Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2020

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 July 2020 [1].

Tropical Storm Vicente (2018) edit

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Willa's "little brother" which caused some significant damage in the area south of where Willa made landfall. I am nominating this since Dorian's Met has finished and Willa is a co-nom. I look forward to your suggestions. NoahTalk 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free (t · c) buidhe 17:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that this FAC be archived as I have a family health emergency going on and won't be able to deal with replies here. NoahTalk 00:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Noah, I hope all turns out well. Take care, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 July 2020 [2].

Biblioteca Marciana edit

Nominator(s): Venicescapes (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Marciana Library, one of the foremost monuments in Venice, Italy. The library is one of the earliest repositories for manuscript in the country and holds one of the greatest collections of classical texts in the world. It is also the only institution founded by the Venetian government that survives and continues to function today.

The extensive article has been critically researched and is a complete resource for the library in the English language, covering the history of the collection and the institution as well as the architecture and art of the historical building. It is currently a Good Article and was peer reviewed (here).Venicescapes (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • The images all appear to be correctly licensed. (Keep in mind when you upload scanned documents, such as File:Marciana-catalog-Greek-codices.jpg, that the date parameter is for the original date, not the scan date or upload date).
  • The images currently do not meet MOS:IMAGELOC, there are sandwiching issues which will have to be solved by removing images.
  • CEILING OF THE READING ROOM gallery—the reading room and/or ceiling look to be independently notable. The organization would be improved by moving the gallery to a WP:SPINOFF article on one of those topics and leaving a summary here per WP:Summary style. (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the images. I corrected the dates on the catalogues.
The question regarding the placement of images and 'sandwiching' was raised during the peer review. As discussed, I think that this is fundamentally a question of finding an appropriate balance between general guidelines and the specific needs of each article. In this case, the Biblioteca Marciana is … I think by necessity … an image-rich article. Particularly the architectural section relies on images. Many of these … diagrams, floor plans, and architectural details … were created ad hoc and correlated with the text in order to help readers understand the more technical aspects. In my opinion, it would be a shame … and even a disservice to readers … to have to remove those images, and I think the whole article would be impoverished. It seems appropriate to recall the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. "No rules or guidelines are fixed in stone", and “… sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions”. So I think that this is one of those situations when it’s necessary to ask the all-important "one question": Does it make Wikipedia better? In this case, does the removal of essential images (floor plans, details, diagrams) from an architectural description make it better (i.e. more comprehensible) for readers?
Fundamentally, the guideline on ‘sandwiching’ is aimed at avoiding a “distasteful” appearance (which is evidently subjective), and the specific example that is given at MOS:IMAGELOC concerns wider images. I agree that two opposing full-colour images can squeeze and overpower the text in the middle (although this varies on the basis of platform, resolution, and monitor). I took this into account and staggered the images wherever possible so as to limit the amount of text involved (keeping the image as near as possible to the relevant text). I believe, however, that the effect of two opposing images is far less pronounced whenever one of the images is a sketch or diagram which has a white background. In these instances, the page 'breathes' more. With this in mind, I tried to place sketches and diagrams opposite photos/paintings … although this was admittedly not possible in the section on the interiors where there are four full-colour images. But it would be difficult to eliminate any of these since there is in reality only one image for the staircase, for the vestibule, for the ceiling and for the walls of the reading room.
I also did some research and looked at the first 25 Featured Articles in the category of Art and Architecture. On my screen (17" with Crome), 13 out of the first 25 have some amount of text 'sandwiched' between two images. Even Cleopatra, which is suggested by Wikipedia as an example of a Featured Article, has some ‘sandwiching’. Nevertheless, I welcome any further ideas and/or suggestions.Venicescapes (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

Hi, Venicescapes, you've done all the right things getting a Peer Review and pinging those who stopped by there about this nom but I'm afraid that with only the images reviewed after two weeks (vital though that is for any FAC) this is a bit of a non-starter so I'm going to archive it. Given the lack of comprehensive commentary I'm happy to waive the usual two-week waiting period before a re-nom; perhaps getting it back to the top of the queue will get more eyes on it next time, and of course you can again ping your PR reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 July 2020 [3].

Game of Thrones edit

Nominator(s): -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the highly popular HBO fantasy drama series that ran from 2011 until 2019. The article was nominated and not promoted back in 2016. After the series finale, the article underwent an extensive update to include critical reception, viewership numbers, piracy issues, and related media. I believe the article meets all of the FA criteria. I appreciate all constructive feedback and suggestions for the article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox edit

I've never reviewed a featured article nominee before (so take my comments with a grain of salt I guess), but I just wanted to make a few constructive suggestions if that's okay. I do feel that the "Viewership" section is kind of lacking at the moment. I know the season articles have info in their own viewership sections, but for a highly successful series that ran for eight seasons, two paragraphs seems insufficient. Not that it is even a Good Article, but the viewership section for American Idol, for example, gives about one paragraph for most seasons. I do feel like more research could be done for this section on Game of Thrones.

Is there a specific citation that says "it was considered a ratings success for HBO throughout all eight seasons"? Are there any sources mentioning the high level of 18–49 viewers in the United States or anything about overall DVR viewership patterns? Should something be said about the apparent viewership decline midway through the fifth season? I also think the separation between the gross figures from the HBO press releases and the graph and table showing the TV viewership only should be more clearly noted. Also, I know the colours for each season are based on the posters so I don't think it could be changed, but I just wanted to comment that it was kind of hard for me to delineate on the graph the difference between the seventh and eighth seasons' columns. Heartfox (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Heartfox, thank you for the comment. I believe you stated the reason for only two paragraphs for the Viewership section. The specific season articles detail the viewership numbers in detail so only a summary is best. I'm currently researching the DVR viewership and key demographic numbers. Thank you again for your suggestions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I did add some material about time shifting views and key demographic viewership. Unfortunately I couldn't find any sources about the season 5 viewership dip, I'll continue to look for any mentions. Thank you again Heartfox. -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LuK3 Yeah, that looks better. I like that you included the interesting strong female viewership info. You might want to add a url-status=live to the first two refs, though :) Heartfox (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The references should be formatted correctly now. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some of the captions don't appear to be cited in the text - eg Ballintoy
  • Added inline citation for the captions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the images would benefit from being scaled up, but avoid sandwiching in Fandom
  • I changed some upright parameters and removed the wax figure image from the Fandom section due to sandwiching. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Game_of_Thrones_title_card.jpg: source link no longer works
  • File:Game_of_Thrones_Oslo_exhibition_2014_-_Ygritte,_Jon_and_Tormund_costumes.jpg and File:Game_of_Thrones_Oslo_exhibition_2014_-_Royal_court_costumes.jpg and File:Game_of_Thrones_Oslo_exhibition_2014_-_Brienne_and_Jaime_costumes.jpg: see COM:COSTUME. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to remove the three costume images because I couldn't confirm that the costumes were released under a free license. I believe I addressed all of the previous image review notes Nikkimaria. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

Hi, kudos for taking on an article on such a popular show... I'm surprised it hasn't generated more interest but with relatively little commentary after three weeks it looks like gaining consensus to promote is a very long way off, so I'm going to archive it. Given the few reviews I'm not averse to waiving the usual two-week wait before a re-nom, but I wonder if another go at PR and actively seeking possible reviewers there, might not be a better option than diving straight into a another nom here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [4].

Hearst Castle edit

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hearst Castle is quite an interesting building. Designed by Julia Morgan, "America's first truly independent female architect", for the media mogul William Randolph Hearst, in the 1920s and 30s it became a gathering place for many of the Hollywood stars. Trashed by Orson Welles in 1941 as the phantasmagorical Xanadu, home of Citizen Kane, in the 21st century it is one of California's major tourist attractions. It's also got quite a collection of antiques, along with a lot of poured concrete. A very helpful peer review ironed out many errors. All comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:HearstAbout1910.jpg —not found at source, needs verifiable source for being published before 1925 or being PD for some other reason.
  • File:Marion Davies Argentinean Magazine AD.jpg — it's unclear whether this image was created or published in 1932. Since both links are dead, needs verifiable source (issue, page number would help). Additionally, I suspect that the magazine has a copyright notice; although it would be possible to check whether it has been renewed.
  • File:Another room in Hearst Castle 1.jpg — FoP-US only applies to exteriors. Is the copyright status of the artworks, rug, etc. known?
  • File:Refectory - Hearst Castle - DSC06312.JPG File:A room in Hearst Castle.jpg — ditto; ceiling and wall paneling may well be protected.
  • File:The Three Graces by Antonio Canova (copy) - Hearst Castle - DSC06413.JPG — although the original is PD, it's unclear if the copy may be protected. No FoP for statues in US.
  • File:Hearst castle 1.jpg File:Image taken of Doge's Sitting Room from SE Corner.jpg — elaborate interior elements which may be protected by copyright

There are several images which are breaking across sections for me (Roman Pool, Sculptures, Gothic suite, Refectory sections). Could be fixed by scaling down images and/or moving them to the right. buidhe 08:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe - Thanks very much for taking a look at these. I've switched the two portraits (Hearst and Davies) for two that are from the Library of Congress, which I hope sorts these. I've also tried to iron out the section breaking. The problem is with the three interior shots and the Three Graces. Is the rationale provided by one of the uploading editors insufficient; "Photograph[y] was permitted without restriction in and around the castle. All artwork is old enough so that it is in the public domain"? The article would be seriously diminished if we had no interior shots of the castle. I'm really keen to keep these if possible and would greatly appreciate any suggestions. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Another_room_in_Hearst_Castle_1.jpg It would be sufficient to show that the two large paintings are free, other elements could probably be considered de minimis. For the sculpture, are there other sculptures on the property that would be free of copyright considerations? I am not sure about the other interiors, you might want to consult Nikkimaria who knows more than I do about copyright. Just being OK to photograph does NOT mean that all elements are necessarily copyright free and usable for all Wikipedia purposes. buidhe 18:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed. I shall check for other sculptures, I’m not set on The Three Graces. For the interiors, of which there aren’t many good shots, I’ll ask Nikkimaria for their take. I absolutely get that we don’t want to infringe copyright on an FAC, but an article on a building without interior shots, when the interiors are arguably more significant than the exteriors, would be a poor thing. KJP1 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
US FoP does actually cover public interiors; however, it doesn't extend to artworks inside that are not part of the building itself, whether 2D (eg File:Stag_hunt,_Franco-Flemish_Gothic,_mille-fleurs_tapestry,_woven_c._1500_AD_-_Hearst_Castle_-_DSC06346.JPG) or 3D (File:Greek_rhyton_in_Library_-_Hearst_Castle_-_DSC06807.JPG). If these elements are PD due to age then they should include an explicit PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - Thanks very much indeed for taking a look. I’m pretty sure that the items showing in the interior shots will be of such age that PD will apply (although not sure of The Three Graces as that’s a later copy). I’ll check them out with my sources and then put the appropriate tags on. Thanks again - it would be a real shame to lose the interior images. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Sorry but this one is a bit of a non-starter so I'm going to archive. I wish I'd had more time over the past month to recuse and review myself. Given the lack of comprehensive commentary I'm happy to waive the usual two-week wait for a re-nom -- perhaps getting back to the top of the list will generate more interest the second time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [5].

1990 Tour de France edit

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 77th running of the Tour de France. I am hoping that this nomination will attract enough reviewers. Looking forward to your comments! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • File:Route of the 1990 Tour de France.png needs a source in the image description
@Buidhe: Added. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images appear to be correctly licensed. buidhe 07:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias edit

This review looks a bit lonely; I'll take a look through.

  • "Of those 22, 16 teams qualified based on the FICP team rankings, while six teams were given wildcards." Per MOS:NUMNOTES, "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures". So either 22, 16, and 6, or twenty-two, sixteen and six.
  • "Encouraging signs came during the Tour de Suisse, just weeks before the start of the Tour de France, where he finished tenth." This seems a bit journalistic; mostly because of the phrase "encouraging signs"; maybe something blander such as "His form improved during the..."?
  • "A crash on stage 5 of the Giro had forced Fignon to abandon the race he had won in 1989." It would be good to clarify that the crash happened during the 1990 Giro.
  • "..but still troubled.." As this is the first time it is introduced, get rid of "still".
  • "..was the record winner of the points classification.." Does being the "record winner" mean that he had the record for winning it with the most points, or had won it most often, or something else? Make this clear in the article.
  • "..for the next stage. 10 km (6.2 mi) from the finish.." Don't start a sentence with a figure.
  • "..to go. 3 km (1.9 mi) later.." And again.
  • "After the breakaway was cuaght.." Typo.
  • "..from the stage-1 breakaway.." I don't think "stage-1" needs hyphenating here.
  • "He remained second overall however, 17 seconds.." Remove "however".
  • "considered one of the most iconic climbs in cycling." Could you cite this directly please.
  • "..to catch back up. 3 km (1.9 mi) from.." Don't start a sentence with a figure.
  • "It were Bugno and LeMond who were fastest.." Presumable the first "were" should be "was".
  • "..finishing third at 43 seconds." This seems odd phrasing to me.

Real-life intervenees: I've reviewed to the end of the Alps section; could you check the rest of the article for sentence starting with a figure, and also go through checking for noun plus -ing. Harrias talk 15:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Sorry but we'd really need much more in the way of comprehensive reviews to justify this remaining open after more than five weeks. I'd have hoped to see Harrias' initial comments to have been addressed by now as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [6].

Central Park edit

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a large public park in Manhattan, New York City. Built to a careful plan by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, Central Park is one of the most visited places in NYC, if not the world. There are many interesting features about this park, such as eight waterways, six miles of roads, plenty of woods, sporting fields, landmarks, a zoo, a museum, and numerous events that are hosted there. The history of the park is complex and interesting as well, with two periods of decline followed by wide-ranging rehabilitation programs.

This page was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from SilkTork. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. The article is quite long, but I feel that it's warranted, given that it's classified as a vital article. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork edit

To assist in assessing the article, it's worth repeating the criteria here:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

I was impressed with the work that epicgenius had done on the article when I did the GA review, and also with their responsive and helpful manner. I will take a look at how it fits some of the FA criteria, though I won't have time to look into all aspects, such as the "comprehensive" requirement. I was satisfied it met the "broad coverage" of GA, but to ensure it meets "comprehensive" requires a bit more reading and research than I have time for right now.

For those looking at this FA who may be a little put off by the size of the article, epicgenius's prose (at least when I read it for GA) is clear and readable, and the article well organised into digestible chunks. SilkTork (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria:

1A - well-written. Criteria met The prose is clear, readable and informative. It has improved since the GA, and is of a professional standard.SilkTork (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1B - comprehensive. It has the broad coverage required of GA. I have not researched enough of the topic to judge if it meets comprehensive, though I suspect it does, and will not object if the consensus is that the article should become featured. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Raising a concern here regarding coverage of music in the park. Ping me when this has been addressed so I can strike this concern. SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1C - well researched. As with comprehensive, I have not done a thorough review of available sources on the topic, though I was impressed with the research done for the GA, and if I recall there wasn't much (if anything) that I turned up in my GA review research that wasn't already in the article. So I would not object if the consensus is that the article should become featured. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1D - neutral. Criteria met I found the article neutral when I did the GA review, and I have looked through the additions since, and nothing has changed. It still remains neutral. SilkTork (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1E: stable. The criteria for FA is slightly different to GA. The GA stable criteria is: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", and it passes that. But FA is: "and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." So for FA, the changes do not need to be because of a dispute. The intention is that when an article comes to FA it is reasonably complete in terms of content, detail, and prose. If changes are still occurring, that is suggestive that the article is not yet complete. The article has undergone recent changes. Material on census tract was removed yesterday: [7], and the day before the Further reading section was removed: [8]. The debate would be if such changes are "significant". For me, the article is stable, and I don't see such positive ongoing editing as harmful to the article or to its status as a FA. I will, though, pay attention to anyone who has concerns regarding stability. SilkTork (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: Thanks for your comments and observations. I really appreciate them. In response to your concerns about criteria 1E: one can say these edits were made in response to the featured article process, i.e. in preparation for nominating this article. In terms of additions, I didn't add anything major. epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any significant issues with the criteria in part 1, including 1E: stable. I don't have the time to examine 1B - comprehensive and 1C - well researched any further than I did for GA, but I have no reason to think that the article doesn't meet those criteria. And I am very comfortable that the article meets 1E - stable, even if the wording of the criteria is not clear; like you, I can't imagine that it would refer to positive edits made in preparation for the FA review - though I'm slightly unsure as to what it might refer to. SilkTork (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2A - a lead. Not met. This is my first genuine quibble. The lead, to be fair, hasn't changed significantly since the GA, but if I was doing a GA again today, I would ensure the lead contains a summary from each of the main sections in the article. I raised it as an issue in the GA, but I don't think I followed up on it as closely as I could have. Looking again now I see that Cultural significance, which has a spin off article, Central Park in popular culture, is summed up by "and is one of the most filmed locations in the world" (which, incidentally, doesn't quite match what is said in the main body: "Central Park is the most filmed location in the world" - can you check to see if it is "the most filmed" or "one of the most filmed"). And while looking at the spin off article I was aware that some very famous concerts are not mentioned in that article, such as The Concert in Central Park. The lack of mention of the concerts would also come under 1B - comprehensive. The classic concerts are mentioned in the main body, but not the pop, rock and reggae concerts. And I just noticed that the classic concerts are mentioned in the body but not in the lead. SilkTork (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is the thinking behind Cultural significance and Concerts and performances being in two different sections in the main article, but discussed together in Central Park in popular culture? Oooooh. I just noticed that in Central Park in popular culture in the Music section it says: " Numerous concerts have been hosted in the park, mentioned [[#Entertainment|above]]". But these are not mentioned above. I've taken a look back at the article, and found an older form from just over a year ago, which mentioned the concerts: [9]. That older form is unsourced, but does appear to contain useful information. SilkTork (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the claim from the older article, "The oldest free classical music concert series in the United States—the Naumburg Orchestral Concerts, founded in 1905...", something that might be true? It might be worth looking into. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Basically, "Cultural significance" is talking about events that mention the park, while "Concerts and performances" talks about events from the park. I've tried to expand the lead without having it become too bloated. Because we do have a Central Park in culture sub-article, the concerts and performances in this article are summarized. Nevertheless, I'll try to add some brief examples. epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2B - appropriate structure. Criteria met. There is an appropriate structure. I tend to prefer fewer sub-sections as, per MOS:OVERSECTION, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." For example, I wouldn't have Sculptures and Structures and exhibitions as subsections of Art and monuments. And I might consider in Landscape features, using a WP:Definition list markup instead of sub-headings, but these are personal preferences, and the article works fine as it is. Indeed, as I said at the start, there is a compelling argument for using the bite size sub-sections to ease navigation and digestion of such a long text. SilkTork (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2C - consistent citations. I have never quite understood this criteria, and I can recall in a couple of my FAs someone requiring me to go through and ensure each citation was written out exactly the same way. I don't think it means that. I think it means using either Harvard or standard footnotes but not both together, as using both together creates two different ways of presenting citations. The article currently does use both the more standard footnote citation alongside the Harvard footnote citation, so technically fails this criteria. For example, Cite 1 uses the standard footnote ( "About Us". Central Park Conservancy. 2014. Archived from the original on March 26, 2014. Retrieved March 25, 2014.). While Cite 2 uses the Harvard footnote (Central Park Conservancy 2011, p. 9.). Personally I don't think it matters, as both can be understood. But if we are to have such a criteria for an FA then it should be met. The article should either have all standard or all Harvard. If selecting one style over the other, I would strongly recommend the standard style as that being the most helpful to readers and researchers. With the Harvard style you have to look in two places to get all the information (link/full book title and page number are in two different places); while with the standard you get all the information in the single citation. However, while flagging this up, I would say that it's not an issue for me, so I'm not raising it as an objection. But if you want the FA flag with all the criteria met, then there should be consistency in citation style. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3 - Media. Criteria met. Only one image has been added since the GA review, and I've checked that, and it's fine. The media criteria is the same as for GA, and nothing substantial has changed, so this is fine. SilkTork (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4 Length. Criteria met. This is the same criteria as for GA, and nothing substantial has been added, so this is OK. SilkTork (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a big difference these days between GA and FA. The main difference is that good articles only require broad coverage, while featured articles require comprehensive; and featured articles require consistent citation, while good article only require that there are organised citations. Of the criteria I looked at, the only concerns I can see are that the lead doesn't quite summarise the content, and that there may not be enough coverage of music in the park. I wouldn't be able to fully support this as I don't have the time to do the comprehensive research required, but once my quibbles are satisfied I certainly wouldn't have any objections. I think this is a fine article. Ping me when my quibbles have been addressed so I can strike them. SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Thanks for the comments. Regarding the distinction of standard vs. Harv citations - I think both may be used interchangeably, e.g. in the articles about Statue of Liberty and The Cloisters (which both passed with both standard and Harv citations), and even in my recent nomination of Barren Island, Brooklyn, where a similar issue was brought up. It would be more inconsistent if one were to use citations both with templates and with no templates, or both CS1/CS2 type citations, which should not be the case here. But this is open to interpretation, so let me know what you think.
I have slightly expanded the lead to include a short summary of every top-level section as well. Do you think the lead is sufficient or should I add more?
I also added a few examples of concerts and other musical events at the park. Let me know if that's enough or if I should elaborate a bit more. I really appreciate the detailed feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Central_Park_1862_crop.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:Horseback_riding_in_Central_Park,_New_York_City,_May,_1940.jpg: when/where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • File:USS_Maine_(ACR-1)_Monument_Columbus_Circle_NYC.JPG needs a tag for the monument itself. Same with File:CentralPark_04.JPG, File:Bethesda_Fountain_angel_sunny_winter_day.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: What do you mean by this? In addition, I removed the third image. epicgenius (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The US does not have freedom of panorama for either sculptural works or 2D works, so we need to verify the copyright status of not just the photographs but the artwork being photographed as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for clarifying. I will add tags proving the expiration of copyright for both sculptures soon. epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have added the tags, but in the article I replaced File:CentralPark_04.JPG with File:Bethesda_Fountain_angel_sunny_winter_day.JPG. epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil edit

Will take a closer look at this next weekend. Early impressions are good, though it may need to tightening words wise here and there. Nothing fatal than can see so far. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski edit

Reviewing... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upper West Side and Upper East Side - can we not say Upper West and Upper East (or, Upper West and East Side)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think so, but it's kinda weird. I used "Upper West and Upper East Side". epicgenius (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • estimated 37.5–38 million - if this is estimated, do we need to have such a small range? Surely an estimated 38 million would be fine? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • 778-acre - should this not be 778 acres? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) - as you don't mention this in the lede again, do you need the bit in brackets? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • Considering you have the area sourced in the prose, do you also need it in the infobox? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for annual visitors. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed both.
  • Watercourses are full of a lot of WP:OL. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduced.
  • There's a couple occasions with four refs after a link - could you bundle these, or cut down to three or less? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Sorry but after remaining open more than six weeks this review has stalled, so I'm going to archive it. You can re-nom after the usual 2-week break has passed, and feel free to ping the above reviewers for another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2020 [10].

Edward Thomas Daniell edit

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Reverend E.T. Daniell, a talented young English artist who travelled around Turkey and the Middle East during the 1840s, but who died suddenly of malaria when abroad. I am very fond his evocative etchings and watercolours of Norfolk and the Middle East! Amitchell125 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood edit

  • Page ranges in references need ndashes if it's a page range (cf. 8 to 51)
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links might be a bit excessive, consider cutting.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 4 needs a reference.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Files in the "Gallery" section need alt text for the vision impared. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Therapyisgood: Above suggestions completed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from L150: Hi, I reviewed this at GA! Great work - I haven't gone through the article line-by-line but here are my comments so far. L150 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you consider alternating images left-to-right, as they're currently all on the right?
I've moved the images around a bit as suggested, let me know what you think. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have first begun when they were at school" - "first" is redundant in that sentence.
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of Edward Daniell's friends was the writer Elizabeth" and "Edward Daniell's friendship with Turner" - is there a reason for using his first name and surname?
No, not really. Sentences amended accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the summer of 1832 Daniell went with friends from his days at Oxford on a walking trip of Scotland" - might be clearer to write "In the summer of 1832 Daniell and his friends from Oxford went on a walking trip.."
Sentence amended (and an error I spotted corrected). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to use the conjunction "According to.." 11 times? For example, you could switch it up slightly: "Author Jane Thistlethwaite opined that Daniell's drawings and etchings.." or "XXXXX wrote/said/thought that.."
Down to three. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm pleased to support this article. It does require someone with an art background to cast their eyes over it, but I think it is nearly there. Thanks. L150 11:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I've copyedited; revert anything you disagree with.

  • other schools of painting had begun to form that associated with artists: I think this should be either "form that were associated with" or "form, associated with".
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third paragraphs of the "Background" section need some restructuring: you mention the creation of the Norwich Society of Arts twice. I don't think you need to lose anything, just integrate it.
I have done a certain amount of rewording, but the Norwich School of painters was not the same as the Norwich Society of Artists. I may need to make that clearer. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I was commenting on was the society -- you have The Norwich Society of Artists, which was founded in 1803...it was dissolved in 1833. in one paragraph, and The Norwich Society of Artists (1803–1833) in the next. Just cutting the parenthesis would probably do it. I was thinking the later mention could be moved up but I don't see an easy way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In touring Europe, he was acting in a similar way to other wealthy young Englishmen of his day: a bit heavy-footed. How about "Wealthy young Englishman of Daniell's day often toured Europe: his travels through..."
Sentence amended, your version does sound better. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long with his contemporaries from Oxford: not sure what is intended here. Do you mean he spent much of the time in Ireland with Denison and Head?
Not quite sure where Ireland crept in, so paragraph amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniell held a series of dinners from August to December 1839. Why is this worth mentioning? I see mention of his dinner parties in the "Friends and associates" section; perhaps that's enough?
Agreed: sentence removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He alone visited Selge, Sillyon, Marmara, Perga and Lyrbe. This implies that the earlier trips were in company, but that's not made clear. I'm not sure the distinction is worth pointing out, anyway; how about combining this with the previous sentence: "He copied inscriptions from monuments in Lycia, the Cibyratis, Pisidia and Pamphylia, visited Sillyon, Marmara, Perga and Lyrbe, and also collected coins"?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, but did you mean to drop those wikilinks? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • explained how her friend taught her etching and showed her drawings to him: misphrased, I think; I read this as "her friend...showed her drawings to him". Perhaps "explained how her friend taught her etching and how she showed her drawings to him"?
Changed the sentence to help clarify it. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but now I reread it I don't think we need the "how". Perhaps "Daniell taught Rigby etching, and she showed him her drawings; a private letter from her to Frederick Beecheno, written in 1891, revealed the warmth of the friendship she and her future husband Charles Lock Eastlake felt for him before their marriage"? This makes the first part of the sentence more direct; it's no longer apparent that the letter is the source for that part of the sentence but I don't think that's important -- the citation will tell the reader, if they are curious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was Daniell's promotion of Blake's book of relevance to Linnell?
Explanation provided. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two friends corresponded to each other regularly: redundant; "with" is more usual if you want to use this form, or you could be more concise and just say "corresponded regularly".
Thanks, done the latter. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of all the group of artists that Daniell was surrounded by during his years in London, Turner was considered by them the ablest. Awkward phrasing. Can we make this "Turner was considered, by the group of artists that Daniell was surrounded by during his years in London, to be the ablest among them"? Even that's still not very fluent. Or "Daniell's artistic circle considered Turner to be the ablest of their group"? That omits part of the original qualification, so I don't know if it would still be faithful to the source.
Used Hamilton to help get the phrasing right. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • create a sense of space, a feeling of heat or cold, of poverty or plenty, with apparent of effort: a word must be missing from the quote here -- sounds like it should be "with apparent lack of effort", or something similar.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • he deliberately selected a limited palette, for instance when he made painted freely on buff paper during his tours of the Middle East: looks like some copyediting debris here?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very good, but I would be more comfortable supporting if one of our resident art experts took a look. You might try soliciting reviews from Ceoil, or Johnbod, or Iridescent, but anyone who knows fine arts (I know very little) would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck most points, a couple of minor issues left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I would like to see a review from someone with expertise in this area; I know Amitchell125 has asked Ceoil who would be an excellent choice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I've added this to the source/image review page as well as the urgents list. @Therapyisgood: how are your concerns looking? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias edit

  • It notes the surname was originally "Daniel"; is there any idea when it was changed?
Looking back at the source, it's not clear that the family themselves used 'Daniel' and not 'Daniell', so I've removed the note. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daniell's first wife, by whom he had a son and a daughter, had died in London in 1792." The way this is written sounds like it was Edward's first wife who died, not his father's. Consider using the first name here for clarity: "Sir Thomas' first wife..."
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is mention that Edward had a half-brother and sister; the brother, Earle, is accounted for as an adult, but is there anything more about the sister, even a name and whether she lived to adulthood?
I've added mentioned his half-sister Anne's marriage and that his half-brother was in the 12th Dragoons. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In one of many letters he wrote about the subject, one that appeared in the Norwich Mercury in August 1830 referred to the "scandalous re-facing of the ancient keep"." This can be worded better: "One of the many letters he wrote about the subject appeared in the Norwich Mercury in August 1830, and referred to the "scandalous re-facing of the ancient keep."
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A memorial to Daniell can be seen in the church of St. Mary Coslany, Norwich." Is there any information about when the memorial was created, or anything to add to this? It's a short two-sentence paragraph, and would be nice to expand a bit if possible.
I'm not sure I'll be able to help here—the church is now redundant, and there are no records about it online. If I come across anything I'll add it to the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His family also provided a memorial tablet for the church in Antalya here he was buried, so I mentioned that. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his biography of Turner, the author James Hamilton states his opinion that 'he would have been able to supply...'" Can be worded better: "In his biography of Turner, author James Hamilton states that Daniel "would have been able to supply...". As it's Turner's book, it is clear it's his opinion, so no need to repeat that.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the etching revival personified later in the century by Seymour Haden and Whistler." Is there a reason no not give Whistler's full name?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple times where individuals are named with the "Dr." prefix. My understanding of MOS:DOC suggests that it isn't necessary to include that at all, so I'd recommend removing it. However if you keep them, ensure consistency (see: "Dr. Rita Severis" and "Dr Miklos Rajnai").
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see, though I'll admit I'm far from an art history expert. Interesting article, and like that it contains a lot of his artwork. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Happy to support. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

  • There is sandwiching in the "Career in the Church" section.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images outside the gallery are public domain.
  • The gallery is unsuitable because there is no accompanying text explaining why these images are important or relevant. It would be more suitable for an article titled List of artworks by Edward Thomas Daniell or similar. (t · c) buidhe 23:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to a list of his works, gallery deleted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

"was not forced to earn his living from them" poor choice of words, did not have to perhaps. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was notoriously difficult to get his agreement to be portrayed" Words like "notoriously" should be avoided for encyclopedic tone
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note starting "Alfred Story described Linnell's painting Noon..." note is too tangential to the subject
note now gone. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, links now amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to explain who Beecheno is. Currently the first mention of him states "Beecheno recalled that he was..." was Beecheno there? If not, how can he recall it? (t · c) buidhe 00:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence amended to clarify the issue raised. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Numbering based on this version

  • 75 and 76 are adjacent and cite the same source, should be combined
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A letter written in 1835 from Daniell to his old Oxford tutor Reverend Joseph Blanco White gives an indication of the friendship he still felt towards "his old coadjutor"." This is inappropriately cited to White's autobiography and must be rephrased or removed.
I tweaked the pages cited, and amended the sentence. Is that what you meant? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beecheno—appears to be someone with a close connection to the painter and inappropriate source for the blanket statement "Daniell was one of the foremost opponents of the proposed refacing."
I tweaked the sentence a little. I couldn't find much about Beecheno, but it seems he was born in Norwich, 12 years after Daniell's death in 1842, and would therefore have written about him as someone he never met. I've made edits to remove any impression that they knew each other. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entire paragraph starting "The outer shell of Norwich Castle's keep..." appears to give undue weight to a controversy that apparently isn't mentioned in any sources in the last century.
Paragraph now reduced in size, image taken out of the section. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has an unusual number of sources more than a century old, but on the other hand the subject matter is non-controversial, and I am unable to find newer sources.
I'm pretty sure there aren't any more newer sources. Daniell's works are generally to be found in the British Museum (which has little to say about him that is not previously published) or in the Norwich Museums Collections (whose curators have included Daniell in their histories of the Norwich School of artists, and which I have used). Amitchell125 (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "University and Clerical Intelligence". The Standard. London. 28 November 1828. — page number or link?
Reference amended to include link and page number. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources in the bibliography are lacking identifiers (ISSN, OCLC, etc) such as "Gower, Ronald Sutherland (1902). Sir David Wilkie. London: G. Bell and Sons." and "White, Joseph Blanco (1845). The life of Joseph Blanco White. III. London: J. Chapman."
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the paywalled or registration required sources are already noted as such in the links, making the icons after the source redundant. (For instance Hamilton has a registration required icon AND a template after the citation stating (registration required)) It would be better to follow the style of the inline citations and simply use a plain link to indicate a freely accesible source.
Free access templates removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, citation format is acceptable. (t · c) buidhe 00:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue I just noticed: "revealed the warmth of the friendship she and her future husband Charles Lock Eastlake felt for him before their marriage"—is WP:OR, "interpretation of a primary source", as the source cited just reproduces the letter without any analysis, as far as I can tell. The quotation that follows seems distinctly undue—it hasn't been quoted or analyzed in any secondary source. Furthermore, the first sentence in that paragraph needs to be attributed, since it is just a claim made in a letter written decades after the fact and not supported by any secondary source.
Paragraph amended to address your concerns. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think that the article should have a thorough spot check for appropriate use of sources before it is passed. (t · c) buidhe 10:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Most of the second paragraph of "Death from malaria" is uncited
Now cited. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn2 should use a more specific title
Title amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't access FN26, and what makes it a high-quality reliable source?
FN26 listed its own sources, so I was able to replace it with a page from Oliver. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN31 is missing page number
Done.Amitchell125 (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
Checked. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN46: website title is not needed
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN67 is missing volume
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there an access date in FN68 and not FN67?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN71: given website title should be listed as publisher
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN103: Issuu is the platform hosting a copy of this work - who's the actual publisher?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Issuu should be credited using [{para|via}} if at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went for the 'if at all' option and took out the website name. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading should be a separate section rather than a subsection of Bibliography
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Beecheno?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does this source meet WP:SPS? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say we're OK with Beecheno's work on Daniell. Frederick Richard Beecheno was a published historian who lived in Norwich. He wrote small published works like St Andrew's Church, Norwich for local consumption, and he is for instance listed in The Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany pp. 38, 44, 45 as an author. His other published and privately printed works are listed here by Norfolk County Council (sorry if you can't access the link from outside the UK).
Binyon, Dickes, and in more recent years, Severis, Thistlethwaite and Moore all used Beecheno's Memoir when writing biographical details about Daniell, and other books list Beecheno's work in connection with Daniell, even though you have to go somewhere like the public library in Norwich to access a copy. Hope this helps. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
Locations checked. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These should be consistently formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Duggan source a translation of an earlier work? Can you elaborate on the background for this work?
I don't follow you. Why are are your queries here relevant to improving the article? Amitchell125 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the above comment, as on second thoughts I thought it best to remove Duggan and use other sources. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice many of the sources are quite old - is there no more recent literature on Daniell?
I will check again, but see reply to comment above ("I'm pretty sure there aren't any more newer sources...") Amitchell125 (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked initially to see if her thesis is cited in the literature, and it is (it's in published books and journal articles, found via Google Books and JSTOR). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give some examples? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked hard, panicked, but then realised I'd found the same information in Severis' 2000 book, after discovering her thesis—it was her book that was cited. Paragraph now amended to alter the quote slightly, and include refs from her book. The book is now listed in the Bibliography, replacing the thesis. I've replaced the map image with his watercolour of Cypress, and the problem you noticed should be sorted now. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto edit

Saw this on Iridescent's talk page so thought I'd take a look. I've amended what I can as I've gone along with others listed below, which I couldn't.

Early life and education
  • "...where his drawing master was John Crome. He was taught etching..." -- Who, Daniell or Crome?
Daniell.
  • Is "vacations" a BrEng word? It sounds more AmEng.
Holidays used instead.
  • "... J.M.W. Turner, whom he greatly admired. He became involved in the art world..." -- Who, Daniell or Tuner?
Daniell.
Points sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
During 1829 and 1830 he spent
  • "During 1829 and 1830 he spent..." -- Who, John Sell or Daniell?
Daniell.
  • "In the summer of 1832 Daniell and two of his contemporaries from Oxford, George Denison and the author and politician Edmund Walker Head, went on a walking trip in Scotland, where he obtained valuable subject material" -- Who obtained this? We mention three people here.
Daniell.
Points sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Career in the Church
  • "by the elderly Bishop of Norwich" -- what does his age have to do with it?
Now just a bishop.
  • "On 2 June 1833, he was ordained..." -- new para, new noun.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tour of the Near East
  • New para, new noun.
  • "At the Turkish city of Smyrna he met Fellows..." -- New para, new noun
Both done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Death from Malaria
  • "During the journey he contracted malaria..." -- who did?
Daniell.
  • "...fell a victim to the malignant malaria fever..." -- No need for "malignant" here.
Not done, as the word is part of a quotation. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. CassiantoTalk 08:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Adalia, Purdie helped him to convalesce..." -- Who? New para, new noun.
Daniell.
  • "during the hottest part of the year." → "during the hottest time of the year."
My English is correct here, so left unchanged. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He lost consciousness" -- who did? New para, new noun
Daniell.
  • "Forbes paid tribute to his friend" -- nice, but which one? New para, new noun.
Daniell.
Above points addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Friends and associates
  • "and with whom Daniell corresponded regularly." -- they were friends, so I would think they would correspond with one another. Also, "Norwich friend" is not great. I suggest moving Norwich to where the street is mentioned, if you must. But His location is rather unimportant, especially since you've already mentioned this.
Fixed.
  • "His friendships with Ninham and Joseph Stannard may have begun when they were at school." → "His friendships with Ninham and Joseph Stannard may have begun at school."
Done.
  • "Daniell was one of the best known patrons of the arts of his time" -- POV. I suggest you attribute it to someone.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J.M.W. Turner
  • "He was considered by Daniell's circle of artists in London to be their doyen" -- who was?
Turner's name now added. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Artistic career
  • "In 1832 he exhibited..." New para, new noun
  • "Daniell served on bodies involved with the arts. He was elected as a Fellow of the Geological Society of London in 1835 and was elected as a committee member of the Society for the Encouragement of British Art in May 1837." -- elected/elected repetition
Both issues addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Etchings
  • "The British art historian Arthur Hind has said that his etchings" -- Who, we mention three people?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was all I could see in a quick read through. You should really have had this peer reviewed before FAC, if I'm honest. It's certainly not up to FAC quality, let alone FA. I'll hold off on opposing for now, pending these changes. CassiantoTalk 21:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ceoil edit

Its all very confusing, and the writing is a bit labored and old fashioned, raising concerns about use of sources.

  • ...London. In London.. Pff.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their influence is apparent in Daniell's early etchings,[29] but he later became more affected by the works of J.M.W. Turner, whom Daniell greatly admired. Daniell... Too many instances of the word Daniell. This issue is rampant throughout the page.
I agree, but a previous commentator advised me to add Daniell's name all over the place, which is the main reason why there is now an issue. I'll work through the text again and replace where his name occurs to often. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the famous brothers Thomas and Chambers Hall wrote to the artist John Linnell - The famous brothers? why not just "brothers...."
Sentence looked accidentally corrupted, so I restored it, with 'famous' left out. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In April 1842 Spratt, Forbes and Daniell arrived overland at Antalya. Spratt and Forbes left the city on before Daniell, who left overland after his meeting with the Pasha.[58] Daniell visited Cyprus that year and painted his only extant watercolour of the island . Repetitive mention of Spratt and Forbes.
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • have edited re 'Larnaka, Cyprus, from the Sea' - which had been both names and described as untitled in a single sentence.
  • As a wealthy amateur, Daniell exhibited but did not have to earn a living from sales. - hard to take meaning from this as positioned in the lead
Sentence removed, as looking again, it seems to me the lead doesn't really need it. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are eg only; article needs a lot of work yet. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixes Amitchell125. Ceoil (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the above comments Ceoil, they're much appreciated. Could you point me in the direction of improving the article to make it less confusing, etc. and in particular be specific about your concern over the sources? Amitchell125 (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are there on content but are in need of a skilled copy-editor to help you past the final post. Mostly of the issues I'm seeing are tense related, or re redundant phrasing, eg just landed on a random para and found this "He missed his ship—the ships having set sail the previous ". This kind of wording is isolated sure, but such repetition makes for heavy reading overall. Certainly wrt the article I know you have all the research and heavy lifting done, but before you get FA, would like to see more polish. Best of luck with that and thanks for bringing the page thus far. I do see myself supporting in a later nom. Ceoil (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ps, would ask for a view on a way forward from the likes of User:Gerda Arendt and User:Aza24 if I was you; both are highly capable editors inclined towards the humanities. Ceoil (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleasantly busy with company today, - the topic is interesting, hopefully later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note (2) edit

Hi, I appreciate there's been support for promotion above but if experienced editors like Cass and Ceoil have serious concerns at this stage, necessitating in the latter's opinion a full copyedit, then I think we have to call a halt and ask that further improvements take place outside the FAC process. Even after copyediting I'd recommend a formal or informal Peer Review prior to another FAC nom, which should make for smoother sailing the second time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2020 [11].

Chesham branch edit

Nominator(s): VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of iridescent's best work, and it is a shame that this has not been worked on for around a decade. After heavily reworking on some brush ups, I think this is good to go for this nomination. It is about a single-track branch line that is part of the London Underground Metropolitan line, and used to be part of the Metropolitan Railway. The line has a lot of history, and is a unique part of the London Underground being outside London in Buckinghamshire, which makes it sort of a commuter-metro service. Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Much love <3 VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, obviously. ‑ Iridescent 04:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure if I should take that as a joke cuz I assume we have a sense of humour :3 VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: please archive this nonsense to avoid it wasting anyone else's time. The nomination is obviously out-of-process—I'm responsible for 95% of the body text and the first I heard of this was when I happened to see it pop up on FAC—and had the nominator actually bothered to follow the instructions someone could have politely explained beforehand that nominating this would be pointless. The nominator has made a huge stack of disruptive edits to it which I've just reverted en masse (I think what's happened is that they've taken every comment on the previous FAC, no matter how goofy, as an instruction to be followed, but the result was WP:CITEVAR breaches, the introduction of outright inaccuracies, and the loss of necessary historical context). In any case, while I do believe this met the WIAFA of a decade ago, it certainly doesn't meet the standards of today; had it passed back then, it would undoubtedly have been FAR'd by now. ‑ Iridescent 12:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2020 [12].

Bhagat Singh edit

Nominator(s): Dtt1Talk 07:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Bhagat Singh an Indian socialist revolutionary whose acts for a free India against the British occupied nation and then execution at age 23 made him a hero of the Indian independence movement, He is one of the most Influential Freedom Fighter in the history of India Dtt1Talk 07:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- procedural archive per FAC instructions, tks Medusa & Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 12 July 2020 [13].

The Masked Singer (American TV series) edit

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most popular TV shows in the United States at the moment. I think you'll find it an interesting read, especially with the behind-the-scenes info that's written. Per Wikiwho, I'm responsible for about 94 percent of this article's content, and I happened to create it way back in 2018 as well. Coronavirus has given me some extra time at home, so I've been able to expand it greatly in the past couple of months. This is my first featured article nomination so I'm super excited to have started this process; I hope I will learn a lot by responding to your comments :) Heartfox (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
  • File:Masked_Singer_US_Costumes.png needs a more extensive fair-use rationale. Same with File:Masked_Singer_US_Stage.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I've scaled up some of the images and I've attempted to write more detailed fair use rationales for the images you noted. Heartfox (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think the cast multi-image should be larger but otherwise this looks better. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Increased width to 400. Heartfox (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I've added this to the urgents list, but if it doesn't get any traction soon, it'll need to be archived. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Seeing the lack of response, I would like to withdraw the nomination at this time and perhaps renominate it at a later time after more information has been added. Heartfox (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 July 2020 [14].

Meghan Trainor edit

Nominator(s): NØ 05:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor, known for her breakthrough single "All About That Bass" and commonly hated by many. Being in the workings since 2014, the article underwent a GA review by Ritchie333 in November 2018, then endured a disastrous FAC a month later. I have been slowly nursing it up to standard ever since, consulting WP:RSP and Nikkimaria for its sourcing, Nick-D for neutrality purposes and Gerda Arendt for prose evaluation. I would like to commence this nomination by thanking them. And I firmly believe, that with its prose quality, accessibility, quality sourcing, comprehensiveness and flow, it is one of the best articles produced by Wikipedia and worthy of the golden star. So let's give it that title.--NØ 05:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Musically influenced by the 1950s and 1960s" - not sure the 1960s portion is supported explicitly by the article text
Removed the 1960s bit.
  • FN11: as per WP:RSP the reliability of Allmusic for biographical information is questionable
Removed.
  • FN23 is missing agency credit
Added.
You added it as a publisher, but in this case it should be credited as an agency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN45: staff authors like this shouldn't be formatted as first-last
Done.
  • FN56 is missing author. Same with FN90, check for others
Done 1. Confused about FN90, which does have an author. FN91, on the other hand, just gives the author as 'Rolling Stone'; which I'm not sure should be added since it isn't a person.
The link for FN90 lists two authors, while the citation includes only one. With regards to staff authors, you should consistently either include or exclude them. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn62: as this is a community contributor, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Swapped with Billboard.
  • Footnotes should go before References
Done.
  • FN83 is miscapitalized
Fixed.
  • FN87: Tidal isn't part of the title
Removed.
  • What makes Bang Showbiz a high-quality reliable source? Idolator?
Replaced.
  • UPI is an agency not a work.
Amended.

--Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help, Nikkimaria! I have responded to each of your comments above.--NØ 05:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Images appear to be free and correctly licensed. buidhe 07:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi, with no comprehensive reviews after more than three weeks, this nom has stalled almost before it starts, so I'm going to archive. Given the situation though, I'm happy to waive the usual two-week wait for a re-nom -- perhaps getting it back to the top of the list will help it get more traction next time. It's also a big help that Buidhe and Nikki have taken care of the image and source reviews already. When you re-nom, mention that fact, and ping Nick-D and Gerda Arendt, your Peer Reviewers, rather than just mentioning them -- this might help it off to a better start next time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 July 2020 [15].

Bikini Porn edit

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the song "Bikini Porn", released as a single in 2020 by Swedish singer Tove Lo. She has stated that the lyrics are about "letting go of your worries", while the title means "tan lines". The music video attracted media coverage due to the cameo made by Finneas, "Bikini Porn"'s songwriter and producer. The single also included another song, "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak", which was considered to be totally opposite to "Bikini Porn" in terms of composition.

This is the second article about a Tove Lo song that I nominate for FA, the first one being "Habits (Stay High)", which was promoted in 2017. This is currently a GA, it has received a peer review and a copy-edit by the GOCE. I consider it meets the criteria for FA, and I'm open to receive further comments. Thank you, Paparazzzi (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose comments from Coolmarc edit

  • O'Connell should be Finneas in the producer parameter in the infobox since he is known mononymously as Finneas.
  • released as a single on 15 January 2020 for download and on streaming services. Needs work. "released for download and streaming services" is an awkward way to say this.
  • Does "released on 15 January 2020 as a single for download and on streaming services" sound better?--Paparazzzi (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instrumentation" is too formal and awkward for a song about a pop song, just say instruments.
  • Changed. I don't believe "instrumentation" is too formal, but I'm going to follow your suggestion.--Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Lo, the track's title refers to "tan lines" and its lyrics are about "letting go of your worries". Per WP:LEADCITE a citation is needed here, but this could be paraphrased with a little effort.
  • who complimented its composition and noted the contrast between the track and "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak". more context is needed here. What about its composition? What contrast?
  • Added context regarding the composition. Removed the "noted the contrast between the track and "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak"".--Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • accompanying music video for "Bikini Porn" use either "accompanying music video" or "music video for "Bikini Porn", not both.
  • "depicts" is very formal for an article on a pop song, "shows" would easily suffice.
  • Honestly, I don't understand the problem here.--Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dancing in several locations" what several locations? WP:WHATPLACE
  • Critics had different opinions about the clip, with some deeming Finneas' appearance as its highlight what were the different opinions and why was Finneas' appearance the highlight? More context needed here.
  • Tove Lo wrote "Bikini Porn" while drinking champagne during a recording session, feeling she was "in a happy place".[1] She showed the song to her team, who gave it a lukewarm response to it. Grammar issues in both sentences.
  • Lo contacted musician Finneas through mutual friends The source says they met through "a songwriting collective that both were privy to." This is not the same as "mutual friends"
  • he felt honored and excited he wanted to work with her. trivial details. Singers say that about everyone they collaborate with.
  • Mmm, well, I guess she said that because Finneas is a better known artist than her, and he could have picked someone more famous to work with...Anyways, I have removed the sentence. --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lo told Finneas, "I love writing with you, you're bringing out this other side of me, I think, a lot of people try to push more of a happier way."[5] Awkward placement and could be paraphrased for better context.
  • "According to Tidal" is unnecessary.
  • I'm not a fan of Composition as a section title as the term is more commonly used for music pieces and poems, not pop songs. "Music and lyrics" is a better section title.
  • Its instrumentation incorporates too formal and awkward for an article about a pop song.
  • Honestly, I don't see why that could be a problem. --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On Beats 1, Lo" mentioned twice in the same section - grammar, Beats 1 is not really needed here anyway, I doubt they influenced her statement.
  • What makes this a high-quality reputable source?
  • MuuMuse is run by Bradley Stern, who has written for others reliable publications, such as Idolator, MTV, Queerty, V Magazine, Attitude and Interview Magazine. I consider he has enough expertise regarding pop music journalism, but I want to know your opinion about this.--Paparazzzi (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The About us of the website says ME...I AM BRADLEY Stern. The Elusive Bloggeuse. Founded in 2007, MuuMuse is a pop music blog dedicated to music commentary, reviews, interviews, exclusives and extensive analysis of the artistry of Britney Spears. This is not a high-quality reputable FAC source. Cool Marc ✉ 06:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." MuuMuse can be used according to this. Reading this thread might be helpful too. Paparazzzi (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC criteria is sources to be not only reliable but of high quality. Unfortunately, I don't view this blog as a high quality source. Cool Marc ✉ 06:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is your subjective point of view.--Paparazzzi (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is a four-minutes ambient ballad grammar
  • What is "instrumentation composed of background noise"? Such a technical term for "background noise"?
  • It means that the song's melody is composed of background noise and percussions. I have reworded the sentence.--Paparazzzi (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a June 2019 interview with Billboard, Lo stated she had written songs with Finneas, praising his ability as a producer and writer.[13] She told NME in October of that year, "We're fans of each others' music and he's a really good lyricist so it felt like a fresher, freer session – though I can't say anything about the songs".[14] This feels odd in a "Release and live performances" section and more relevant to "Background"
  • Cerys Kenneally of The Line of Best Fit said the hashtag was the title of the new single. is unnecessary, what else could it refer to?
  • At the time, Tove hadn't disclosed the title of the song. She didn't even announce she would be releasing a new single.--Paparazzzi (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of back and forth in this article about "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak" which appears to be a B-side or a double A-side but no clarity is given about this?
  • "Passion" is the bonus song of the single. Non-physical singles don't have B-sides. --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You discuss "Passion" in the Background section, mention it again in Composition but then reintroduce it again in the Release section Lo released the single "Bikini Porn", which includes the title track and the additional song "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak", perhaps make one section or subsection solely for "Passion" because it's ruining the flow of an article which is supposed to be about the song "Bikini Porn".
  • She added the tracks show she can be sexual and confident but also smart and poetic at the same time.[19] grammar issues.
  • "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak" had a darker thematic had a darker thematic?? This is not the word, the word is "theme"
  • What makes this a high quality FAC source?
  • I have never heard of any of those website before. The About Us describes them as "a group of friends" and an online "fanzine". This does not strike me as a high quality source. Do we know if there is an editor for fact-checking? Cool Marc ✉ 06:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps because you don't speak Spanish? Point 12 reveals that yes, there is someone that reviews everything that is posted.Paparazzzi (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • deemed "Bikini Porn" as a "bouncy", grammar issues
  • I would suggest indicating in the prose that the Hot 40 Singles Chart is an extension of the main New Zealand chart, because the majority of readers will mistake this as the main chart. I constantly see editors mistaking it for the main chart on Wikipedia as well.
  • Finneas, the track's co-producer and songwriter, makes a cameo appearance we know who Finneas is by now, no need to introduce his job title again.
  • The credits and personnel section is not in line with the guideline of WP:PERSONNEL.
  • Ref 8 and 13 are missing article dates.
  • Finneas is in caps in some reference titles.
  • NME, The Line of Best Fit and Billboard are not linked on the first instance in the references, but are on a second or third instance.

Good job on the article, but there is some work to do. Cool Marc ✉ 14:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolmarc: Hello! First, thank you so much for your review. I have addressed your comments. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolmarc: I have addressed your comments. Paparazzzi (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't appreciate the comment "that is your subjective point of view". MuuMuse, Jenesaispop and Scandipop are all blogs and not high-quality FAC sources. This is not a point of view, this is FAC criteria. Cool Marc ✉ 13:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "high-quality" criteria was proposed to include more printed publications, which are considered to be more reliable/of higher quality than online sources. At least that was the point when that criteria was included around 2009... take a look at the archives and that's what you'll find. With that being said, the high-quality aspect is not explicitely especified and that's why I commented "that is your subjective point of view", never meant to offend you... I already responded above regarding your question about Jenesaispop, yes, they have an editor who reviews everything that's going to be published, and I'm wondering why you are mentioning Scandipop until this very moment... do you have any more comments? Because everytime I address something you come up with something different...Paparazzzi (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose based on the quality of these blog sources and the nominator's attitude above. Cool Marc ✉ 14:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I hope this has nothing to do regarding the discussion we are having at Talk:Dua Lipa (album). Because I already left some comments above and you haven't replied to them. Anyways, have a nice day! Paparazzzi (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to them here. The fact still stands that these are blogs and not high quality FAC sources. I have no time for your sarcastic, disrespectful and condescending attitude, and have nothing left to say here. Cool Marc ✉ 15:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolmarc: Jenesaispop and Scandipop are not "blog" sources. Would you care to elaborate as to why you feel they are such? Because commentary such as this could end up having serious ramifications throughout the FAC process. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: The Jenesaispop About Us describes them as "a group of friends" and an online "fanzine". Scandipop has no about us page - other websites have referred to it as a blog 1 2, Scandipop's own page titles say "blog archives" 1 2, they use a Gmail email address. MuuMuse is a blog run by a Britney Spears fan who says ME...I AM BRADLEY Stern. The Elusive Bloggeuse. Founded in 2007, MuuMuse is a pop music blog dedicated to music commentary, reviews, interviews, exclusives and extensive analysis of the artistry of Britney Spears. Sorry, but these are not high quality professional sources from what I see. I am not sure what you mean by "commentary such as this could end up having serious ramifications throughout the FAC process". I explained this above before you made this comment. Cool Marc ✉ 01:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your points stand. @Paparazzzi: I'd suggest removing (or, where possible, replacing) the MuuMuse source. The content derived from that site doesn't add a great deal to the article anyway. But I'm afraid some of your other points, @Coolmarc:, leave me lacking. "Friends" can't create a popular website with editorial oversight and which features contributions from writers who have been published by several other sources (as explained above)? This is what I meant by saying your oppose has ramifications for other articles: if we all suddenly disregard content created by notable authors, we'd have to immediately demote practically every MilHist FA. Plus, competing websites calling a source a "blog" doesn't mean much. And regarding your point about Gmail, depending on the hosting service you've used to create your website, creating an @WebsiteX.com internal e-mail system (post website creation) can cost anywhere from $500 to $5,000. Unless, of course, you've paid a significant amount beforehand for a hosting service's premium package, which isn't cheap, let me tell ya. =( Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

I am putting this up as a placeholder. I am currently completing a review for a different FAC and I would like to wait until the above comments from Coolmarc are addressed. I have participated in the peer review and I am glad to see it being nominated here. Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi! Thank you for being interested. I already addressed Coolmarc's comments but I'm waiting for his response. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update. I will look through the article again today. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few invisible comments. Is there any reason to keep them?
  • I would replace "letting go of the worries" with "letting go of one's worries".
  • The word "while" does not really make sense in the context, "while others deemed", as it is often used to set up a contrast. However, neither of the two points (praise for the plot and highlighting Finneas' appearance) present a contrast so I would use a different word instead.
  • I think this part, "others deemed the appearance of Finneas as a driver as a highlight", is a little too repetitive of the previous sentence. Maybe eliminate "Finneas appears in the video in a cameo role as an Uber driver" to instead combine that information here with something like "others deemed Finneas' cameo as an Uber driver to be a highlight"?
  • I messed around the "Background" section's first paragraph to work on the flow. How does something like this look to you?
    • Tove Lo wrote "Bikini Porn" while drinking champagne and being in what she described as a "happy place". Although her team had a lukewarm response to the song, she contacted American musician Finneas through a songwriting collective and asked him to produce it. He enjoyed the track and accepted her request. Lo believed Finneas added the necessary "grit and weirdness and bopness" to the song.
  • I would see if there is a way to not repeat "processed" in this sentence: "Its instrumentation incorporates a highly processed, tropical beat and backing vocals that were processed through a vocoder."
  • I find the "In another statement" transition to be rather cumbersome, and I was wondering if there could be a way to better represent that information.
  • Changed to "She also described..."
  • For this part, "and the songs from Robyn's album Body Talk (2010)", I do not think "the" in front of "songs" is needed.
  • The MuuMuse source also compares this song to Peaches. Is that notable enough for inclusion?
  • For this part, "Cerys Kenneally of The Line of Best Fit said the hashtag was the title of the new single", maybe a word like "speculated" instead of "said" would more clearly convey that this was just a guess on the writer's part.
  • I am uncertain about including both "releasing" and "released" in the same sentence: "On 15 January 2020, four months after releasing her fourth studio album Sunshine Kitty, Lo released the single "Bikini Porn"."
  • For the last two sentences of the "Release and live performances" section, I would avoid having two sentences in a row with the same verb (in this case "performed"). You also do not need to specify that she performed the song live as done in this part: "Lo performed "Bikini Porn" live".
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: "She performed the track alongside "Habits (Stay High)" and "Sweettalk My Heart" (2019) during the encore on subsequent shows." It implies to me that Lo performed "Bikini Porn" in a different part of the concert during the first show and then moved it to the encore in the later ones. Is that true? If so, when in the concert did she perform the song for the first?
  • I am a little uncertain of the sentence structure of the first paragraph of the "Reception" section as a majority of it is "X critic says Y opinion". I think some sentence variety would be helpful here.
  • I would keep the chart information in a separate paragraph. It may be short, but I do not think it makes much sense to have it with another paragraph on a different topic.
  • I do somewhat agree with the commentary below that the screenshot s not 100% needed as a reader could already get a solid grasp on the video's plot with the prose. As I said below though, I could see an argument being made to have a screenshot that showed the video's VHS, lo-fi style as some readers may not be familiar with either concept (and even if they are, this music video may be doing it in a way that differs from what they imagine).
  • Do you consider the picture itself showcase the video's VHS style? or should I replace it with another screenshot? Paparazzzi (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would replace it with another screenshot if you are going to try this route. Remember that this is just my suggestion. I am not entirely sure which screenshot could represent this, but it seems like the best point that could be illustrated with a screenshot. Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did find this source from the Wyoming Tribune Eagle that talks more about Lo's collaboration with Finneas. It brings up an interesting point that Lo primarily worked with the same set of producers and that it was unusual for her to work with someone new like Finneas. There may be some helpful information here. Just a suggestion though.

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hello! Thank you for the review, I have addressed your comments (I left some comments as well). Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Hello! I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!Paparazzzi (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few new issues with the article. I will keep my support, but I wanted to raise this to your attention.

  • Sunshine Kitty: Paw Prints Edition should be in italics since it is an album title.
  • The information about Sunshine Kitty: Paw Prints Edition is only in the lead and infobox, when it should also be in the body of the article as well. It also needs a citation.
  • I think the information about the single release could be better represented in the lead. Right now, it is somewhat awkwardly tagged on the end of the first paragraph, and I would think of ways to more cohesively present this information in the lead.

Again, I am not taking back my support, but these things should be addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: I have addressed your comments, but I don't know if the correction to the release information was how you expected it to be. Thanks for notifying me about the changes, I was waiting for more information to be published (the reissue came out today actually) but an IP added the information. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing this! Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paparazzzi: Given the current opposition, it may be best to withdraw this nomination. I would recommend putting this up for a peer review once the current one for "Cool Girl" is completed. The peer review for this article probably should have been kept up a while longer to get further feedback. It may be wise to ask the opposing voters for further feedback at a possible peer review (and reach out to editors who have worked on featured articles about songs). Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from The Squirrel Conspiracy edit

I do not believe that File:Bikini Porn mv.png meets non-free content criteria #8. The text does a perfectly adequate job of explaining the various situations that the musician is in during the music video, and I don't see how the inclusion of the image is critical to the reader's understanding of the topic of the article.

To be honest, I really don't see a case for including File:Bikini Porn cover.jpg either - the album cover itself is not discussed at all in the article, so it can't possibly be vital to understanding the subject matter. However, the community expectation of a non-free image in the infobox regardless of the NFCC is so entrenched that arguing for the removal of that image, I suspect, is a lost cause. However I do urge you to consider whether its inclusion is necessary.

If featured articles are supposed to represent the best that this project has to offer, they need to - in my opinion - follow the NFCC most stringently. Right now, because of the presence of File:Bikini Porn mv.png and the lack of a strong case to justify its inclusion, I don't think that the article meets criteria 3 of WP:FA?.

Please note that non-free files are the only thing I comment on at FAC. If the matter is addressed, I'll strike the Oppose, but I won't be offering a full review. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Regarding the inclusion of the artwork, it is one of the parameters of template:infobox song. Coupled with this, MOS:LEADIMAGE states, "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." Yes, I believe its inclusion is necessary. I strongly disagree with your comment about File:Bikini Porn mv.png. Maybe you understood perfectly the plot of the music video just by reading the text, but we can't be sure that others readers will. I'm going to ping reviewers @Coolmarc: and @Aoba47: to know their opinions regarding this situation. Paparazzzi (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style is a guideline. The non-free content criteria is a policy with legal considerations. When the two come into conflict, the policy has absolute priority. In other words, when the question is whether a file meets the NFCC or not, everything else gets put on hold until that question is addressed.
The standard at WP:NFCC is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". While that's up to interpretation, that's a significantly higher bar tahn "visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page".
I don't think that the music video image significantly increases readers' understanding. Other people might, so I welcome the other reviewers weighing in. However, I don't see anything about that image that the second paragraph of "Music video" doesn't already describe. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image should be permissible per Paparazzzi's comments above on that matter, but I understand the Squirrel Conspiracy's concern on the music video image. The section already provides a clear summary of the video in the prose so I could understand why the screenshot, which is from my understanding actually four separate images put together, is just repeating that. To be on the safe side, it is probably best to delete. However, if you really want to include an image in the section, maybe you can pick one that shows how the video has a "lo-fi and VHS style"? That is just a suggestion though. Apologies for not looking at this during the peer review. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not opposing on the grounds of the infobox image. I know that's a lost cause. I'm only opposing on the music video image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: @Aoba47: I have already changed the picture with one that illustrates the VHS and lo-fi style of the music video. I hope this is better. Paparazzzi (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this. I think the new screenshot is much better. Aoba47 (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @The Squirrel Conspiracy:. I have changed the picture to another one that illustrates the VHS and lo-fi style of the music video, something that not many people could understand just by reading the prose. I want to know your opinion about this and if you still oppose to the nomination. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the oppose. I'm still not a huge fan of including an image from the music video, but this photo is much better as it very clearly illustrates what the article means by "lo-fi and VHS style". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Paparazzzi (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Ealdgyth edit

  • I concur with the above reviewer on the unsuitablity of the blog sources for an FA. I must oppose on sourcing grounds. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: I have already stated the use of those blogs in the article, I opened a thread in the Wikiproject: Albums where MuuMuse was deemed usable for Wikipedia, but I might understand it may not be suitable for a FA. Jenesaispop is a Spanish website that is widely used in the Spanish Wikipedia and has been recognized by RTV; it consists of a group of experienced editors who have worked for other Spanish publications, and the content is reviewed before being published. Coolmarc did not specify why he deemed Scandipop as a blog... I think it would be worth mentioning that I had a discussion with said editor at Talk:Dua Lipa (album), so I don't know how neutral his opinion is at this point. He did not respond to my comment about Jenesaispop, so I would like to know your opinion. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I formed my opinion on the merits themselves. I do not see that MuuMuse fits the FA criteria of a high quality source. Spanish wikipedia's practices don't really impact English wikipedia's FA criteria. As for Scanipop, I'm not seeing anything beyond a bunch of playlists with some limited commentary - what makes their opinion worth noting? As an addition - what makes OutNext a high quality source? Likewise, Consquence of Sound? Idolator is named as a blog in our very own article on it, so why is that something that fits the FA criteria? And Inquisitir is listed as a news aggregator - what makes that a high quality reliable source? There are entirely too many sources with huge question marks. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for intruding on this conversation. I am by no means an expert on sources, but I wanted to provide an answer for Consequence of Sound at least. It is listed as a reliable source on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Its About Us page includes a list of editors, which indicates editorial oversight, so I think these two things make it reliable enough source for a featured article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources also lists Idolator as a reliable source. The site is published by SpinMedia, which publishes solid publications like Spin and Vibe. There have been a few discussion on WP:RSN about Idolator, and they have judged it as a reliable source. With that being said, I could not find a clear about page on Idolator or a list of editors. The closest I could find was this which includes a rather vague reference to some form of "editors". Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly not familiar enough with the other sources being questioned to really comment on them. The only real strong opinion that I have is that Consequence of Sound is a reliable and high-quality source. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A wikiproject listing is not going to show that a source meets FA criteria requirements, honestly. "reliable enough" is not the standard, "high quality" is. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had also included other reasons why Consequence of Sound is considered a high-quality source (i.e. the editorial oversight) outside of the WikiProject listing alone. I am less certain about Idolator and cannot vouch for that one, but I do not see a clear reason why Consequence of Sound is being questioned? Consequence of Sound has also been cited in other publications like The A.V. Club and American Songwriter. That points to it being a higher quality source, particularly for music articles. I also did not just say that this source was "reliable enough", because I also said it was "reliable and high-quality". Aoba47 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Aoba47. Those are high-reliable publications used in many music FA, that I'm surprised its use is being questioned here. Paparazzzi (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The fact that random users have come across and added a link to "blog" in certain articles does not in and of itself make these sources "blog". Scandipop, Consequence of Sound, Idolator, and several others mentioned, are all reputable websites used on multiple other music FAs. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments by Aoba47 and Homeostasis07. Many of those sources are used in other music FA, if they can't be used in this article because they are not "high-quality sources" then they should be removed from every other FA that uses them. Regarding Out Now, it is a digital magazine that was also printed. Paparazzzi (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove MuuMuse and Inquistr. Paparazzzi (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: @Homeostasis07: @Ealdgyth: I have removed MuuMuse, Scandipop and Inquistr. I still consider that the rest of sources are reliable and high-quality as expressed above by Aoba47 and Homeostasis07. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ealdgyth, has the latest assuaged your concerns? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are still several other sources I highlighted that have not been removed. I remain opposed. --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: it has been already explained why those other sources remain on the article, not only by me, but by other reviewers of this nomination. Those sources (which have been used in MANY FAs and GAs) are reliable and of high-quality. I don't know how much Ealdgyth knows about music articles, you may ask @Aoba47:, @Homeostasis07:, @MaranoFan: and @Cartoon network freak: about those sources. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Which sources would those be precisely? Because all the ones you previously mentioned – aside from Consequence of Sound – have indeed been removed in subsequent edits. Per @Aoba47:'s response above, CoS is a high-quality source used in many other music FAs, so I'm a bit perplexed about this myself. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with the above users about the reliability of Idolator and CoS. Especially the former, which is used on every music-related featured article I know. To see it be questioned is a bit baffling. This FAC being failed because of it would be a grave injustice, given that coords have passed dozens of articles including it. (For e.g., this version of the Lady Gaga article, which passed, can clearly be seen with two instances of Idolator).--NØ 04:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still do not see a reason to question CoS's use here. The publication has editorial oversight, has been cited in other publication, and is a high-quality source for music articles (as context still matters). These are three points that support CoS being a high quality source. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, could I trouble you for a further opinion on the source quality? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also question the use of Idolator, as well as Jenesaispop. I'm not able to access the About page for OutNow so can't at the moment assess it. With regards to COS, what is known about the author of this specific piece? They're not listed on the masthead and their author page provides no information. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the sources you mentioned have been already explained above. Paparazzzi (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read the above. I don't see an answer to my specific question re: COS - do you have one? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Bacior was part of the News Writers at the moment of the publication of that specific piece. You can see that here. Paparazzzi (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak edit

Lead
  • Link "single" to Single (music), also in the body  Done
  • I'm just a little bit confused, shouldn't the other song be listed as a B-side? And also briefly mentioning it in the lead may be a good thing to do  Comment: Digital singles don't have B-sides. That's a term used for physical singles. And I mentioned the song in the lead
  • with tropical instruments → I'd rather say something like "which is orchestrated by tropical instruments"  Done
  • "Music critics" should be linked to Music journalism, both here and in the body  Done
  • its sexual lyrics and its upbeat composition → remove the second "its" Done
  • and it was released on 17 January 2020 → which was released... Done
  • and others deemed Finneas' → while...  Comment: another reviewer told me that "while" express opposition between two sentences, which is not the case here
Background
  • Image > Finneas, co-writer of "Bikini Porn" → Finneas contributed to "Bikini Porn" as a co-writer and producer Done
  • She also commented about → ...commented on Done
  • working with different people than her usual team of producers, saying, "It's important to work with new people, because it challenges you and brings out new sides of you, writing-wise. → The quote kind of repeats what you already wrote, hence why I'd shorten to "saying "it challenges..."" Done
  • and that "Bikini Porn" is the track he dreamed about producing for her → and that "Bikini Porn" was... Done
  • though I can't say anything about the songs → This seems very unnecessary to me  Done removed
  • It feels odd to have all credits in the last paragraph. Usually these are the very first things mentioned here  Comment: I left them in the last paragraph to better explain the dynamic between Tove and Finneas, since the latter was not among the initial writers/producers of the track, but I still want to know your opinion about this... Paparazzzi (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyrics
  • a highly processed, tropical beat → I don't see the need for a comma here  Done
  • were modulated through a vocoder → shouldn't it be with a vocoder??  Done
  • Lo said the song's title means "tan lines" → the song's title references "tan lines" (sounds better to me)  Done
  • and the "weird" lifestyle in Los Angeles she → and the "weird" lifestyle in Los Angeles that she  Done
Release and live performances
  • She stated she liked writing with Finneas because he encouraged her to be more vulnerable → Unless she's explicitly talking about the writing process of "Passion...", I'd remove it  Comment: She's talking about writing the song with him
  • and noted on it some elements → no need for the "on it"  Done
  • reflect Finneas' minimal, alternative sound → reflect Finneas' minimal and alternative sound  Done
Reception
  • while compared its "monotone" → while comparing its "monotone"  Done
  • Writing for the same website, Raúl Guillén → which website? You don't mention it  Comment: Jenesaispop is mentioned in the previous sentence
  • the sexual thematic of the track, considering it features Lo "at her cheekiest" point → the sexual theme of the track and opined that Lo was "at her cheekiest" point  Done
  • at number 76 on the Veckolista Singlar chart[32] → the references should be at the end of the sentence  Done
  • I don't get why there needs to be an extra paragraph for the commercial performance. It's one-line only and it looks extremely aesthetically unpleasing.  Done
Music video
  • describing the clip as sexual and funny while not every scene is → describing the clip as sexual and funny although not every scene is  Done
  • What do you mean exactly by "flattering"?  Comment: that's Lo's description of the video. Watching it, I guess she is talking about not looking completely perfect, since the video shows you it didn't have a big budget and edition which would hide any of Lo's "imperfections"
  • Twenty-one hours later → numbers above ten should be written as numbers  Comment: According to MOS:NUMNOTES, Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure: Use: There were many matches; 23 ended in a draw. Or: There were many matches. Twenty-three ended in a draw. Not: There were many matches. 23 ended in a draw." Paparazzzi (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing
  • Just saying "Digital download" would suffice  Done
  • @Paparazzzi: In conclusion, I don't see many reasons why this shouldn't be approved for FA status. It's really well-written and for the most part well-structured. I see there's a dispute whether some sources can be used, but (although I don't have sufficent knowledge) I tend to agree with Aoba47 too. Once you address those, I'll support. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cartoon network freak: Hello! Thank you so much for your review. I have addressed all of your comments, and left some opinions above. Regards! Paparazzzi (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All my points have been solved and elsewhere appropriate explanations have been given. I thus support this for promotion. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS edit

I'll leave the prose to other reviewers. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the link to the video in the file's description. Thank you for your review. Regards! --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaranoFan edit

Thanks for the invite. The article looks well-written to me, so I'm inclined to support. However, a bunch of comments:

  • "On his Instagram account, Finneas said he became a fan of Lo after hearing her song" - Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify that he said it in an Instagram post (not a story), to be more specific.
  • "'Bikini Porn' was the track he dreamed about producing for her" - I believe the word "exactly" (with quotes) is needed after "was", because it currently reads as if Finneas wrote the track and dreamed of producing it specifically for Lo.
  • John Hanes, not Hannes. Also, link Serban Ghenea.
  • Overlinking of Instagram in the prose. This article seems to have a unique structure, as the Release section is usually placed above "Music and lyrics", but not directly a problem nonetheless. The section about PAPTTSWIW also looks unusually placed, but I can't think of anything better.
  • Add Michael Love Michael as the author for Ref #30. Also, I can vouch for the reliability of Idolator and Consequence of Sound. Coords should note that they're used on countless featured articles (Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Mariah Carey, Taylor Swift, etc.) Good luck!--NØ 13:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your review! I have addressed your comments. Regards! --Paparazzzi (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Homeostasis07 edit

I made a few source quality-related comments in previous sections of this FAC, which have hopefully been cleared up to everyone's satisfaction, so I offer my support source-wise. But I figured it's only good manners to do a full review at this point. I did have a couple of comments about the lead section, but I see these have already been discussed here, so won't waste everyone's time rehashing.

Background

  • Although her team had a lukewarm response to the song, she contacted American musician Finneas through a songwriting collective and asked him to produce it. He enjoyed the track and accepted her request. → After reading the source, I think it would be better for this sentence to be expanded and rephrased to something like this: "The composition was initially poorly received by Lo's team, who said it was "cool, but we don't really feel it ... I think you're kind of imagining that it's something [better than it is]." She then contacted American musician Finneas through a songwriting collective the two were members of and asked him to produce the track. Finneas agreed, saying "This is awesome, let me do my thing". Lo complimented his production, saying that he "gave it so much life, like all the grittiness and the pop punkness ... He nailed it." But feel free to rewrite/paraphrase some of the quotes.  Done--Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lo believed Finneas added the necessary "grit and weirdness and bopness" to the song. → If I were you, I'd end this quote at "weirdness" and paraphrase "bopness". Urban Dictionary says bop is "used to reference a good song; to say that a song is really good". But then look at the usage/activity sidebar on the right of that webpage, and it seems like the term peaked in the popular consciousness in February, before mentions of it dropped off sharply. Until a phrase like that enters common usage, I don't think it's a good idea to use - without explanation, at least - phrases that people will need to look up. Keep it simple.  Done
  • In a June 2019 interview with Billboard, Lo stated she had written songs with Finneas, praising his ability as a producer and writer. → I'd remove "stated she had written songs with Finneas", as it's a bit redunant to the article; it's obvious reading this that she and Finneas collaborated. Perhaps change to "In a June 2019 interview with Billboard, Lo praised Finneas's ability as a producer and writer."  Comment: the reason why I included this was to showcase that Lo previewed their collaboration way before the release of the song. However, if you feel this doesn't make it valid then I will remove it. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

  • Made a minor edit here, feel free to revert.

Release and live performances

  • The single features an additional song, "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak", written by Lo and Finneas. → I'd change this to "The single features the b-side "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak", written by Lo and Finneas."  Comment: Digital singles don't have B-sides. B-sides only exist in physical singles. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lo described it as a "beautiful, kind of, more poetic ballad" than "Bikini Porn". → Grammar just seems kind of jarring here. I'd change this to "Lo described it as "beautiful, kind of", and a "more poetic ballad" than the a-side."  Done except for the "a-side".Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She told Nylon she found passion and hate in a passionate relationship to be "really close", where "all of a sudden, [that] turns into more pain than it does love". → Quite a loaded sentence here that I feel needs elaboration. How about something along the lines of: "She told Nylon that she obversed a "really close" connection between passion and hate within a fervent relationship, explaining "Sometimes when you're in something very passionate, you kind of lose sight of— it usually comes with a lot of drama and fighting… all of a sudden, [that] turns into more pain than it does love." Feel free to trim/paraphrase as you see fit.  Done Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything to complain about prose-wise in 'Reception' and 'Music video'. 'Track listing', 'Credits and personnel', 'Charts' and 'Release history' are all sourced and accurate. So I'd be happy to support (both in terms of source quality and prose) once my points have been dealt with. I thought it was an informative and well-written article. Good job so far, @Paparazzzi: Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Thank you so much for your review! I have addressed your points, and I left some comments above. I hope you have a nice day. Regards! Paparazzzi (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response. I'm satisfied with the changes you made and your responses to my other points. Happy to support this article for promotion based on both prose and source quality. Good luck with the nomination. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Have a nice day. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from SandyGeorgia edit

Strong oppose for a FAC that should have been closed a month ago on poor sourcing alone. Jenesaispop and others well discussed above are not reliable sources. But there is more. It is little surprise that the writing is tedious, as it appears that few high quality sources had anything of interest to say about this song. Unless something new turns up, this is not material that can be repaired, spruced up, smoothed over and resubmitted to FAC because there is nothing of interest in reliable sources. We can’t string together a lot of uninteresting direct quotes and call it featured material. There is line after line— whether from reliable sources or the poor non-reliable sources used— that say nothing. It would be a pity to subject Wikipedia’s mainpage readers to a series of uninteresting factoids like:

  • Finneas told Radio.com in November 2019 his collaboration with Lo would be released in early 2020. So what?
  • It became available for download and on streaming services,[10] via Universal Music ... not sure whether to say wow or ugh for passive voice.
  • She sang the track alongside "Habits (Stay High)" and "Sweettalk My Heart" (2019) during the encore on subsequent shows. Why do we care ? We don’t know because apparently neither do the sources, which tell us nothing of interest about this song.
  • She stated the tracks show she can be sexual and confident but also smart and poetic in her music. This leaves me yearning for a WP:WTA. So she said that, but there is precious little from sources about what is said by others about her, the song, or the video. Perhaps this is why the writers have had to resort to non-reliable and blog sources to try to eek out a few words about this song.

Will the people who filled this page with “done” checkmarks please read the FAC instructions and remove them?

And please review MOS:LQ.

I will not be striking this oppose as no matter how much the prose is massaged to try to eek out something more pleasurable to read and MOS issues are repaired, or non-reliable sources removed, the story told here is nothing but a string of uninteresting quotes and meaningless factoids that cannot be featured material. And a good portion of the article isn’t even about the song.

There is not consensus to promote; please close this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clear some points about the "tedious" prose of the article:
  • "Finneas told Radio.com in November 2019 his collaboration with Lo would be released in early 2020. So what?" That's detailing the background of the song; it did not appear out of nowhere, there's a process behind every song and anyone with a sense of logic would know that
  • "It became available for download and on streaming services,[10] via Universal Music ... not sure whether to say wow or ugh for passive voice." You can say both if you want to. Anyways, it has been fixed.
  • "She sang the track alongside "Habits (Stay High)" and "Sweettalk My Heart" (2019) during the encore on subsequent shows. Why do we care ? We don’t know because apparently neither do the sources, which tell us nothing of interest about this song." Yes, we do care, mentioning the live performances of tracks is something important in music articles, anyone with minimal insight into the music project would know that.
  • " She stated the tracks show she can be sexual and confident but also smart and poetic in her music. This leaves me yearning for a WP:WTA. So she said that, but there is precious little from sources about what is said by others about her, the song, or the video. Perhaps this is why the writers have had to resort to non-reliable and blog sources to try to eek out a few words about this song." Basically the rest of the section consists in comments from reliable sources discussing about the song, you are just contradicting yourself...
  • "And a good portion of the article isn’t even about the song." That just shows your ignorance regarding music articles. Read well, a single and a song are not the same thing...
And regarding the sources you mentioned above, they have been proven to be reliable, not only by me, but by other users who write music articles. It's alright if you don't want to strike your oppose, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but sometimes the motives behind are really clear, considering the aggressive language and the baseless comments about the content. Que Dios te bendiga y que tengas un maravilloso día . Paparazzzi (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (particularly on the Spanish Wikipedia, where just about anything goes, even in BLPs-- that is not the standard on en.Wikipedia nor for featured articles). My point about the single v the song is that there is just nothing of interest said about the song; why should we be telling our readers (PUFFERY) that this woman *thinks* she is smart, confident, poetic and sexual? Her opinion of herself in the article is of less interest than whether any music review thinks she is those things. I would be tempted to turn "state" to "claim" there, and wish WTA allowed us to do same, but we can't. You can't get an interesting article out of nothing of interest reported in sources. Yes, I have lodged a strongly worded oppose (what you call "aggressive"); I have rarely encountered at FAC an article that I found so unappealing (and when looking at the sources, found they gave only passing mention and had little of interest to offer), and have almost never entered such a strong oppose. De todas formas, igualmente le deseo todo lo mejor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi, just to be clear, I'm not generally persuaded by whether an oppose is "strong" or not, but by the arguments being advanced. I can see some of the problematic sources have been removed but clearly there are still concerns. I appreciate the frustration when sources that have been considered acceptable in one FAC are questioned in another, but the fact that we might've been less discriminating before doesn't mean we should continue to be. I'm also persuaded by the connection Sandy makes between the quality of the sources and that of the content presented, all of which is supposed to add up to the best WP can offer; we don't have consensus that that's the case here, so I'm going to call a halt now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [16].

Cymmer Colliery explosion edit

Nominator(s):   ~ RLO1729💬 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In July 1856, an underground explosion of gas at the Cymmer Colliery, Rhondda Valley, Wales, resulted in a "sacrifice of human life to an extent unparalleled in the history of coal mining of this country". This article examines the underlying causes of the explosion, the inquest and trial of the mine's officials, the consequences for families of those killed, and the disaster's legacy in terms of local and national mining practices.

The article is built on high quality sources. I am particularly indebted to SchreiberBike and CaroleHenson for reviews leading to GA status, and to Twofingered Typist and Nikkimaria for pre-FAC copy edit and technical reviews. I believe the article meets the FA criteria; additional feedback will be gratefully received. Thanks,  ~ RLO1729💬 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • File:Cymmer Colliery, Porth, Rhondda Valley (4641247).jpg potentially URAA affected, but I'm not seeing evidence in the image description that it was published before 1925.
  • Wikitext comment in Licensing cites Penarth Dock: Martin John Ridley.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I don't see where on that page it states that this particular image was published, and second, invisible comments on image description pages are useless, they should be visible. (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the version on Wales Library is much higher resolution [17] If it is a free image, we should be using the highest resolution available. Sadly there doesn't seem to be a "download" button. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, this issue was discussed during the pre-FAC review and I mistakenly assumed prior-knowledge in my reply above. A cropped version of the image was published in Sixty-One Views of the Rhondda Valley. The website cited above discusses this publication. I will move and revise the image wikitext comment.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images OK. (t · c) buidhe 00:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild edit

Nb, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

I will do some copy editing as I went. Please flag up here anything you disagree with or don't understand.

Gog the Mild, thanks for your comments. I will address some briefly now and come back to them in more detail tomorrow. I will withdraw the article if you still feel the article is not ready after I make the revisions indicated below.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I don't think that there is any individual point which isn't addressable, but cumulatively they seemed a bit much. If you could get them satisfactorily sorted within, say, a week, then we can move on. It is a great topic and a good treatment of it, my "oppose" was by way of suggesting how it get to FA rather than expressing doubt that it will do.
The items below have been addressed, please let me know if anything needs further attention.  ~ RLO1729💬 12:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking "Colliery" to Coal mining. Note that the first paragraph of the lead of this article contains a good brief explanation of some coal mining terminology, a shortened version of which might usefully be added to the Background section.
  • Link added in lead, terminology links and text added to Background.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One hundred and fourteen men and boys were killed. Thirty-five widows and ninety-two children". The numbers should be in figures per MOS:NUMERAL.
  • "One hundred and fourteen" was written in full to avoid starting the sentence with numerals (this was copy-edited to words by another editor); MOS:NUMERAL indicates use of words is optional for thirty-five and ninety-two. Advice on how to address 114 vs "One hundred and fourteen" would be welcomed.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; my objection withdrawn.
The sentence has been revised so it does not start with the number, please advise if the current or previous version works better.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and fourth sentences of the first paragraph refer to the human loss. The intervening sentence refers to the proximate cause. The second paragraph then discusses the wider causes of the explosion, without referring to the immediate cause(s). This makes for a disjointed read. (IMO)
  • Sentence order and paragraph structure revised.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that it is necessary in the lead to pick out the Crimean War as one of the reasons for increased demand for coal.
  • It is not normal to have citations in the lead, which is (should be) a summary of the main article, where the information is cited.
  • MOS:LEADCITE and MOS:LEADREL indicate quotations may be used. IMO, the quotations of HM Mines Inspectors used in the lead provide important, authoritative summaries of the topic.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With the bracketed caveat below, I have no issues with quotations in the lead - and agree with your point. It is the citation I am referring to.
Correction. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote "neglecting the commonest precautions for the safety of the men and the safe working of the colliery" in the lead is not repeated in the main body, which it should be - see above. (Or, better, it should be in full in the main article and the lead should contain a summary.)
  • The quote appears in the Inquest section.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Apologies. Cntl-f didn't pick it up. (It does now!)
  • "At the coroner's inquest" → 'At the coroner's inquest into the deaths', as an aid to those not familiar with the role of coroners.
  • "the subsequent legal proceedings". Rephrase or add to to make clear whether these were civil or criminal (or both).
  • "to reduce the reliance on public charity". Possibly "the" → 'their'?

Nine points picked up in the lead rings some alarm bells. skimming the rest of the article.

  • "Inquest": I am not sure about the collapsed list of victims. IMO this should be a separate (list) article and referred to - Wikilinked - from this one.
  • Happy to take a consensus view on this please, other editors have expressed appreciation for the table in the article but I will move it to a list if necessary.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is against me it is not a show stopper. (Hence my tentative "I am not sure about".) Certainly my personal preferences are irrelevant.
IMO, the table presents information from the cited newspaper that is directly relevant to the article, making it readily accessible to the reader. The table is compact in its initial collapsed form and the information can be explored further using the column sorting functionality. My concern re converting it to a separate list article is that the table's functionality would be lost and the list's more general notability might be called into question (based on a single source, unlikely that any of the names mentioned will be linked anywhere else), leaving the list article open to deletion.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trial": The quotations make up about half the wordage. See MOS:QUOTE for "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text ...".
  • Revised to reduce reliance on quotes.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Survivors": similarly re quotations.
  • Revised to reduce reliance on quotes.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little more on the Mines Regulation Act of 1860 and how, if at all, it was related to this article would be helpful.
  • The Act was, in part, a response to the number of children killed in the disaster, mentioned in Inquest. The text now highlights this relationship.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pontypridd is duplinked.
  • Image caption: "They were buried in the Cymmer Independent Chapel graveyard (which was almost completely destroyed in 2005)" In what circumstances? Why is this burial site not mentioned in the text?
  • The last citation in the caption links to an explanation for the destruction of the graveyard. As it is not directly related to the 1856 explosion, no further details are given in the article. The Cymmer Independent Chapel graveyard is mentioned in the second sentence of Survivors.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another suggestion, per Nikkimaria's recent edit, is to wiki-comment out the bracketed information on the graveyard's destruction.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit more, and I have not yet read most of the article in detail. I am going to jump straight to an oppose on this, as I doubt that a first-time FAC nominator who has already had expert assistance is likely to get this into shape in the timescale expected of a FAC. I would, of course, be delighted to be proven wrong. I recommend that this be withdrawn for further work - I would be happy to assist with this - with a view to a prompt resubmission. There seems to be most of the "meat" necessary for a successful FAC, but it is let down by MoS compliance and, to a lesser extent, flow and context.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Given Gog's suggestion, I'm going to archive this nom. I strongly suggest working with him to get his concerns resolved before renominating. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [18].

McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service edit

Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the use of the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom by both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Hammersfan (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Buidhe edit

  • Oppose: There are significant issues with sandwiching images (MOS:IMAGELOC) and unresolved [unreliable source?] tags, as well as apparently unsourced sections. Some sources look quite dubious, such as thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk which appears to be a self-published website. Some of the captions are 8+ lines and should probably be trimmed per MOS:CAPTION. Any captions that present information that is not immediately obvious should have a cited source to avoid original research. For example, "An F-4K of 892 Naval Air Squadron lines up alongside an F-4J of VF-101 Grim Reapers aboard USS Independence in 1975. This shows the extended nosewheel oleo of the British aircraft, fitted to increase the take-off attitude for operation on the Royal Navy's carriers." I will strike my oppose if these issues are resolved. buidhe 03:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More questionable sources:

  • Harrier – 1988 Documentary (Television production). 1988. Retrieved 22 November 2016. (dead link for me, just being broadcast on TV doesn't make it reliable, missing producer information)
  • http://www.spyflight.co.uk — self-published website
  • Phabulous Phantoms – self-published website
  • https://www.helis.com/ — questionable website with no indication of reliability
  • http://www.rafakrotiri.co.uk/history.html —self-published website
  • http://www.targetlock.org.uk — self-published website, now defunct
  • Small nonprofits, such as ThrustSSC, are not assumed to be reliable and should be avoided.
  • Claiming to be a former Phantom F-4K pilot does not make someone a reliable source, this website should be removed
  • If UK Serials is based on more reliable sources, those should be cited instead.
  • Comments by the Secretary of Defence in Parliament should be clearly attributed to him. It also looks like WP:OR to me because King does not clearly say all of this in his speech, he only mentions Phantom once.

Again, this is not an exhaustive list of the unreliable sources that have been cited in this article. buidhe 03:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Items struck through have been dealt with. As regards the others, in addition to UK Serials being an exhaustive and searchable database, it has been included as a reference in the following publications: The Aircraft Spotters Film and Television Companion (McFarland & Co, 2016), Unmanned systems of World War I and II (MIT Press, 2015), The Panavia Tornado: A Photographic Tribute (Pen & Sword, 2015), Civil Airworthiness Certification: Former Military High-Performance Aircraft (US Dept of Transportation, 2013). Further, I have gone through the references in an effort to try and work out which ones you may have an objection to, as you are unable to provide a complete list. I have removed a number that I feel are relevant because of the potential that you may deem them "unreliable", while at the same time retaining some that have been backed up with additional citations. Once again, please let me know if there is anything further that needs attending to. Hammersfan (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, first thing, prefer nominators don't strike through reviewers' comments even if they believe they've dealt with them -- best leave that to the reviewer, if they choose to.
    • Second thing, I'd like to get an update from Buidhe on how things are looking source-wise now. If we're continuing to find issues we might be better off archiving this and improving outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: Hammersfan has removed many of the unreliable sources, however I am still finding significant issues:
  • Phantom locations: most of this section appears to be unsourced.
  • XT889 Kbely Museum, Czech Republic. no source
  • "Basic specifications": Cited mostly to a self-published website, https://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/phantom/history.php
  • Specifications (F-4K)—cited in such a way that it's impossible to tell which information is coming from which source, at least one of which is not reliable
  • Other selfpublished websites are still in use:
  • Unclear or dubious reliability
  • "Comparison of HMS Ark Royal with a contemporary US Navy aircraft carrier" table, this seems too tangentially related to the topic to keep, same with the picture of the Ark Royal. buidhe 02:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed and replaced all references except those from the www.axfordsabode.org.uk website, as these are not pages from that website itself, but are direct scans of pages from ship's commissioning books that are merely hosted on the website - in effect, the website serves as a repository. As regards the comparison table, this has been discussed below following comment by AustralianRupert - I feel both the table and photograph are necessary in displaying why the modifications to the aircraft were necessary. While I am confident that the text does explain this, both a table and an image add value to the explanation, as well as providing an immediate reference point for readers.

Please let me know if there is anything further that needs to be dealt with.Hammersfan (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts with the article. I have a few suggestions below (please note, I haven't gone line-by-line through the article yet): AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "centerline" --> "centreline"?
  • "The F-4J featured an nosewheel" --> The F-4J featured a nosewheel"
  • some of the paragraphs are quite long and it might help to split them. I suggest splitting the following paragraphs:
    • In 1964, the Royal Navy withdrew...
    • In 1970, Ark Royal embarked 892 NAS...
    • In May 1982, three Phantoms from...
    • In the early 1970s, the RAF issued...
    • After the Falklands War, the UK government began...
    • In 1963, the prototype Hawker Siddeley P.1127 STOVL...
  • suggest referencing all of the notes, currently only the first four are referenced
  • incredibly minor point, but the hyphenation of the ISBNs is inconsistent
  • the following terms appear to be overlinked: touch-and-go landing; arresting gear; RAF Leuchars; English Electric Canberra; Hawker Hunter; General Dynamics F-111K; interdictor; British military aircraft designation systems; interceptor aircraft; No. 111 Squadron RAF; No. 29 Squadron RAF; No. 74 Squadron RAF (there are more -- if you install the duplinks script it will help you find them all
  • "impossible to fulfill" --> "impossible to fulfil"?
  • if you can address the above points, I will come back and take a closer look
  • Nick-D took the corresponding article about the aircraft in Australian service to FA (albeit many years ago), so he may have some ideas for for further improvement, or sources that might be relevant if needed for the notes, or replacing any of those listed above (if still outstanding)
    • All indicated issues have now been addressed. Please let me know if there are any others you feel need looking at. Hammersfan (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I've read through the article again this morning. Please see below for follow on suggestions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow on comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • this needs a ref: "The P.1154 was thus left as a wholly RAF project."
  • this paragraph needs a ref: "...would be undertaken by a further purchase of F-4 Phantoms."
  • "four brand new or modernised aircraft carriers" --> move the aircraft carrier link to the earlier mention of this term
  • "so plans were put in place to rebuild the two ships to enable the operation of the aircraft.[ii]" Does the ref in the note also cover the sentence in the body? If so, suggest duplicating the ref in the body to make this clear
  • suggest splitting this sentence: " This deployment showed the necessity for the modifications fitted to Ark Royal, as the heat from the afterburners of the Spey, combined with the increased angle of attack resulting from the extendable nosewheel, during the initial launches from Saratoga caused the deck plates to distort, leading to subsequent catapult launches being undertaken at reduced weight without the use of re-heat". Perhaps this might work: "This deployment showed the necessity for the modifications fitted to Ark Royal. During the initial launches from Saratoga, the heat from the afterburners of the Spey, combined with the increased angle of attack resulting from the extendable nosewheel, caused the deck plates to distort, leading to subsequent catapult launches being undertaken at reduced weight without the use of re-heat"?
  • "until, in 1972, 11 Squadron was redeployed" --> " until 1972, when 11 Squadron was redeployed"
  • "During the 1970s, UK and France" --> "During the 1970s, the UK and France"
  • this needs a ref: "As a result, the UK government decided to purchase another squadron of Phantoms.
  • caps: "UK Based Phantom Units" --> "UK-based Phantom units"? (same for the other headers in the Phantom locations lists)
  • not sure if the table comparing the Ark Royal with Independence is really necessary. The article and images make it clear that the British ships were significantly smaller
  • "List of Phantom aircraft on display that have been in service with the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy" --> "The below list details aircraft that were placed on display after service with the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy."
  • "List of Phantom aircraft on display that have been in service with the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy." --> move the links here to earlier mentions
    • All items struck through dealt with. As for the comparison table, I have removed the columns containing ship specific data (power, speed, range), but have left the ones that can also be concerned with the operation of aircraft - the displacement, the length and beam, and data about the catapults. This allows the reader to see in table form the basic reasons why the aircraft needed such significant modification, beyond the text, which says "the British carriers were smaller". I think this is a useful addition to the piece as it puts the text detailing the necessary modifications to the F-4K into a clear context. Let me know if there are any other issues that need to be addressed. Hammersfan (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, fair enough. Thanks for your efforts. Added my support above, so long as Buidhe is happy you have addressed their concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • Looks like in this pass some captions that are not complete sentences had periods added - should be full sentences only. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up the comparison of HMS Ark Royal and USS Independence
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Phantom_FGR2_43_Sqn_refueling.jpeg: source link is dead. Same with File:F-4J_F-4K_CV-62_NAN6-75.jpg
  • File:Ark_Royal_and_Independence.png: what's the source of the data underlying this diagram? Same with File:UK_F-4_Phantom_3-view.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issues indicated dealt with - I have replaced the dead source links on the two indicated images, and replaced the diagram, as I created it in a thoroughly unscientific way attempting to scale down the indicated lengths of each ship myself. I have instead used an existing photo from Commons that I believe displays what I am attempting to indicate fairly well. Please let me know if there are any other issues that need to be addressed. Hammersfan (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Mark83 edit

A lot of work has gone into this but I believe there is a lot of work to do on two criteria which will take some time:

  • "1a well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" - not badly written but the prose needs work.
  • "1b"comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" - some confusing text.
  • A non-exhausive list of examples (from intro and first sections):
    • "In the mid-1980s, a third Phantom variant was obtained when a quantity of" - How many?
    • "At the time, the British aerospace industry was still a major source of equipment" - Still? Could suggest it isn't now which it is.
    • "The 1957 Defence White Paper brought about a significant change in the working practices" - What "working practices"? The next paragraph goes on to talk about rationalisation. The two paragraphs should be condensed as it's the same point.
    • RAF should be singular.
    • " The development of TSR-2 saw increasing..." - should be "the TSR-2". We don't say the 'development of Tornado' for example. The paragraph and the next are inherently linked, which makes me feel they shouldn't be 2 different paragraphs.
    • "The P.1154 was thus left as a wholly RAF project." - is redundant.
    • Labour elected in 1964 and the defence review took 2 years? This isn't me pointing out and error, just a probing question that the text makes me think of.
    • On cancellation of P.1154 and TSR-2, "As a consequence, the government was forced to order new aircraft". It wasn't forced, it would have been part of their decision making on cancellation. And the whole article to this point is about replacement of the Canberra, Hunter & Sea Vixen. This quote makes it sound like a "new" issue at this point of the article. The way it's written here it also treats the RAF requirement as primary.
    • "Hawker Siddeley at Brough Aerodrome" was appointed "sister design firm" - was this a corporate entity? Surely it was HS that was the "sister design firm" and not 1 site?
    • The next paragraph then discusses BAC's redesign - which is it? HS or the parent?
    • Intro says assembled in US but this paragraph says rear fuselage built in UK. Were these shipped to US? Just needs explained.
    • "Because the government then had a policy of negotiating fixed-price contracts, these costs could not be evened out by a large production run, which left the total order at 170" - don't understand why a fixed-price contract excludes the possibility of savings from a large production run?
    • British Aerospace is described as doing work in 1969 and 1970, 7+ years before its creation.
    • The loss of one of the pre-production examples in 1978 is irrelevant in the context of prototype testing (subject of the paragraph).
    • "The British Government ordered a total of four prototypes "
    • Run-on sentence: " The two pre-production F-4K aircraft were constructed alongside the prototypes, and were initially used for fit check trials of the various systems to be fitted – the first was used for catapult/arrestor and deck landing trials, and the second was primarily for testing the radar and missile systems."
    • Repetition: " These were procured to replace the Sea Vixen then in service in the role,"
    • Intention to build four brand new or modernised carriers, rebuild Eagle and Ark Royal, and two new aircraft carriers - I don't understand from the text if these are the same, related, or entirely distinct initiatives. Mark83 (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • " In turn, when the Phantom was replaced, its major roles required three separate aircraft (see table)" - is bordering on original research. It's asking the reader to make an inference on the capabilities of the aircraft from what aircraft replaced it without any kind of verifiable analysis or context. Mark83 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I respectfully suggest that this nomination is withdrawn. I believe there is too much work to do to reasonably expect the FA criteria to be met in the near future. I find the article interesting and would be willing to assist. In the meantime, some more examples to explain my concerns:

  • Inconsistencies in McDonnell/McDonnell Douglas. First instances not linked. And " first flew on 27 June 1966 at the McDonnell Douglas plant" isn't possible as McDonnell Aircraft didn't merge with Douglas until the following year.
  • Repetition of 140 aircraft order for RN.
  • "The rest of the aircraft would be a reserve and for training" I know what that means but it doesn't read well.
  • Aircraft don't embark in a carrier, but on a carrier?
  • A&AEE abbreviated on second instance, not first.
  • Discussion of Ark Royal refit in two places - this should be merged.
  • British English for this article? Then modernization > modernisation
  • Phasing out > phasing-out
  • Repetition of 20 aircraft from RN > RAF
  • Run-on sentences, e.g. "At the time, the RAF's primary interceptor was the English Electric Lightning, which suffered badly both in terms of range, loiter time and weapons fit, all of which hampered its effectiveness, especially in long interceptions of Soviet Air Forces and Soviet Naval Aviation bombers and reconnaissance aircraft over the North Sea and North Atlantic."
  • "could thus fly further for longer" > had better endurance (or similar tighter language)
  • In F-4M Phantom FGR.2#Close air support the article goes back to Hunter replacement. Has this not been covered?
  • Massive overuse of semi-colons throughout.
  • The use of the Spey engine is repeated.
  • F-111 overlinked.
  • The comparison table between RN and USN carrier needs to go. The point is made without this.
  • I bumped on the comparison tables with the other aircraft.
  • Images for images sake? e.g. the F-4M Phantom FGR.2 - 1 image in infobox, 2 in-line, and 3 in gallery.
  • Are there too many mentions of individual squadron history? This is covered in "Operators" and "Phantom locations" and "Aircraft replaced by and replacing the Phantom" as well as in the main body text.

There are issues in between, but the Replacement section has a lot of issues, e.g.

  • Contradictions between MRCA (Tornado) not being developed as an interceptor, and then in fact being developed thus.
  • ADV needs explained to readers.
  • "Eventually, the Tornado accounted for the two FG.1 squadrons at RAF Leuchars" -- Doesn't make sense.
  • "In the Royal Navy at the same time, the withdrawal of the conventional aircraft carrier was envisaged to see the end of fixed-wing aviation at sea." -- Doesn't make sense.
  • "Because of this policy, 892 Naval Air Squadron used a black capital Omega (Ω) letter on the tailfins of their aircraft, as it was believed they would be the final fixed-wing squadron to be commissioned." -- what does this mean? what is the relevance?

Mark83 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I am content to remove elements Mark83 - the galleries could well be described as superfluous, while each variant's list of operators could be transposed into the list of locations, and if necessary the comparison table of the two carriers (although I still feel that information is relevant) - if the vast majority of objection is due to the prose and style of the writing, rather than the actual content, I don't feel that I am able to undertake any more work on it. Having written the vast majority of it, I don't feel that I am objective enough in my own reading of the text to be able to alter it in such a way that you may find meets the standard. If you would like to undertake to collaborate I am happy for you to contact me directly. Two things I would like to point out:
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss collaborating. Hammersfan (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with the call for withdrawal, these issues appear to be substantial and are likely best addressed outside of FAC. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once content and sourcing issues have been fixed, WP:GOCE is very helpful for fixing prose. (t · c) buidhe 12:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [19].

Regine Velasquez edit

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back at this after the previous nomination a couple years ago. Worked on trimming down the article and issues with sourcing beginning last month. Worked on improving content and prose since the last PR and FAC, as well as C/Es in the last couple weeks. Ready to bring this back for nom and hoping for more constructive criticisms.

A pre-emptive comment re spot checks – as it was recommended to look at sourcing prior to putting this back, Ceranthor has been kind enough to help on source checks before I went on break, and while no significant changes were made on the article during that period, hunkering down at home also gave me time to work on doing my due diligence on sourcing. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

Addressed comments
  • I am uncertain if fixed image sizes are allowed for a featured article (i.e. the "140px", "150px" used on certain images in the article). I am not too familiar with image policy. so this is probably a better discussion for whoever does the image review, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
  • I have noticed two of the image captions use the phrase "performing live" in some manner. I would cut out the word "live" as that could be assumed from context.
  • Done
  • I am not sure if the Cameron Mackintosh image makes sense in this article. It is a little strange to include the image since Regine refused his invitation.
  • Good point, I was aiming for a reference since it was a key point in her career, but she never got the break, so I've removed.
  • I am uncertain of the audio samples. I have always been told to keep non-free media usage to a minimal, and I think an audio sample for this kind of article would only be applicable if it represents a larger trend in her musical style or voice. I am not sure if the two audio samples do either.
  • Removed
  • Make sure the references are in numeric order. I see a few instances where this is not the case.
  • Fixed. I've checked the order if more than one source is used, and that it's chronological. I've used the same earlier citations mostly in the first 2 sections, so it does get repeated throughout.
  • Fixed
  • I believe Ang Bagong Kampeon should be in italics as it is the name of a television program. I am also a little confused by the years. The Wikipedia article for this show says that it started in 1985, but on here, it says she won in 1984?
  • Done. Seems weird but the article doesn't have a clear sourcing and timeline for the show though. I definitely have all my sources refer to 1984 [20] [21], and she was born 1970, and joined at 14 [22] believe that gives us the math.
  • The Wikipedia article could be wrong. If your sources say 1984, I would go with that date. Aoba47 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, Velasquez signed with OctoArts International and released the non-album single "Love Me Again" under the name Chona in 1986, I would move the "under the name Chona" phrase after OctoArts International as I am assuming she signed the record deal with this name. Also, the which phrase should go right after the single title.
  • Fixed
  • This is more of a personal preference, but I think the phrase "standalone single" would work better than "non-album single".
  • Believe for most FA Bio's or Discographies that term non-album single has been widely used. Was a bit ambivalent using it either, I would think it's better off as 'single'
  • Thank you for the explanation. I agree "single" by itself is the best option of the three as it is much more concise, but "non-album single" is fine too. Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason for the abrupt jump from talking about her debut album at the end of the lead's first paragraph to talking about her sixth and seventh albums at the start of the second paragraph?
  • Given that she's had 17 studio albums (which I could not fit discussing or listing in the lead), I jumped straight to album 6, 8 and 9, as these records jump-started her pan-Asian career and worth mentioning. Also, I removed referring to the albums as sixth, seventh, etc...
  • Done
  • I have a question about this part: full conceptual and creative control. What is the difference between conceptual control and creative control? They sound like the same thing to me, and I would cut it down to just "creative control".
  • Done
  • I would remove the cover songs link from the lead to instead link cover album as they are both essentially the same concept and the album phrasing comes first.
  • Decided to remove that mention, since I removed listing the tracks, so the flow is cohesive to the next sentence.
  • Removed
  • For this part, in the romantic comedy film Pangako Ikaw Lang (2001), for which she received a Box Office Entertainment Award and the drama series Maalaala Mo Kaya (2002), there should be a comma after the award name.
  • I think the dash is used rather awkwardly in this part, Having sold more than 8.5 million records—including 1.5 million in Asia, and I would revise this sentence to take it out.
  • Reworded
  • I am uncertain if this sentence is necessary: She has amassed an extensive catalog, with singles such as "Narito Ako", "Kailangan Ko'y Ikaw", "Tuwing Umuulan", "Dadalhin" and "Araw Gabi". I think it is already pretty clear that she has a large catalog by the amount of albums she put out, and I am not certain about including a seemingly random list of her singles in the lead.
  • Removed
  • I am also uncertain about this sentence: In 2011, she was ranked first in FemaleNetwork's list of 25 Best Filipina Singers and was included among Top 10 of Asia's Most Admired Female Singers. I do not believe these two lists should be in the lead as it gives undue weight to two seemingly random 2011 lists. I think it would be better to instead go right into the next sentence, which I think more clearly defines her reputation and legacy as a singer.
  • Removed
  • I believe you have to use the subject's full name when you reference them for the first time in the body of the article (i.e. Regine Velasquez was born on April 22, 1970 in Tondo, Manila,).
  • Fixed
  • The information about Regine winning a reality show and getting a record deal is repeated in two sentences: (Velasquez won the season and signed a record deal.) and (After winning Ang Bagong Kampeon, Velasquez was signed to OctoArts International.). I would keep this information in the "Early life" section and then start the "1986–1989: Career beginnings and Regine" subsection with a sentence on the "Love Me Again" single instead.
Done
  • I think the "—her nickname—" is rather awkwardly put into the sentence. I would think of a different way of wording that information.
  • Revised
  • I was a little confused by the wikilink in this part, Velasquez was invited to appear on her late night musical, as I thought it would go to an article about "late night musicals" rather than "late night television" in general. I find it somewhat misleading.
  • Fixed. Put it in as "late night television"
  • This sentence, While rehearsing, the show's producer and talent manager Ronnie Henares showed interest and signed her, is not grammatically correct as it literally reads that Ronnie Henares was doing the rehearsing not Regine.
  • Clarified that.
  • I have a comment for this part: from the 1945 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical Carousel and "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" from the musical Dreamgirls. The two musical have two very different descriptive phrases. The first includes a year and the songwriters while the second one is just musical. I am not sure the year is particularly helpful, and I would just refer to both as simply musicals to keep the prose more concise.
  • Done
  • I think the following sentence sounds a little off, (She worked with Louie Ocampo for the album's lead single "Narito Ako", a song originally recorded and performed by Maricris Bermont and written by Nonong Pedero for the 1978 Metro Manila Popular Music Festival.), since it calls it both a single and a song. That part seems rather repetitive to me. Maybe say "which was originally..." instead?
  • Done
  • Done
  • I have a comment for this sentence: David Gonzales of AllMusic described the album as "more attuned to international ears," but felt Velasquez's vocals were "thin and unimpressive.". I do not think the "but" makes sense in this context se these both seem like negative statements about the album.
  • Should be 'and', fixed.

I hope these comments are helpful. These are things that I have noticed up to the "1994–1998: Listen Without Prejudice and My Love Emotion" subsection. Apologies for not getting to the entire article in one round. I am trying to read through the article thoroughly. A majority of my comments are very nitpick-oriented so it's not as much as it may seem. I'll collapse the comments when they are addressed and continue the review from there. It is always fun to read about someone I've honestly never heard of before starting Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your review, the above should be addressed. Let me know if I missed anything. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. Aoba47 (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this sentence: (The album debuted in several countries in Southeast and East Asia including: China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand.). The word "debuted" seems weird in this context. Do you mean "released" instead?
  • Revised to 'release'
  • I have a question about punctuation with quotation marks. I do not think punctuation should be within a pair of quotation marks unless you are quoting a full sentence. I am referencing parts like this: (describing it as "an outstanding vehicle, containing a strong melody and hook in the chorus.)
  • Thanks for spotting, fixed.
  • For this part, (making it the best-selling album of her career.), I would clarify that it was the best-selling album of her career at that point in time.
  • It's her biggest selling to date. Clarified
  • For this part (By 1995, Velasquez's sixth studio album), I do not think "by" makes sense in this context. I would say "in" instead and would move it to the end of the sentence to avoid having it be too similar to the previous paragraph.
  • Always a struggle to begin a new para without making it look too similar with the previous. I've done the above
  • I would avoid using the phrase "hit singles" as "hit" is too informal.
  • Revised
  • Done
  • Has Regine ever talked about her work as a producer?
She has, but these are articles dating back to 1999, and are mostly found in forums, which isn't reliable sourcing. She has mentioned it here in passing [23] (article in Filipino), and Billboard has also cited how the album was marketed [24] which was her concept. But then adding this would just lengthen this section, so I made it brief.
  • The word "platinum" is linked multiple times.
  • Fixed
  • Again, thanks for spotting. Fixed.
  • For this sentence, (Velasquez took a hiatus from public engagements following confirmation of her pregnancy.), it should be "following the confirmation".
  • Done
  • Source only mentions viral infection [25], or that "she lost her voice". It was in fact laryngitis, but no specific mention on any sources I found.
  • In this part, (The show, Silver, was cut short after Velasquez suffered from a viral infection.), I would specify that Silver is a concert as the word "show" is too vague.
  • Done
  • I would remove the wikilink for the word "musicals" in this part: (a four-date concert residency that featured a repertoire of songs from musicals, called Regine at the Theater). It is a pretty clear concept that I think most people understand already, and the word "musical" was mentioned in a previous part of the article.
  • Done
  • The wikilink variety show should be moved up to the first time it is mentioned in the article.
  • Done
  • For this part, (and launched her cosmetics line called Reign.), the name should not be in italics.
  • Done
  • I have a question about this sentence: (Velasquez was set to perform a benefit concert in June 2020, but was rescheduled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.). Do we know what the benefit concert was for?
  • It was the virtual/online concert in April, mentioned in the next sentence.
  • I have a question about this part: (She later dropped out of the show for health reasons and was replaced by Iza Calzado.) Do we know what these "health reasons" were?
  • Citation mentions severe migraines [26], but think 'health reasons' would seem appropriate in this context. I find using "due to severe migraines" a bit odd.
  • Barbra Streisand is linked twice. On the second instance she is mentioned, remove the descriptive phrase (singer, songwriter and actress) as it is not necessary.
  • Done
  • For this part, (AllMusic described her timbre as "thin, unimpressive and unappealing at times" and observed her singing as "aiming for a higher [note], [which] she did all too often."), include the reviewer's name since you mention the writer's names elsewhere.
  • Done.
  • For the image in the "Legacy and influence" section, can you specify the year it was taken in the image caption?
  • Done
  • For this part, (vocal belting has been subject to scrutiny mainly because young), I would use just "because" instead of "mainly because".
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • In the same section, I am uncertain about how the citations cut the sentence apart somewhat awkwardly as it affects readability. I think the sources cutting up "2007, 2009, and 2019" are the biggest example of this.
  • 'I've fixed that bit as it was towards the end of the sentence. It's in a similar fashion as citations on awards sections like this one.
  • For this part, (In March 2016, she revealed that she had suffered a miscarriage prior to her marriage to Alcasid and cited the personal tragedy as her reason for converting.), I am not sure about the "personal tragedy" phrasing. A miscarriage is sad, but I think the wording is a little sensational. I would just say "cited it as her reason for converting" instead. Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
@Aoba47:, think I have addressed comments above. Let me know if I missed any. Appreciate you going through it. Pseud 14 (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. I hope you have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciate your inputs and support! @Aoba47:. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I can help. Good luck with the FAC process this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "The first of which became her best-selling record to date and produced "In Love With You", her most successful single of the 1990s." This is not a sentence.
Tweaked this to have a more cohesive flow.
  • "She qualified and became the show's senior division daily winner defending her spot for eight consecutive weeks.[3]" If she was a daily winner, was she defending on a daily or weekly basis?
That did come across as confusing, I removed 'daily'.
  • "Velasquez was introduced as "Chona"" Maybe someting like "Valasquez initially took the stage name "Chona" ..." or similar.
Reads better. Done
  • "Two more singles were released throughout 1991 and 1992" I might say "during" for "throughout".
Done
  • "In November 2005, Velasquez had an eight-day concert residency, named Reflections, at the Aliw Theater concluding in December.[1]" I would consolidate the months, perhaps "In November and December 2005, ..."
Done
  • "She also performed a concert that year, Twenty, which won Best Female Major Concert Act and was named Entertainer of the Year at the 20th Aliw Awards.[85][86]" Where did this concert take place?
Added
  • "You are not consistent on whether you put the names of songs in quotation marks.
Thanks for spotting. Missed this section. Fixed
  • "Timeless US Tour visiting the cities of Chicago, New Jersey, Pasadena and San Diego.[137][138]" New Jersey is not a city.
Thanks for catching, also mentions 'New Jersey' in the 1st source, updated to the city of Englewood consistent with the 2nd source.
Englewood is a city, legally, but it's not well-known (I grew up in the same county as Englewood) and would suggest a link to Englewood, New Jersey.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt:, Nice! I've only been to a few cities in that state. Bit surprised too, one would think a touring act would go for Atlantic City, Jersey City or Newark. And it would make sense to link it—done. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's close to New York City. But I didn't know there was a music venue there. I remember a movie theatre, possibly that has evolved into one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, logistically it's convenient. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Velasquez was set to perform a benefit concert in June 2020, but it was rescheduled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.[159] Following the delay," Is the delay over? From June 2020?
Clarified in the succeeding sentence. She instead did a virtual benefit concert in April in lieu of what was to happen in June
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: above should be addressed, thanks for the initial read. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her music is influenced by artists such as Sheena Easton, Angela Bofill, Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey in her early years.[1][202]" Some confusion about who the second "her" refers to.
Fixed
  • "On several occasions, Velasquez has Barbra Streisand as her main influence and musical inspiration, explaining, "I look up to her not just because of her enormous talent, but because of her fearlessness and dedication to excellence, her willingness to take risks and to be different."[203]" Seems to be a word missing after "has". Perhaps "mentioned"?
Ah right, fixed now. I've used "cited" if that works.
  • " Early in her career, she has expressed appreciation for singers such as Kuh Ledesma, Joey Albert, Gary Valenciano, Martin Nievera and Pops Fernandez, and cites them as role models.[1]" I would cut "has".
Done
  • "of the constant scrutiny". Is this from the source?
I've tweaked the statement to 'Velasquez explained, ...', and removed the above, to be consistent with the source used, but also still cohesive with the flow from the previous sentence. Would be the first and only time I believe she's ever addressed this on an interview.
  • "Despite her vocal prowess, Velasquez's use of vocal belting has been subject to scrutiny because young singers such as those on talent shows have been overly imitating her singing technique" Isn't "overly" opinion?
Removed
  • "In August 2009, Velasquez released her line of women's fragrance for clothing brand Bench, called Reigne and Songbird.[250] In February 2020, she collaborated with beauty brand BYS and launched her own line of makeup called Reign.[158]" These were mentioned before. I have no objection to the repetition, but it should be phrased in a way that acknowledges these have been mentioned before.
Removed the repeated statement from the Career section, and kept it under Endorsements.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: points listed have been addressed, let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the ping. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS edit

  • Opted not to crop as my aim was to have the image show her suspended mid-air displaying the elaborate gown (if that's acceptable)
  • You'd probably be better off getting something more zoomed in on her SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed (zooming in would make the image low quality). Commons appear to have no related images bet the 1999-2003 era.
  • Removed both images
  • I see what happened. Fixed the URL

I'll let other reviewers handle the prose. Aside from a couple 404 errors, there are thankfully no licensing concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SNUGGUMS, should all be addressed. Let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly good, just one subpar image remains. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, addressed the above Pseud 14 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the media review is complete. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I see the image review - is there someone who can do a source review? And I've placed this on the urgents list for a third comprehensive review... --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting a source review request, I may have to rely on that, I know BLPs can be a tad lengthy for someone to take on. Working on getting a third review/feedback. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Damien Linnane edit

I haven't had the time to read through other commenters posts, so apologies if any of my observations have already been responded to.

  • "who submerged her neck-deep in sea water" - this choice of wording creates a very violent and extremely confronting image in my head; you don't clarify until the 'Voice and timbre' section that he didn't forcibly submerge her. I spent most of the article wondering exactly how badly she'd been abused by her father; you need to reword it to clarify she wasn't to the reader sooner.
  • Thanks for pointing it out. I never realized it gave such an impression up until now. Your concern is valid and I made the change. 'Immersed' sounds much more appropriate as mentioned in the source. This training is stuff of legend, everyone aspiring singer in the country is doing it :) Pseud 14 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "defending her spot for eight consecutive weeks" - any information on what happened next? Did she lose to another contestant for example or was that the maximum term she could defend it for?
  • That's right, 8 weeks and you qualify for the finals, then they start looking for a new qualifier. I did include that in an older edit, but from a prior review, since it's not mentioned in the source I stuck with that statement.
  • I don't think 'Love Me Again' should be wiki-linked in the lead or the body, since it just redirects to her discography.
  • Un-linked
  • The term OPM is not clarified to the reader, and I think the wikilink should be directed to the 'Popular music' section of the Music of the Philippines article. You've also wikilinked it too many times.
  • Clarified in the main infobox (genre) and linked to Popular music section. Un-linked the rest.
  • "and included cover versions of classic OPM recordings by National Artist for Music recipients Ryan Cayabyab, Lucio San Pedro and Levi Celerio" - up to you, but this sentence is starting to feel a bit too complicated to me. Personally I'd try and shorten it some how. Is it important to mention that they were 'OPM recordings'? Maybe just cut that out.
  • Done
  • Why is it important to clarify 'Search for a Star' was (formerly Star for a Night)? That doesn't seem necessary to me.
  • I've removed it
  • 'concert residency' is wikilinked more than once.
  • Un-linked the rest
  • 'The concert, Silver, was cut short after Velasquez suffered from a viral infection' - any more details on this? How serious was it? 'Viral infection' is very vague. If there's no sources, maybe just clarify the date the concert was cancelled, so that the reader can extrapolate how serious it was by combining the information with the fact the concert restarted in January, as stated in the next section.
  • It was in fact laryngitis, but every source I could find only mentions 'viral infection' so I had stuck to it as well, I clarified that she lost her voice from a viral infection and added the concert date for clarity.
  • 'correspondent and film critic Noel Vera' - does he need both titles? The sentence seems long winded. I'd shorten it to film critic since that's the role he seems to be being cited in.
  • Done
  • In the 'Acting career' section you mostly used the term 'film' though you do use 'movie' once. I'd be consistent and change that to 'film'.
  • Thanks for catching. Done
  • 'One of Velasquez's earliest musical memories was listening to her father, Gerardo Velasquez, sing lullabies to put her to sleep' - this is already mentioned in the 'Early Life' section.
  • Removed
  • 'Personal Life' seems surprisingly short. Did she not have any relationships prior to 2007?
  • She only had one (Ariel Rivera), but it was short-lived, didn't last for a year and that was around 1994. Sourcing was a bit of a challenge too, as it's mostly articles posted in forums, nothing I could find archived.

Great work overall. Damien Linnane (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your time in reviewing Damien, I have addressed the above points, let me know if there are things that need to be actioned after you have a look. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Happy to support. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciate your input and support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria edit

Oppose

  • I'm noticing a significant number of stylistic issues, including misuse of hyphens, missing commas, repeated wikilinks, etc
  • The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing to catch grammatical errors (eg "Velasquez won the season and signed record deal") and improve flow
  • I notice some instances of material that should really be presented as direct quotes - for example "public persona, charisma and sense of humor to the role" is nearly identical to the source. Similarly, "straightforward, earnest and lyrically simple" is directly from the source
  • What makes ShowbizNest a high-quality reliable source? Rappler? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've waded through each section to address actionable items for points 1-3 listed. If you deem that there are significant and glaring concerns that remain unaddressed, I may have to request for second copy-edit outside of the FAC process, as I figured the length of the article may deter editors from taking it on here. The fourth item, I have removed those sources and found more reliable ones. Cheers Pseud 14 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, it is a bit concerning that at this stage you're finding enough prose issues to suggest a copyedit -- can I ask you for an update now? Pseud 14, thanks for your realistic attitude about this, if more work is needed then yes it will be better that we close this now and do that work outside FAC, but let's hear from Nikki... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely still seeing some of the stylistic issues mentioned (eg in the lead there are ranges using hyphens that should use dashes), areas of awkward prose (eg "Among the Japanese songwriters she enlisted during the production include") and grammatical errors (eg "wrote and produced majority"). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose, think we can archive this for now. I'll need more time outside of FAC to commence c/e. Cheers, Pseud 14 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak edit

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) 6 July 2020 [27].

Everything I Wanted edit

Nominator(s): DarklyShadows (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Billie Eilish. It reached number 8 on the Billboard Hot 100. Becoming her second top ten hit in the US. It is currently at GA status and I consider it meets the criteria for FA. I'm open to receiving further comments by anyone. :D DarklyShadows (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Billie_Eilish_-_Everything_I_Wanted.png: the fair-use rationale is incomplete.
  • I think the article might benefit from a non-free audio clip. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria How can I upload an audio clip? I have never done that before. DarklyShadows (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's non-free content, it has to be uploaded locally, to English Wikipedia. You can use the File Upload Wizard which will walk you through the upload process, but make sure (a) the file meets the requirements outlined at WP:SAMPLE and (b) you include a strong fair-use rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I'm sorry I haven't been able to respond, school and work are eating my time and I have been recommended to do ask for a peer review and copyedit for the article. I have done those things so if I can please just have a little while for those things to be done. I soon as they are done I will work on what you recommended. Thanks a lot! DarklyShadows (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Spicy

Thanks for putting this up for FA. Here are a few things that jumped out at me on a casual read-through of the article. I don't normally edit music articles, so correct me if any of my suggestions are off base.

  • It was reported in October 2019 that Eilish was working on new music. - By whom?
  • In November of that year, the singer announced the release of two new songs and a music video for the song "Xanny", which was released in December 2019. - I don't quite see how the music video for a different song is relevant to this article (especially to the extent that the reader needs to know its release date). Suggest leaving that part out.
  • She eventually revealed the song title - "eventually" is not necessary
  • The song was featured in Eilish's advertisement for Beats by Dre headphones, while the cover art for the song was made by Jason Anderson, which is an abstract painting of the Golden Gate Bridge. - Two problems with this sentence. First, Jason Anderson is not an abstract painting of the Golden Gate Bridge. Second, the song's cover art and its use in an advertisement aren't logically connected to each other, so it would be better to split this into two sentences.
  • started to write the song back in September 2018 - "back in" is informal, would change to just "in"
  • it began as a feeling of Eilish's depression - somewhat odd phrasing, I think something like "it was inspired by Eilish's feelings of depression" would sound better
  • Though she's very grateful - "she is"... but more importantly, this sentence is speculation about a BLP subject's thoughts and motives expressed in Wikipedia's voice. This needs to be attributed as the opinion of the writer of the Seventeen article. [28] The second citation for this sentence [29] does not support the text.
  • Some of the content in the second paragraph of the "Lyrics and themes" section is repetitive and could be better organized, e.g. According to Eilish, the song is about how Finneas will always be there for her...The lyrics talk about the relationship between the two of them....In the chorus, Eilish and Finneas talk about always being there for each other.
  • In a negative review, August Brown of the Los Angeles Times called the song a "misty, echoing loop that keeps her downcast voice front and center in the mix" - the sentence opens with "in a negative review", but quotes a description of the song's style, without any criticism. And I'm not sure, reading the source, that this should be characterized as a negative review. It states: It never lifts off like hits “Bad Guy” or “Bury a Friend,” but it feels even more confrontational for it, revealing the singer’s very mixed feelings about young superstardom. That's not really saying the song is bad -- it's saying it's in a different style from her other songs, but it complements the song's theme.
  • saying in a "fan letter" - why the scare quotes?
  • Following the release of "Everything I Wanted", it debuted - could this be simplified to " "Everything I Wanted" debuted... "
  • most notably being certified double platinum in Australia, Canada, and the United States by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), Music Canada (MC), and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), respectively. - could we get rid of "in Australia, Canada, and the United States"? I think it's fair to assume that the reader can infer that from the organizations' names.
  • It then goes to Eilish driving a car - "goes to" is very informal... could be changed to something like "The next scene opens with Eilish driving a car..."
  • The two's stares are blank - "the two's" sounds very strange, how about "their"?
  • before driving to a beach - WP:EASTEREGG link. Is it relevant that they are driving to this specific beach? If so, this should be mentioned and explained in the prose. If not, I don't see any reason to link it.
  • I would separate the description of the video and the critical response into two paragraphs.
  • Derrick Rossignol of Uproxx called the visual a "shadowy, Eilish-directed clip". - rather underwhelming, since we already know Eilish directed it
  • Writing for Nylon, Layla Halabian wrote - repetitive wording
  • Eilish performed the song live for the first time in December 2019 on the final stop of her When We All Fall Asleep Tour in Mexico City, and during an Apple Live acoustic show at the Steve Jobs Theater in Cupertino. - confusing sentence, seems like it is saying she played the song live for the first time on two different occasions. Also, I do not see where the sources verify that this was the first time she performed the song. The first source is a Youtube video of the Mexico City performance (a primary source). The second source [30] does not seem to mention this particular song.
  • "Everything I Wanted" was one of songs on her setlist - missing "the"
  • Eilish performed the song live with Finneas playing the acoustic guitar, for Blux - What's Blux? Google search is not enlightening - gives me results for a furniture store and a sports bar in Wisconsin - and Wikipedia search mainly brings up stuff about Japanese football. Since the only source for this is a Youtube video, is it due to mention it?
  • Cooper played with his band, with Billboard saying Cooper and his band... - redundant, and odd sentence structure; could be trimmed to just Billboard said Cooper and his band.... Repetitive wording in the second part of the sentence: as Cooper was crooning "as he gently strums an electric guitar".
  • Cooper told Billboard that he doesn't do many covers... - "he does not" (but this might be better expressed as a direct quote)
  • Sam Moore of NME wrote that the cover had mixed together - "had" is unnecessary

Overall, the article could benefit from a thorough copyedit, which would probably best be done outside of FAC. Spicy (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I do not have the time to post a full review, but I do not see the need for the music video screenshot. Non-free media usage should be kept to be minimal, and only used in cases where it illustrates a point that cannot be expressed with the prose alone. A stronger reason for the screenshot's inclusion is needed or it should be deleted.
  • Here are some other brief points. I would separate the "Music video" section into paragraphs rather than a long wall of text. Reference 52 leads to a "page not found" screen so that citation needs to corrected. I agree with Spicy's comments above that the article as a whole could use a thorough copy-edit, and this may be better suited for a peer review first. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 and Spicy, I will take your advice and ask for a peer review and copyedit. As you know, it takes a couple of weeks to get both done so if it's okay to wait that would be awesome! DarklyShadows (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you do pursue the peer review option, then this FAC would have to be withdrawn as you cannot have an active FAC and an active peer review on an article at the same time. Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Ok sounds good, I'll withdraw the nomination. DarklyShadows (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 I have also requested a copyedit for the article. By the way, thanks for your advice on the article! DarklyShadows (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 July 2020 [31].

What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This? edit

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first film Martin Scorsese created when he was studying at New York University. He went on to create two more films at the NYU. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Spicy

Not doing a full review here - just a few comments on prose and sources:

  • He created it shortly after… His name is not previously mentioned in this paragraph, so this should be "Scorsese created it…"
  • Done.
  • The film was intended to be a horror but later turned out to be a comedy. "a horror" sounds very off to my ears; could be rephrased to something like "Scorsese intended it to be a horror film, but it turned out to be a comedy".
  • Done.
  • He sees a picture of a boat on a lake; though he dislikes it, he buys it because he is a sensitive person. This needs more explanation. I would think an emotionally sensitive person might not want to buy a painting that they find ugly. According to [32], a salesman persuaded him to buy it.
  • Done.
  • Algernon, also called Harry by his friends is repeated in the "Themes" section as Algernon, known as Harry by his friends; only needs to be said once.
  • Removed.
  • It also uses catholic guilt evident when Algernon begins writing a book of confessions. This could be better phrased (and I’m pretty sure it has to be big-C Catholic, like it is in the linked article). Something like "Themes of Catholic guilt are evident when Algernon begins writing a book of confessions", perhaps.
  • Done.
  • There is some interesting analysis of the film in this source that is not touched on in the "Themes" section:

"Harry's ego is held in a similar "grip of deadly fear", and what he is really terrified of is... his own unconscious... it becomes a symbolic battle of wills between Father and Mother... when he falls into the picture he disappears from the face of the earth and ceases to exist as a separate individual. Like Norman Bates in Psycho, Harry becomes "all Mother" at the end of the film, and possibly, as the analyst says of Norman, "He only half existed to begin with".

  • Done.
  • Scorsese had initially intended to become a priest but failed after a year. Failed what? Suggest changing to "failed out of seminary" per [33].
  • Done.
  • The prose in the reception section is very repetitive. Every sentence is structured as "So-and-so, writing for XYZ, said that “quote goes here”." I feel that this section needs major reworking so that it is a coherent narrative and not just a list of quotes. I understand that this is a nine-minute-long student film and there may not be a large body of critical work to draw from, but you might find it helpful to take a look at the reception sections of other FAs on obscure and short films and try to model the article after those, e.g. Frank's Cock or Tjioeng Wanara. Spicy (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quite busy today so I will take a look on this tomorrow. Thanks for the comments Spicy. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Spicy, Can you take another look at the article. I believe that I have addressed your comments. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • CAPTAIN MEDUSA, thank you for your edits. The reception section reads better, but it still has the problem of seeming like a disjointed collection of quotes. It doesn't really draw connections between the reviews to give the reader an overall picture of the critical reception of the film. There are also some grammatical issues with the new additions, and the "Themes" section is still a bit thin. There are some sources that could be used here but have not been incorporated; these are just a few that I found with a cursory search of JSTOR and the Internet Archive:
  • Spicy, I have made the changes as you suggested it. For the first two JSTOR link would not load for me IDK why. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Harrias edit

I concur with Spicy above. The general quality of the prose isn't of featured quality. The reception section still falls into the "A said B" issue mentioned in WP:RECEPTION, and the whole article feels like a series of choppy sentences, more like bullet points strung together than high-quality prose. I see that this underwent a GOCE review by Twofingered Typist, and that undoubtedly improved the article, but issues still remain throughout. The start of the production section is particularly noticeable for its choppy nature. Some other obvious issues:

  • "..the analyst tells that "He only.."
  • "Author Ben Nyce describes.." Avoid false titles.
  • Be consistent about whether to refer to the protagonist as Algernon or Harry.
  • "It was noted that in certain respects Harry's "paralysing obsession" with the image was making "himself alienating"." Who by?
  • "However, his relationship with the man in the picture "renders the photograph, a metaphoric mirror"." According to who?

Overall, I would recommend that this is withdrawn and worked on outside of the FAC environment before returning. Harrias talk 08:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, I believe that I have addressed your comments. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to be clear, these were five points that were specific examples of issues that are widespread in the article. Although you have fixed these specific points, the prose in general remains below the level I would expect of a Featured article candidate, and this is not a suitable venue to enter into a detailed improvement of the article. Harrias talk 16:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Archiving per above and would suggest, as I did last time, seeking the involvement of a copyeditor versed in film articles to help improve the article. After that I'd recommend trying Peer Review before another run here; you'd also be eligible to give the FAC mentoring scheme a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2020 [34].

Sri Lanka Army edit

Nominator(s): 49lk (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sri Lanka Land Defense force, Sri Lanka Army. I think that all the criteria needed for an FA, include in this article. So I believe it should featured. 49lk (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Harrias edit

I suggest this this nomination is immediately withdrawn. The article is not ready, and the nominator is not a major contributor to the article. Some quick, and major issues:

  • Large parts of the article are completely unreferenced.
  • Those sources that are used are inconsistently formatted.
  • Those sources that are used frequently include raw htmls, and omit author details and dates.
  • There is inappropriate use of bold text, particularly in the "Training" section.
  • The prose is not a the required quality for Featured content.

Long story short, this article is nowhere near consideration for Featured status. Harrias talk 08:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild edit

Per Harrias, who beat me to it. I have just (re-)assessed the article as C class for MilHist. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi, lack of editor involvement is enough for a procedural close but if you want to pursue this and actually delve into the article to improve it, suggest you take it through GAN and then MilHist A-Class Review before considering another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/July_2020&oldid=970473822"