Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2022

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2022 [1].

2021 British Open edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first snooker event of the 2021-22 snooker season. The British Open returned to the calendar after 17 years away! There was two maximum breaks, and was won by a dazzling Mark Williams. First round contest between seperated couple Mark Allen and Reanne Evans had some controversy as Evans refused to shake hands.

A really great event. A little shorter than some of my other events, due to the shortened frame lengths, but nothing should be missing. Let me know your thoughts Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review not sure about File:British Open 2021 Poster.jpg. This is not like an album cover or official logo; it's unclear how many people have seen this poster and to what extent it is necessary to identify the event. Other image licensing looks ok. (t · c) buidhe 18:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note: We're almost at 3 weeks and without progress towards promotion the nomination is likely to be archived in the next few days. (t · c) buidhe 12:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's been a fortnight and the nom seems to have stalled, so I'm going to archive. Given there was only one comprehensive review I'm prepared to reduce the usual two-week pause before a new nom to one week -- I don't think throwing straight back into the mix will help much. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose edit

  • Some inconsistency between BBC/BBC Sport/bbc.co.uk in ref formatting
  • Inconsistency in whether sites are referred to by name or url, e.g. The Guardian, and Eurosport; but also www.sportinglife.com and www.scotsman.com
  • Why "|quote=Sport Cast" for ref name="wst._HowT" ?
  • Capital T for the Guardian.

Format

  • Suggest moving ref after "won by Alex Higgins," to after won by "Silvino Francisco" as the 1980 source can't verify that the British Gold Cup was later the British Open.
  • "which changed names" seems awkward straight after "Higgins,"
  • "broadcast by: ITV Sport" - ITV4 according to the source. Looks like ITV Sport is a producer rather than broadcaster.
  • Why are some broadccasters redlinked and others not?
    • So I've done some research, and these are the ones I might be able to make an article about. The other ones I'm less sure of. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs [5][2] are out of order. (Porbably look at this after other changes, in case sequence changes)
  • "Matches were played as the best-of-five frames, until the quarter-finals and semi-finals, which were played as best-of-seven-frame matches, and the final as a best-of-eleven" - doesn't quite work, I feel. Maybe "..matches. The final was best-of-eleven."?

Tournament summary

  • "maximum break in the first frame" - I like commas so would have "maximum break, in the first frame", but you can wait and see what better writers say.
  • "The pair who had fought over child maintenance, had their first professional meeting at the event" - comma after pair. Maybe a different word like "players" instead of "pair" here, given the context?
  • I'm not sure about "fought over child maintenance", might benefit from rewording
  • "but missed match ball" - feels like it's missing a word
  • "allowing Allen to win the contest" - probably add that he had to pot something to do this; it wasn't automatic after Evans missed.
  • "Both of the finalists of the 2021 World Snooker Championship, Shaun Murphy and Mark Selby met in the first round." How about "The finalists from the 2021 World Snooker Championship, ..."?
  • "his first main tournament win since retiring in 2012" - add something about him coming out of retirment, for people who donp;t pay close attention to his career.
  • "behind to Dominic Dale to win 3–2." Could reword to avoid the to-to.
  • "after missing a shot, because the red ball had a stray hair on it." - expand slightly. It wasn't a direct cause, was it?
  • "but lost 0–3 as neither player made a break above 50" - I'd prefer "but lost 0–3. Neither player made a break above 50"
  • "Trump played Elliot Slessor, but lost 2–3" - why "but"? Same question for "Wilson played Slessor, but trailed 0–2" and, in the picture caption, "but lost 2–3"
  • "3–1 win over defending champion Higgins" - "defending champion" was mentioned in the first paragraph of the section, so can probably be removed here.
  • "the sole player remaining within the top 16" - how about "the sole player from the top 16 remaining"?
  • Could wikilink 1997 to 1997 British Open in the body.
  • Could, optionally, add a cuegloss link to "deciding frame"

Tournament draw

  • "Kurt Maflin withdrew from the event (denoted by w/d), his opponent received a walkover (w/o)" - use a full stop rather than a comma, or add something like "so"
  • I suggest adding the direct link to the final score ([2]) as a reference to the final.
  • Add an explanation of the bold and parenthesised numbers in the final. (The intro only has "players in bold denote match winners.")
  • What's the source for "Referee: Leo Scullion"?

Infobox and Lead

  • "It was the 27th edition of the British Open event," doesn't seem to be cited in the body
  • "this broke with the tradition of most ranking tournaments which use a seeded draw under single-elimination tournament format." isn't covered in the article body

Comments above, Lee Vilenski. As always, feel free to challenge any. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2022 [3].

Obergefell v. Hodges edit

Nominator(s): aaronneallucas

This article is about a 2015 landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The court ruled that banning same-sex marriage violated the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion.

  • Oppose and suggesting withdrawal: Hi there! Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is your first FA nomination. I see that you have made just one edit to the page in the June last year, changing its short description. Do you have access to all the sources, have you verified them for source-to-text integrity and/or closed paraphrasing (#1f)? Speaking about source, is the article a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (#1c)? On length, it appears fine, but on a quick Google Scholar search, I found [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. etc., sources, most of which appear not to be cited. The further reading sources should be cited as well. The prose also have various issues like overlinking and structural issues (Why do we have Pavan v. Smith as the only sub-heading under "Subsequent cases"?). Suggesting you to work on the article, take it to GAN and PR, and re-nominate later. Currently, it does not meet various criteria. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article has good structure, but relies way too heavily on the actual court cases (WP:PRIMARY sources) and seems to cite zero legal scholarship, of which there is abundance. This needs weeks of work, and the nomination should be preferably carried out by someone with demonstrated familiarity with most of the sources cited. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 23 May 2022 [10].

Jim Jones edit

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most infamous Indiana native of all time, Jim Jones. Jones and the events that transpired at his remote jungle commune in 1978 have had a defining influence on society's perception of cults. I have spent the past several months improving this article, and I hope you will see that reflected in its quality. I will do my best to promptly respond to any issues you identify. The biggest challenge I have had is trimming this article back to meet the length criteria. The article has four main sub articles, and can be further trimmed if needed. Thank you for your review! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realmaxxver edit

Placeholder. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As a youth, Jones developed an affinity for Pentecostalism" → "As a child, Jones developed an affinity for Pentecostalism"
  • "He was ordained as a Christian minister in the Independent Assemblies of God and he attracted his first group of followers while he was participating in the Pentecostal Latter Rain movement and the Healing Revival during the 1950s." → "He was ordained as a Christian minister in the Independent Assemblies of God, attracting his first group of followers while participating in the Pentecostal Latter Rain movement and the Healing Revival during the 1950s."
  • "She gave Jones a Bible and encouraged him to study it and taught him to follow the holiness code of the Nazarene Church.[13][14]" feels like a run-on sentence, would suggest "She gave Jones a Bible and encouraged him to study it, teaching him to follow the holiness code of the Nazarene Church.[13][14]"
  • "and he was baptized by several of them.[15]" → "and was baptized by several of them.[15]"
  • "While he was attending a baseball game in Richmond, Indiana Jones was bothered by the treatment of African Americans who attended the game.[28] The events at the ball game brought discrimination against African Americans to Jones's attention and influenced his strong aversion to racism.[5]" → "While he was attending a baseball game in Richmond, Indiana, Jones was bothered by the treatment of African Americans who attended the game.[28] The events at that baseball game brought discrimination against African Americans to Jones's attention and influenced his strong aversion to racism.[5]"
  • "Jones's strong opposition to the Methodist church's racial segregationist practices was an early on strain their marriage.[38][39]" might have mixed up the words here; "Jones's strong opposition to the Methodist church's racial segregationist practices was an early strain on their marriage.[38][39]"
  • "In early 1952, Jones announced to his wife and her family that he would become a Methodist minister since he believed the church was ready to "put real socialism into practice."[46]" → "In early 1952, Jones announced to his wife and her family that he would become a Methodist minister, believing that the church was ready to "put real socialism into practice."[46]"
  • "In the summer of 1952, Jones was hired as student pastor to the children at the Sommerset Southside Methodist Church.[40] Jones launched a project to create a playground that would be open to children of all races.[48][49]" → "In the summer of 1952, Jones was hired as student pastor to the children at the Sommerset Southside Methodist Church,[40] where he launched a project to create a playground that would be open to children of all races.[48][49]"
Charles Edward ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? I've made all the suggested changes recommended above. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 23:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Have you let the reviewer know this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunate. It seems like there have not really been any significant attempt to review it at all. We can always try again later. :) Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 May 2022 [11].

Nimona edit

Nominator(s): HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the webcomic and graphic novel, Nimona. Written by ND Stevenson, it is a fantasy / science fiction story. The article passed GA status recently, and since then, a full plot summary has been added. The work is important as an example of webcomics receiving publishing deals, a key work by Stevenson, and an example of queer literature. It is also a timely article, as it was recently announced that a film adaptation of the work will be released in 2023.

This is my second nomination of this article. I withdrew the earlier one on the advice of my mentor in this matter, PresN, while a few matters were resolved. This article is the first I've ever nominated for Feature Article status, so this will be a learning exercise for me. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "and was also adapted into an audiobook." -> "and adapted into an audiobook." to avoid excess words.
  • "After Disney bought Fox, it cancelled the film, but the film was revived and is set to be released on Netflix in 2023." Too many instances of the word "film" in one sentence. Perhaps, "After Disney bought Fox, it cancelled the film, only to be later revived. It is set to be released on Netflix in 2023."
  • The plot section is quite long. I would expect this section to be four paragraphs, maximum, and probably even shorter. This should definitely be trimmed further.
  • Since the article uses plural pronouns to refer to Stevenson, I suggest that a note is added in the first instance, as I thought the instances of "they" was referring to multiple, unmentioned people.
  • "According to Stevenson, they combined this character with a Joan of Arc-inspired character that they were drawing at the time to create Nimona." -> "According to Stevenson, they combined the shapeshifter with a Joan of Arc-inspired character that they were drawing at the time to create Nimona." To remove multiple uses of "character"
  • "They were inspired to create Nimona's look based on their own experiences with cosplay:" -> "Nimona's look was inspired by their own experiences with cosplay:"
  • "Nimona has been well received." I don't think this is needed, as the subsequent awards will tell the reader that it was well-received, and the reviews in the next paragraph will describe critical reception.
  • I think the critical reception section needs expansion. Why did ioa and Paste give the designations they did? Were there any common themes of praise or criticism from the reception? The section also relies too heavily on quotes when describing what critics thought of the comic: by talking about common themes, the article might be able to summarise the information instead of using so many quotations.
  • "Professor Mihaela Precup considered the "queer references" Why is queer references in quotes? I don't think this is necessary and might fall into MOS:SCAREQUOTES (even if you are quoting the source)
  • "Queerness, identity, and challenging power" I feel this section also relies too heavily on quotes instead of summarising. Consider MOS:QUOTE which asks that they not be overused.
  • "Art style" I think this section can be moved into "Reception" as they are talking about their opinion on the art, not what style of art it presents.
  • "it was later delayed again to January 2022.[33][34][35][36][37][38] " Are six references necessary here? Consider moving some to earlier in the sentence (if they are to verify earlier information) removing some, or WP:CITEBUNDLE.
  • "Staff also stated that they received pushback from Disney leadership, centered around the film's LGBT themes.[40][41][42][43][44]" Same as above. The Twitter source should be considered for removal if other sources say the same thing, as Twitter is a primary source and considered less reliable.
  • Cite 9 lives links to Goodreads for the translations of the books. I am not a literary-FA expert, but I am unsure if those are acceptable in an FA. Please check with another editor who specialises in book articles.

Those are my comments. Please consult WP:RECEPTION for help with the reception parts of the article. I would suggest withdrawing this to give some time on working on the reception and analysis sections, so that you are not pressured to quickly make changes. If you withdraw and open a PR, please let me know and I will take a look. If you decide to keep this open, please ping me when you have made the changes. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @Z1720: for this review! My responses are below:
  • General rewording, particularly avoiding repetition of the same word: done as requested.
  • Plot summary length: I have cut the plot summary down to 577 words, which now sits comfortably within the WP:NOVELPLOT recommendations of 400 to 700 words. It has also been reduced to four paragraphs as suggested.
  • "us[ing] plural pronouns to refer to Stevenson": While "they" and them" are most often used to refer to multiple entities, these words are also used to refer to singular entities. As noted in this summary of Wikipedia's gender identity guidelines, "they/them pronouns are always acceptable in article space for subjects who have stated that they prefer them".
    • To clarify, I am not suggesting that "they/them" be replaced. Rather, I am suggesting that a note be added at the first instance, clarifying that these are the pronouns that Stevenson uses to avoid reader confusion. I wish they/them was more common and understood by readers, but society is not at a place where they/them pronouns are easily understood when referring to a single person, especially with English-language learners. The note will clarify they/them's usage in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing "Nimona has been well received." - done.
  • Reception and analysis: As recommended I've substantially rewritten this portion, summarising views on the work into common themes and reducing the number of direct quotes. I am concerned that it is much shorter now - do you think it adequately covers the analysis given by the sources?
    • I'm surprised that the "Reception" section has been removed. From what I've seen of literature articles, such as The Heart of Thomas and A Beautiful Crime, there is a "Themes" section (which for this article, would include "Queerness, identity, and challenging power") and a "Recepetion" section (which for this article would include "Art style" and "Awards"). The Reception section would include the awards that Nimona received, the opinions of the reviewers on how good/bad the graphic novel is, and why reviewers said it was good/bad. The "Themes' section will include an analysis of what the content talks about. There might be some overlap between these sections, so I suggest looking at Heart of Thomas and Beautiful Crime to determine how these articles structured these sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overciting: I've cut down the number of citations on any given sentence, including removing the citation to a tweet.
    • I will not oppose based on Overciting, but I do recommend that another look is taken for this. WP:OVERCITE is a good essay to read on this topic. My concern with overcitations and lots of footnotes together is that it makes it more difficult for the reader to determine which reference is verifying which sentence. For example, "One paper on the work concluded that it is "the blurring of boundaries", especially when it comes to institutions, bodies, and motivations, allows for these institutions to be undermined.[11][12][13][14][15][16]" This sentence quotes one paper, but uses six references to support it. As a reader, I would have to click through six references to find out which one has the quote that is cited in this sentence. This can be achieved by placing references after the sentence that they are verifying, instead of at the end of the paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing Goodreads - I've run those past my FA mentor and they are fine with this.

HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for this review. My responses are below:
  • Explanatory note about "they/them": I understand your point that a reader could misunderstand "they" and "them" as referring to multiple people. Certainly there are cases where a work of art is released under a pen name that looks like a single person's name but is actually a group. As with any situation where a word has multiple meanings, the text should minimise the risk of confusion, balancing this against making the text cumbersome or overly complicated. I think we disagree on where the balance lies; I think I feel the risk is lower and the concern about being cumbersome is higher.
Nevertheless, the risk of confusion can be reduced. To that end, I have edited the text (both in the header and in the first mention of Stevenson in the body) to make it clearer that ND Stevenson is one person prior to the use of "they" or similar. The main change is to replace "artist and writer" with "cartoonist", so that "artist and writer" can't be read as referring to two separate people. I've also expanded the caption on their photo (and the photo itself helps to establish that the creator is one person).
As mentioned before, I think my use of the singular they (with no explanatory footnote) is in line with the Manual of Style, though I admit the MOS does not give explicit guidelines around singular they, so if you feel I've misinterpreted the MOS, please let me know. Do you feel these edits satisfy your expectations of reducing confusion?
  • I'm satisfied with this solution, but encourage others to share their opinions on this if they feel inclined to do so. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception section: I've restored the Reception section, including adding back in some references removed in an earlier edit. As requested, I've tried to summarise the themes of the reviews rather than quoting each one.
    • This is a drastic improvement. I think the next step is to edit the section to avoid the "X said Y" format, as it is overused in this section (this is a common concern, and I have had problems with this in my own articles.) Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: It's my intention that the citations at the end of the Analysis paragraphs provide sources for the paragraphs, rather than just a sentence. Since I've summarised the academic analysis, I felt it didn't make much sense to put inline citations after every sentence, as this would involve too much repetition. If that's not proper citing, let me know and I'll adjust the inline citations appropriately.
    • Are all of the sources verifying all the information in the paragraph? If they are, they can be placed at the bottom of the paragraph. If they are not, then I suggest placing them after the sentence(s) the reference is verifying. Another, optional solution is to do a WP:CITEBUNDLE, though this is not necessary for my support. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HenryCrun15 (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded underneath your points above. The only thing holding me back from supporting is the "X said Y" formatting of the review section. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I've checked the citations at the end of the Analysis paragraph; not all actually related to the subject of the paragraph and I removed two citations. I've greatly reduced the "X said Y" style in the reception, though I've kept one quote for a point only one reviewer made. I think we're getting there! HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but at three weeks in with only a single general review, this nomination will have to be archived in a couple days if there is not substantial movement towards a consensus to promote. Hog Farm Talk 15:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been out of town since Z1720's latest review, in which they say only minor changes are needed. If I can have a couple more days to respond to these comments, that would be excellent. HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Olivaw-Daneel edit

  • I'm surprised by how short the reception section is. A quick Google search brought up reviews by The New York Times, The Independent and NPR, all of which are more in-depth than the currently cited sources (which are mostly short, 1-para reviews).
  • There are a couple of masters' theses cited in Analysis; these aren't usually RS. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
  • I agree with Z1720's comments on end-of-para overciting; placing refs closer to what they're sourcing would be better.
  • The National Book Award nomination seems significant enough to mention in the lead (as the Washington Post article indicates). Only 5 graphic novels have ever been shortlisted.
  • Can an image of the artwork be added under WP:NFCC? (See A Death in the Family, a recent comics FA, for example.) One possible image is the monster scene at the end of this CBR review, which praises the inking and brush strokes in those panels. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Five weeks in and the review seems to have stalled, so I'll be archiving shortly. I see both reviewers have expressed concern over the many citations at the end of the Analysis paragraphs, I would also recommend making the referencing more granular. Per FAC guidelines, pls refrain from nominating again until two weeks have passed. During that period, as well as tweaking the article per the latest review, it might be worth reaching out to WikiProject Comics and also Mike Christie for input; they could also be pinged for comment at the onset of a new FAC nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2022 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2022 [12].

Jews in Hong Kong edit

Nominator(s): — Golden call me maybe? 20:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish community of Hong Kong, although small, has played a great role in the development and history of the city. Taking root from two wealthy Baghdadi trader families of Sassoon and Kadoorie, the Jewish community experienced several waves of growth. As of 2019, there are about 5,000 Jews of different denominations living in Hong Kong.

I rewrote this article 3 months ago. It was reviewed and passed as a Good Article and also as a Did You Know 2 months ago. I nominated this article for FA back in early March but it was archived due to low participation. Since then, I've done quite a bit of work on the sourcing of the article and think it's ready to be renominated. — Golden call me maybe? 20:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging previous participators: A455bcd9, Kavyansh.Singh

  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found. (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some issues with opinions being stated as facts:
    • "Therefore, it is difficult to say with certainty that the dominant neutral attitude towards Jews means there is no latent antisemitism"[according to whom?]?
    • "the tone of the English-language press in Hong Kong has always been somewhat biased against Israel" -> the newspapers involved probably don't agree that they are biased. Furthermore, it's doubtful that purported bias against Israel belongs in the antisemitism section at all since this would require accepting certain controversial assumptions about what antisemitism is.
    • "One such case involved a Chinese bar owner who displayed photos of murdered Jews from a Nazi concentration camp in his bar" -> while in poor taste, the source suggests that the bar owner did it for shock value so whether the incident is motivated by antisemitism seems at least questionable.
  • "The two communities did not even pray together and buried the dead in different parts of the Jewish cemetery." well duh, Sephardim and Ashkenazim have different methods of worship and often maintain separate cemeteries. The article shouldn't make this sound surprising
  • "Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church" -> the name of the church is Missouri Synod or Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, there is no overall "Lutheran Church" organization that represents all Lutherans (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: Thanks for reviewing the article! I have now attributed the opinion sentence to Jonathan Goldstein and corrected the name of Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. About the bar incident, the source mentions it as an example of antisemitism in Hong Kong, so I believe it's fine to include. — Golden call me maybe? 21:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it should be removed (although arguably it is the kind of incident that does not merit mention in an overview article like this), but it would be more in keeping with NPOV to say that Jews complained about the incident rather than assert in Wikipedia voice that it's an example of antisemitism. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following needs to be removed: Jewish Virtual Library, not a RS; Forbes contributors, not RS; iUniverse, not RS.
  • If Karel Weiss is that prominent, why is the only source a brief blog with no credited author? What makes Jewish Historical Society of Hong Kong a high-quality reliable source?
  • He was apparently not that prominent as I didn't find any other information on him online. I've removed him from the article. — Golden call me maybe?
  • Some refs do not have the date in the ref, even news sources that should have a date.
  • Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture -> is the author correct or is there a different author for the Hong Kong entry? It says that Ehrlich is the editor not the author.
  • I read through every single article/book you suggested here (except China and Ashkenazic Jewry: Transcultural Encounters as it, from what I gathered from the preview, doesn't have that much new info about Hong Kong Jews) and expanded the article and improved the sourcing accordingly. Thanks a lot for these suggestions! — Golden call me maybe?

On this basis I'm going to oppose. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose, concerns have been reasonably addressed. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Hello again! I've addressed all of your points above, hopefully they're satisfactory. — Golden call me maybe? 20:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of criterion 1f. I came across this article at CopyPatrol: [13] (click "iThenticate report" to see what the bot found). Copying verbatim from a copyright source (2002) and presenting it as original prose isn't cool and I'm concerned about the possibility of more, from other sources. DanCherek (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DanCherek: Really sorry for that! I added the copyvio accidentally (I had copied it from the source to later paraphrase it but forgot a few parts that showed up in CopyPatrol) about 15 minutes before your comment here. It should be fixed now. — Golden call me maybe? 21:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, thanks for rewriting. DanCherek (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note: We're near the 3-week mark, so the article is likely to be archived in the next few days if there is no progress towards promotion. (t · c) buidhe 12:08, 15 May 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2022 [14].

National Front (UK) edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fascist political party that rose to become the fourth most electorally successful party in 1970s England. It has been a GA since 2018 and has been through FAC twice before (in 2018 and 2019), both times failing because it was just too long. Since then it has been trimmed down quite a bit, with sub-articles split off to enable that, and now pretty much fits within Wikipedia's wordcount guidelines (at just over 10,000 words). We only have one FA-rated article on a UK political party I believe (Referendum Party, which I brought through FAC in 2017), so it would be nice to bring that number up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

  • Given that the article is under 10,000 words, I would not oppose on this basis, but the history section seems rather longer than it needs to be. For the summary article, the history doesn't need to give details such as how Tyndall's book changed Chesterton's mind about BNP members, or the arguments about exactly where ex-LEL members thought the headquarters should be, or a detailed accounting of the vote percentages at multiple elections in the 1970s, for example.
    I've cut the sentence about Tyndall's book; I've also tried to trim back the paragraph discussing the 1970s vote percentages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but I was really suggesting that more could be cut -- those were just examples. I'll leave this unstruck for now, but see my other comment below about what the subject of the article is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1975 onward the party entered a steady decline": a bit vague -- do we mean that their vote share continued to drop? Or their membership? Or both? Both are mentioned in the next section, so perhaps we don't need this sentence at all.
  • A MoS issue: you have both unspaced em dashes and spaced en dashes; you have to pick one or the other. I also see some instances of spaced em dashes -- I would prefer that myself, but the MoS doesn't permit it.
    • I think I've ensured that unspaced em dashes are now used at every juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a mixture of historic present and imperfect for the historians: e.g. "historians characterise it" and "Martin Durham stating that", vs. "Michael Billig noted" and "Stan Taylor argued". I would suggest sticking with historic present, unless you're specifically talking about a point of view that the historian no longer holds.
    I've made some changes here, as in this edit. Do you think that that reads okay? In some instances I'm not sure about it and feel that the imperfect read better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reread and comment on the next pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the late 1970s, the "Populist" faction challenged the ex-GBM faction's dominance": this is written as if we don't have the history earlier in the article. I think you could make this 'According to Thurlow, the members of the "Populist" faction that challenged the ex-GBM faction's dominance in the late 1970s were "pseudo-Conservative racial populists"'.
  • I see in the "Ethnic nationalism" and "White supremacism" sections you talk about the NF in the past tense as well as the present: "The National Front is a British Nationalist party" but "NF members typically referred to themselves as...", for example. The party still exists, but here it sounds like you're sometimes talking about the current rump, and sometimes about earlier incarnations. I think this needs to be more clearly delineated.
    This is a tricky one to tackle, because virtually all of the specialist literature only treats the NF in its 1960s to 1980s form; it ignores the small group that continues to use the name "National Front" today. At the same time, the fact that a small group under that name still exists makes it technically incorrect to only use past tense terminology. I would lean towards making the text consistently past tense anyway, at least in these sections; do you think that that would be alright? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have realized that that's how the sources would be. That's a difficult question. It's almost as if the title of the article is misleading -- normally a political party article would be about the current state of the party, but in this case the current incarnation has few sources and would make for a short article. I suggested above that you shorten the history section some more, per summary style, but really the great majority of the article is a history section. One option would be to make the summary article History of the National Front (UK), with a couple of subarticles for the different periods of the history, plus individual (fairly short) articles for each incarnation, and a dab page for each version that called itself "National Front". I don't think I know the material well enough to make a confident recommendation, though, so I'll go ahead and finish the review, and come back to this point at the end. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pause there in case any of these comments lead you to make prose changes e.g. to tenses, and will continue once you've replied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look at this, Mike. I appreciate your keen eye. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to try to understand the overall sequence of mergers and splits, and figure out which groups can be referred to as the "National Front". Here's what I came up with -- is this accurate?

  • February 1967: League of Empire Loyalists and the 1960 version of the British National Party merge to become the first National Front. A faction of the Racial Preservation Society joins them though there is no formal merge.
  • June 1967: Greater Britain Movement disbands and its members are urged to join the NF.
  • June 1980: Tyndall forms the New National Front.
  • March 1982: The British National Party forms; presumably the NNF is disbanded at this point, as it doesn't appear to have been any sort of precursor entity to this BNP (which is unrelated to the 1960 BNP).
  • 1985: The opponents of the Strasserites split from the NF and form the Flag Group.
  • January 1987: The Flag Group adopts the name National Front. I'm not clear if it's name was "Flag National Front" or just "National Front", and "Flag NF" is just the way historians refer to it. Our Flag Group article says they didn't start using the "National Front" name till about 1989 (the 1989 Vauxhall by-election). That article references some other by-elections, and 1988 Epping Forest by-election says they were called "Independent National Front" at that point, for example.
  • Around the same time the Official National Front forms, I think as a rename of the NF. This leaves no organization just called the "National Front". Or does the word "Official" not appear in this groups name -- i.e. it's just an epithet?
  • 1990: The ONF disbands.
  • 1995: the Flag Group becomes the National Democrats, but a rump retains the name National Front. This is the current "National Front".

Is the above correct? If so, things that could be called the NF are:

  • (1) 1967 party merged from the LEL and first BNP. Becomes known as the OFficial National Front after the Flag Group split, and disbands in 1990.
  • (2) 1980 Tyndall's temporary NNF. Irrelevant or disbanded after 1982 formation of new BNP; this is really only a footnote in the history.
  • (3) 1987 Flag Group adopts the name NF. The ONF disbands in 1990, so the Flag Group is the only user of the name. Becomes the National Democrats in 1995.
  • (4) 1995 A part of the Flag Group refuses to go along with the change of name and is still known as the NF. This is the current version of the party.

If all this is correct, then I would say the NF/ONF lineage is (more or less) one party, and the Flag Group/Flag NF/current NF is another lineage. Out of all this, what is the topic of this article? If it's "everything that's ever been called the National Front", I don't think that's a good topic. If it's "the history of the British far right parties from 1966 to 1995", or something like that, then I think it doesn't have the right title at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Midnightblueowl what's your opinion on this? (t · c) buidhe 00:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a tricky one, because obviously it entails a fundamental reshaping of the article (and thus is not really the sort of thing normally discussed at an FAC). The article certainly does not represent "the history of the British far right parties from 1966 to 1995", because it does not include many of the smaller groups active at this time (Northern League etc), but I do accept Mike's point about the difficulties posed by a group that saw continual schisms. To be honest, I'm loathe to start splitting this article into multiple articles on different groups because I think that will cause more problems that it solves, but I'm also not sure how we can move on from here, at least not in the context of an FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that the right approach is probably not to have the narrative carried by lots of small articles on the individual groups, though of course the articles on those groups do have to exist. You're the expert, but just based on what I see here, I think the right approach might be to have a "British far right politics" history article or set of articles, and have that be where the main narrative runs. The individual party articles can then take some of the detail away from the overarching narrative, per summary style. I think it'll be tricky to get the balance right, because it's tempting to pull all the party details into the narrative, but the current article seems to me to fall between two stools. How about expanding the scope to include other parties such as the Northern League, and splitting it chronologically, so you have e.g. History of British far right politics 1966 - 1984 and History of British far right politics 1985 to present? (I picked 1984 at random.) Some sort of split would be necessary for length reasons. I should add I have very little to criticize in the current content of the article -- the material is well-researched and well-written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - at three weeks in with no general supports and questions about the scope of the article, this one is likely to be archived in a day or two without significant progress towards a consensus to promote. Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, can I get your thoughts on my comments above? I'm still not clear what the scope of the article is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. Sorry for the delay on getting back to you about this, I've not been active on Wikipedia lately. While I think it could help to have additional articles with the titles that you suggest, I would not want to see the present National Front article dismantled. I think that it does a fairly good job of summarising the political parties that use this name and I feel that any substantial alterations to it would probably result in a loss of quality rather than an improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point of view, but I'm not convinced this is the right way for Wikipedia to cover this topic. If you were coming to Wikipedia to read about far right UK politics for the last 60 years, this article clearly gives you a lot of information, but it doesn't tell you everything, and I can't imagine a way we could complete our coverage of the topic in a way that would make sense, unless were to reshape this article. From what you say, the topic of the article is "all parties that have ever been called National Front"; in Wikipedia's terms that's a set index article and I don't think is a suitable definition for a non-list article. I haven't decided whether to oppose or not; if I do oppose it would be on the basis of criteria 1b and 4 -- it's has either too much detail or too little detail, depending on what one thinks the topic of the article is. For now I'll wait and see what other reviewers say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh edit

Fantastic work on the article:

  • "It is currently led by Tony Martin" — Isn't Martin notable enough to red-link?
    • I don't know what our policy on redlinks in a lead is, but I think it would be best to avoid a redlink at such an early juncture of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although it gained a small number of local councillors through defections" — Link defection
  • "54 candidates were fielded at the February 1974 general election" — Avoid starting a sentence by a number
    • Do you mean that you think it should be written as "Fifty four" or that the number should be avoided altogether at the start of a sentence? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Fifty four" works, but yeah, if we can rephrase it, it'll be better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It nevertheless "flopped dismally" " — the prose should specify where this quote comes from
    • I've decided to reword this in Wikipedia voice as "performed badly". Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all in the History section. More to come soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "like the Union flag" — I think 'F' should be in uppercase.
  • "and ordained by God" — Do we need to link "God"?
  • "about... It is the" — I think we need {{Nbsp}} before the ellipsis.
  • "For instance, in 1974, several men put up NF posters in Brighton, assaulted individuals they accused of being Jewish and attacked the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) bookshop. The local NF branch denied involvement." — There should be a en-dash in "Marxist-Leninist"
  • "A 1977 survey by Essex University" — "A 1977 survey by the University of Essex"
  • "Along with Tyndall's BNP, the NF was the most significant far-right group in Britain in the second half of the 20th century" — According to whom?
  • "pp. 214–38" — should be 238 for consistency
  • I thinks all that "BBC News" citations should have "BBC News" under the |publisher parameter.

That is it. A very well researched article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Midnightblueowl. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to look at this, Kavyansh.Singh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with few minor quibbles above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - at well over a month in, there's still only a single general support. This nomination in liable to be archived in a couple days without significant further movement towards a consensus to promote. Hog Farm Talk 17:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. lack of consensus to promote (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 May 2022 [15].

Texas A&M University edit

Nominator(s): Buffs (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Texas A&M University and has sought extensive feedback since the previous nomination as advised to include literally every listed FA Mentor, a FAC peer review for over a month, and addressed each and every point brought up in the previous FAR/FARC/FAC. If there is something missing/in error/inappropriate/etc, please feel free to point it out and I will rapidly address any shortcomings. While I still contend that the previous discussions were prematurely closed, I still jumped through all the hoops as requested.

Other discussions not mentioned above

Thank you for your consideration Buffs (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D edit

Largely per my comments in the peer review. I was concerned by the nominator's dismissive and at times rude responses to some of them, and it's a shame they weren't addressed. In short, I'm concerned that:

  • The article does not cover the experiences of women and students from a minority background (it's noted only in passing that the uni went from an all white male institution to a very gender and ethnically diverse institution)
    Those experiences aren't very different than the average student in any educational setting. Moreover, this is an article about the University, not the student body. I responded to this criticism in the peer review and you chose not to further reply or work with me further on it. Complaining that I didn't address it is very misleading.
  • There is an over-emphasis on the experiances of the minority of the student population who live on campus
    That is the subject at hand: the school. What students do that is unaffiliated with the university seems to be an inappropriate addition to the article as it is outside the scope of the article.
  • It is incurious about some of the more unusual aspects of the university, most notably its militaristic flavour and range of rather old-fashioned 'traditions', and this isn't critically discussed.
    There are other wikilinked articles that do discuss this in more detail. Per WP:SUMMARY there is not enough space to discuss such points in any significant detail.
  • The article contains boosterism, and is not neutral.
    Which ones are not neutral? How would you suggest retaining such information while remaining neutral? Buffs (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their early efforts led to HHS awarding the school and affiliates the responsibility for coordinating the nationwide production of the approved vaccines for mass consumption" - I'm struggling to see where this is supported by the citation, which seems to attribute a more modest role to the 'CIADM' (helping coordinate the approval of vaccines, with some vaccine production also taking place on-campus) and notes that there is an equivalent body in Maryland that was also involved with COVID vaccines. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the entire paragraph. While it was a big deal at the time, WP:RECENTISM probably made it seem bigger. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for your "intro", I would ask you to remain WP:CIVIL calling me "rude" and "dismissive" is inherently uncivil and completely unnecessary. I responded to your comments and you chose not to reply. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to be rude and dismissive towards me, and your response to Sdkb below is worse. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a complaint about my behavior (in any way), this is not the forum. All of my responses have been to address what you suggested, queries for more information, or an explanation as to why I disagree with your assessment. That is a simple discussion, not "rude" or "dismissive". Buffs (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: Can you provide examples of what you think is missing with coverage in the available high quality sources? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my comments in the peer review, but as some examples:
      • There is almost nothing on how women or minority ethnic groups entered the university and their experiences
      • The material on the Lawrence Sullivan "Sul" Ross statue is poorly written, and never explains the concerns some people had about its presence on campus - the focus is on the views of the university administration (a common flaw throughout the article)
      • The research section reads like PR for the university, and fails to critically consider the issue of the university's research strengths and weaknesses. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I responded in the peer review. The idea that we have to have a section on how minorities were integrated, another on how women were integrated, etc seems unnecessary. They were not significant in the University's ~150 year history. Given that we are summarizing whole decades in a single sentence, such inclusion would fail WP:UNDUE. There is an entire separate article on the history of the school, that's where such specifics should belong or possibly even an additional sub article.
        • As for the research section, it focuses on what they do and how they are ranked. I'm unable to find any academic article that "critically considers the issues of a university's research strengths and weaknesses". I'm unable to find any significant coverage of weaknesses since few people report on what a University doesn't do. As previously requested, if you can find something that discusses such critical commentary, I will be happy to integrate it. Until then, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, not what we think the body of articles about a given subject should be.
        • As for Ross's statue, I've added a wikilink which expounds in more detail. If there is something specific about the sentence or is unclear, please clarify. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Sdkb edit

There is some extensive history here, given the rather arduous 5-month-long FAR, but I tried to approach this with an open mind. Here are my comments, beginning with the lead:

  • "Fall 2021" violates MOS:SEASONS—not all readers are in the northern hemisphere. Recommend "fall 2021 semester" throughout the article to remedy. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:SEASONS states "Referring to a season by name is appropriate when it is part of a formal or conventional name or designation". In the United States, There are generally two semesters separated by Fall and Spring. This terminology is determined by the US Dept of Education and, as such, is the conventional name for the semester. Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As previously raised at the FAR, I'm highly skeptical that being a space grant institution is important enough to warrant mention in the first paragraph of the lead, and that the land/sea/space factoid there is anything other than boosterism. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioning it's a land and sea grant school, but omitting it's a space-grant school in the lead seems like an unnecessarily omission. Given that it's the only one with all 3, that's of note, not boosterism. If you want that removed from the lead, just say the word and I'll do it/remove it yourself and I won't oppose. Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As previously raised at the FAR, why is sports in the very first paragraph, rather than with the rest of student life in the last lead paragraph? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained, the most publicly facing/exposed portion of the school is its athletics program. As such, it's (appropriately) in the lead. If you want to argue about placement within the lead, that's pretty much semantics and I'll move it where ever you want. Please clarify. Buffs (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the Carnegie Classification needs an "as of" attached, as it's not the sort of thing that changes year to year. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, but others have complained, so it was added. No one can possibly address such opposition (some want it added and others want it removed). I'm happy with either one, but this sort of standard is impossible to achieve if this is the feedback. Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comma is very definitely needed after "and scope"; I've gone ahead and added it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    appreciated, thank you. Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same text, "Corps of Cadets", is linked twice in the lead, once to the specific link and once to a general article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The A.M.C. abbreviation is introduced twice. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is mentioned twice in the lead, once for clarification as to what the abbreviation AMC stands for and second for what A&M stands for...two different things. Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't Traditions of Texas A&M University linked in the sentence Many students also observe various university traditions which govern conduct in daily life and sporting events? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken, added. Buffs (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Senior military college" is uncapitalized in the infobox and at its own article, but capitalized in the lead prose. To what extent is it a formal title? This should be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If being a senior military college is important enough to go in the type parameter of the infobox, why is it left until the end of the lead? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt it was a good point to conclude it on. You seem to be assigning importance and emphasis based on where things are mentioned in the lead (beginning = more important, end=less important). WP:LEAD has no such requirement. It states "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic".
  • The student body is discussed mainly in the last paragraph of the lead, except for the factoid about being the largest, which is put way up top. I'd recommend against splitting like this, especially given the boosterism concerns. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't realize this reply wasn't saved. It is known for being the largest. That's probably worth leading with even if we don't discuss it directly. Splitting it up a little adds some variation to the order without being a point-by-point summary of the article in the same order. Do you disagree? Is this a preference issue or is it an WP:MOS issue I'm unaware of? Buffs (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox has discrepancies in the establishment year. It's explained in a footnote that both 1871 and 1876 can be considered the establishment year, but 1876 is used for |established= whereas 1871 is used for the former names field. We need to be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a discrepancy. The institution was given the name "the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas" in 1871 under Texas law. Omitting that fact would be misleading. The inconsistency is clearly explained and is a function of the ambiguities of the term "established". Added an additional note with the exact same references. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As previously raised at the FAR, two references shouldn't be needed to support |established=, as this information should be in the body and thus isn't needed in the lead at all per WP:LEADCITE. They're both from the university, one appears to be a dead version of the other, and the quote isn't needed when there's also an explanatory footnote. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one voiced such objection in the linked review. As for "there don't need to be two references", extra one deleted as requested. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanatory footnote for |established= notes on the 1876 date for the seal This is not a discrepancy, as though |established= has 1871, but it has 1876. It needs to be rewritten. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very vague, but ok. Done. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • |academic_affiliations= is only for affiliations that provide essential definition of the institution. What makes e.g. CONAHEC qualify for that? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dropped CONAHEC. Are you looking for a justification of each inclusion? Buffs (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a missing space between the parentheticals in the infobox; I've corrected this for you as well. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Buffs (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are years given for the student counts but not the faculty counts in the infobox? I can see arguments for/against, but both are equally variable, so we should be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, added. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Main Campus" is capitalized in footnote 2 but not in the rest of the article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless "Midsize City" is some sort of formal term, "city" should not be capitalized in the infobox. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annual budget is missing from the infobox. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are dozens of parameters that are not used in this infobox. Such inclusion is generally determined by consensus, but no parameter is specifically required. Is the annual budget somehow required to be in the infobox? I looked at all the SEC schools for additional examples (at a glance, other schools seem to have a similar percentages with a bias toward smaller schools including it and larger schools excluding it). Less than a third include it in the infobox. Two more mention it in their article, but do not have it in the infobox. Schools are generally ranked by their total endowment, not their annual operating budget. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of issues in this important section alone, and that several were previously raised at the FAR and went unaddressed, I have to oppose at this time. I would suggest that the nominator first review the extremely extensive feedback that has been generously provided to them by others and address the outstanding issues. They should then go over the entire article to comb it for possible errors or improvements—it is evident that they have not done this, as several issues above would have been easily spotted during such a review. After that has been completed, the GAN and GOCE processes can provide further feedback. Only then should this be brought back here, ideally alongside a mentor. I'm sorry to have to land here after the nominator has put in so much effort on this article, but FAs need to represent our best work, and this article is regrettably not there yet. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of actual technical problems (capitalization and commas for example...such feedback is appropriate and quite helpful as were the corrections [THANK YOU!]),
As for the rest, it is very difficult to read it as anything more than condescending remarks:
  • "I would suggest that the nominator first review the extremely extensive feedback that has been generously provided to them by others and address the outstanding issues.
    I have literally gone through and "addressed" 100% of the outstanding "issues". Some of that "addressing" includes asking for clarification and/or explaining why it shouldn't be done. A great example is when one person asks for more references and another asks for me to trim the number of references, it is completely impossible to address both points to everyone's satisfaction and a discussion should ensue. That doesn't mean such concerns were "unaddressed". Despite repeated requests on my part, such discussions never happened. "Addressed" means changes were made OR a response was given.
  • "They should then go over the entire article to comb it for possible errors or improvements—it is evident that they have not done this, as several issues above would have been easily spotted during such a review."
    Of the 17 points you brought up that were "new" (not in the previous FAR), literally all were present in previous versions. The idea that they would have been "easily spotted during such a review" is laughable considering no one in the past year has spotted them in five separate reviews (including yours). Of the 3 points that were allegedly repeats, I replied to your space grant points during the previous review and you offered no further objections. Furthermore, the source you cite as your rationale for removing such references (WP:LEADCITE) states "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Making demands for me to follow your personal preferences despite policy which contradicts you and pretending I haven't done anything when you haven't replied in almost 6 months is more than a little disingenuous and feels maliciously misleading.
  • "Only then should this be brought back here, ideally alongside a mentor."
    I've literally asked every single FA mentor. Most couldn't be bothered to reply and none were willing to serve in such a capacity...this is another example of an alleged point that wasn't accomplished, but is impossible to actually achieve. By this logic, the article will never achieve FA status, but not due to quality.
You claim points from the FARC/FAR/etc were "unaddressed", but I have literally responded to every point you brought up. In many you claim were "unaddressed", I asked for further clarification and you/others did not respond.
WP is supposed to have a collegial atmosphere. This interaction feels much more like an adversarial interaction or a circus where I'm a caged tiger expected to jump through every hoop tossed in my direction regardless of the validity of the concern or contravening policies of WP. I'm certainly willing to discuss and come to a consensus on such points, but the idea that everyone coming to FA must acquiesce to the whims of all other editors without consideration as to whether it is a valid point is antithetical to WP's functional procedures. Asking questions/voicing concerns/explaining my rationale about such points is not hostility, but clarification and part of the consensus process. You need to be willing to discuss such points rather than "do X" and anything short of caving to your demands means it "wasn't addressed". Buffs (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for @FAC coordinators: - I'm recusing myself of any coordination actions here because I was highly involved in the FAR. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Given the strong opposes above I am archiving this. I suggest that the helpful comments by the opposers - and those by others - are taken more fully on board before this returns to FAC. The usual two-week wait will apply.

  • @Gog the Mild: What the hell? The "strong opposes" with outstanding clarification requested for months from TWO people vs the THREE that support it? You consider insults "helpful"? Literally every objection has been addressed (led to a change or a reasonable explanation offered) and the objectors have not responded. Buffs (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 May 2022 [16].

James Davis (printer) edit

Nominator(s): Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about, James Davis (printer) the first postmaster of the colony of North Carolina. He was also the founder and printer of the North-Carolina Gazette, North Carolina colony's first newspaper. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I've copyedited; let me know if you disagree with any of the changes.

  • I think giving the move to New Bern in the "Early and family life" section is confusing; it gets repeated in the "Printing career" section. I think it would make more sense to cut the mention of the move to New Bern from the first section, and also move the mention of his acquisition of property there into the next section, where it makes more chronological sense.
  • Also in the first section it appears Thomas took over the business in 1785, but from the account lower down it appears he must have done so in 1782.
  • I think some tightening is needed. In ≤some places the material you cover seems trivial, or stated wordily. Some examples:
    • "In 1751, as the official printer for the colony, Davis completed an edition of the Laws of North Carolina. It consisted of one volume in folio, and contained five hundred and eighty pages" -> "Davis printed a 580-page folio edition of the Laws of North Carolina". Presumably that title should be in italics? You don't need to say he does this because he's the official printer; we already know that.
    • "At the age of 28, he became the first printer to set up a print shop in that colony in New Bern" followed a couple of sentences later by "On June 24, 1749, he began setting up his print shop on Pollock Street in New Bern". And the second sentence adds "which included his printing press, which he had acquired while in Virginia"; it would be more natural, and shorter, to say he already owned a press when mentioning his move from Virginia.
    • "subsequently was given a commission as a magistrate, during the administration of William Tryon, governor of North Carolina from 1764 to 1771" -> "was given a commission as a magistrate by North Carolina's governor, William Tryon".
    • "Just before and during the American Revolution, paper became scarce, and hence expensive, while delivery costs also rose sharply because of inflation. Davis appealed to the General Assembly for more money to print North Carolina's laws but their budget could not provide Davis with the money he required to keep his printing establishment solvent. Subsequently Davis was forced to resign his position to avert any continued loss of money." -> "Just before and during the American Revolution, paper became scarce, and hence expensive, and delivery costs also rose sharply. Davis appealed to the General Assembly for more money to print North Carolina's laws but they could not pay Davis as much as the laws cost him to print, and he was forced to resign as official printer."
  • There are also some minor punctuation tweaks needed; normally I'd fix these myself but I since I am going to suggest a copyeditor take a look at the article they should be able to resolve these. For example "paper money, (promissory notes), for..." has parentheses and parenthetical commas; you need one or the other, but not both. These are minor but do need to be fixed.
  • 'The Gazette earned Davis the title, "The Father of Journalism in North Carolina".' I think we need to attribute this a bit more; is he generally known that way in all histories of the state, or is this a bit of purple prose from one historian?

Oppose on prose. I've only skimmed the second half of the article; the oppose is based on what I saw in just the first half. The research has clearly been done, but I think a copyedit by someone who has licence to tighten and reorganize would help a good deal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Thanks for taking on this review. I've begun editing the prose and so forth per your recommendations and will ping you again when I've addressed all the issues in question. Thanks also for your edits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I qualified the term "The Father of Journalism in North Carolina" as coming from a North Carolina historian. Since Davis is the one who established North Carolina's first printing operation and Newspaper the tribute seems appropriate as it exemplifies Davis' primer role and his industry . However, if you insist I'll omit this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a quick search, these are the sources I found that refer to Davis as the father of journalism in N.C.
— Book: History of North Carolina: The colonial and revolutionary periods
— University of North Carolina
— Book: North Carolina: a guide to the old north state
If you still feel this is not enough to refer to Davis as such I'll remove the statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to hold off on reading through again and taking a look at the fixes till another reviewer has taken a look. The article will need multiple supports for promotion, so if another reviewer supports I'll revisit at that point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, meanwhile I'll continue to look for any other issues and needed tweaks, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but at about three weeks in and with no general supports and an outstanding oppose, this one will have to be archived in a couple days if significant progress towards a consensus to promote does not form. Hog Farm Talk 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: The article was nominated on April 20, but the review was just started up a couple of days ago. I'm hoping that we can get at least a few more days, as all the issues brought to my attention have been addressed, along with a few other improvements made. Also, does it require more than one reviewer to approve the article for FA? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At a minimum, it requires three general supports, a formal source review, and a formal image review, but more than three supports can be asked for depending on the circumstances.Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds appropriate. Since reviews seem to take a long time even getting started, I'm hoping enough time will be allowed to get other reviewers to this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FACs aren't kept open indefinitely in wait for reviews, and are archived if they aren't getting reviews after a certain amount of time. If progress towards a consensus to promote is not forthcoming over the next several days, I'm sorry but it will still need to be archived and then renominated (although if it has to be archived without getting any further reviews, I'd be willing to waive the renomination waiting period). Hopefully it doesn't require that, but if it does have to be archived, it would probably be best to get a few reviewers lined up. I don't know how active the project is, but have you tried leaving a neutrally worded message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Carolina? Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I'll drop a word in the N.C. project, and maybe one at another appropriate location, not sure where else a the moment. Many thanks for your advice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hog Farm:, I've left notices requesting reviewers at three different places: ( 1, 2, 3 ). Hopefully this effort will pan out in time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to archive this one. There's normally a two-week wait between taking another article to FAC after an archival, but I'm waiving that here due to the minimal feedback. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 18 May 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 10 May 2022 [17].

American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American services and supply during the Siegfried Line campaign, which ran from September to December 1944. Problems with port capacity and transportation created many shortages, while others were the result of underestimating requirements and mismanagement.

A critical shortage of winter clothing developed from a reluctance to accept new items and a failure to order adequate quantities in the mistaken belief that the war would end before it was required. The winter of 1944–1945 in Northwestern Europe was unusually cold and wet, and American soldiers were not trained in how to avoid cold injury. The American forces suffered from trench foot and frostbite, which resulted in 71,000 casualties.

Artillery ammunition shortages developed in the early days of the campaign that increased casualties, delayed operations and lengthened the war. The specific causes of the shortage of artillery ammunition caused by insufficient port capacity, over-stretched supply lines, and insufficient production. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: As this article has attracted no reviews, I would like to withdraw it at this time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Since there were no comments, 2-week pause does not apply. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 10 May 2022 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 8 May 2022 [18].

Euphoria (American TV series) edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe this article is worthy of FA. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG edit

A quick scan of the article reveals several problems.

  • "The series follows Rue Bennett (Zendaya), a recovering teenage drug addict who struggles to find her place in the world, and follows a group" - repetitive writing.
  • "Euphoria premiered on June 16, 2019. In July 2019" - ending a sentence with a date and starting the next with another date is not a good writing.
  • "In a meeting with Orsi, he recalled: "We just had a conversation about just life and her life and my life and various struggles that, you know, we've been through and things and she said, 'Great, you know, well go and write that' and I said 'What?' and she goes 'Everything we just talked about' [sic]"." I'm not sure why you have placed a sic here. The quote seems fine and I see no error anywhere.
  • "Levinson has also cited teenage anxiety as a whole as an influence for the series: "There is this consistent anxiety that I think exists in this generation that I think informed the whole filmmaking process".[9]" Watch for MOS:LQ here.
  • "It has 16 executive producers, including Levinson, Leshem, Levin, Yardeni, Hadas Mozes Lichtenstein, Mirit Toovi, Yoram Mokadi, Gary Lennon, Zendaya, and Canadian rapper Drake.[10][12] Additional executive producers include Future the Prince, Ravi Nandan, and Kevin Turen." I'm not sure why you need to include the last three exec-producers in a separate sentence. They can be included with the rest.
  • "Levinson has served as Euphoria's showrunner since its premiere, and has written every episode,[13] and with the exception of the pilot and the season one episode "03 Bonnie and Clyde", has also directed every episode." Awkward sentence.
  • There's a when tag in the casting section.
  • For a high-profile show focusing on such controversial topics, I would expect there to be a lot of analyses from credible sources. A quick Google search revealed many sources worth using. Two examples of well-written and in-depth analysis of the show:
    • Masanet, Maria-Jose; Ventura, Rafael; Ballesté, Eduard (2022). "Beyond the "Trans Fact"? Trans Representation in the Teen Series Euphoria: Complexity, Recognition, and Comfort". Social Inclusion. 10 (2): 143–155. doi:10.17645/si.v10i2.4926. ISSN 2183-2803.
    • Seitz, Matt Zoller (20 February 2022). "The Sublime Narcissism of Euphoria". Vulture.
  • I suspect there is more information available on the show's production. I didn't conduct any personal research on this so I could be wrong here but based on the show's popularity, I'm almost certain there is a lot more to find.
  • Awards table needs row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. (Comment copied from PresN's standard comment on FLCs.)
  • Some formatting issues in sources (ref. 104: www.bafta.org should be British Academy of Film and Television Arts, www.tvcritics.org should be Television Critics Association, WP:SHOUTING in ref. 121)
  • How are sources like Programming Insider and Papermag high-quality reliable?
  • The critical reception section is mainly about quoting summaries of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Other than that, it cites only six reviews by individuals. There are many, many other reviews available.

Oppose on several criteria. I'm afraid this is currently nowhere near the FA standards. I recommend withdrawal as it requires a lot of work. FrB.TG (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of the issues here. Unfortunately, there's not enough reputable sources to be able to fix some of the problems you've suggested, and I have thought of them. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree with that. The two sources I suggested above analyzing the show’s themes came up as a result of very quick Google searches. I find it very hard to believe that a show as popular and impactful as Euphoria does not have credible sources writing about it. Maybe you just didn’t look deep in to the material. The representation of a transgender character alone has been studied by academics here and in the journal I suggested above. Look here and here about the show's influence. Again, these sources are in no way thorough representation of the relevant sources. This is me barely scratching the surface. If I did a more through research, I would find tens of other useful sources.
Looking through the article again, I noticed we do not have a section discussing the show’s impact at all. The article is also in need of a synopsis/plot section explaining the show’s plot in a few sentences. The more I look here, the more issues come up. I am sorry but given its current state, it has a long way to reach the FA standards. FrB.TG (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2022 (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/May_2022&oldid=1090823533"