Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2019

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 June 2019 [1].

Siege of Melos edit

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Siege of Melos of 416 BC

@Caeciliusinhorto:: OK, I tried addressing some of the issues raised by Caeciliusinhorto in the previous nomination attempt.
"Some but not all citations to books include page numbers. Note 16 is especially bad, citing three books but giving a page number for only one of them."
I have added page numbers wherever I could. A difficulty is that I almost exclusively used the ebook versions of the text (easier to search), and some ebook formats do not provide page numbers because the pages are formatted on-the-fly to fit your screen.
"milos.gr is cited, and described in the article as the "official tourism website of Melos": what makes it a reliable source?"
Removed.
"The structure of the article is a little weird. For example, the section "Restoration by Sparta" is only three sentences long – if there's only 50 words to say about a particular aspect of an article, it probably doesn't merit an entire section."
I thought this was a silly complaint. That section dealt with things that happened a decade later and was not part of the siege, so it deserved its own section. So what if it's just three sentences? But to please everyone, I moved a paragrah from the siege and renamed this section Aftermath.
"There's also some clunky prose: the section summarizing the Melian Dialogue, for instance, has five paragraphs of the format "The Melians argue that[...]. The Athenians counter that[...]." (Interspersed with one paragraph where the Melians instead "believe" for variety!)"
I know it's unconventional but I thought it fitting in this special case. Reading the Melian dialogue, it's clearly a classic point-counterpoint debate when you break it down. I thought my style of summary was the most clear and efficient way of communicating the essential ideas, stripped of all the fluffiness.
"Still a very high proportion of citations to ancient sources, which was commented on in the previous review."
My use of ancient sources was OK except for one bit where I used an interpretation of the writings of Isocrates. Nevertheless, I added some more modern sources to support the primary ones.

Kurzon (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

I have done some hopefully uncontroversial copyediting. Some further comments:

  • In §Melian Dialogue, the text currently reads "the contemporary Athenian historian Thucydides inserted a dramatization of the negotiations between the emissaries of the Athenian invaders and the rulers of Melos". "inserted" sounds odd to my ear, but I cannot articulate why; I would say "included" instead. And while I'm at it, I'd replace "the emissaries of the Athenian invaders" with the more concise "the Athenian emissaries".
  • "this dialogue only captures the substance of what he believed was discussed": Thucydides is not particularly my area, but my understanding is that what he is doing in his speeches is still the subject of controversy; "paraphrasing what he believed was discussed" is one position but not the only one. Indeed, Thucydides himself (Peloponnesian War, 1.22) says that he "put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavoured, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said" [emphasis mine].
  • The citation formatting in the bibliography has various inconsistencies. Some I spotted:
    • Publisher locations: book cites should be consistent on whether or not to include them.
    • ISBNs: broken by hyphens or not?
    • Names of authors, editors, and translators are all given in "Lastname, Firstname" format, except for Thucydides, when Richard Crawley is listed in "Firstname Lastname" form.
  • The article is on the Siege of Melos, and yet the section on the siege itself is only 176 words long: surely there is more to say about the progress of the siege! We have, for instance, a tantalising mention of "traitors from Melos": who were they? what did they do? By way of comparison, the lead up to the siege gets 228 words, and the section on the Melian Dialogue gets 468.
I don't see this as a reasonable criticism. I can get around this just by shuffling the sections around. I have included all the relevant facts about the siege that I could fin. Kurzon (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even longer (599 words) is the final section, §Analysis, and yet the lead has barely a word to say on the topic – except for the brief note about the ongoing use of the Dialogue as an example of realpolitik.
  • The final section also seems a little bit grab-baggish to me: we have some discussion of the Athenian motivations for the siege (which perhaps we might have expected to learn before the siege?), with a brief digression into the modern influence of the Melian Dialogue mid-way through; then we have some discussion of the treatment of the defeated Melians, and the reaction to that in contemporary Greece (which might equally well go in §Aftermath); then a discussion of why the defeated Melians were so treated (which perhaps would make more sense before the reaction to said treatment)
  • I still think that the synopsis of the Melian Dialogue is neither "engaging" nor "of a professional standard".

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild - Fail edit

This is much improved since its visit here in January, but IMO still far enough from FA standard to merit a quick fail. I note that of the non-exhaustive list of points I gave then, several are still not addressed. If the nominator would care to go through them and address them, if only to explain why they don't apply, then I would, of course, be happy to reconsider. A number of points were subsequently flagged up on my talk page; several of these are also unaddressed. I agree with virtually all of Caeciliusinhorto's points above. Currently I do not believe that it meets criteria 1a, 1b, 1c nor 4. I also note the lack of alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T8612 Fail edit

It has improved since I saw it last year but there are some damning sections that make the article instafail the nomination. The main problem is with sections "Synopsis" and "The siege", which do not have a single citation to a modern source, while the latter is supposed to explain the battle (!!!).

I suggest rewriting pretty much everything because the order of the article is confused and not clear. I suggest: 1. Background, 2. sources (mainly Thucydides), 3. the siege itself, 4. aftermath, 5. perhaps a section on the Melian dialogue.

If the nominator has difficulties accessing modern sources, they can make a request here. I also suggest the nominator to read a good article on an ancient battle to see how much work is needed for a FA. I don't even understand how it passed GA. T8612 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fail by CPA-5 edit

I'm sorry to tell you. But I believe this one isn't ready for an FAC nor A-class review. Per T8612 and Gog which they cover most of the issues of this article. As long those issues are not addressed and fixed we can't go further, I also recommend, if this article gets over the issues you can better have an AR than a FAC. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

The standard term at FAC is "oppose" rather than "fail", but the sentiment is clear. I'd echo CPA's recommendation that after addressing outstanding issues Kurzon considers a MilHist A-Class Review as the next step, before another try at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 June 2019 [2].

University of Missouri School of Music edit

Nominator(s): Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the School of Music at the University of Missouri, a large public University in the Midwestern United States. Although the school is not particularly notable, it has played a significant role in the study of music in Missouri, generated a number of prominent alumni, and is one of the primary academic divisions of a major University. The school recently (2017) celebrated its centennial and the publication of a book by musicologist and historian Michael J. Budds provided enough high quality source material for an article. The article is comprehensive, fairly well illustrated, and meets the FA criteria. It was promoted to Good Article status without much effort. I am the primary author and this is my first nomination. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size for images
Done
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done
Done

Sources comments edit

As this is a first-time nomination there will be a general spotcheck on sources to test for vverifiability and/or close paraphrasing. This will take a little time: in the meantime there are a few general sources pointsb that need to be addressed:

  • There are a couple of "hanging" statements in the text, at the end of paragraphs, which require citations.
Done
  • Of the 51 references listed, a high proportion – 30+ – are published by the Music School, and most of the others are sites related to the University of Missouri. I realise that to some extent this is inevitable, but it does raise issues about the objectivity of the article, and it may be worth investigating the availabilityof more neutral sources.
I'm painfully aware of the lack of independent sources. I have attempted to cite source unaffiliated with the University or School of Music where possible. Inevitably the book by musicologist Michael Budds (a faculty member) is by far the most detailed on the history of the school and I see no way to avoid it. However, I have made an effort to avoid any hyperbolic claims, sticking to basic facts, especially in that history section. Unfortunately sources of the same quality that are fully independent don't seem to exist. I am, however, open to any ideas about where else to look. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the sources used may not meet the quality/reliability standards required by the FA criteria. In particular:
  • Ref 26: The Missouri Methodist Church
This is a high quality history book by Frank Stephens, a professor of history and academic. A very reliable source and only one I know that contains this information on the pipe organ. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Do you think the national organization's website would be considered reliable enough? Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced
  • Ref 51: mikemetheny.com
Replaced with a more reliable source. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you justify these as high quality, reliable source in accordance with the FA criteria?
  • With music.missouri.edu, in refs 36 to 40 you have added publisher details – "Curators of the University of Missouri" - but not otherwise. Citations to the same source should be consistent.
Fixed, added publisher details to all website citations. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another inconsistency in describing the "Columbia Missourian" source. Compare refs 5 and 6
Fixed
  • Ref 11: missing page reference
  • Ref 14: missing page reference

Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

This has been open for almost three weeks without attracting any prose reviews and seems to have stalled. If it does not attract more review soon, it will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's been no progress after more than a week so I'm going to archive this -- given there were no content reviews I wouldn't be opposed to reducing the usual two-week waiting period following an archive, but a quick scan of the prose suggests that a full copyedit would help before any future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 June 2019 [3].

1900 Galveston hurricane edit

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the deadliest natural disaster in United States history and one of the most well known historical hurricanes. Formerly, the article was a FA, passing FAC all the way back on August 31, 2004! It was the oldest tropical cyclone-related FA, before WikiProject Tropical cyclones even existed. The article appeared as TFA in April 2005, before losing FA status in January 2008. As you can see from the old TFA version, standards have changed a lot, which is why I strongly favored the change in policy to allow an article to reappear as TFA. Today, the article is more broad in coverage, as there is much more info both in Galveston and everywhere else. It covers the major aspects of this very important storm. I am hoping to have this appear as TFA for a second time on either September 8 or 9 in 2020, for the 120th anniversary of the storm's Texas landfall.--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time - have found several different issues but the most significant is failed verifiability spotchecking

  • "equivalent to $1.066 billion in 2018, adjusted for inflation" - source?
  • Hardly any project articles use inflation anymore. I'm just going to delete that--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the remnants last observed near Iceland on September 15" - text and infobox says September 17, which is correct?
  • Text says September 17, lead and infobox September 15. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I missed the one in the Meteorological history--12george1 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After entering the Caribbean Sea, U.S. Weather Bureau observers reported a "storm of moderate intensity (not a hurricane)" southeast of Cuba on September 1. The cyclone made landfall near Baní, Dominican Republic, early the next day. Moving west-northwestward, the storm crossed the island of Hispaniola and entered into the Windward Passage near Saint-Marc, Haiti, several hours later. The cyclone then struck near Santiago de Cuba on September 3. The system moved slowly west-northward across the island, until emerging into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm or a weak hurricane on September 5. Favorable conditions – including seas "as warm as bathwater", according to one report – allowed for further strengthening in the Gulf of Mexico.[7]" - I'm having difficulty locating most of these details in footnote 7. In fact, that applies to many other statements cited to FN 7 as well.
  • A lot of things pertaining to the storm's movement and location should've been cited with FN 4. I fixed that. I could only find mirror sites for "unsettled weather", "storm of moderate intensity (not a hurricane)", and "as warm as bathwater". I think the best course of action would be for me to remove the quotations for the first, delete the second, and reword the third to simply say warm waters. I made the mistake of taking someone's word for it--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still having difficulties with this footnote (now FN8) - for example I do not see "Additionally, [Antigua] reported a severe thunderstorm passing over, followed by the hot, humid calmness that often occurs after the passage of a tropical cyclone" in that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A grade 6–12 encyclopedia entry on Humidity doesn't seem the best source either. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever reason, Jason Rees removed that entire sentence while he made a few edits to the Meteorological history section. I was not having any luck with finding an alternative source anyway, even though I thought it would be rather easy to locate--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ackerman source appears to be a general meteorology textbook - are no better sources available?
  • I found a few. Went with a source that's already used in the article--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With this prosperity came a sense of complacency.[11]" - not really seeing this in given source
  • The URL provided for FN32 is the one from FN30
  • "the number most cited in official reports is 8,000" - what source(s) are you using to support that assertion?
  • I did say official, so I guess I need an official source. I will use Blake et al.--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you say "most cited in official reports", you need multiple official reports, or a single source that makes that claim. Citing Blake just demonstrates that that's the number used in that particular report. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I will also add Texas Hurricane History (Roth)--12george1 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10 roses and 90 others were placed around the monument" - 90 other what?
  • Check for MOS issues - am seeing repeated links, hyphenation problems, links in See also that already appear in the text, etc
  • This is still an issue. Specific examples include linking atmosphere pressure twice in the first section and mix of "modern-day" and "modern day". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering the bibliography?
  • I ordered them based on when they appeared in the article. Does it need to be done in a different way, such as alphabetical order of last names?--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we're demonstrating now with adding/moving sources, that system doesn't always stay up to date - Frank and Colby are now cited before Baird, which remains the first on the list. Alphabetical would be easier to maintain. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and assumed you wanted me to do that. So it was already done before you responded--12george1 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page number given in FN65 does not cover all of the material cited to this source
  • "The last reported survivor of the Galveston hurricane" does not appear to be supported by given source
  • I accidentally deleted the source for that, but I found it again--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dredging of the Houston Ship Channel in 1909 and 1914 ended Galveston's hopes of regaining its former status as a major commercial center.[124]" - given source supports 1914 but not 1909
  • Upon viewing other sources, it would probably be better to say that the channel was being dredged by 1909 and opened in 1914, which I do have a source for--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • As it is quite possible for archives to include unpublished materials, make sure all media with the pre-1924 publication tag were actually published (not just created) before 1924
  • Are you just asking me to look or do you have examples? I did have Isaac Cline's report from 1900 published on a website in 2004. But then I realized that it was archived in the MWR for September 1900. I'm not seeing any problems related to this otherwise--12george1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "80 bodies were found under the ruins after this photograph was made" - given what the image description states about unverified data, this should definitely be attributed
  • It was way easier to find a source than I thought it would be--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entries in the In popular culture section should include secondary sources identifying the significance of the entry to the topic, as per this RfC
  • Better, but something like a notice of a book signing doesn't really indicate significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7 is a chapter of a larger work, which should be reflected in the citation
  • Citation formatting generally needs work for consistency - similar sources should be cited similarly (eg. compare FNs 16 and 35), should be consistent about what information is provided when (eg. sometimes books include locations and other times not), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite understanding what needs to be done. There are some irregularly and overlinked newspapers and organizations. I went ahead and fixed that. But the information I am using is based on what info the source chose to include. Some sources, even those hosted by the same website, don't give the same amount of information. Compare FN 75 and and FN 132, for example. They are both from Galveston County Daily News, but the source for the former does not provide an author's name, while the latter does. If you're wondering why some newspapers have locations and others don't, the reason is because when I did the FAC for Hurricane Andrew, somebody asked me to include the locations for newspapers with names that wouldn't make the location obvious. For example, most people wouldn't know that The Chelsea Herald is from Randolph, Vermont, but I wouldn't need say where NYT is from.--12george1 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes sources omit information, that's fine. But compare for example FNs 79 and 139 - these are the same source, yet have different formatting. That shouldn't happen. Other issues are just errors - for example, FN125 has a link that doesn't link to anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took care of these. But "more work needed" suggests possibly more problems--12george1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are. Further examples include FNs 23 vs 41 (both the same source but formatted differently), and FN 8 (both website and publisher are smushed into the publisher parameter). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could've sworn that FN 23 needed an archive link. Maybe my internet connection was bad that day. Fixed both problems--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The seawall, since extended to 10 mi (16 km)" - the explicit measurements given in the source only add up to just over 4 miles - is this number based on the streets provided?
  • "Galveston is home to Port of Galveston, the oldest port along the United States Gulf Coast to the west of New Orleans" - source?
  • "A quarter of a century earlier, the nearby town of Indianola on Matagorda Bay was undergoing its own boom and was second to Galveston among Texas port cities" - don't see this in given source
  • Fixed. It's a lot easier to find a citation if I remove the claim that it was second to Galveston--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indianola was rebuilt, though a second hurricane in 1886 caused residents to simply give up and move elsewhere" - don't see this in given source. IOW, spotchecking is still finding verifiability problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A quarter of a century earlier, the nearby town of Indianola on Matagorda Bay was undergoing its own boom" - don't see this in the cited source
  • It's sort of implied in my opinion, but I found something else--12george1 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Supporters argue that the account is accurate based on Cline issuing a hurricane warning without permission from the Bureau's central office" - don't see this in the cited source
  • He did issue a hurricane warning without permission, but I agree that the "supporters argue" part isn't really in there--12george1 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ten refugees from the Beaumont train sought shelter at the Point Bolivar lighthouse with 200 residents of Port Bolivar who were already there" - source says the 10 refugees were part of the 200 total. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that my own spotchecks are still turning up problems, I'm not prepared to change my declaration at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the city experienced a significant economic rebound beginning in the 1920s, when Prohibition and tax law enforcement opened up new opportunities for criminal enterprises related to gambling and bootlegging in the city." - I don't see that the source discusses tax law enforcement as a contributing factor.
  • Oops. The word I was looking for was "lax"--12george1 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Galveston was flooded by storm surge during Carla" - don't see this in given source
  • If you include the rest of that sentence, technically the source does say that. But I should provide clarity. Only parts not protected by the seawall flooded--12george1 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first 3 mi (4.8 km) of the Galveston Seawall, 17 ft (5.2 m) high, were built beginning in 1902 under the direction Robert" - the source doesn't mention who directed construction. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jason Rees

  • I am surprised to see a gallery section since we generally do not include them in TC articles. I am also surprised to see an "In popular culture" section as it just seems to be a trivial and selective list of items based on nothing, but the author's judgement.Jason Rees (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be unusual to have a gallery, but is there a good reason to not have one (e.g. violation or potential violation of some guideline)? As for the popular culture, a few of those are notable enough to have their own articles. If I were to get rid of that section, how would I integrate the song "Wasn't That a Mighty Storm" into the article, because I can't think of an appropriate context? Would that go in the See also section?--12george1 (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also sounds like an appropriate place for it, though I note that our article on the song, suggests that it is not clear whether the song dates to the hurricane. As for the gallery, WP:Gallery and WP:Not apply here.Jason Rees (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't know the specifics of that policy until now. I'm kinda surprised neither Hurricanehink nor Nikkimaria said anything to me about that. I moved one of the images somewhere else in the article but get rid of the rest. I've also moved the pop culture items into the See also section if they have their own articles--12george1 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)-[reply]
          • What makes the museum so notable for its own level 4 heading? I mean i realise that it contains a documentry about the storm but so does my local one if i take my laptop there and play some random film via youtube there.Jason Rees (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • So go to your local museum and do that? :P Just kidding. I fixed that--12george1 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Haha on further reflection - I wonder what makes the museum to be noted in the article full stop per my earlier comments.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be better if every single sentence was cited, at the end of the sentence as it would make it clearer as to what was being cited for what and lead to less failed verifications.
  • You're talking about the HURDAT vs non-HURDAT stuff, right? There was a bit of a mix up when I deleted a few sentences because the info couldn't be verified with Neil Frank. I forgot to move some of the citations accordingly. I put them in their proper places, but I can still do what you're saying if you want me to--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please do so since as I said it would be cleaner and easier for the reader imo.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MH needs a bit of love imo as it doesn't tell the story of the hurricane properly imo.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to a few sentences being deleted because they weren't in the Frank citation, there was some other stuff moved because it wasn't exactly MH related. There was stuff like watches and warnings, for example, which belong in the Preparations section. So I'm not sure what else I should say, aside from your request that I add more between August 30 and September 2--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm's origins are unclear, because of the limited observational methods available to contemporary meteorologists. At the time, ship reports were the only reliable tool for observing hurricanes at sea, and because wireless telegraphy would not be invented until 1905, reports remained unavailable until the ships docked at harbor. I would like to see a source that specifically tells me that the origins for the 1900 Galverston are unknown, I would also like you to get rid of everything after the first sentence as it is just fluff imo.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a source for that. I want to keep the ships part to give the readers a bit more context (but not too much) about how hurricanes were observed and tracked back then. So I merged both sentences but cut out the wireless telegraphy part--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok it might be better to reorder them for example: The system is believed to have started as a tropical wave moving off the western coast of Africa, however, the storm's origins are unclear. This is because of the limited observational methods available to contemporary meteorologists, with ships reports being the only reliable tool for observing hurricanes. I dropped the Cape Verde bit since I don't think that all TC's that develop off the African coast from TW's are Cape Verde hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1900 storm, as with many powerful Atlantic hurricanes, is believed to have begun as a Cape Verde hurricane – a tropical wave moving off the western coast of Africa. Source as it aint HURDAT.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm passed through the Leeward Islands on August 30, possibly as a tropical depression as indicated by barometric pressure reports from Antigua. - Needs revising as HURDAT says that it was a Tropical Storm on August 30.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would argue that HURDAT superseeds Franks book here and that it was a tropical storm, not a tropical depression or a wave as Frank implies.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • So I'm guessing you want me to remove that?--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell the readers what happened between August 30 and September 2, did the storm weaken, strengthen, do a disappearing act or even the hokey cokey?Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really not much. The storm entered the Caribbean and tracked westward to the south of Puerto Rico. That's about it. But ok--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone reached its maximum sustained wind speed of 145 mph (230 km/h) -> this would be better presented as Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone was estimated to have reached its peak intensity with sustained wind speeds of 145 mph (230 km/h).Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • when a ship recorded an area of unsettled weather. recorded -> Encountered.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later on August 30, the system moved west-northwestward into the Caribbean Sea and strengthened slightly while passing south of Puerto Rico. The cyclone made landfall -> Later on August 30, the system moved west-northwestward and emerged into the Caribbean Sea where over the next few days it strengthened slightly while passing south of Puerto Rico.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is because of the -> This was since we should use past tense in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You jump from the 27th to the 30th, tell the reader what happened in those days.Jason Rees (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really hardly anything between those dates. Frank says nothing. Partagás mentions two ship reports, neither of which are really worth mentioning imo. HURDAT has the storm strengthening by only 5 knots on August 29.--12george1 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tweaked the sentences concerned so that we can move on with the review. For now, I don't think that it's worth mentioning about the Antigua thunderstorm for now.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised that the Partagás source isn't used in the MH, as it contains some crucial details which would give the MH a bit more love and tell the story. In particular, I read that during September 1, Father Gangoiti of the Belen College Observatory started to talk to the press about the system. A quick google shows that this is the Cuban meteorologist that you mention later in the article issuing warnings. As a result, I would like to see some information added to the MH from Partagas please.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In conjunction with my last comment this paragraph needs some love/reworking: The system moved slowly west-northward across the island, until emerging into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm or a weak hurricane on September 5. Favourable conditions – including warm sea surface temperatures – allowed for further strengthening in the Gulf of Mexico.[11] The Weather Bureau ignored reports from Cuban meteorologists because they expected the storm to curve northeast along the Atlantic coast of North America.[12] Forecasters at the Weather Bureau even began stating, inaccurately, that the cyclone was moving northeastward in the Atlantic. However, a region of high pressure had pushed the storm to the west into the Gulf of Mexico.[12]Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its better but it still needs some tweaking in order to make it flow. What im thinking is scrapping the first sentence and opening the second paragraph by talking about Father Gangoiti. Then note that the system continued to move north-northwest and passed to the south of Puerto Rico, before it made landfall near Baní in the Dominican Republic, early on September 2. Also scrap the winds. Keep the 3rd sentence as is for now as it is a decent line that helps move the story along. I think you should combine the fourth and fifth sentences to say something along the lines of "The system made landfall on Cuba near Santiago de Cuba during September 3, before it moved slowly west-northward across the island and emerged into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm on September 5. You should consider ending the paragraph there.
  • Within the next paragraph, I feel that we should expand on this disagreement, between Father Gangoiti and the USWB a little bit. Try something along the lines of "As the system emerged into the Florida Straits, Father Gangoiti observed a big halo around the moon which did not dissipate while the sky turned red deep red and cirrus clouds were moving northwards. This showed him that the tropical storm had intensified and that the prevailing winds were moving the system towards the Texas Gulf Coast. However, the United States Weather Bureau disagreed with this forecast, as they expected the system to recurve and make landfall in Florida before impacting the American East Coast. An area of high pressure over the Florida Keys, ultimately moved the system north-westwards into the Gulf of Mexico where favourable conditions allowed the storm to intensify further.Jason Rees (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not so easy to locate that information in Partagas. In fact, I could not find where it talked about a deep red sky or the prevailing winds. However, much of that information can easily be found on page 134 of Larson's book. By the way, Gangoite (not Gangoiti) is the correct spelling. His name was Lorenzo Gangoite--12george1 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have been clearer and stated that I found the information within the Al Roker Reference and I cant read Larson's book so im taking your word for it.Jason Rees (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random thought is it worth replacing your HURDAT reference with IBTRACS, so that the data is more accessible/verifiable?Jason Rees (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like using template references, but I also agree with what you're saying. So I will do that--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I like using template references as well, but more recently I have been thinking it is easier and better to use IBTRACS. However, I am not a fan of citing that paper and would rather cite the data directly back to the IBTRACS project rather than the AMS. As a result, I have tweaked your reference and will look into templating the reference.Jason Rees (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A ship reported the storm to the northwest of Key West, Florida, on September 6. -> Get rid of this sentence please as i dont think it adds anything.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later that day, the ship Louisiana encountered the hurricane after departing New Orleans, Louisiana. Captain T. P. Halsey estimated wind speeds of 100 mph (160 km/h) -> This should be merged with the previous paragraph and open with "During September 6, the Louisana encountered the hurricane, whose Captain T. P. Halsey estimated that the system had wind speeds of 100 mph (160 km/h).Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the comparison to the SSHWS as we do not know if they are sustained winds or gusts - I also note that HURDAT or IBTRACS doesn't compare Halsey's winds to the SSHWS.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hurricane continued to strengthen significantly while heading west-northwestward across the Gulf of Mexico, becoming a Category 3 hurricane at 06:00 UTC on September 7 and reaching Category 4 intensity about 12 hours later.[9] Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone was estimated to have reached its peak intensity with sustained wind speeds of 145 mph (230 km/h). -> This would be much better presented in my opinion as During September 7, the system reached its peak intensity with estimated sustained wind speeds of 145 mph (230 km/h), which made it equivalent to a Category 4 hurricane on the modern day SSHWS.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would also be a good point to revisit the USWB vs Cuba row as during September 7, the USWB realised that the system was still in the Gulf and heading for Texas. After there was no severe weather reported over the United States East Coast. (This comes from Roker again).Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the afternoon of September 7, large swells from the southeast were observed on the Gulf of Mexico, and clouds at all altitudes began moving in from the northeast. Both observations are consistent with a hurricane approaching from the east. -> Get rid off as its just fluff imo.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On September 8, the hurricane weakened slightly and recurved to the northwest while approaching the coast of Texas. The Weather Bureau office in Galveston began observing sustained hurricane-force winds by 22:00 UTC September 8 -> Combine.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cyclone made landfall around 02:00 UTC on September 9 near modern day Jamaica Beach as a Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 140 mph (220 km/h).[9] -> I would personally remove the sustained winds here, it might also be worth noting the local time in brackets after the 02:00 UTC.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will add the local time, but I would rather not remove the sustained winds. Isn't the point of an MH section to include details such as that? That would be like if you told me to remove the landfall wind speed in the FAC for Hurricane Andrew--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have personally never included landfall windspeeds in my articles and it cant be a project standard since we rarely have only one sustained windspeed.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would urge you to be careful about your landfall location, as I feel it would be better to say that it made landfall to the southeast of Houston, Texas, rather than near modern day Jamaica Beach. This is because Jamaica Beach is on a barrier island and im fairly certain that a hurricane making landfall on a small island isnt counted in the same way. It is also worth noting that Houston is more well known then Jamaica Beach. However, I recognise your view may not be the same as mine.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The landfall point was actually almost directly south of Houston, but I will do it--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a point there, it was more south of Houston than southeast.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to know what pressure the system had at its peak/landfall? If not then get rid of the reference as well or use IBTRACS if you want to keep it.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be kept based on the same line of reasoning with the MH landfall wind speed, so I used IBTRACS--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pressure at peak is one of those things that I would mention if its notable enough but ok.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned it later in the article, but I guess I could remove it here--12george1 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While crossing Galveston Island and West Bay, the eye passed just west of the city of Galveston -> HURDAT indicates that the system passed about 35 km to the south-west of Galveston, so i wonder if we know how big the eye was. Otherwise, I would urge you to change it to southwest since HURDAT overrules Neil Frank.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hurricane quickly weakened after moving inland, falling to a Category 2 intensity around 06:00 UTC on September 9 and then to a Category 1 hurricane about 12 hours later. Later that day, it curved northward and weakened to a tropical storm at 18:00 UTC. About 24 hours later, the cyclone weakened to a tropical depression over Kansas on September 10. The storm lost tropical characteristics and transitioned into an extratropical cyclone over Iowa by 12:00 UTC on September 11. Moving rapidly east-northeastward, the extratropical system re-intensified, becoming the equivalent of a Category 1 hurricane over Ontario on September 12. The extratropical remnants reached the Gulf of Saint Lawrence early the following day. After crossing Newfoundland and entering the far northern Atlantic hours later, the remnants of the hurricane weakened and were last noted near Iceland on September 15. -> This need trimming down as we do not mention every single storm weakening. I would suggest just the tropical storm followed by the extratropical transition, before the re-intensification and subsquent weakening. It should also be one paragraph.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to make of the background, prepartion and impacts sections. Surely if only Texas has some decent preps then it should jsut be merged with Imapct and called effects.Jason Rees (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were warnings in other places, which I added to the article--12george1 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the background section if it really is needed then I would suggest that you tell the reader straight off the bat, that the City of Galveston was formally founded during 1839 and that it had previously survived numerous storms.
  • I would then suggest that you tell the reader that it was a booming town (Whatever that means) and explain that the 1900 census showed that the population of Galveston was 37,788 which was an increase from 29,084 people recorded in the 1890 Census.
  • I came up with a slight variation of your ideas because I thought it would be better to not fragment the stuff about how they thought a strong hurricane would not strike the island. I hope you like it. I also added a link for boomtown. Maybe that term is used quite a bit more in here in the US than over there?--12george1 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support as GA reviewer. I'm surprised at the depth of comments so far. I support this nomination for FAC on my usual merit. The article is the best resource in the world for this event. 12George1 has spent countless hours on the article, and I think his work speaks for itself. I can't speak for other reviewers, but it appears that he's more than capable and willing to address any comments from other users regarding this nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Since we have outstanding opposition from Nikkimaria on the basis of failed verification checks, would you be willing to carry out some additional spot-checks of cited sources for verification? --Laser brain (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! I'll get to it over the next few days. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random spotcheck

I used a random number generator from 1-150 (given the number of references). I did this 15 times to account (randomly) for 10% of all citations.

  • 32 - I think the ref should be put at the end of the sentence, as it's citing a phrase, not a fact. That would show it is more of a comparison from the account of the brothers versus Larson. Given that ref 33 is in 1999, I object to "recent years" being used, as 20 years ago isn't exactly recent. Sure, you could party like it's 1999, but calling it recent? I suggest finding alternate wording.
  • 79 - The death toll and population decline check out. It's good.
  • 129 - The citation confirms the city's nickname.
  • 95 - The wind speed is confirmed in the source.
  • 8 - The source confirms that ships were the primary means of getting meteorological data on storms.
  • 26 - The source is detailed, and is summarized well in the article.
  • 7 - I suggest putting ref 7 after ref 4 on its first usage. Make sure the same thing happens throughout the article. The source cites the statement about the origins, and the article disputes the source when it says "the origins are unclear". I'd remove that part. It's pretty clear, from basic weather knowledge, that majority of disturbances from that part of the world originate from tropical waves. I imagine that wording might be from a previous version of the article.
  • 140 - The source says "up to $2 billion". I don't know how I feel about this one.
  • 47 - The citation backs up the coastal damage and the description.
  • 33 - "As the system emerged into the Straits of Florida, Gangoite observed a large, persistent halo around the moon, while the sky turned deep red and cirrus clouds moved northwards." - I read that without any context, and was quite confused. I suggest you merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, given how much they are about the Cuban observations.
  • 10 - All of the content is used in this detailed resource.
  • 87 - I suggest saying "at least $12,000" in damage as opposed to "between $12,000 and $15,000", which... isn't that much nowadays, but of course was a lot for back then. Otherwise it's good.
  • 75 - Info checks out.
  • 147 - I suggest putting the ref at the end of the sentence. Otherwise it's good.
  • 39 - Info checks out.

Overall, the citations were reliable, independent, and generally covered the content as described in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've worked on all of your comments, wherever action was required--12george1 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Hurricane Noah edit

The article seems to be rather biased towards Galveston in the aftermath. I get most of the impact occurred there, but there isn't any mention of recovery efforts anywhere other than Galveston. NoahTalk 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will look, but I likely won't find much. I think my best bet would be other places in Galveston County and the surrounding counties--12george1 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Were you able to find anything? NoahTalk 19:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second-deadliest storm to strike the United States, the San Ciriaco hurricane of 1899, caused around 3,400 deaths" not needed as there is a table directly to the right of it with the information. NoahTalk 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch your significant figures. Some values need more places and others less. NoahTalk 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. NoahTalk 23:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have a couple suggestions for cuts to the aftermath... It appears to be a bit bloated in that last section. NoahTalk 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Beginning in the 1920s, Prohibition and tax law enforcement opened up new opportunities for criminal enterprises related to gambling and bootlegging in the city. Galveston rapidly became a prime resort destination enabled by the open vice businesses on the island. This new entertainment-based economy brought decades-long prosperity to the island." That does not appear to have any connection to the hurricane. As stated, this was a result of prohibiton and tax law enforcement, not the storm. NoahTalk 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I need to find a better way to make the connection. You're right that this has more to do with Prohibition and tax law enforcement, but the Open Era was the city's big economic rebound because the city also suffered greatly economically as a result of the storm, especially in regards to the city losing its major port and commercial center status to Houston. This was a more long-term aftermath thing, as opposed to the earlier aftermath stages such as rebuilding and donations being sent in--12george1 (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Today, Galveston is home to Port of Galveston, the oldest port along the United States Gulf Coast to the west of New Orleans.[147] The city has three institutes of higher learning – Galveston College, Texas A&M University at Galveston, and the University of Texas Medical Branch.[148] American National Insurance Company, a major insurance corporation, is based in Galveston" again, no direct connection to the storm mentioned. NoahTalk 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • @12george1, Nikkimaria, and Ian Rose: I hate to say this, but I can't support this article currently. It was not prepared for FAC in the least and honestly should have been withdrawn and put through a peer review with a couple people. With everything that Nikki keeps finding while only doing random spot checks is alarming for me. At this point, I would say spot checks are not the answer. We need to go through every source and make sure everything is correct. Additionally, I take issue with the balance of material in the article's aftermath. Surely there must be something out there for other locations in Texas and/or the other affected areas. Not saying there is a lot, but there should be at least something that can be added. Again, I hate doing this, but it has been a month and I don't feel comfortable supporting this. I am hereby opposing this nomination per the aftermath balance and my lack of confidence in the accuracy of the article given the endlessly failed spot checks from Nikki. NoahTalk 23:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, when I saw Nikki was still finding issues I felt we'd have to call it a day here and re-work outside FAC, then come back and have another try after the usual two-week-minimum breather -- thanks everyone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2019 [4].

Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa edit

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a really old film. 122 years old, to be exact, and hasn't been seen since! Understandably, the article is somewhat shorter than many FA's, if just because the wealth of knowledge is limited. The film is the first film produced in Venezuela - that we know of - and which has some study and discussion behind it. The peer review was useful in being productive to improve the article, as well as not raising any major flags. I feel that as much information as is freely accessible on the topic has been included, I just gave all the sources a check and they should be good, so now I can't wait for your comments to see if we can make it even better - I do feel this article could be FA soon! Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian edit

Recusing from coord duties to review, very pleased to see an article on Latin American film. That said, after reading the lead and first paragraph of the main body, I am concerned with prose and logic:

  • the first Venezuelan film ever produced -- "ever" adds nothing to the point being made.
  • The film shows a surgeon, displaying at the Hotel Europa in Maracaibo -- "displaying"? Do we mean the film displays him, in which case it's redundant because we've already said it "shows" him, or is he putting on a display? Simpler to just say something like The film shows a surgeon at the Hotel Europa in Maracaibo".
  • Venezuelan film production began on 28 January 1897 at exactly 7:00 pm, less than six months after the first Vitascope had been brought to the nation, with the screening of two films produced in the country -- how does film production begin with screenings? Surely the films were produced before the screening? It looks from this that film exhibition began at 7pm on 28 January 1897. Skimming the rest of the article, I struggled to find anything that talks about exactly when this first example of Venezuelan film was actually produced...

Based on this fairly quick reading I'd have to oppose at this stage, although given the article's brevity I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say it should be withdrawn. I do think it needs further copyedit, and clarity on the production of the film as opposed to its first screening. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, had a ce for GAN, but more isn't bad—I've made some edits to address the comments you've made, if you have anymore it'd be great to know.
Sadly, not much is known about the production of the film; if there are any local records of when and how it was filmed at the hotel, they aren't online or in any archives I've found, and if the recovered filmstock could reveal anything then it's both in Zulia and nobody has yet written about it in an academic manner.
Kingsif (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto edit

I am afraid the writing is not at the moment up to scratch for an FA. Some examples:

  • "an 1897 Venezuelan short film, and the first Venezuelan film produced. It was screened at the Baralt Theatre in Maracaibo on 28 January 1897.": "Venezuelan film" repeated, and we are told it's from 1897 twice in the first two sentences. Simply "Un célebre especialista[...] is the first Venezuelan film produced. It was screened at the Baralt Theatre in Maracaibo on 28 January 1897." gets across exactly the same information (okay, we lose "short") more concisely and more elegantly.
  • "Film scholarship questions the identity of its director, as well as its place within Latin American film history." This reads inelegantly to me.
  • "From documental evidence, it is understood that two other films, both French, were shown at the same time." Again, unnecessary verbiage. Cut "from documental evidence, it is understood that" unless this really adds something to the sense.
  • "Edison": Thomas Edison, I guess? Make it clear!

I think the prose is going to need a lot of work to bring it up to FA standard, so it's an oppose from me I'm afraid. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, any more comments would be appreciated! Kingsif (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Based on the two early opposes, it sounds like the writing needs work before it's ready. I'd advice making use of the Peer Review process, the Guild of Copy Editors, or perhaps just contact some interested editors in similar topic areas for help. This may be re-nominated after a minimum two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2019 [5].

British subject edit

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coming off of a successful FAC for British National (Overseas), I think I've updated this article to a similar level of quality as well (hopefully, heh). British subject is a term currently used to describe a residual nationality class left over from days when Britain was an empire. The article also covers earlier definitions, encompassing what would now be called British citizenship and Commonwealth citizenship. This article covers a pretty complex topic and I've worked on making it a much more digestible read. Looking forward to some feedback, Horserice (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read through it and don't see many prose problems. One question, if the 2002 Act is resolving the status of the remaining British subjects, why is that mentioned only in passing? Perhaps I misunderstood. Our article on the Act is no help.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added a bit at the end of the main body of the article on the 2002 Act. Hope that's enough, since I haven't been able to find substantial literature about the effects of this Act on British subjects, BOCs, or BPPs. From what I've been able to read, it seems like the intention of the Home Office was to let these categories of people eventually die off. When the 2002 Act did take effect, it seems unlikely that a large number of people were able to take advantage of the provision for registration as full citizens, given the conditions necessary to possess and retain those residual statuses. Horserice (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been a non-starter unfortunately and is almost at the three-week mark without any support for promotion. It will be archived soon if it does not receive some substantial attention. --Laser brain (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2019 [6].

Bank War edit

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during his presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office. Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Orser67 edit

Just read through the article and have the following thoughts, hope you find them helpful Orser67 (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC):[reply]

  • The first paragraph "The Resurrection of a National Banking System" could use a couple sentences explaining why the first bank was established to begin with, what it did, and why/when it was abolished. I don't think we can assume that readers will understand the basic functions of a central bank in the early 19th century United States, or that they know that Hamilton was the driving force behind the bank and that Jefferson/Madison opposed it in the 1790s, so this would be a good place to quickly explain what the bank did while giving a little background.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next three paragraphs in the section have sufficient information, but I think they could use a little reorganization. For example "Republican nationalists" and "Calhoun" are introduced in the third paragraph, but it's not explained what these terms mean until the fourth paragraph. I would also make it clear in some way that "Republican" is referring to the Democratic-Republican Party (making sure readers understand we aren't talking about the modern Republican Party), and explain why Hamilton is relevant (which could be done in the first paragraph).
I see what you mean. I reorganized this section and also added a little bit of information about the Era of Good Feelings in general, which is important to understanding what was taking place. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Federal Government" and "Federal" (outside of a proper name) should not be capitalized. Or at least, the capitalization should be consistent.
I checked and I'm not sure where it was capitalized. "Federalist" was capitalized because it's the name of a political party, but I'm not sure what else you're referring to. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to these two sentences: "In a series of "memorandums," he attacked the Federal Government for widespread abuses and corruption." and "In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bank was both constitutional and that, as an agent of the Federal government..." Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orser67, fixed. Sorry about that. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to make it clear that all four major candidates for president in 1824 were part of the Democratic-Republican Party, that the Democratic-Republican Party collapsed during Adams's presidency, and the various factions from 1824 coalesced into Jackson's Democratic Party and Adams's National Republican Party. As it stands, both of the latter parties appear for the first time in the article without any explanation.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to length considerations, I would separate ""Jackson and Reform": Implications for the B.U.S." into two sections or subsections, one covering 1817-1827, and the other covering the 1828 campaign.
I divided it into two subsections. The first is called "Panic of 1819." The second one is "Rise of Jackson" and it picks up at the 1824 election. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 1828 campaign, I think that most of the necessary information is there, but I think some reorganization could help better explain why, if Jackson personally opposed the bank and if Jacksonian principles supposedly made a collision course with the bank inevitable, Jackson didn't campaign on the national bank and Biddle voted for him. I would also explain more about the hard money and paper money factions of Jackson's coalition.
Upon reflection, I decided to delete the sentence about collision between Jackson and the Bank being inevitable. It's a problematic statement because it requires a light of hindsight vision and was not obvious at the time. As the article states, public opinion of the Bank was reasonably high when Jackson first took office as president. So despite the fact that Jackson hated the Bank, making immediate war on it would not have been a good idea. The plan that McLane proposed for saving the Bank (see "The Post-Eaton Cabinet and Compromise Efforts") demonstrates that an all-out battle between Jacksonian democracy and the Bank was not entirely necessary. In fact, Jackson may very well have allowed the Bank to be saved had Clay and Webster not decided to turn recharter into a political issue ahead of the 1832 election. I also added more about the hard and paper money factions, explaining the viewpoints of each. It's too bad they weren't in there already. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually thought about proposing that you delete that sentence about inevitability, so I'm glad you made that decision. I like the new paragraph about hard vs soft money factions, but I think there needs to be a mention somewhere of the fact that the national bank was essentially in charge of issuing and regulating paper money. Many readers will probably not know that paper money at that time was not issued by the federal government as it is today, but rather by the national bank and private banks. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added an explanation of the Bank's role in issuing and regulating paper currency to near the end of the "Rise of Jackson" section. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jumping ahead to "Jackson's Veto of the Bank Recharter Bill," I would change "veto power was no longer limited to suppressing clear violations of the Constitution – it could be asserted on social, political or economic grounds"; this sentence might lead readers to believe that the Constitution restricts veto power, when in fact the Presentment Clause doesn't say that the president needs a particular reason to veto bills. I would instead favor something like "While previous presidents had used their veto power, they had only done so when objecting to the constitutionality of bills. By vetoing the recharter bill on the grounds that he was acting in the best interests of the American people, Jackson claimed a major role for the president in the legislative process." You might also want to throw in a mention somewhere regarding Jackson's other major veto, the Maysville Road veto.
Sentence changed. The Maysville Road veto is an important part of Jackson's overall governmental philosophy, but it has little to no connection to the Bank War. I looked for a place where I'd be able to fit it, but I couldn't find a good spot. This isn't surprising because it's a totally separate issue. For now, I think it's best to leave it out. In discussing the elimination of the debt, the article does say that the paying off of the debt took place partially because Jackson vetoed "legislation which he deemed extravagant." The Maysville Road veto is part of that. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fine, the key thing for me is that the importance of the veto is explained. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's probably worth mentioning that the Nullification Crisis briefly took center stage in late 1832/early 1833, delaying the renewal of the Bank War and alienating many Southerners, who later joined the Whig Party.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the legacy section regarding historians views of the Bank War, but I think there needs to be some more coverage of the impact of the Bank War. I suggest reiterating the contributions the Bank War made to the rising importance of the presidential veto, as well as to the formation of the Whig Party. I'd also like to see some coverage of central banking in the decade or so after Jackson left office, because the Bank War had a huge impact on the politics of the late 1830s and early 1840s. The Panic of 1837 was the dominant theme of Van Buren's presidency, and his main response was to establish the Independent Treasury system, which was basically a vault for government funds. The Whigs abolished the Independent Treasury and attempted to restore the national bank in the early 1840s, but were thwarted by President Tyler, whom they promptly kicked out of the party. Polk re-established the Independent Treasury in 1846, and the country didn't have a central bank until the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
I'll do a little bit more research here in the coming days and see if I can add anything. I don't want to get too far off the scope of this article, however. What happened to the U.S. economy after 1836 is only relevant insofar as it is impacted by the Bank War, and we don't need to be writing about too much post-1830s economic history for this article. The article for the Panic of 1837, as well as other articles, can cover that. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the post-1846 stuff, I'm just looking for a sentence stating that the country didn't have a central banking system until 1913. For the period between 1837 and 1846, I think a paragraph regarding the political impact of the Bank War is warranted because the battles in the late 1830s and early-to-mid 1840s were really a continuation of the Bank War; the Whigs were still backing the national bank, and the Democrats were still searching for an alternative. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, although the part about not having a central bank until 1913 is mentioned in passing in the Legacy section. Please give me a little while. I'm not as familiar with the events of the 1840s and may want to visit my university library to make sure that I have adequate sources. I have access to some but will want to broaden my scope a little bit. I won't be able to make it there until Monday. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Nevermind. I think I got a decent paragraph with the sources that I have now. Please take a look. It's at the beginning of the Legacy section. Display name 99 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orser67, thank you for your review. Your comments were helpful. Please see my responses. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orser67, I'm checking in now to see whether you're able to finish the review. Display name 99 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. Here are a few more comments, then I think I'm probably done. Orser67 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the second paragraph of the lead, a single "neutral" sentence describing the bank's basic functions/background would be helpful before diving into the pros and cons.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The political background in the "The Resurrection of a National Banking System" section is good, but I suggest adding a sentence to explain the basic functions of the national bank either in this paragraph or in the section. For example, this sentence comes from the Federal Reserve website: "[The Second National Bank] would act as fiscal agent for the federal government — holding its deposits, making its payments, and helping it issue debt to the public — and it would issue and redeem banknotes and keep state banks’ issuance of notes in check."
Done. I added a paragraph to the end of the section. Good suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philadelphia is mentioned a few times throughout the article, so I suggest clearly establishing that the bank was located in Philadelphia in the "The Resurrection of a National Banking System" section.
I mentioned this in the paragraph that I added. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for examples of individuals appearing for the first time without their full name and a wikilink, and found one: Daniel Webster appears for the first time as "Webster" in the sentence "Webster called for a vote to end discussions on the Bank." I suggest introducing him as National Republican Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts (much like how Benton is introduced a few sentences earlier).
Done. Good catch. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orser67, I have responded to all of your points. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. Supported. Orser67 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Andrew_jackson_head.jpg: source links are dead
  • File:Henry_Clay.JPG: source link is dead and this needs a US PD tag
  • File:Black_Dan.jpg needs a source and a US PD tag
  • File:Portrait_of_Roger_Brooke_Taney.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you for your review. I added alt text. I dealt with all of your other issues. Display name 99 (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats
  • Hyphens in page ranges (too many to list) need to be converted to ndashes. Ref 315 has an = sign
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37 requires pp. not p.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 320: "Claremont Institute" should not be italicized
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography
  • Baptist should precede Bates in alphabetical sequence
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, Kim and Wallis should precede Knodell
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Latin American History is a subscription service that requires the (subscription required) template
I don't see where this is cited. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Campbell 2019 should have ISBN
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, Meacham 2008 should have the 13-digit ISBN which is 978-1-4000-6325-3
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise Olson 2002 which is 978-0-313-30830-7
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sumner 1972 ISBN converts to 978-0-404-50867-8
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilentz 2006 ISBN converts to 978-0-393-05820-8
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilentz 2005 ISBN converts to 978-0-8050-6925-9
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links: All links to sources are working according to the external links checker tool
  • Quality and reliability: Ref 31: What makes David Leap a high-quality reliable source?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading: The list appears to be unduly extensive. There are various issues of missing ISBNs, unconverted ISBNs etc
I removed two sources and added as well as repaired ISBNs. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the one query, the sources appear to be comprehensive and of the standards of quality and reliability required by the FA criteria. However, it would be useful if a historian could offer an opinion on this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was one historian, Steviebill83, who made significant contributions to the article a couple of months ago. Two of his works are cited in the Bibliography. We got into a major disagreement over his attempts to remove large amounts of sourced material, but later came to a resolution. He complained that the article relied too heavily on certain sources while nearly or entirely ignoring others. Specifically, he perceived a bias in favor of sources which were sympathetic to Jackson. He added plenty of material from other sources, including his own work, to balance this out, and I have continued the work after he left the article. I think it looks good now. All of the sources are scholarly and academic, and in my view, there is a good mix of perspectives. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, thank you for your review. Especially for providing me with ISBNs. That saved me a lot of time. I should've caught some of these issues before nominating, but thank you for checking them over. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Despite some early review and support for promotion, this one just doesn't have the legs. It will be archived shortly and may be renominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2019 [7].

Soultaker (film) edit

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 23:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Does anything really star Joe Estevez?"

— Crow T. Robot, Mystery Science Theater 3000

You like horror movies about the grim reaper chasing young adults after their souls get knocked out of their bodies from a car accident? Well I got an article for you. Presenting Soultaker, a 1990 movie starring Charlie Sheen's uncle and the films screenwriter as the female lead. What would have remained in obscurity if it wasn't selected as for mockery on the cult television series Mystery Science Theater 3000, this article presents a passion project based on a real near-death experience the screenwriter, Vivian Schilling, had in her life that became a 250k dollar project. And despite the negative reception it got, it still ended up winning a Saturn Award for Best Video Release.

And I believe I have scrounged up enough information about the movie to make it able to stand on its own as a Featured Article. GamerPro64 23:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

You drew me in with your opening line. Yes, I think I do like horror movies about the grim reaper chasing young adults after their souls get knocked out of their bodies from a car accident.

  • The plot section is a little on the long side for what (seems like?) a relatively simple film with a shortish article; it's currently at the upper limit recommended by WP:FILMPLOT
  • I think this article might benefit from a close copyedit by someone new to the text. The whole souls in and out of bodies stuff is tricky to follow, while the first paragraph of the production section is very choppy.
    • I already had a copyedit beforehand but I see if I can get someone else to do a new sweep. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was Schilling's fourth film she appeared in, as well as her first in a starring role." Messy
  • The blockquote comes six sentences after the comment it expands on.
    • Wouldn't know where else to place it. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was the first director?
    • Can't find any source of who was the original director. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Terror Eyes worth a wikilink? Don't be scared of redlinks, if it's notable.
  • Final sentence of the "production" section feels tacked on.
    • Moved it as the second sentence of the paragraph. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and its transformation into" What does it refer to, here?
    • It meant the movie. Changed the wording. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comparing its portrayal of the afterlife to be more consistent than the film Ghost" Clumsy
  • "also called the film a "micro-budget variation on Ghost", criticizing the special effects and Michael Rissi's direction, but praising Vivian Schilling for her work" Why also?

Got to dash; I'll try to find time to come and look further! Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could we perhaps have some more details of the novel? Was it released? When? Title? Publisher? Any reviews?
    • I think I was able to find the novel. It was her first book Sacred Prey. Found a Femme Fatales source that I can add. Will do so once I get some time to. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re-reading the sources about the novel, Schilling said that the planned Soultaker sequel was adapted as her second book, which might have been Quietus. This interview from her sounds to be the case. GamerPro64 23:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Gorezone or Fangoria the magazine? Check the Barsky ref.
    • Gorezone is the magazine and it was published by Fangoria. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dare ref - could we have volume and issue information?
    • Didn't see it the first time but now I see it. Added. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Action Figure Insider a reliable source?

Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snooping around for more sources...

  • Mystery Science Theater 3000 Volume XIV, according to one article, includes "New interviews with Estevez and "Final Justice" writer-director Greydon Clark". Unless that's a different Esevez, it may contain some valuable material; is this something you've seen?
    • Unfortunately no. Tried looking for it online to no avail. And now that the boxset is out of print I cannot find the means to watch it. GamerPro64 20:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kathleen Morgan reviewing the film in the Daily Record: "SOULTAKER (Ch5, 1.35am - 3.15am) Car crash couple hover in limbo - like the audience, really. Vapid supernatural hokum with Joe Estevez. 1990".
    • Morgan, Kathleen (8 May 1998). "Dressed to thrill as style police take off". Daily Record. p. 32.
      • You linked to a dab so I have no clue which Daily Record you are talking about. Also is that all the review is? GamerPro64 01:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry; the Scottish one. And yes, it's just a review alongside television listings. Don't feel you have to include it - indeed, it's hardly The Times - but included it as it's pretty much the most I found. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And a few more reviews of the MST episode! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Made a paragraph to the reception to the episode. GamerPro64 02:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: A copyedit was done for the article. If there are anymore issues to the article that I have missed or have not been brought up let me know. GamerPro64 16:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for more sources.

  • There is pretty extensive discussion of the film in Horror Films of the 1990s by John Kenneth Muir. This should definitely be incorporated!
  • There's a whole chapter about it in The Comic Galaxy of Mystery Science Theater 3000; this doesn't seem to be solely about MST3000. This, too, should be looked at!
  • It's mentioned in Nature of all places! I don't know if you could do much with it, but surprising!

I think there's probably potential for significant expansion yet. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the John Kenneth Muir book as a source. Not sure about adding the other two, though the Nature source reminded me of this Wall Street Journal piece on MST3K that mentioned Soultaker but not positive the material mentioned is worth noting. GamerPro64 15:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
McFarland is a reputable publisher. I'd have thought the MST3000 book easily passes the bar for a reliable source (though perhaps not for outlandish claims). I'm left feeling there is probably more you can pull from the various sources used in the article and that have come up in this review, meaning I feel this falls a little short of the FA bar. A decent GA, for sure, but perhaps not at FA level right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled a bit more information from some of the sources. I could probably expand the Reception section more but not certain about any other section. GamerPro64 14:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit comments edit

This was a really enjoyable article to read: I may have to watch this movie now! For the most part, it didn't need too much copyediting, just a bit of polishing here and there. As always, if you feel that any edits compromise the accuracy of the article's information, feel free to make changes. That said, I have a few lingering points of confusion while copyediting that perhaps you can clarify, particularly since I am unfamiliar with the source text:

  • "Candice dies instantly while Natalie, Brad, Zack, and Tommy's souls leave their bodies." Is this because Natalie, Brad, Zack, and Tommy are comatose while Candice is dead?
    • Its because the car accident knocked their souls out of their bodies. Candice died in the crash with her soul still in her body. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While investigating the car, the Soultaker reveals himself and claims Brad's soul; the others, helpless to stop him, flee." Does the group investigate the car, or does the Soultaker? Or both?
    • The Soultaker appears inside the car while they are looking at the crashed car. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michael Dare of Billboard directed praise towards the film in his review, calling it a "good looking, low-budget fantasy thriller", though he noted the cast's overacting and the movie's transformation into "several layers of advanced silliness".[14]" I'm a bit confused by the "transforming/transformation" part of this. Is it a criticism of the narrative (starts off serious and gets ridiculous) or is it the entire movie turning silly?
  • "A sequel was planned for the movie; it went through name changes from "Dark Angel" to "Dark World"." Was it just the name change from Dark Angel to Dark World, or were there more?
    • There was also mention of it being called "Soultaker II" in one article. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the project fell through due to money issues." Anything more specific than this? Issues raising money, managing money, etc?
    • Re-reading the interview, Schilling said that the money fell through in the project. So I guess there was no more money going into the project. GamerPro64 23:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Erik Adams from The A.V. Club considered it one of the most essential episodes, opining that Joel Hodgson's appearance in the episode was a “stamp of approval” for the show after he left." After he left its production?
Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying; I've now finished the copyedit. Best of luck, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copyedit. GamerPro64 02:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

I am always down for a horror movie. The article is in very good shape. I just have the following comments, and I will be more than happy to support once everything is addressed. I would also recommend looking through the sources suggested by Josh Milburn in his comments. I hope this helps out at least a little:

  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image, and make sure that any image used in the article has appropriate ALT text.
  • For this part (but the film was never made and Schilling turned its premise into a novel.), I would mention the year in which the novel was published, as I think that it is somewhat notable that it was published more than a decade after the film's release. The novel's name may be helpful as well, but I think the year would be beneficial to help the reader understand the chronology.
  • For this part (As well as writing the script for the film, Vivian Schilling), I do not think it is necessary to use Schilling's full name as it was used earlier in the same paragraph.
  • In the "Production" section, I would remove the wikilinks for the actors as they have already been linked in the "Plot" and "Cast" sections so it is somewhat overkill to me. Vivian Schilling in particular is linked twice in the "Production" section alone.
  • Would there be a way to combine these two sentences (Soultaker was written by Vivian Schilling. Inspiration for the film came in discussions between Schilling and Action International Pictures producer Eric Parkinson.)? Maybe something like (Soultaker was written by Vivian Schiller who was inspired by discussions with Action International Pictures producer Eric Parkinson) would work?
  • For this part (Her previous acting credits included Fred Olen Ray's Prison Ship), I would use a descriptor in front of Prison Ship to let the reader know that it is a film without having to click the wikilink.
  • Something about this part (Snake Eyes, which became part of the anthology movie Terror Eyes, which Eric Parkinson and Vivian Schilling were also involved with) reads awkwardly to me. I think it is the repetition of the "which" clauses. Maybe something like (Snake Eyes, a part of the anthology movie Terror Eyes which also involved Eric Parkinson and Vivian Schilling) would be better?
  • Would there be a way to avoid repeating "direct" twice in this sentence (Originally reluctant to direct, Rissi decided to join after being interested in directing a film involving parallel universes.)?
  • I would simplify this part (Schilling later wrote an article for the magazine about a scene not written by her but added by investors and the film crew) to (Schilling later wrote an article for the magazine about a scene added by investors and the film crew). The "not written by her" part is unnecessary in my opinion as "added by" already makes that clear.
  • Maybe there could be a way to combine these two sentences (Actor Joe Estevez starred as the titular "Soultaker". Originally he was asked to play the mayor, Grant McMillan.) into something like (Actor Joe Estevez was asked to play the mayor, Grant McMillan, before being cast as the titular "Soultaker".)?
  • I have a comment for this sentence (Vivian Schilling said the movie was successful in theaters but flopped in her hometown, Wichita, Kansas.). The word "flopped" seems too informal to me. Maybe something like "said the movie was successful in theaters except in her hometown, Wichita, Kansas" would be better?
  • TV Guide should be in italics.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Blockbuster Entertainment gave the film two stars, while VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever by Jim Craddock gave it one and a half stars.). Did either reviewer provide more commentary beyond the score?
    • There were some commentary about the movie but I didn't think they were of much substance. They were pretty much one sentence reviews. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the lead mention the positive reviews for the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode?
    • There isn't a precedent behind that. Other MST3K movies like The Incredible Melting Man and Laserblast don't mention reviews. Back when Manos: The Hands of Fate was a Featured Article it didn't mention the reception to the episode in the lead. I think doing that would distract that the article is about the movie itself, not the MST3K episode. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense to me. It would give the episode a lot of weight that may border on undue. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by the structure of the "Reception" section. The first paragraph focuses on the negative reviews, but the second paragraph jumps from a positive review to comparisons to Ghost. Would it be better to move the positive Billboard review with the sentence on the award to have a paragraph on its positive reception and then have the second paragraph focus on these Ghost comparisons instead?
    • Reworked the entire paragraph, movie sentences around and added the award sentence to the end. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would wikilink Netflix.
  • I have a comment about this part (the movie's transformation into "several layers of advanced silliness"). The quote from the source goes on to specify that these layers occur "when we meet the soultaker's boss, the Angel of Death". Shouldn't this be specified in the article?
    • Didn't think of that. Added it.

Again I hope this helps. I will have to check this film sometime soon. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, I support this for promotion. It was a very fun and interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Verifiability: No spotchecks carried out
  • Links
  • Refs 2 and 6: the links are returning an error message: "The page isn't redirecting properly". Please check these out – it may be a local or temporary problem
  • Worked fine for me. I added archive links to them just in case. GamerPro64 01:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other links to sources are working properly
  • Formats
  • ref 14 has hyphen in page range
  • ref 18 is missing retrieval date
  • Quality and reliability: the sources seem appropriate and of the required standards of quality and reliability to satisfy the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This has been open over a month and appears to have stalled. I'm prepared to leave it little longer to see if Josh or Rapunzel have anything further, and I'll add to FAC Urgents, but if nothing much changes in the next week I'd expect to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to stand in the way of promotion if others think this is ready, but this still feels more GA than FA to me. I think the writing could be a bit smoother and more could be drawn from the various sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my internet's a bit spotty in the tower in the forest. ;) Unfortunately, I do feel as though I do not have enough experience with the FA process to be able to give a worthwhile and informed opinion. I'm very sympathetic to the article because I suspect there's not a lot of material out there on this particular film, so I've been going back and forth on what would be a reasonable amount of coverage for this article; a quick JSTOR search seems to confirm my suspicions. And it does seem as though the nominator has done the best with the little information available and made good use of the few historical and retrospective sources available. I'm a bit iffy on the prose, but I also have very high standards. Again, unfortunately, I don't have enough FA experience to add anything worthwhile to the discussion. Sorry. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

  • Support - I saw this one was listed as urgent; so I'll take a look. Although I'm more into super bad horror films than just bad ones (w/e).
  • Lede is a little short. I'd want a little more on the production.
    • I added an extra sentence to the lead. GamerPro64 02:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot section has four actors wikilinked, but nothing else. I'd like to see some more things wikilinked, even if it were just to not have a non-interactive wall of text. Things like convenience store, grim reaper and afterlife could be helpful.

Other than that, seems promotable to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I believe I answered your comments. Also I would recommend watching the Mystery Science Theater episode on Soultaker. Really funny watch for fans of bad movies. GamerPro64 02:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll change to support. I'd prefer a slightly longer lede on the FA, but there's not much I can think to add. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Soultaker.jpg: Boilerplate but OK licensing.
  • File:Joe Estevez.jpg: I have to wonder about the provenance of the file and the other files from this Flickr user; no EXIF, low resolution, the fact that some photos look like screenshots or are actually posters makes me wonder if it's taken/cropped from somewhere else.
No ALT text anywhere, sections seem pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Joe Estevez image be removed then? GamerPro64 15:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should probably be replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image from the article. But I am not sure if I would be able to find a suitable replacement. GamerPro64 20:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Unfortunately not much has happened here since Ian's remark two weeks ago that it's stalled. It just doesn't have the consensus required for promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2019 [8].

Lebanon national football team edit

Nominator(s): Nehme1499 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the title reads, this article is about the national association football team of Lebanon. With some relatively major events happening recently (1. the first participation through regular qualification in the AFC Asian Cup; 2. Hassan Maatouk becoming the new national team top scorer) I figured it was an appropriate time to nominate the article. As the only major editor of this article, I feel like it meets all the FA criteria listed. Comparing it to other FA national team articles, namely Belgium national football team, I think that this article is of the same standard. Nehme1499 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kosack edit

Hi, Nehme1499. I think the article needs a bit more attention before it is ready for a run at FA. I would suggest undertaking a peer review first in order to iron out some issues. There are a few quite short paragraphs which are generally to be avoided, some paragraphs with seemingly unsourced statements and a few other things I can see from a quick glance. A run through by a member of the WP:GOCE may also be worth looking at. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comment. You’re right regarding the peer review: I should have submitted a request there before nominating the article for FA. As for the GOCE, it has already been copy edited (only the last couple of paragraphs about the 2019 AFC Asian Cup campaign in the history section are post-copy edit). Should I close this nomination before submitting a peer review request? Nehme1499 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you do wish to go to PR instead, this would need to be closed as you can't run an FAC and a PR simultaneously. Kosack (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RetiredDuke edit

Just some thoughts for an eventual peer review, as I largely agree with the comment above:

  • Some of those sources need to be replaced, as they do not look reliable at all (forum.kooora.com, abdogedeon.com, worldfootball.net, Blog Baladi, My Football Shirt Project caught my eye). References 53 and 55 are dead. Capelli Sport is an online shirt shop. Banca de rezerva is a blog.
  • None of the tables (FIFA World Cup, AFC Asian Cup, WAFF Championship, Arab Nations Cup, Pan Arab Games, Asian Games, Mediterranean Games, Other Tournaments) are sourced. Neither are the ones in Belgium's article, you'll say, but those have introductory text that is heavily sourced. These ones should also have some sort of referenced text that supports the tables' content. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose - Clearly you may close this above, but putting it out there that I wouldn't support this for quite a few of the reasons above. I'll add my comments to a PR if it's created. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for their input, I'll nominate the article for PR. By the way, how do I close this nomination? Nehme1499 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehme, I'll treat this as a request for withdrawal and action accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 June 2019 [9].

Francisco de Mendoza edit

Nominator(s): Telex80 (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Article was well written and has all the evidence regarding the history of the Eighty Years War. Telex80 (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RetiredDuke edit

I don't think this article is quite ready for a FA nomination:

  • For starters, it doesn't have a lead that properly summarizes the article body. For an example of how even the shortest bio can have a proper lead, see Lawrence Weathers.
  • Secondly, that wall of text that is the body of the article has to be broken up in smaller sections, like Early life and The 80 Years War or some such.
  • Thirdly, just by skimming the article diagonally I spotted some inappropriate passages like "the king was not amused", "decided to kill two birds with one stone", "unfortunately did not live long" (POV language).
  • It also has very few inline citations, it should have more than just one at the end of each paragraph.
  • Lastly, "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter" but you have not edited the article at all.

Premature nomination. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would second RetiredDuke's comments here, maybe a peer review would be a better way to go before taking a run at FA. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Not having edited the article is enough for archiving on procedural grounds (see instructions at the top of WP:FAC) but the other points raised above are also well-made and should be taken into account before anyone considers re-nominating here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 June 2019 [10].

Amarte Es un Placer (album) edit

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the last FAC, I was nearly close to getting the article being promoted to FA, but due to the problems with the rationales with the samples and some of the sources, I had to rework both to resolves those issues. This time I change some of the samples and detailed the rationales for both of them. If the samples still don't meet the criteria, I'll remove them. Other than that, I'm ready again for the FAC this time. Erick (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • I would link Luis Miguel on the first instance in the body of the article (i.e. In 1997, Luis Miguel released his twelfth studio album).
  • Unlink “bolero” in the composition section as you have it linked in a previous section.
  • I would move the link for pop music to this sentence (He indicated the upcoming album would be a return to pop recordings) as it comes before the current link placement.
  • I do not think Miguel’s name is required in the titles for the audio samples. I think the song titles alone are good.
  • Remember to link the singles in the body of the article. For instance “Sol, Arena y Mar” is linked in the lead, infobox, and track listing, but I do not think it is linked in the actual prose of the article. I would check all four singles to make sure about this.
  • For this sentence (A music video for the track was filmed in San Francisco, directed by Rebecca Blake), something about the last part “directed by Rebecca Blake” seems awkwardly tagged on the end of the sentence. Maybe something like “Rebecca Blake filmed the music video for the track in San Francisco”? The same comment applies for this sentence (In the same month, the music video for the fourth single, "Amarte Es un Placer", was filmed in Bel-Air, California, directed by Alberto Tolot.) too. I am not saying you have to use my suggestion, but something about the current wording is a little off to me.
  • For this part (and more than 101,800 spectators attended his eight shows in Chile, the largest audiences of the year for an artist), I am assuming it means the largest audiences for the year for Chile in particular not worldwide? I just wanted to clarify that part.
  • There is an additional space after the comma for this part (gave it two-and-a-half out of five stars,  noting that from the title).

Great work with the article. I hope that it gets more attention soon. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to help. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Alright, I made some changes to the article per your suggestions. How does it look now? Erick (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Great work on this! Aoba47 (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992 edit

Lead
  • I know I've been gone for some time now but is using a translation template the new norm for non-English media titles? I haven't seen any recent FA's with this template but the usual English title of said article in brackets.
  • The lead says it is a pop album with R&B, pop ballad, and Jazz influences but the infobox list other subgenres Bolero and disco.
  • It would look more appealing to say: and the title track "Amarte Es un Placer" instead of just wikilinking to the song under the guise of the title track for better flow.
  • Continuing from the singles sentence and avoiding repetition, just wikilink the tour under the guise of "embarked on a world tour".
  • Why wikilink music critics and not List of music recording certifications when you discussed the commercial success of the album in other territories? I believe music critic, which is fine linked, is less confusing than the number of music certification requirements that are different in other territories.
Body
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it "In October 1998" and not "On October 1998"?
  • It would be best to add that Armando Manzanero confirmed that he was working with Luis Miguel on a new album to a reporter from El Siglo de Torreón.
  • There's a difference in the writing of Marcos Lifshitz's song and the tracks of this album in the composition section.
  • It would be nice to know how many weeks "O Tú o Ninguna" was atop of the Hot Latin Songs chart.
  • There's a comma error right before footnote #5 in the composition section that needs to be fixed.

There were some things that caught my eye that I pointed out in detail above, but overall the article is in good shape and well-sourced. – jona ✉ 15:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to work on this on Sunday as I'm off work that day. Thanks for the review btw! Erick (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AJona1992: Thanks for the review. Just two questions: Could you elaborate on what you mean regarding Marcos Lifshitz and where the comma error is? I'm having trouble finding it. Erick (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

This seems to have stalled with minimal review and support thus far. I've placed it on the Urgents list, but it will have to be archived in the next few days if it does not receive some more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Isn't a bit preemptive to archive considering AJona1992 just commented a few days and I just replied to his comment yesterday? Not to mention I already asked Simon Burchell to do a spotcheck and he agreed to do it on his free time? If nothing, can I at least re-open a new FAC? Erick (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, with this near the bottom of the list and still being quite a ways off, we'll need to archive. With a longer queue of nominations, the community has consistently requested that we are more active in archiving older nominations that aren't "almost there". Hope this helps. --Laser brain (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2019 [11].

Hurricane Rosa (2018) edit

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After having worked on Rosa for some time, I can say it is well-rounded in terms of prose. To my knowledge, it is complete in it describing the flooding events that took place in both the US and Mexico. I believe it to be of high enough quality to become an FA. I was granted permission to put up this nomination. NoahTalk 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from JC edit

  • Citing advisories for watch and warning changes is unnecessary when the TCR documents the same information in one place.
  • Where is Cabo San Quintin? No link or geographical context.
  • On the next day, the Government of Mexico changed the tropical storm watches on the west coast of Baja California to tropical storm warnings and issued watches for the east coast of Baja California from Bahia de los Angeles to San Felipe. - Since you established in the previous line that it's the Mexican gov't making these decisions, it's okay to use the passive voice here in the interest of brevity: "On the next day, watches were upgraded to warnings..."
  • Hurricane Rosa caused severe flooding in Baja California, with a peak rainfall total of 6.54 in (166 mm) occurring at Percebu. - The "with + -ing verb" construct implies that the second idea directly expounds upon the first. In this case, the amount of rain that fell is not a consequence of the flooding, so recommend rewording this.
  • In San Felipe, one highway collapsed and two others were flooded after 5.39 in (137 mm) of rain fell. - More than likely a section of highway collapsed ("eroded"?) rather than the entire thing.
  • In one neighborhood, a sinkhole opened up due to heavy rainfall. - The first part is meaningless unless you tell us which neighborhood.
  • Damage to the Port of San Felipe totaled about MX$10 million (US$530,000). - Some detail about the nature of damage to the port would be helpful.
  • floodwaters dragged several vehicles away. - Dragged → swept, and since the source doesn't give any indication as to the number of vehicles involved, remove "several."
  • In general, the information about Mexican effects is very poorly organized. In the second paragraph, we leap from impact to preps to preps/impact to aftermath and back to impact, all in the span of a few lines. I recognize that you're trying to arrange the info by state, but this doesn't work very well with short snippets of info; the prose flows poorly and you have to keep repeating the same general ideas (roads were blocked, homes were flooded) over and over again as you check off each state.
  • In Manzanillo, Colima, water currents caused multiple sinkholes and ruptured underground pipes. - I don't understand what "water currents" means here.
  • Heavy rainfall caused the inundation of [...] several landslides - See how this is clunky?
  • In Michoacán, hurricanes Rosa and Sergio destroyed 86,000 acres (35,000 ha) of crops. - Sergio needs to be placed in proper context, with at least a date and some justification for combining the two storms' effects.
  • In San Bernardino County, the remnants of Rosa and a Pacific low produced thunderstorms over the Mojave Desert. - Avoid locating an event twice, especially if the second instance concerns a broader area.
  • On October 1, portions of U.S. Route 95 were flooded out, with floodwaters depositing rocks and other objects on the road - "Flooded out" too informal. Close paraphrase of source: depositing rocks and other debris across the road
  • Additionally, portions of State Route 62 and State Route 127 were also flooded out. The same as above, plus "additionally [...] also."
  • By 09:00 UTC on October 3, a preliminary total of 6.89 in (175 mm) was reported at Towers Mountain, Arizona, with other areas reporting 1.0–5.5 in (25–140 mm) of rain. - Is 09:00 when the rainfall ended? Why is this total in particular identified as preliminary? Where is Towers Mountain? And why not simply "up to 5.5 inches"? I consider it extremely unlikely that no location received between 0" and 0.99" of rain.
  • firefighters were forced to rescue several people from flooded vehicles - Where is this supported in reference #42 (just a compilation of tweets from unofficial accounts)?
  • Try to avoid starting sentences "Additionally...", especially multiple times in the same paragraph. Every sentence comes in addition to the last.
  • At the intersection of 35th Avenue and Cactus Road, it was reported that a sinkhole had formed. - Weasel wording; if you only have unconfirmed reports, ditch it.
  • a 26-year-old French woman was killed just north of Cameron after being struck by a vehicle. - Her nationality is irrelevant, and I'm confused about the influence Rosa had on a car vs. pedestrian accident.
  • flash flooding left several buildings inundated and water and debris on Main Street. Hard to parse, since you're trying to use the same "left" in two different ways. Also close paraphrasing of the source: Flash flooding on Main Street in Pioche left water and debris in the street and water in several buildings.
  • At Menager Lake near Sells, rainfall from Rosa filled the Menagers Dam above maximum capacity, raising concerns about its structural integrity. - You can't fill a dam. This is also unsubstantiated, as far as I can tell; the given source says the water level peaked a foot below the dam's crest.
  • Is it "Menagers" or Menegar's"?
  • Despite the water level having receded, there were still concerns that the dam could fail. On October 4, the Tohono O’odham Nation announced that they were assembling an engineering team to inspect the dam before more rain arrives. - Change "arrives" to past tense. Was more heavy rainfall in the immediate forecast, or was this simply a precautionary measure (it was bound to rain again at some point)? And the reader is lost without a final word on whether the dam held. "assembling an engineering team to inspect the dam" is the same wording used in the source.
  • On the same day, a 34-year-old man was found deceased after the flooding in Golden Valley. - I know "On the same day" doesn't strictly convey a connection other than date... but it definitely connotes one. And the source goes into much more detail about the circumstances surrounding the man's death; why not incorporate some of them?

Oppose – With all due respect, this article is woefully ill-prepared for FAC, and frankly should not have been promoted to GA. The above comments are in response to only the "Preparations and impact" section. I hope you don't simply implement my recommended text changes and call it a day; a fundamental overhaul of the content, sourcing, organization, and presentation is needed. If you're interested in attempting this and would care for my assistance, I'd be happy to lend a hand. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 3 June 2019 [12].

Almost There (album) edit

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria and represents an interesting and notable topic - one of the best-selling Christian albums of all time with over 3 million copies sold in the United States, notable for spawning "I Can Only Imagine", the best-selling Christian single of all time (also with over 3 million copies sold) with one of the more unusual chart runs in recent memory and the rare feat of having a Hollywood film based off of it.

For those unfamiliar with this album, it was released in 2001 as the first major-label work by the band MercyMe. After six independent albums (released from 1994 to 2000), the band signed with INO records and produced this record. The songs are a mix of new songs as well as songs from their previous indie albums. The album received positive review, and it achieved strong sales after its second single "I Can Only Imagine" became a number-one hit on Christian radio. The album remained on the Christian charts for two years before "I Can Only Imagine" became an unlikely mainstream hit in 2003, leading the album's sales to their peak; the album peaked at number one on the Christian Albums chart in 2003 after over 100 weeks on the chart. The album eventually reached double-platinum status, a feat only a few Christian albums have ever achieved, and ranked as the fourth-best selling Christian album of the 2000s. The album finally reached triple-platinum status in 2018 following the release of a major motion picture based on "I Can Only Imagine" (which became a sleeper hit at the box office), which also resulted in the song having a second number-one run on the Christian charts. To this date, it's the band's best-selling album. Toa Nidhiki05 02:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed that section for now, although I have seen other FA album articles with similar sections. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; it might be better to leave it in and see what other reviewers say. I don't mind being corrected  :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Lirim.Z
  • The lead needs references
  • Where does it need them? References generally aren’t needed in the lede if the content is cited in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to write IMO Records twice in the lead.
  • The album is a worship and pop rock album The album has been described as a worship and...
  • Almost There was recorded at Ivy Park, The Indigo Room, Paradise Sound, and IBC Studios Where are these studios? US? — Mention the country
  • Not sure. The album liner notes don’t mention. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I Can Only Imagine" is a ballad,[13][20] opening with just piano "I Can Only Imagine" is a ballad, opening with just a piano
  • chart on March 31 2018 chart on March 31, 2018
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a sincerity sure to hold other artists wishing to dive into the genre accountable and a sincerity sure to hold other artists wishing to dive into the genre accountable. (Full stop)
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure of this article is quite weird for me; the Release and promotion section only contains content about the Commercial performance of the record and the singles. A promotion section should normally contain information about live performances, special releases etc. I know that singles can be included too, but this section ist way more Commercial performance than promotion. I would personally rename this section to commercial performance.
    Changed it to “Release and commercial performance” since it does cover the release and strategy, if that works. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard needs to in italics, since it's a magazine. use |work= for the refs
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 18:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • —Lirim | Talk 20:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs: 6, 7, 8, 10, 24, 29 — Millard, Bart; [[Bart Millard|Millard, Bart]]
    Done. Removed overlooks as well. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35: Replace the hyphen with an en-dash (–)
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 36: |via=Highbeam Research; |url-access=subscription
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 53: This ref should be archived, since the website is unavailable in the European Union. Seems good otherwise.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 56: remove the unnecessary capitalization MOS:CAPS
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are they maybe any other pictures that could be included?--Lirim | Talk 19:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added another picture. If you have any time, User:Lirim.Z, I'd really appreciate if you gave it one last look and see if there's anything else left to deal with. Toa Nidhiki05 23:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lirim | Talk 23:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

  • File:Mercyme_almostthere.jpg needs a more extensive FUR. Same with MercyMe_House_of_God.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made what I consider to be substantial improvements to both. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first of these is now fine. However, the FUR for the two clips is now almost identical, which makes it difficult to justify both - one or ideally both of these should be edited to clarify what unique benefit each provides. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to elaborate more specifically on House of God (explaining it is used to show the song's style structure) as well as I Can Only Imagine (similar reasons but also the essential nature of the song to the album). I'm firmly in the camp that most articles should have at least two song samples to provide diversity. Toa Nidhiki05 01:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've provided a different explanation for "House Of God". Is it sufficiently different now? Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely better, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • The lead’s second paragraph seems pretty sizable, and I am wondering if there is a way to split it into two paragraphs to help with readability. This is not a required part of the review, but I just wanted to let you know as it was one of the first things that I noticed when I opened the article. I am terrible at writing leads though so you could wait for further feedback from other editors/reviewers if you would prefer.
    Good catch. I checked WP:LEDE and the article has enough characters to warrant a third paragraph. I've split critical reception and honors into the second paragraph. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The album has been described as a worship and pop rock album), I would clarify who is describing the album this way. Is critics? The band itself? Kipley? The label? Right now, it is a little too vague. The same part applies to the rest of the sentence. Who is saying that this album “adopts a more radio-friendly sound than the band's independent albums”.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember to link the band the first time you mention them in the body of the article (i.e. MercyMe was formed in 1994 by vocalist Bart Millard, guitarist Mike Scheuchzer, and keyboardist Jim Bryson.).
  • I personally do not see the value in having references for the singles’ release dates in the infobox as all of that information should be located and cited in the body of the article.
  • I see what you mean here. I've moved those references into the main body. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (In October 1999, the band released their fifth independent album, The Worship Project.), I would use “they” instead of “the band” to avoid repetition with the previous sentence.
  • Something about this sentence (All of the songs of the album were written by Millard or the band except "I Worship You", which was written by Kipley and Reggie Hamm.) reads a little awkwardly to me, probably due to the passive tense in the beginning. Maybe something like: Millard and MercyMe wrote a majority of the songs for the album except "I Worship You", which was written by Kipley and Reggie Hamm.) would be a better alternative? I would also avoid saying “all” when it is not the case as qualified later in the sentence.
  • I would include the year that The Prayer of Jabez was first published.
  • Do you have any further information for this sentence (The band did not want to record the song, but eventually acquiesced.), specifically why they did not want the song and why they eventually agreed to do it? It seems like their first instincts were correct given that it was not commercially successful.
  • At least from that source, there's no actual indication of why. It is implied from the writer of that piece that they didn't want to write it because it was a cash grab ("The band wrote the song at the urging of their record label, in an attempt to cash in on the popularity of Bruce Wilkinson’s best-selling book “The Prayer of Jabez.”), but all Millard did was say that they did repeatedly refused to do it, eventually caved and did it, and hated the result. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Salvo mixed all the songs on the album at Cool Springs Studio with the exception of "In You”), I would use “a majority of the songs” rather than “all” to avoid misleading the reader until the second half of the sentence.
  • For this part (Similarities were noted between the "guitar nuances" of Scheuchzer and U2's guitarist The Edge.), clarify who noted these similarities.
  • For this part (The album's first song, "I Worship You" was described as "falling somewhere between adult contemporary and rock", and utilizes acoustic guitars and synthesizers.), clarify who described the song this way.
  • For this sentence ("How Great Is Your Love" was announced as the album's third single in an interview with Billboard magazine on February 12, 2002.), link Billboard.
  • The Bless Me Indeed (Jabez's Song) article includes an interview where Millard said it was “one of the worst songs we’ve ever done”. Would that be helpful in this article?
  • I think this is already included in the article as source 11. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, you have done excellent work with the article as a whole. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through the article again and most likely support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wonderful work! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

@Toa Nidhiki05: Solid progress here but this will need to be archived shortly if it doesn't attract some more review and support for promotion. Just a heads-up in case you want to try to ping some reviewers. --Laser brain (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Laser brain, gonna ping some Wikiprojects. Do you know any other good places to look? This is so close imo and I’d hate to have to wait and go through this again. Toa Nidhiki05 13:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BLZ edit

I saw the notice up at WikiProject Albums. At first blush, this looks reasonably close to FA status. I'm going to make direct copyedits to the article; if you disagree with any of my changes or believe I've misinterpreted something, please feel free to bring them up here and we can decide what's best. I'll bring up more substantive comments here. —BLZ · talk 19:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks in advance for giving this a look! Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I've also just realized, to my surprise, I'm actually familiar with this band's music. I remember "I Can Only Imagine", which I probably heard via friends at some point in my childhood. I live in California now, but I spent most of my childhood in the South. —BLZ · talk 20:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it’s their biggest hit by far (which is saying something - they’ve had like 15 #1 Christian singles since as well as a handful of other mainstream hits). It was kind of all of the place on AC radio in 2003, especially in the south - started in Dallas and then spread out to Atlanta and other big cities there. One of the strangest hit singles ever imo given how religious it is. They actually just made a movie about the song last year that brought it back into the mainstream again (top 10 on the overall Billboard digital songs chart), so it’s had like three distinct chart runs which is just insane. Toa Nidhiki05 21:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "the first major-label studio album" — I'm a little confused about the "major" and "independent" terminology used throughout. The six albums prior to Almost There are labeled "independent"—which implies that they were signed to an independent record label—while Almost There is labeled a "major-label" release. But in fact, the band was not signed to any label prior to Almost There, and their first six albums seem to have been self-distributed. While in some sense they could be considered "independent" (i.e. not under contract to any label), musicians on this tier of record distribution are usually described as "unsigned" rather than "independent".
Meanwhile, INO Records does not seem to have been a major label or a subsidiary thereof when the album was released. "Major label" is a term of art in the music industry. It refers to one of a handful of major, international conglomerates (see Record_label#Major_labels). In 2001, the majors were Warner, EMI, Universal, BMG, and Sony Music—plus any of their respective subsidiaries. INO Records redirects to Fair Trade Services, which is the label's current name; that article says the label (under its new name) is currently distributed by Sony Music—making it a subsidiary of a major label as of this moment. But prior to 2011, it looks like records on INO were distributed by Integrity Music, which was not owned by one of the majors.
The term "major label" only appears in the lead section, not in the body. One of the sources (an audio interview from a deluxe edition of the album) is used to say that the producer said Almost There was "his first major project"—although that's not a direct quote, and the interviewee is not the producer himself. Either way, presuming the word "major" was used in the interview, it seems like the word was used in a general sense (as a synonym for "significant"), not in its industry-specific meaning ("distributed by one of a handful of conglomerates"). Unless I'm missing something, I think what's happened here is that the description of the album as a "major project", and the fact that the band was signed to any label for the very first time, is being conflated with "a major-label album".
Am I missing something? To be clear, I think you're making a useful distinction between the band's early, unsigned career and their career after being signed. It's conceptually similar to the distinction between a "mixtape" and an official "album". Based on what I've seen so far, I would probably refer to the earlier albums as "self-distributed" for clarity, and I would remove the "major label" description. —BLZ · talk 20:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, everything you said makes sense. I was trying to distinguish between the albums they made unsigned in a garage (which have been referred to as independent, but unsigned is just as accurate) with the ones they’ve made since. Their first six albums were indeed self-produced and distributed. INO did collaborate with major records. That absolutely makes since. It seems the context of “independent” that has been referenced by articles is that the music was made independent of the Christian industry, not that they were signed to an independent record label. Christian music is kind of its own little world so it makes sense the terms might not translate entirely accurately. Thanks for clearing this up.
So yeah, I’ll go ahead and make those two changes (removing “major” and referring to them as unsigned). This should probably be done on the I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song), The Worship Project, and MercyMe discography articles as well, but that’s a separate deal I’ll handle.
EDIT: Made the changes. I’ve used the terms “unsigned” and “self-released” to avoid overusing the same term (sometimes “independent” was used multiple times in the same sentence, and “unsigned” didn’t feel as good to overused imo). Toa Nidhiki05 21:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:Brandt Luke Zorn, not sure if you were on holiday the last few days but figured I'd ping you to let you know I made this change. Feel free to respond at your own pace, just wanted to remind if you didn't already notice! Toa Nidhiki05 23:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Unfortunately, this has been open for quite a long time and just doesn't have the attention to get over the finish line. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate and perhaps work with BLZ to see if their concerns were met. --Laser brain (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 3 June 2019 [13].

A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about a season two episode of the American dramedy Ugly Betty. A loose adaptation of the Colombian telenovela Yo soy Betty, la fea, the show is about a young Latina woman who works at the fashion magazine MODE even though she does not fit their expectations of beauty and style. This particular episode is about the wedding of Bradford Meade and Wilhelmina Slater and Ignacio Suarez's United States citizenship ceremony. Victoria Beckham guest-stars as Wilhelmina's maid of honor who steals attention from the wedding, and her Spice Girls nickname (Posh Spice) is referenced in the title. The initial broadcast was viewed by 10.9 million viewers, and the episode was well received by critics. The scenes about Ignacio's citizenship ceremony attracted attention from academic scholars.

I would greatly appreciate any recommendations to improve the article. I have done FACs on television episode articles in the past, but I would like to continue to grow as an editor through constructive feedback. I hope that this nomination encourages other editors to work on television episode articles, and maybe even bring them through the FAC process too. The above article had a wonderful GAN review and a copy-edit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I hope everyone has a wonderful day and/or night. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "It was written Silvio Horta and Marco Pennette, and directed by James Hayman." A 'by' is missing after 'written'.
  • Apologies for that mistake. I am not sure how I kept reading over that lol. I have fixed it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wang designed Wilhelmina's wedding dress, which was toned down upon Williams' request, and Beckham's bridesmaid dress." I think the last bit is confusing.
  • Understandable. I have revised it to hopefully be clearer, but please let me know if further revision is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding" runs for approximately 43 minutes". I feel it can be rephrased as '"A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding" has a runtime of approximately 43 minutes.'
  • Revised. That is a much better phrasing so thank you for the recommendation! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the production section. "it was written Silvio Horta and Marco Pennette." Again 'by' is missing before the writers.
  • Apparently, I just do not like the word "by" lol. I have added it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Good work on the article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Yashthepunisher: Thank you for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a great rest of your night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal request
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 June 2019 [14].

Black Skinhead edit

Nominator(s): Kyle Peake (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the song "Black Skinhead" by American rapper Kanye West from his studio album Yeezus. I have nominated this for FA status as I had worked on it enough in the past to get the article accepted as a GA and have since worked on it heavily; look on revision history and I believe it is in-depth enough to become an FA. Also, the song is debatebly the most notable from West's album, as it charted in numerous countries, went Platinum in three and has received much media attention that is covered in the article from reliable sources. If anyone has improvements to be made, please tell me. Kyle Peake (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are problems with fused participles throughout the article (see WP:PLUSING). I suggest ironing them out. Graham Beards (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose

  • The lead says little about what the song is actually like, and instead features interminable lists of names of co-producers, festivals, award shows, cover artists and countries. This is very banal information that is best relegated to the body of the article. For much more interesting leads look at "Under the Bridge" or "Today".
  • The Composition section features unquoted sentences ("These lines use a simple aesthetic touch to envelope the character played by West on Yeezus in black, rugged gear", "the mind of Yeezus mutates the external idea of God into an internal one") that are far too similar to the source ("This seemingly simple aesthetic touch—to envelope the character of Yeezus (the central figure on the album) in black, rugged gear", "But the twisted, egomaniacal mind of Yeezus mutates the external idea of God into an internal one."). A thorough audit for close paraphrasing is needed throughout the article. Also, since the source is basically offering analysis/opinion, you need to attribute the ideas to the critic; they're not simply facts.

I'll stop here. Listing out everything that's wrong with the article is neither feasible nor within the scope of an FAC. Especially since I believe that this article is fundamentally flawed (undeserving of even GA status: the review was very superficial), and needs a thorough top-to-bottom reworking and rewriting.—indopug (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to agree with Indopug on this. Can I suggest you withdraw this and bring it back after a full copyedit? The prose is just not up to scratch for an FA. - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • SchroCat I have requested a codyedit now and how do you undo a nomination? Kyle Peake (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good decision, Kyle Peake. If you ping the co-ords with {{@FAC}} And let them know, they’ll sort the administrative side. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2019&oldid=903564702"