corbett 23:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ritchie333 edit

  • Agree with Eric that there are still instances of the prose that read like a list "In 1952, x ... in 1953 ... y, in 1954 .... z". I've had a go at breaking up the flow of some of this, the remainder of the article should be checked.
  • After the war, the founders sold Standard Games and established a new distributor - What was Standard Games, if not a distributor?
  • was first used in 1954 on the Diamond Star Machine, a slot machine - Do we really need to say "machine" twice?
  • Kikai Seizō, doing business as Sega, Inc., focused on manufacturing Sega machines - isn't it still called "Service Games" not "Sega" at this point?
  • Because Sega imported second-hand machines that frequently required maintenance, Sega - repetition of "Sega". The rest of this paragraph seems say "Sega" too many times, see if you can break up the repetition a bit.
  • In order to advance the company, Rosen had a goal to take the company public - repetition of "company"

That's just from a quick scan of the first bit of the article. If I get time, I'll look at the rest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, thank you for your comments. In response to them:
    • I'll keep looking at opportunities to correct "list reading" throughout the article. Quite a bit has been cleared up already, and Popcornduff has been assisting with a second pass copyedit. I will keep working on it as well.
    • Removed "a new distributor" as extra unnecessary text. Standard Games was a distributor.
    • Removed an occurrence of "Machine"
    • Actually, not really, at least not in Japan. My understanding of the sources is that Sega was Service Games' branding, as early as 1954. Service Games of Japan itself was defunct by 1960, and Nihon Kikai Seizō, which did business as Sega, Inc. was one of its replacements. I did reword to remove duplicate use of "Sega".
    • Removed quite a few repetitions.
    • Again, removed the repetition.
Thank you for taking a look. I hope you do find the time to give the rest a look and provide feedback. Red Phoenix talk 19:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, just to echo User:Red Phoenix, there are a lot of different companies that fall under the Service Games or Sega umbrella because the Bromberg family essentially created an international coin-op distribution syndicate with operations in the United States, Asia, and Europe all controlled through a Panamanian Corporation (Note: Some of this wider history needs to be added to the article, or it really fails the comprehensiveness criteria). Japan Service Games ceased to exist in 1960 (the original Service Games, Inc. based in Hawaii ceased to exist in 1961, while the Panamanian corporation, also called Service Games, persisted until 1962). Two companies replaced it, both of which operated under several alternate names. Nihon Goraku Bussan did business as Utamatic, and Nihon Kikai Seizo did business as Sega. NKS was acquired by NGB in 1964. NGB took the name Sega Enterprises after acquiring Rosen Enterprises in 1965. Sega has easily the most convoluted history of any video game company with the possible exception of Midway, and no one source gets the whole story right. Horowitz comes the closest, but he still has a couple of details wrong. Indrian (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Indrian: you don't feel that's a better fit for History of Sega? That was the article on which you left me a message about Service Games' expanse. I've been careful about how much detail I go into on this article in order to support the spinout article - and it will go to FAC as well after Sega makes it through. If you disagree and think I need to put some here, though, I will—I've simply been holding off because I didn't think it was necessary for this article and rather was better for the other. Red Phoenix talk 23:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly the full detail should be reserved for that article, but that fact that Sega was initially subservient to a Panamanian Corporation and part of an extended web of companies around the world should be mentioned. Probably can be done in less than a paragraph. Indrian (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Did it in a couple of sentences. Will likely need a couple of paragraphs in the history article. Red Phoenix talk 02:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

This hasn't seen much action and seems to have stalled in recent weeks. I'll add it to the Urgents list but it will have to be archived soon if it doesn't receive some more review. I wish we could stir up some more active reviewers with an interest in video games. --Laser brain (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm actually kind of disappointed - this is a Top-importance article for WikiProject Video games, as well as High-importance to several others. That being said, I sort of expected this just because this is a large, kinda-specialized topic, and I do note there aren't that many FAs on companies. Red Phoenix talk 02:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this has been open almost two months now and despite a good deal of activity it doesn't seem to have moved much closer to consensus to promote, looking more like a peer review in fact. I think we need to put it to bed for now and try again after a couple of weeks. You can of course ping the above reviewers to revisit a future nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SnowFire edit

An interesting read, good work. I saw the Sega arcade near Shinjuku station just closed fairly recently when last I was there, so not super shocking reading about how Sega's had to decrease the number of pachinko parlors they operate. If anything, as a general criticism, it'd be interesting if there was even more information about Sega's arcades & pachinko business; pachinko is certainly where the money was for a long time. But I understand that English-language sourcing is extremely hard to get on that.

By Christmas, Sega held 31 percent of the North American video game market.[137]

The reference is busted here (including the archived version), but what exactly does this mean? Percentage of new console sales? If so, say that.

During 2003, Sega had plans of broadening its franchises to Hollywood co-operating with John Woo

This sentence reads weirdly. And... checking the reference, implies the wrong thing. "broadening its franchise to Hollywood" sounds like "Sega had plans to make movies based on their franchises" but the source says it was just games. John Woo backed the studio, sure, but this isn't what most people mean by going to Hollywood.

Because of the shrinking arcade business in Japan,[199] development personnel were also relocated to digital games.[200]

Whoa! OR alert here. Confusing reference, too, the URL goes to their 2019 strategy but the archived version is the 2015 strategy, but neither of them really claim this based off my reading. They don't even claim a mistier version of "reallocating resources" (e.g. layoff pachinko-related personnel to hire digital games makers). I'm not sure what point this wants to make, but it shouldn't be "Fred used to work on pachislot machines but now makes Yakuza's Steam version."

Due to the decline of packaged game sales worldwide in the 2010s,[195] Sega began layoffs and reduction of their Western businesses; for example, it closed five offices based in Europe and Australia on July 1, 2012.[196]

Mm, kinda sorta. After Sega cut their expected revenue in half (holy wow how does that even happen), of which some portion was attributable to an industry-wide fall in demand in the home video game industry (but industry-wide certainly didn't see a horrific 50% cut!), they closed 5 offices. If Sega was doing fine but the industry was collapsing they might well have not made that move. Also it's not even clear if this is a "reduction of business" exactly, since they were still publishing in these countries, just through paying third-parties. (Realistically, of course there was such a reduction, but that's technically not in the source if we're going to nitpick. Certainly plenty of companies that have attempted to implement cost-saving measures, and have those measures cost even more.)

Since then, the strategies for Asian and Western markets have become independent. The Western lineup...

Don't leave us hanging! What's the new strategy for the Asian market, then? If this is unknown, then how are we sure it diverged from the Western strategy?

Technosoft did not want their brand to desist

This is weird use of desist ("de-exist??") and I'm not sure it's that relevant anyway? Technosoft seems like it wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

In October 2017, Sega of America announced its online store, the Sega Shop

Did anything come of this? Do non-primary sources talk about it at all? Plenty of businesses have an utterly non-notable shop website where you can buy a branded hat with a logo or whatever. Was this was more than that?

In 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die, Duncan Harris wrote: "One of the reasons that older gamers mourned the loss of the Dreamcast was that it signaled the demise of arcade gaming culture ... Sega's console gave hope that things were not about to change for the worse and that the tenets of fast fun and bright, attractive graphics were not about to sink into a brown and green bog of realistic war games."

Is this really a notable piece of commentary? If Duncan Harris himself mourns the death of the Dreamcast, great, but a bit rich to talk for "older gamers" in general, many of whom never played a Dreamcast. (Call of Duty won't come out until 2003, people were whining about Quake being too grimy and brown back in 1995, and "fast fun" may be taken TOO literally by the modern mobile & casual game market.). If kept, I'd skip a full quote and just cut to the main point - that the Dreamcast was a successor to "arcade culture" and had bright, attractive graphics, and he mourned its (& Sega's?) passing.

SnowFire (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire, and thanks for your comments. I was just about to abandon all hope of getting any more feedback. Anyway, let me see if I can address your concerns.
  • On pachinko, my understanding is that's really more of Sammy Corporation's gig, so it would be a better fit regardless for that or Sega Sammy Holdings - this article is more focused on Sega Games Co., Ltd. and a bit on the subsidiaries of Sega Holdings Co., Ltd. (since some of them were a part of Sega Corporation before the takeover), but there is much more under the whole Sega Sammy Holdings umbrella. Regardless, the more small, less-important details of Sega's history itself I'm putting into History of Sega, a spinout article. If you have a source for it, though, I'd be interested in reading.
  • Fixed reference 137 - it seems that Bloomberg has moved it behind a paywall, which is why the ref broke and Checklinks didn't catch it.
  • Rephrased the John Woo comment to avoid confusing ambiguity.

I'll continue drilling on this in a bit. Red Phoenix talk 13:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The whole bit about the "shrinking arcade business" I just axed entirely; I think there's enough above it for us to get the point. The reference issue has to do with Sega Sammy basically rewrote their new year's strategy over the same URL for the old year's, probably the way their site works. There's one more occurrence; I'll just replace the URL with the archived 2015 version.
  • Added "in part" and rephrased to remove "reduction"
  • Stricken the independent comment
  • Removed the paragraph but kept a sentence about Technosoft.
  • To my knowledge, there's not really much to say about Sega Shop other than it's a more-recent event in corporate history, and it's only taken a single sentence to share a more recent event, of which there is not nearly as much as past events to cover. If you insist I strike it, I will, but I don't see it as doing harm.
  • I do feel it's a notable piece of commentary because it's representative of Sega, the Dreamcast, and the changes in the industry as a whole as to part of why it has the reputation it has. I trimmed it a bit, but we can discuss further."

Red Phoenix talk 15:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, most of the changes look good. Remaining thoughts:

  • So what did the Bloomberg article actually say behind the paywall? I'm generally skeptical of "X% of the market" without qualification / explanation claims because what exactly the "market" is and how it's measured can vary so much. Did it truly just say that with nothing more?
  • Sega Shop: It's up to you, so I'm not "insist"ing it be removed, but the only secondary coverage is small ball regurgitation of the press release based off a quick Google Search. Put things another way, should the Atlus USA article include a sentence like "Atlus directly sells merchandise from https://shop.atlus.com/ ?" It just doesn't seem that interesting. (But, to be clear, if you disagree, it's not something I'd withhold promotion support over. Possible I just don't have enough context.)
  • That quote from 1001 video games is better trimmed, thanks. SnowFire (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The percent of the market is by revenue. That has been added.
    • Meh, I get your point on the Sega Shop, so it has been struck. Red Phoenix talk 02:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • LGTM. Support. As said above, nice work! SnowFire (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Megaman en m edit

A quick review of the lead:

  • "(/ˈsɛɡə/" - I heard some people pronounce it as /seɪgɑ/ (say-gah), would this need to be sourced?
  • "Sega's arcade division, once part of Sega Corporation, has existed as Sega Interactive Co., Ltd., also a Sega Holdings subsidiary, since 2015." - reads a bit awkwardly, can the sentence be simplified or split up?
  • "...has been criticized for prioritizing quantity of game releases over quality." - Where is this sourced? I can only find Sega themselves saying this in "Sega blamed the loss on miscalculations of the market and having too many games under development.". In fact, one source laments the lack of games: "Travis Fahs of IGN noted that since the Sammy takeover Sega had developed fewer games and outsourced to more western studios".
  • Note: The lead could do with mentioning Sega's legacy per MOS:LEAD.

There are two instances of broken wiki-syntax at the bottom of the references section.

Hi Megaman en m, and thanks for your feedback. Here are my responses:
  • I think the pronunciation is debatable in English; either one I've heard in parlance. That being said, I did change it to your suggestion because my reading of it is that's more in line with how it would be pronounced in Japanese. I don't think it needs sourced; that seems really silly to source a pronunciation.
  • Correct IPA would be [seɡa] per Help:IPA/Japanese. Japanese words are pronounced exactly how they are written, leaving no room for interpretation. Sega is written as two letters, se (せ) and ga　(が). Watch any youtube video on Japanese letter pronunciation and it will be clear. So it actually sounds like Se-Ga. The Say-gah phenomenon is a western contortion. TarkusABtalk 20:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem solved by a qualified Japanese expert who actually knows about the language. I like it. Red Phoenix talk 18:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split up as asked.
  • Removed, and you'll have to forgive me a bit here - I do a lot of work on Sega-related articles, and I used some of them to stitch this one together. This is taken from one of those, but I didn't use the matching sources here because they weren't as targeted to Sega specifically. So, I removed this one.
  • In turn for the removal, added a bit of the legacy.
  • Fixed the syntax error - I think we actually made that error at FAC with some of the strikeouts.
Red Phoenix talk 21:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Mostly going by Eric Corbett's comments on the prose, it seems like we still have some inconsistent "US" vs. "U.S." usage.
    • I swore I had them all, and then I looked back and saw I missed a couple, somehow. Went back and fixed them. Still using U.S. except when it would be improper (i.e. the US dollar abbreviation US$ or for website USgamer).
  • I see that the last paragraph of the Legacy section appears to have a bit of a "X said Y" issue; is there some kind of comprehensive assessment?
    • There's not really a comprehensive assessment per se in the sources, in large part I think because the company has gone through so many drastic changes that I tried to put together what I could find about comments on the company as a whole. The only really comprehensive statement I have in one of my sources dates to 2009, which means it doesn't encapsulate the last 10 years of the company. If you have a way you can suggest I can still improve on it, I'll be glad to implement.
  • File:Sonic 1991.png I am not convinced that it meets WP:NFCC#8 in that form.
    • I was on the fence about keeping this one, too - it was there before I started work on this article and I debated if an image of a company mascot was appropriate on a company article. If you are not convinced, I think it's best to simply remove it for now and replace it with an image of a Genesis, which I have done.
  • File:Sega Annual Income(Loss) 1993-2004.svg: Might be a good idea to add source links.
    • I'll see if I can get that added on the Commons image.
  • There is a Harris 2014 citation that seems to be broken.
  • I see an inconsistent reference formatting, once "Kent 2001" and once "Horowitz" without a year is used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All straightened around in both cases, and consistently linked.

Otherwise the images seem fine but the ref section need some minor repair. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Going to work on putting links up on the Sega income image's page in a little while (though it is sourced here already). Otherwise I should have responses or things addressed for everything else. Red Phoenix talk 21:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    After a perlustration of the prose, it seems also OK to me although I don't have much of an eye for prose issues. The images are OK. Source formatting seems OK; no opinion on their quality as I am not familiar with most of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 July 2019 [6].

Jastrebarsko concentration camp edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jastrebarsko concentration camp was one of several children's concentration camps established by the Croatian fascist Ustase regime for Serb children in the Axis puppet Independent State of Croatia during World War II, part of the genocidal policies of that regime towards Serb people living in the puppet state. Records are incomplete, but at least 450, but perhaps as many as three times that number of children died at the camp in its short history from July to October 1942, mainly from malnutrition, neglect and illness. It was partially liberated by the Yugoslav Partisans in August 1942, which prompted its closure a couple of months later, with the remaining children largely farmed out to sympathetic families, although some of those that were briefly liberated were later rounded up and killed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Ustaše_symbol.svg should include an explicit tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by 3E1I5S8B9RF7 edit

  • I would recommend finding URL links for all the sources, in order to enable a review and check of the wording.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are reliable sources, but I want to be sure that sentences in the article do not say something, while a source says otherwise. Also, Ref. No. 1 has "Fumić 2011, pp. 52–55". These are four pages. It should be more specific. Two pages tops.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There will not be preview-accessible links to all the sources. The page range is completely fine, I've used wider page ranges in many FAs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you used a wide page range before, then you have problematic FAs. Help:References and page numbers: per the verifiability policy, "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." By your logic, one can simply add ten pages as one source and expect from the reader to search for specific claims. But that is not the way it goes. Precise claims should have precise page numbers.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what your problem is. Instead of an ambit claim for links to all sources and a demand for more precise citations, perhaps you could indicate where your concerns lie. What statement is it that you are questioning? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that fn 1 from Fumić includes a page (p. 54) consisting entirely of photographs and their captions. I could change it to pp. 52–53 & 55, but that seems unnecessarily pedantic. I have summarised different elements of two and a bit pages of text into a large para, which is quite reasonable in my opinion. If you have specific queries, I can provide quotes in the original Serbo-Croat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:CITEPAGE. You need specific page numbers for each specific claim in the article. Meaning, instead of a broad "pp. 52–55", you should break the pages into "pp. 52–53", "pp. 53–54", etc.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a huge page range (two and a bit pages), and I say breaking it down to two-page citations is unnecessary. I ask again, what are the specific claims you are concerned about? Perhaps if we start with the para cited to fn 1? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At your insistence, I am currently breaking it down and citing more closely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have had a crack at tightening the citations up, also discovered The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, vol. III: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany published last year, which contains a bit about the camp, corroborating some of the material from local sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. The issue is resolved now.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let me know if you see anything else that needs addressing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Note that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 has very few edits to WP:FAC in their entire history, and that was not a source review: [7]. Suggest taking their "insistence" with a large grain of salt—if at all. Cheers, 2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:8827:7142:6445:EB5C (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Disease and deaths" section says: "The Ustaše propaganda soon took advantage of the improved condition of the children". How did they took advantage? What did they do specifically? Can you elaborate this a bit?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say. I assume they made announcements over radio and in newspapers to try and make themselves look good, given there were rumblings about the treatment of children. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is fairly well written, considering the amount of available reliable sources at this time, stable and reasonably professional, I support its inclusion in the FA list.
P.S. Just a quick question, outside the review process. Yesterday, I clicked the Croatian Wikipedia page of this article. Curiously, it has an "Accuracy disputed" tag on it. Then I went to its talk page. On it, the admin of Croatian Wikipedia claims it is a "falsification from the communist times" and provides two links to websites that claim it was not a concentration camp, just an orphanage or children's home. I'm just curious: how would you respond to his statements?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatian Wikipedia has some really serious problems, see Croatian Wikipedia for sourced information about this issue, also this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Anyway, I support that this article should be promoted to a Featured article, but hey, since I have so few edits at FA reviews, who cares about my opinion, right? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri edit

Very interesting (and horrifying) article. I did a little copyediting. Please make sure I didn't mess anything and revert anything you feel doesn't improve the prose. I agree that there's nothing wrong with summarizing several pages of a source at a time.

  • The body of the article dives into the topic rather abruptly. I think a little background infomation would be helpful. You could describe the social and military situation in 1942, what the NDH and the Ustase were, and tell readers about their policies and actions towards Serbs. The government's relationship with the Catholic church could also be of interest, considering nuns' involvement in the camp.
  • "The decision to establish the camp was taken due to the large numbers of Serb children who had been rounded up during genocidal anti-Serb massacres conducted by the forces of the Ustaše-led government of the Independent State of Croatia (Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH) since April 1941.[1] Children had also been taken during anti-Partisan operations conducted by German, NDH and collaborationist forces between April 1941 and June 1942, such as the Kozara Offensive" Were the massacres and anti-partisan campaigns really distinct events? My understanding was that German anti-partisan operations in the Balkans were incredibly brutal and involved a lot of massacres. Also, who were the "collaborationist forces"? I thought the Ustase were the Nazi collaborators in Croatia.
  • What happened first was a series of massacres and other racial and religious persecution mainly of Serbs by the Ustaše, this resulted in an uprising, which the NDH forces responded to, soon assisted by the Axis occupation troops and collaborators. During counter-insurgency operations, more massacres and other persecution occurred. Chetniks collaborated with the NDH and Axis troops against the Partisans, for example during the Kozara Offensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Reception" section is confusing to me. First, I would consider renaming it to "Arrivals" or something like that, because this sounds like a section about the way an album was received. The section starts by describing the children's arrival at the camp. Then, it talks about where they came from and where they were placed in the camp, but this is already partly discussed in other parts of the article. So, I think this information should be moved, since the section then goes back to describing the arrival.
  • "He personally feared a nun, Sister Mercedes, but all the children feared Pulherija" Is this really relevant?
  • "In response, the Croatian Red Cross and some locals" In response to what exactly?
  • "Tatjana Marinić [sh] (1897–1966)" I don't think inline interwiki are particularly helpful and would suggest removing this one, but I understand they are somewhat common. You don't give birth and death years for anyone else.
  • "Monthly mortality figures were" Apparently, the numbers are disputed, but they are presented as if they were true.
  • "One source states that 1,500 children died in the camp" What source?
  • Fumic is the main source for this article. Unfortunately, I can't read Serbo-Croatian (surprise!). Based on the publisher, this doesn't look like an academic source and as far as I can tell based on a quick search it doesn't appear to be cited in the literature on this topic. Could you talk about what kind of source it is and why it should be considered reliable? --Carabinieri (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fumić is published by the national peak body that represents former Partisans (SABA RH), which has published many books about WWII in Yugoslavia, including unit and formation histories, and has run conferences about controversial aspects of Croatia's wartime history. I have found them to be reliable and consistent with other sources where they overlap, if a little biased towards the Partisan point of view. Fumić himself is a former president of SABA RH, and holds a Master of Science degree. This is such an obscure subject that there isn't much academic work in which Fumić could potentially be cited. Most other sources that mention this camp do so in passing, not in the detail of Fumić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild edit

  • For someone not conversant with Yugoslavia during WWII the first sentence of the main article seems to take a lot for granted. How about something like 'In April 1942, during WWII, Germany led the Axis conquest of Yugoslavia. Much of the country was occupied and the rump state of the Independent State of Croatia was created under a collaborationist Ustaše-led government. Ustaše forces embarked on a series of genocidal anti-Serb massacres. During these large numbers of Serb children who had been rounded up. Children had also been taken to ...' Just a quick thought, but IMO, more "scene setting" is definitely needed. (See what you think about this: I will probably want to make a similar point about the lead once this is settled.)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good, on the whole. A couple of thoughts:
  • "expelled large numbers of Serbs from the NDH,[4] and also murdered large numbers of them." "large numbers ... large numbers ..."
  • "resulting in the conclusion that it was genocidal in both intent and in practical terms". In the previous sentence it says "the most brutal and bloody puppet regime in Axis-dominated Europe" so this seems a bit of a redundant duplication.
  • "...the most brutal and bloody puppet regime in Axis-dominated Europe". Isn't this kind of contentious wording? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: "Puffery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much". Based on what info can we say that this was "the most brutal" and the "bloodiest" puppet regime, in the entire WWII? Who claims this? Who holds the 2nd and 3rd place? I would say that just using "brutal and bloody", without superlatives, sounds much more encyclopedic.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramet says "The NDH regime was the most brutal and sanguinary satellite regime in the Axis sphere of influence during the Second World War" sanguinary≈bloody. Ramet is a highly respected scholar on WWII in Yugoslavia, and from what I know about the NDH, I think the description is entirely justified. I've attributed it to Ramet in-text. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO a sentence or so of background needs inserting into the lead.
  • "Those children that had not been killed" "that" → 'who'.
  • "representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross began to place" Comma after "Cross".
  • "The buildings earmarked to accommodate the children were Dvorac Erdödy – a former castle that had been a children's home before the war, the nearby Franciscan monastery" Either the comma should be a dash, or the dash should be a comma.
  • "and the former Italian barracks and stables" Were these established by the Italians pre or post April 1941? Were the buildings purpose built by the Italians?
  • They would have been established post-April 1941, when the NDH was split into German and Italian spheres of influence/occupation. As far as who built them, it is not in the sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a chief Ustaše ideologist and high-ranking NDH official" Optional: "chief" → 'senior'.
  • "The staff otherwise consisted of members of the Ustaše Youth and female Ustaše." Optional: Something like 'members' on the end of the sentence?
  • "while a third, consisting of another 850 children were transported" Comma after "children".
  • "The last group arrived at the nearby village" Suggest "The last" → 'A final'. Currently "The last" reads as if you are referring to the group which arrived on 5 August.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2 edit
  • "stated that she was dragged away from her mother at the sub-camp and they were packed tightly into railway wagons for the journey" You start with the singular "she" and "her" and then switch to "they" and "were". Similarly in the next sentence, where "they" are not identified.
  • "The healthy and stronger children" According to the previous paragraph there were no or few "healthy" children. Suggest 'healthier'.
  • "The former castle comprised the camp "hospital" and accommodated about 300 children, and another 250 girls were housed in the nearby former Italian barracks" I don't see that this merits the connective "and". Suggest two separate sentences. And why is this not in the previous paragraph, as that covers where different groups were housed?
  • "the floor covered with straw" Just checking that you mean this, and not 'the straw-covered floor'?
  • "did show love and attention to the children" Suggestion only: "love" → 'affection'. (Or 'demonstrate affection and pay attention'?)
  • "The Ustaše propaganda soon took advantage of the improved condition of the children" This isn't too clear to me. Could you be more specific?
  • As I said to another reviewer, "The source doesn't say. I assume they made announcements over radio and in newspapers to try and make themselves look good, given there were rumblings about the treatment of children". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all the children that could walk" "that" → 'who'.
  • "the Bosanska Krajina" The definite article reads a little oddly. You sure?
  • Note a: "The figures stated by Fumić add up to 449" "stated" → 'given'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might have addressed your comments, Gog. Let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker. That all seems fine. Given that there seemed a lot going on, I didn't review the lead above, nor, obviously, the background section; so there are some comments on them below.
  • "In October 1942, about 500 of the surviving children were dispersed among local families by the Catholic aid group, Caritas; 1,637 boys and girls were taken in by families in Zagreb, Jastrebarsko and surrounding villages ... " The bit after the semi colon seems to contradict the bit before[?]
  • "resulting in the conclusion" To my eye this seems to beg the question of who was concluding. I assume Ramet, but I had to reread the paragraph to still not be certain. Perhaps a nudge to the reader's memory?
  • "with some Catholic clergy actually participating in forced conversions" Does "actually" add anything?
  • "the NDH ... which incited widespread massacres [...] In particular, the Ustaše regime ... was also involved in widespread mass murder" Consecutive sentences which seem, in part, to be communicating much the same information.
  • "again withdrew most of their troops in this area" "in" → 'from'.

Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think, Gog. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To my eye it is looking good now. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus edit

Unfortunately, I'll have to Oppose for now per condition 1b as incomplete. I agree with the comments above: while generally in good condition, the article is lacking background information and assumes knowledge on the part of the reader.

I've added a Background section, see what you think, Praemonitus. More, or enough? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs to mention the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, and the subsequent establishment of the Ustaše-led government.
  • The article lists an organization titled, "Land Commission for the Determination of Crimes by the Occupiers and Their Supporters", but it is unclear who ran this.
  • This is sloppy translation, clarified that this was a Croatian state-run commission, run by what was then the Partisan-run Federal State of Croatia, one of the regional government organs the Partisans created while Yugoslavia was still partially occupied. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a map of the camp and an image of the monument in the Jastrebarsko cemetery that could be included?
  • I put in a request with Wikiproject Croatia for a photograph of the monument in 2016, but didn't get a nibble, which is a shame as it is so close to Zagreb. I haven't bothered with Croatian Wikipedia because there are some real problems over there. I'm not aware of any maps of the camp itself, only the photograph of the "castle" which is already included in the article. There are internal camp photos in Fumić's book, but as far as I know they wouldn't be PD-Croatia. I'll go back and check to make sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 makes mention of the UNS evacuation of camps around Gospić, supposedly because of the pending occupation of the area by the Italian army.[8] This doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article, instead making it appear the Italians were fully complicit. Praemonitus (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a bit complicated, Praemonitus. The Italians had occupied, withdrawn, occupied then mostly withdrawn from what was known as Zone III of the NDH between April 1941 and June 1942. By the time this camp was established, they had withdrawn from the immediate area but were still theoretically occupying Zone III in a limited way. And this camp was located in Zone III. So this went on in an area for which the Italians were theoretically responsible, but in which they no longer had any real occupying force located, mainly being concentrated in large population centres and along railways. It isn't clear why the USHMM makes this point about the camps around Gospić, as that has nothing to do with this camp, which was in the Italian zone anyway. I've never read anything linking the clearing of the Gospić camps in summer 1941 (prior to the initial Italian re-occupation in August) with this camp. I've added a para mainly from Tomasevich explaining the occupation two-step the Italians engaged in, and made it clear they were not still garrisoned there while the camp was in operation. Hopefully this addresses your observation? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I read the USHMM article, the occupation by the Italian army directly led to the creation of the camp system, of which Jastrebarsko was the "centerpiece". Hence it's not clear to me why you say it has nothing to do with the camp. The USHMM article lists a couple of sources. Praemonitus (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jasenovac concentration camp was without any doubt the centrepiece of the concentration camp system, definitely not this camp. Jadovno concentration camp was the first concentration camp established by the Ustaše in April 1941. Jasenovac was established in August 1941 (on the German side of the Vienna Line), at the time the Italians re-occupied their side. At the time of that Italian re-occupation, Jadovno (which was on the Italian side) was closed. This is what the USHMM are referring to when they mention the closure of the camps near Gospić (Jadovno is near Gospić). However, it isn't clear what connection the USHMM is trying to make between the closure of Jadovno in August 1941 and the opening of this camp in July the following year. According to Fumić, none of the children came from there (they mostly came from the Jasenovac complex), although it is possible that some had previously been in Jadovno and had been transferred to the Jasenovac complex in August 1941, then to this camp in 1942. However, we don't have a source that says that. Frankly, I find the Gospić mention under this camp's entry confusing and irrelevant, and think it should have been under the Jasenovac entry, not under this camp. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: as a result of concerns raised by a couple of the above reviews, I have become aware that this article does not reflect an important academic viewpoint about the nature and primary purpose of this camp, and that I have not properly taken into account the ideological currents in at least one the main sources used. I therefore ask that this be nomination be withdrawn. Once I have reworked the article substantially, I will re-nominate. Thanks to all who have reviewed this time around, it has been improved significantly as a result of your efforts. Can I have dispensation to nominate a fresh article for FAC? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, re. a new FAC, standard practice is to treat a withdrawn nom same as other archived noms, i.e. a two-week hold on nominating any article unless the withdrawn/archived nom's had little commentary, which isn't the case here. Are you okay with proceeding on that basis? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd rather go ahead with a new one, but rules are rules. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2019 [9].

Go Vacation edit

Nominator(s): TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go Vacation is a personal favorite of mine. Despite its mixed reviews, I find it to be a quite enjoyable game; in it, you get to explore several colorful resorts filled with several minigammes (of wildly varying quality I might add). You're also able to decorate a villa Animal Crossing style, but I never really spent much time doing that. It also got a pretty low-effort Switch port lately, which actualy got rid of the sword fighting minigame, one of my favorites. I personally started editing this article in June 2018, and its taken up most of my time on Wikipedia. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three quick passing comments: See WP:LQ and sort out the placement of closing quote marks in line with the guidelines (there are too may ." that should be ".) And the date formats are mixed - they should be consistent. Finally, there are too many SHOUTY CAPS in the refs section. I'll see if I have time to do a full review shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Going to start working on that stuff now. Thanks! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the date formating issues, and I think I got all the logical quotation stuff done. I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOUR SEEING THE "SHOUTY" CAPS THOUGH, I CAN'T FIND THEM ANYWHERE. I SEE NO SCREAMING IN THE ARTICLE OR ON THIS PAGE WHATSOEVER. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See FNs 22, 28, 29 and 31 – there may be others too. - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Done- I wasn't aware that was a policy (could you link the relevant one?). Also, what does "FN" stand for? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is at MOS:ALLCAPS. "FN" is footnote. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Also, sorry if my signature changes a lot on this page- I've begun experimenting with changing it. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from JM edit

I had a SNES and a Gameboy Colour, but I've been an Xbox person since the early 2000s, so I've never played this. Happy to take a look, though.

  • Your explanatory notes aren't really "references"; they should probably be in a separate section.
  1.  Comment: Good point, I have moved those. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the villa twice in the first paragraph.
  1.  Comment: No clue how I missed that- fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be engaging with players" What does this mean? for players, surely?
  1.  Comment: Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minigame or mini game? I don't mind, but be consistent!
  1.  Comment: Changed to just be Minigame now. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that had players vote" How can they be players if the game wasn't even developed?
  1.  Comment: Good point, fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resort the game takes place in was inspired by Hawaii" I thought there were four resorts? (Also, perhaps in which the game takes place? Or simply "the game's setting"?
  1.  Comment: Good catch, I have reworded that sentence, because only the Marine Resort was inspired by Hawaii. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you port over?
  1.  Comment: Not sure what you mean- but if you're asking if it's grammatically correct, then I believe so. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was ported over to the Nintendo Switch in 2018, adding new minigames and correcting problems presented in the original." Unclear sentence; who or what is doing the "adding"?
  1.  Comment: Clarify that Namco Bandai was the one adding new features. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's something a little odd about talking about a 2018 port and then following this with 2011 sales figures, but maybe that's just me.
  1.  Comment: I agree, I have moved that sentence. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent on your use of the serial comma. I don't want to make a decision either way for you, but you should aim for consistency!
  1.  Comment: I am currently going through the article to use it, thanks. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marine bike races, the very first minigame that players play takes place in the Marine Resort." This is not a complete sentence.

Beware comma splices ("The Mountain Resort is the final resort that players gain access to, it focuses on outdoor" - I've fixed this one); I also saw an apostrophe error. I think this article requires a thorough copyedit. I'm off now, but I'll hopefully be back later. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Players are also able to decorate their villas with any photos they may have taken during the game." Presumably, that's only in the Switch version?
  1.  Comment: I believe you can do that in both versions- its just that the Switch version added animals for you to photograph. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game's title to convey to the player that this was to be a game where one would "want to spend time in". Additionally, according to Kenya Kobayashi the games producer, the team of the game believed that outside of Japan the word "vacation" had no connotations of activity, so the team added the word "Go" to the beginning of the name in a attempt to convey activity." This is poor writing, and exactly the sort of thing that should have been picked up in a copyedit. I've made some tweaks, but this section really needs rewriting.
  1.  Comment: I'm not quite sure what the problem with that sentence is, do you think you could elaborate? TheAwesomeHwyh 21:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While no areas in the game were directly based on any real-world location, parts of the Marine Resort are inspired by Hawaii" This doesn't match what is suggested in the lead, where it sounds like the whole thing was based on Hawaii.
  1.  Comment: Addressed above. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really struggling to follow the paragraph on the soundtrack.
  1.  Comment: Which paragraph do you mean? The one on the soundtrack itself, or the one on what reviewers thought of it? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The one in the development section. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the only development information you have? It feels very light for an FA. Naturally, a lot of the information may be available in Japanese rather than English.
  1.  Comment: That information was all I could find- keep in mind that this game wasn't too popular, so most of the info online is pretty surface-level, not much in-depth information besides this article itself. I mostly only looked for English, Japanese, and French sources though, so there might be others not in those languages. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I recommend against inline links to foreign language Wikipedias? If the subject is notable, include a redlink; if not, don't link at all.
  1.  Comment: I don't see any links to foreign language Wikipedias? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see it now; that must have been my mistake. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took issue with the game's skydiving minigame due to his opinion that is relatively simple compared to the game's other minigames" Is this important?
  1.  Comment: Not really- removed. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "called the music's vocals" What music? Is he definitely talking about music from this game? I find this whole sentence very difficult to follow.
  1.  Comment: Yeah, he is. I have rewritten that paragraph to make that clear. Is there any other concerns you have with that paragraph? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several would praise the customizable villas" Why that tense?
  1.  Comment: No clue why it was written like that- reworded. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need the {{clear}}s?
  1.  Comment: I think that was just left over from older, smaller versions of the article, so I have removed it. (Also, I could only find one of them in the article text... are there multiple? Control F brings up nothing besides the one I removed.) TheAwesomeHwyh 21:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Go Vacation sold 47,209 copies in its first week on sale in Japan and becoming the third best-selling game during the time" What does this mean?
  1.  Comment: I have rewritten that sentence to make it more clear that it was the third best selling game in Japan during its first week on the market. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Macross F: The Wings of Goodbye Hybrid Pack" Is this notable? Don't be scared of redlinks!
  1.  Comment: Not sure what your asking here- do you want me to remove that game from the article, or do you want me to add a redlink? TheAwesomeHwyh 21:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment: I have expanded the rationale, and will address the bitrate, length, and if we even need them at all later. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment: Starry Ocean seems to be almost exactly 10 percent, but I can't find any full length rips of Malasada break online to compare the full length of the song to the sample on the article. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment: I have reduced the bitrate on both songs. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment: Thinking about it more- I don't think the samples are needed, so I have removed them. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry. This feels around the right area for a GA, but it feels a little underdeveloped for FA, and the quality of the writing is too low. I've made some fixes, and identified some problems above, but there will be others. I've not looked at the sourcing. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1.  Comment: I am going to start addressing these concerns now. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment:​ Alright, I think I have addressed your concerns (or at least asked for more clarification on the ones I didn't understand), do you have any others? TheAwesomeHwyh 22:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I commend you for putting the time into making these fixes, but I think my oppose is going to have to stand at least until you've had an outside copyedit, and possibly longer given my concerns about the development section. I don't really want to get drawn into identifying every single problem, but here are a few passages that really don't feel up to snuff:

  • "According to Kenya Kobayashi the game's producer, the production team believed that, outside of Japan, vacation had no connotations of activity, so the team added Go to the beginning of the name."
  • "n 21 December 2012, Japanese record label Sweep Records released the officially licensed album of songs containing live instrumentation and vocals, Namco Music Saloon.[2] This album and aspect of the game's soundtrack consists of original arrangements of songs from other Bandai Namco Entertainment titles including Ridge Racer, Dig Dug, Pac-Man, New Rally-X, and Kotoba no Puzzle: Mojipittan.[2] The game was soon released onto iTunes on 23 March 2013."
  • Repetition of "resort" and "minigame" in the gameplay section.
  • "Marine bike races, the very first minigame that players play takes place in the Marine Resort."
  • "The City Resort is the second and smallest resort and focuses on extreme and leisure sports and hosts games such as table hockey, pie-throwing, skating, mini golf, and others" Five ands in one sentence!
  • Repetition of "decorate" in the final paragraph of the gameplay section.

To reiterate, this isn't supposed to be comprehensive, and I don't feel it's the role of the reviewer to identify every writing problem in an article like this. In short, you need at least one fresh pair of eyes on the article to really smooth out the prose - this isn't just a matter of adding a few apostrophes and commas. And if you're certain there's no more information available on the development, then it may be worth thinking about whether this is something that can realistically be brought to FA status at this time, though others may disagree with me on that. I hope this isn't discouraging; that certainly is not my intention. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you. I will start a outside copyedit now and do the fixes you mentioned. Also, is it possible to end a FAC? I agree with you that it's not ready. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Please see the above. TheAwesomeHwyh: Best of luck with the developments! Again, please don't be disheartened! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys, I can close later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to close this as "withdrawn"; you're welcome to re-nominate it (or any other article) at FAC after a minimum of two weeks has passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 July 2019 [10].

South Park: The Fractured but Whole edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the only times FAC will stand for F******g Awesome Content dude, we have the South Park: The Fractured but Whole article. Comprehensive, well sourced, and open for review. Thanks. Pinging previous reviewers Laser_brain, TheJoebro64, Lee Vilenski, Aoba47, Zwerg Nase Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - read through it and the prose was good enough for me to just slip into "read-only/consumer" mode without thinking about it, which is a Good Sign. I can't exclude some minor issues but overall I think this passes on comprehnensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sound file exceeds the maximum length recommendation set out by WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Meant to do this earlier (as I reviewed at the previous FAC), but I have glanced over the article again and find nothing to nitpick. JOEBRO64 19:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/support from Aoba47
  • I noticed a few instances where the references are not in numeric order (primarily in the “Gameplay” section). I would read through the article to catch these parts .

This is the only point that I have noticed and since it is rather minor, I still support this from my review during the previous FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback Aoba47, I went through and rectified these reference issues anyway, thank you for your support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. Hopefully, things go well for the FAC this time around. Congrats on all of the work you put into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Laser brain
  • @Darkwarriorblake: Sorry I'm so late in getting around to this. Can you recap for me what you did to address my comments from the previous nomination? --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser_brain, I went through and tried to find the quoted material and either added quotes or just outright removed stuff that wasn't essential.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started reading through "Critical response" and got as far as "or over-focused on fart and poop jokes", which the cited source doesn't seem to support. It's not a good sign. --Laser brain (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's in the Slant reference immediately following, it's a left over reference from removed content.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I hadn't got to this sooner -- --Andy, how is the article looking to you now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on 1a, unfortunately. I just did a further read-through going past the Critical response section. I honestly think it's a solid B-class or GA standard, but I don't think the writing overall is at the Featured standard. The paragraphs read as if they are paraphrased side-by-side while looking at the source, resulting in stilted prose that doesn't flow well. Some examples of writing issues:

  • Why are we continually use "they" and "their" to refer to New Kid? I wondered until I scrolled down quite a way to find out that "New Kid" can be customized. In that case, we should be using better writing to avoid the pronound issues (i.e. "The New Kid can use farts to manipulate time" rather than the awkward "The New Kid can manipulate time with their farts")
  • I find the description of gameplay to be overly colloquial and without sufficient explanation for the unfamiliar (ex. "Ultimate attacks can only be used after filling the Ultimate bar")
  • Starting in the Development section, the narrative strikes me as the main problem area for the paraphrasing issue I described above.
  • "At the beginning of development, they met with the team at Ubisoft to determine the game's storyline and elements of The Stick of Truth they were unhappy about" At this time they determined what they were unhappy about?
  • Do we need details like teleconference meetings? Why are they notable?
  • "Schroeder was responsible for declining Stone and Parker's requests" What kinds of requests, and why did they need to be declined? Again, it seems this was worked into an interview or article and was paraphrased into the article without understanding how it fits into the narrative or why it's important.

Additionally, as I was reading, I was thinking that "fart" isn't an encyclopedic term. I realize that it would be difficult to write about this topic without using the term (other than in quotations) but it strikes me as extremely colloquial and makes the article read like more of a game guide than an encyclopedia. I think the larger problem is that sources were paraphrased into the form of the article without enough attention to overall cohesiveness. I think entire sections will need to be revised from an understanding of the sources. --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support by Lee Vilenski -I supported before, then was achived due to the reception section, which I'll admit isn't somewhere I'm particurlarly familiar with. Looks like effort into fixing this issue has been seen, and I'm happy with the overall article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment: The sample's bitrate is too high, per WP:SAMPLE. What's the value of the "The Coon" picture? It looks very much like a "decorative" non-free image, and thus contrary to NFCC#8. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced the file size of this 14 second sample. The image is there because if the reader is unfamiliar with South Park, the concept of how Cartman and his sentient hand puppet can co-exist might not be easy to understand, the image is to help demonstrate exactly what capacity they operate in. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not buying it. It's the character on the game's cover in the outfit on the cover, with (as the text notes) "a crude hand puppet drawn on [his] left hand". I can't really see why an image is necessary to understand this; I skim read the plot section, and I have pretty clear idea of what's going on. At no point did I think "I wish I could see a picture of this handpuppet so I understood what it looked like". Do you have any sources that suggest that an image is really needed here? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You skim-read it AFTER seeing the image, but whatever, no one else saw an issue with it and I thought it was useful, not decorative, but it's gone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks; no further comments right now. Good luck with the nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I think the concerns and recommendations articulated by Laser brain are sufficient to archive this so improvements can be made outside the FAC process prior to another try. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/July_2019&oldid=907546696"