Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2023

< 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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2023 [1].

Glyptodon edit

Nominator(s): AFH (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw this article and put it through peer review first. AFH (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: ↑ Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Glyptodon, a genus of large, extinct armadillo that lived during the Pliocene and Pleistocene in South America. It was one of the first fossil animals named from the New World and is a characteristic genus of Ice Age megafauna, being commonly found in sites across South America. It was the first fossil armadillo ever named and one of the first fossil discoveries recorded from the Americas. I strived over several months to bring this article in addition to the article for its relative Glyptotherium. This is my first featured article nomination, though I have gotten several articles to good status.

Buidhe
  • I have noticed the opposite problem more often on Wikipedia, but some of the paragraphs in this article read too long and for me the readability would be improved with shorter paragraphs. For example, the first non lead paragraph is 464 words which is considered quite long. A lot of writing authorities will recommend around 200 words, in my opinion it does not need to be that short but splitting up some of your longer paragraphs could improve readability.

(t · c) buidhe 03:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review. Hi AFH, welcome to FAC. Some issues with regards to images:

  • Avoid sandwiching text between images, per MOS:SANDWICH
  • Don't use fixed px size for images, per MOS:UPRIGHT. I'd also suggest a review for other Manual of Style issues throughout, as a few more caught my eye as I was pulling up images - for example, ranges should use endashes instead of hyphens.
  • Suggest adding alt text - see WP:ALT
  • File:Glyptotherium_%26_Glyptodon_Distribution_Map.png: see MOS:COLOUR
  • File:Georges_Cuvier.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Hunterian_Museum_London_1842.png, File:Glyptodon_Owen_1839.png
  • File:Richard_Owen_original.jpg: the license given here doesn't match what's at the source
  • File:Glyptodon_(Riha2000).jpg was rejected as a valued image for being cartoonish - is there sourcing to support it? ditto File:Peltephilus_ferox.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CMD
  • "Bargo M. S. Vizcaíno S. F." source should be reformatted like the other journal citations, rather than as a researchgate web citation.
  • The "Paleontology database" and "Fossilworks" citations appear to be the same page hosted differently? If so, perhaps best to combine the sources and point to the most appropriate link.
  • "Gillette & Ray 1981" is cited three times as a shortform citation, and five times as a longform citation. Suggest combining all to the longform, as that is the format used for all the other sources.
  • (edit conflict) The teeth image has an odd comment but it is not by the uploader. The image that sticks out is File:Richard Owen original.jpg, which is uploaded as CC BY-SA 4.0 but was released by the National Portrait Gallery as CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. However, its listed authors were born in 1822 (died 1881) and 1833 (couldn't find death date at a quick look, but going to be more than 70 years ago), so the image is almost certainly public domain. CMD (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will replace this image of Owen with one with a correct copyright. As for the teeth image, should I replace it with one without a comment or more background information? There are several images in Owen (1865) that could be utilized. AFH (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is scientifically accurate and lacks any major problems, so I believe it is okay to use on the page. AFH (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the teeth image is accurate it should be good, the description does not have a bearing on its use in this article and the licence seems fine. CMD (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2023 (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) 29 May 2023 [2].

Samarium edit

Nominator(s): 141Pr {contribs} 09:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lanthanide with interesting properties; used in magnets, nuclear reactors, catalysts .etc. I sent this article to a PR a few months ago, and addressed ComplexRational's comments on the article. Hopefully, this article will continue to improve and be FA! :) 141Pr {contribs} 09:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Praseodymium, I gather this would be your first FA if successful, in which case welcome...! As a reminder for reviewers and fellow coords, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing will be required at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Casliber edit

  • Good to see an element - will take a look soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dumb question, is the convention to write "samarium(II)" without a space before the first parenthesis? Looks a bit squishy. Cas Liber
      Yes this is convention for noting valence. -DePiep (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • link "luster". Cas Liber
      IMO common word, so not done. YMMV. -DePiep (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • link trigonal, monoclinic, boule, orthorhombic
      Should the links be added to these words in the compounds template or somewhere else? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw them in the body of the text so would link there - and compounds template is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and the soluble ones are only slightly toxic. - err, if slightly toxic, what is the actual toxicity to - liver, kidney, blood etc.
      This source and a couple others say that soluble Sm salts are slightly toxic when ingested without going into specifics. Is the source reliable and is this specific enough? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks ok on comprehensiveness and prose, hence Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DePiep edit

  • wrt Isotopes of samarium (the 10 main isotopes end up in the article infobox): have cleaned up towards base reference NUBASE2020. Samarium-146 needs attention (fix references used/notused), see talk.
-DePiep (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be resolved. 141Pr {contribs} 20:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref#36, Bärnighausen: could not resolve "journal title=none". -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samarium § Compounds table header: a, b, c not explained. BTW, folded table in article body?
The same table is there in the Samarium compounds article, so the table might not be necessary in this section. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. 141Pr {contribs} 17:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Infobox samarium}} uses "α, α form, poly" substances (allotropes?). But none of these is described (mentioned) in article body. Also, are they synonyms or different names? -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about this. 141Pr {contribs} 20:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by InterstellarGamer12321 edit

The only issues with the article I have found so far have been highlighted by other commenters. Remaining issues are minor. Therefore I support the promotion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Lecoq_de_Boisbaudran.jpg: source link is dead, needs an author date of death and US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know how to fix this, can someone else do this? 141Pr {contribs} 20:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh edit

The prose was not up to FAC standard. I have copyedited it an attempt to rectify this. Along the way I left several superscripted notes which need to be addressed. The statement, "Samarium is one of the few lanthanides that exhibit the +2 oxidation state" is false; all the Ln are capable of exhibiting the +2 state.

The lede did not match the flow of the main body of the article; I adjusted the lede accordingly.

A drop down table is not allowed, AFAIK, in a FA article. The article later says, "As reflected in the table above...". Such geographic expressions are eschewed AFAIK, given problems with how articles are displayed on various devices.

I intend to support the nomination once the outstanding notes; the +2 mention; the drop down table; and the "table above" expression have been fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to comments:
  1. I haven't addressed the superscript yet. I'll address them one by one when I find that I have time.
  2. For the +2 oxidation state, AFAIK, Sm is one of the only ones that commonly exhibit the +2 oxidation state, so shall I add the word "commonly"?
  3. Shall I remove the table? As stated above, the table is also included in the samarium compounds article.
  4. Removed the expression.
141Pr {contribs} 19:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. You could say, "Samarium is one of the few lanthanides with a relatively accessible +2 oxidation state, alongside Eu and Yb." and cite Wenliang Huang, Paula L Diaconescu 2021, Organometallic chemistry of lanthanides in Stephen T Liddle, David P Mills, Louise Sarah Natrajan (eds), Lanthanides And Actinides: Synthesis, Reactivity, Properties And Applications, World Scientific, London, 978-1-80061-017-0, p. 213

3. The table can stay; just remove its collapsibility. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done 2 and 3. 141Pr {contribs} 07:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 remaining superscripts:

  • The main commercial use of samarium is in samarium–cobalt magnets, which have permanent magnetization second only to neodymium magnets; however, samarium compounds can withstand significantly higher temperatures, above 700 °C (1,292 °F), without losing their magnetic properties, due to the alloy's higher Curie point.[eh?] - I don't see the problem here, can you explain?
What is a Curie point? Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed due to the alloy's higher Curie point, as it is already explained well enough. 141Pr {contribs} 09:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sintering powders of samarium oxide and boron, in a vacuum, yields a powder containing several samarium boride phases; their volume ratio[eh?] can be controlled through the mixing proportion. - what shall I do to this?
    Made more clear.
  • The powder can be converted into larger crystals of a certain[which one?] samarium boride using arc melting or zone melting techniques, relying on the different melting/crystallization temperature of SmB6 (2580 °C), SmB4 (about 2300 °C) and SmB66 (2150 °C). - "A certain" refers to the second half of the sentence here, i.e. SmB6, SmB4, SmB66.
    Done.
  • A rocket spreads it as a red vapor[Sm or one of its compounds?] at high altitude, and researchers tests how the atmosphere disperses it and how it impacts radio transmissions. - The citation here says Clouds of vaporized samarium (Sm) were released during sounding rocket flights from the Reagan Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll in May 2013 as part of the Metal Oxide Space Cloud (MOSC) experiment., so I guess it's just Sm vapor here.
A guess will not do for an FA article. Holmes attributes the red color to the emission spectrum of SmO. Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have changed the statement to samarium monoxide. 141Pr {contribs} 08:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samarium hexaboride, SmB6, has recently been shown to be a topological insulator[inconsistent with earlier mention of SmB6] with potential uses in quantum computing. - the earlier mention is New research seems to show that SmB6 may be a topological insulator., so I don't see any inconsistencies.
Is it a "may” or an "is"? If the latter, why is the former mentioned? Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed former mention. 141Pr {contribs} 09:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully addressed the issues here (apart from the first one), let me know if you would need further improvements to be made to the article. 141Pr {contribs} 16:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all superscripts, please can you review the article and check for further issues? 141Pr {contribs} 09:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling edit

  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (6 with; 4 without);
  • Botimer, J.; Kim; Thomas; Grant; Fisk; Jing Xia (2013). Missing first name for: Kim; Missing first name for: Thomas; Missing first name for: Grant; Missing first name for: Fisk;
  • Zhang, Xiaohang; Butch; Syers; Ziemak; Greene; Paglione (2013). Missing first name for: Butch; Missing first name for: Syers; Missing first name for: Ziemak; Missing first name for: Greene; Missing first name for: Paglione
  • The lanthanides and actinides : synthesis, reactivity, properties and applications. Stephen T. Liddle, David P. Mills, Louise S. Natrajan. London. 2 {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  • Bärnighausen, H. (1973). Rev. Chim. Miner. 10: 77–92.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: untitled periodical
  • phys.org. "45-year Physics Mystery Shows a Path to Quantum Transistors". Missing first name for: phys.org;
I think that's the name of the site, not a person's name. 141Pr {contribs} 17:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better to cite the actual article. Sandbh (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to that article. 141Pr {contribs} 08:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammond, C. R. (2004-06-29). "The Elements". Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). "Magnetic susceptibility of the elements and inorganic compounds". Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • DOE Fundamentals Handbook: Nuclear Physics and Reactor Theory (PDF). Missing ISBN; § Lingzhi (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find the ISBN. 141Pr {contribs} 12:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a US DOE technical report it would not’ve had an ISBN. Sandbh (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammond, C. R. (2004-06-29). "The Elements". Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). CRC press. p. 4-27. ISBN 0-8493-0485-7. Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (3 with; 1 without)
  1. Click the blue ISBN
  2. Go to "Find this book at WorldCat". Others may be just as good, but I feel comfortable with WorldCat's WP:RS. They are OCLC etc.
  3. Oopsie, this isbn pulls up "CRC handbook of chemistry and physics : a ready-reference book of chemical and physical data. Author: David R. Lide Print Book, English, 85th ed. Publisher:CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., ©2004" Wha-a-a-a-a-at? Something seems amiss here.
  4. And after you find the right book, you can also find the location there...
  • Also see "Bärnighausen, H. (1973). Rev. Chim. Miner. 10: 77–92. {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): Missing or empty |title= " Missing title?
  • And I'll probably get shouted down here, but don't put Rev. Chim. Miner. for the journal name. That's inside baseball. Spell. It. Out. For. The. General. Public. It's Revue de chimie minérale. : Revue für anorganische Chemie. [Inorganic chemistry review].. Search the MLA and APA documentation for how to correctly punctuate etc.
You will not get shouted down, you are quite correct. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinoshita, N.; ... (2012-03-30). "A Shorter 146Sm Half-Life Measured and Implications for 146Sm-142Nd Chronology in the Solar System". Science.Retracted, see doi:10.1126/science.adh7739. If this is an intentional citation to a retracted paper, please replace (Retracted. If this is an intentional citation to a retracted paper, please replace {{Retracted}} with {{Retracted|intentional=yes}}.) with (Retracted).)
  • DOE Fundamentals Handbook: Nuclear Physics and Reactor Theory (PDF). U.S. Department of Energy. January 1993. pp. 34, 67. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-22. Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (6 with; 2 without); Missing ISBN... what's the isbn? I dunno. So after deep, soul-searching thought. I tried googling "DOE FUNDAMENTALS HANDBOOK NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND REACTOR THEORY volume 2 of 2 isbn" (note the "isbn" at the end). I came up with 2 results: ISBN-10. 1304064948 ; ISBN-13. 978-1304064943;DOE Fundamentals Handbook - Mathematics (Volume 2 of 2) ISBN：9781365110375. Which one? I dunno. You find out. It's your job.
  • Delafontaine, Marc (1878). "Sur le décepium, métal nouveau de la samarskite". Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des Sciences (in French). 87: 632. Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.). It's 1878. Screw it.
  • I fixed some stuff for you, but none of this is deep magic. It's google, google scholar, worldcat, even amazon sometimes, etc. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 16:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Source #37 is broken. Are Lyn.corp, oelimaging, tenzo-sms.ru and centerwatch high-quality reliable sources? And the former stable enough that it can give a long-term average price? DOE Handbook, tenzo-sms.ru and ipen.br ought to be explained in the source (i.e identifiers, links). Date format is slightly inconsistent - sometimes the month is spelled out and sometimes it isn't. "United States Geological Surves" is a typo. Spot-check:

  • 2: OK.
  • 11: I don't see the sourced information in the source.
  • 12: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 14: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 19: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 22: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 27: Some of the data given aren't supported by the source.
  • 32: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 46: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 58: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 59: Link is broken.
  • 65: OK.
  • 75: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 97: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 98: OK.
  • 109: Anyone got access to this source?
  • 111: Not sure where the low efficiency and UV absorption are mentioned.
  • 116: OK, got to wonder why this use was singled out for one paragraph.
  • 119: OK, got to wonder why this use was singled out for one paragraph.
  • 120: As above.

Not source related per se, but there are a lot of very short paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I can do this one; I've fixed the typo but that's about as far as I can do here. 141Pr {contribs} 12:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

Maybe post a request for help, and perhaps further reviews, on the FAC talk page? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (more) by Sandbh edit

User:Praseodymium-141 What was it that you needed help with? --- Sandbh (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly the source review and Ling's comments. 141Pr {contribs} 08:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have 2½ supports so far.

So, start with Ling's first outstanding comment and go from there:

Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (6 with; 4 without);---this should be easily fixable.
Bärnighausen, H. (1973). Rev. Chim. Miner. 10: 77–92. {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help): CS1 maint: untitled periodical---this should be easily fixable.
Hammond, C. R. (2004-06-29). "The Elements". Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). CRC press. p. 4-27. ISBN 0-8493-0485-7. Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (3 with; 1 without)---this should be easily fixable.

etc

Looking at one item from his source review:

12: Anyone got access to this source?

Source 12 is:

a b c d Shi, N.; Fort, D. (1985). "Preparation of samarium in the double hexagonal close packed form". Journal of the Less Common Metals. 113 (2): 21. doi:10.1016/0022-5088(85)90294-2.

Here:

a = a tetragonal phase appearing at about 900 kbar.
b = Thin films of samarium obtained by vapor deposition may contain the hcp or dhcp phases in ambient conditions.
c = trigonal samarium
d = hexagonal samarium

Item b is indeed mentioned by Shi & Fort. However they say nothing in support of a, c and d that I could see.

This is rather concerning given the comments for items 11, 27 and 111 by Ling.

Looking at cites 1 to 10, following.

1. Standard atomic weight Ar°(Sm) 150.36±0.02 150.36±0.02 (abridged)[1]

I do not understand the need for two entries for atomic weight nor the mention of "abridged". Citation 1 does not use this term.

2. Both sources check out.

3. Checks out but mention of "SmB6-" should be to "SmB6-",

4. Correct.

5. The date of the source is shown as 1984 but is in fact 1983. The page number is shown as E110 but is in fact E-112. The units are shown as cm3/mol but in the reference are shown as cgs. The figure in reference is for a temperature of 291 K; this should be noted in the WP entry. The ISBN of 0-8493-0464-4 should be converted to 13-number format.

6. An entry for 145Sm is missing (half-life 340 days). The half-life for 146Sm does not check out; the source lists it as 68 My. There is no consistency in rounding of abundances and half-lives.

7. I could not find anything in the citation supporting the assertion that "Samarium has no significant biological role; some samarium salts are slightly toxic."

8. The source says, "Samarium has no significant biological role".

9. This source supports the listed boiling point of Sm. i do not understand why it is required since source 10 says the same thing.

10. This source is linked to the 81st (2000) edition of the CRC Handbook but the WP entry strangely says it is for the edition of "2004-06-29", whatever that means. The entry in the CRC Handbook does not support the WP statement that, "samarium is the third most volatile lanthanide after ytterbium and europium and comparable in this respect to lead and barium; this helps separation of samarium from its ores."

The better news is that Samarium has only 123 citations and it should be possible for you to recheck all of these citations in a reasonable amount of time.

I should be able to help with any tricky items but not with checking all 123 citations. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with citations 11 to 20.

11. "Samarium is calculated to have one of the largest atomic radii of the elements; with a radius of 238 pm, only potassium, praseodymium, barium, rubidium and caesium are larger."

The citation only partly checks out. It only covers from He to Rn. Potassium, praseodymium, barium, rubidium and caesium are indeed larger. I note La and Ce have larger radii shown in parentheses. The paper does not explain what the parentheses mean.

12. Was noted above and does not check out.

13. "The metal transforms to an antiferromagnetic state upon cooling to 14.8 K."

The article says, "it is believed [italics added] that these metals become anti-ferromagnetic below these temperatures." Since the article is from 1957 there is probably a more recent citations that would confirm this.

14. Cited to support #13, above. Checks out.

15. "Individual samarium atoms can be isolated by encapsulating them into fullerene molecules."

Correct.

16. "They can also be doped (intentional adding of samarium atoms) between the C60 molecules in the fullerene solid, rendering it superconductive at temperatures below 8 K."

The source says at a temperature of 8 K, rather than at temperatures below 8 K. The WP sentence is badly constructed. It should say something like, "Samarium atoms can be intercalated into the interstices of bulk C60 to form a solid solution of nominal composition Sm3C60, which is superconducting at a temperature of 8 K.

17. "Samarium doping of iron-based superconductors – a class of high-temperature superconductor – increases their transition to normal conductivity temperature up to 56 K, the highest value achieved so far in this series."

Correct

18. "Samarium is quite electropositive and reacts slowly with cold water and rapidly with hot water to form samarium hydroxide:"

The citation is to Webelements. Retrieved 2009-06-06. A more reliable source is needed.

19. "Samarium dissolves readily in dilute sulfuric acid to form solutions containing the yellow..."

The citation is to "Greenwood", which refers to Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth–Heinemann. ISBN 0-08-037941-9. The citation should say, "c:.

The ISBN needs to be converted to 13 digit form.

The citation does not check out; I could not find any reference in the source to samarium acting in this way.

Found in Greenwood & Earnshaw 1997 page p. 1243, saying that the Sm3+ is yellow in aqueous solutions. Doesn't explicitly say that sulfuric acid dissolves samarium metal, but considering that it readily reacts with water, it would do with sulfuric acid too. Keres🌕Luna edits! 20:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20. "Samarium is one of the few lanthanides with a relatively accessible +2 oxidation state, alongside Eu and Yb."

This citation is factually correct but incorrectly sourced. The source is given as "Stephen T. Liddle; David P. Mills; Louise S. Natrajan, eds. (2022). The lanthanides and actinides: synthesis, reactivity, properties and applications. London. p. 213". The source is actually to a chapter in the book, namely "Organometallic Chemistry of Lanthanides" by Wenliang Huang and Paula L. Diaconescu, pp. 209 to 310.

Conclusion

Out of 20 citations, I assess that 14 have defects.

Unless these defects are corrected fairly promptly, and the remaining 103 citations are rechecked, things are not looking good for this nomination. Not to mention that all of this should have been done before submitting the article to FAC. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to fix them later, I was quite busy recently and not had time to check over these. (I'm not very good with citations though. ) 141Pr {contribs} 14:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandbh, many thanks for that, it is much appreciated. Praseodymium-141, I am afraid that a 70% failure rate in a spot check is a kiss of death. I mean, extrapolate this across the other 100+ cites. Frankly, if you are "not very good with citations" you should probably steer clear of FAC, or find a specialist collaborator who is. I am going to archive this as under prepared for FAC. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
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) 29 May 2023 [3].

Mandera Prison edit

Nominator(s): Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest prison in the self-proclaimed nation of Somaliland. In its lifetime, the facility has held a decent amount of notable prisoners, and had two major prison breaks during the Somaliland War of Independence in the 1980s, which together freed upwards of 1,000 inmates who likely would have been executed otherwise. Aside from being my first FAC, the promotion of the article to FA status would mark the very first Somaliland-related article to ever reach such an achievement, so any and all feedback is welcome! Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination edit

  • Hi Johnson524, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: No problem with me, thanks for reaching out! Johnson524 (Talk!) 21:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Hi Johnson524, welcome to FAC. Some issues with images:

  • Images shouldn't use a fixed pixel size, per MOS:UPRIGHT
  • File:Freed_prisoners_from_Mandheera_prison_by_the_SNM_(1983).png: in order to be hosted on Commons, images must be free in both the US and also their country of origin. This image is lacking a tag indicating why it is free in its country of origin. The same is true of File:Abdirahman_Mohamed_Abdullahi_(cropped).jpg (which also has a dead source link) and File:10_June_2022_protests_in_Hargeisa,_Somaliland.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria, I'm sure you are already familiar with this, but I was under the impression that works published by citizens of countries without an active copyright law are likewise not subject to copyright protection outside of the country, putting such works in the public domain in most countries worldwide. With Somalia and Somaliland both not having any current copyright law: all three images, which were taken in or by these nations, should be in the public domain, right? If not, what more specifically can I do to fix this. Johnson524 (Talk!) 04:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your impression is correct, but the issue is the works' status inside their country - if you look at the bottom of the tag set used for the images, you'll see a note about how Commons policy requires a tag for status in country of origin in addition. You basically have two options. There looks to be a good analysis of the copyrighted situation here - you could review that to see if these works met the requirements to receive copyright protection in Somalia/Somaliland, and if you can confirm they did not they can be designated as public domain on that basis. Alternatively, you can upload these works locally - English Wikipedia only requires that images are free in the US, so issues around country of origin can be largely disregarded for local uploads. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Ok, after looking through the current Somaliland Copyright Law, there is no specific mention to "photographs" or "photography" as a protected work in the nation. Furthermore, under the fair use section, it says that "copyright laws usually permit reasonable fair dealing (or fair use) of copyright works for [...] study and education, research, review and reporting of current events without the permission of the copyright owner," which aligns pretty well with what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. With this clarified, do I need to add anything on the Commons photos themselves, or does it just mean that the image review is ok now? Thank you for your help 🙂 Johnson524 (Talk!) 04:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair-use rationales are not accepted on Commons, so if that's the basis on which you believe these are okay in their source country, they cannot remain Commons-hosted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need to go the fair use route, wouldn't this template work? If there is any question about copyright in Somaliland itself, you could simply upload directly to enwiki which only requires that the works are free of copyright in the US. (t · c) buidhe 21:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe @Nikkimaria: I have no problem with uploading these images to enwiki under fair use, but I still don't think it appears to be necessary. The PD-Somaliland template explains that "there is no longer anywhere in Somaliland to register copyrights," and there really has not been since Somaliland separated from its union with Somalia. In my reply above, I mentioned that there is no mention of photographs as a protected work in Somaliland even under their defunct copyright laws, and that even if this was implied somewhere that photographs are subject to copyright (which I couldn't find) the images could still at very least still be used on Wikipedia under fair use. This still is not necessary though, as Somaliland has no active places to register copyrights. I should have made this clearer in my response above, so I apologize, but this is why I think all three images can still be used on Commons. If there is anything I have gotten wrong, I am more than willing to put these on enwiki under fair use, but I wanted to try to keep them on Commons if at all possible. Thank you both again for your help with this 🙂 Johnson524 (Talk!) 00:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion the "works protected" section of the 1977 law is vague enough to encompass photography, but I don't have a good sense of how the lack of registration venue plays in - I'm not a lawyer, and there is a dearth of case law to clarify that. There might not be a clear sign off on the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility note edit

Coordinator comment edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and just has not yet picked up a general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, I feel the main issues discussed so far have been addressed, is there anything I can do to prevent this? Johnson524 (Talk!) 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like many FAC nominations, this one would benefit from more reviews. Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately. They tend to be more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). so the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process too.
Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, thank you for the reply 🙂 If you don't mind me asking, what does it take to be an FAC reviewer? Could I do it, or do you need to have completed your own FAC first? Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no requirements. Anyone can review a FAC, even an IP, and is encouraged to. Reviewing prior to submitting a FAC nomination is not mandatory, but is a good way of learning what goes into a successful, and unsuccessful, FAC and how the process works. And, as suggested above, regulars who have seen your name around in thoughtful reviews are then more inclined to use their scarce time reviewing your nom as opposed to anyone else's. Personally I did more than 40 FAC reviews before nominating my first FAC, but that is probably unusual. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll be sure to do some reviews then! Not necessarily for my own FAC at this point, but to help other editors find success in theirs, which has always been something I've wanted to do, but was under the assumption you needed prior FAC success. Thank you again ~ Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Good. Thank you. FAC is always short of reviewers. Just skim the list looking for an article you feel comfortable with and start right in. Shout if you have queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, but four weeks after nomination this is showing no signs of a consensus to promote forming and so I am regretfully archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2023 (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) 29 May 2023 [4].

Fort Andross edit

Nominator(s): Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 14:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the site of Fort Andross in Brunswick, Maine. First occupied in the 1600s and 1700s when it was a garrison and fortification, then in 1800s the site was used for Cotton mills. In the 20th and 21st centuries it's been used as industrial buildings. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 14:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Style fixing needed throughout - fixed px size should generally not be used, alt text should be added, etc
  • Layout needs improvement - avoid one-sentence paragraphs, avoid one-paragraph sections, etc
  • The article seems incomplete. What's happened since 1986? Has there been any archaeological work at the site?
  • The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing to improve clarity and flow - for example "The location of the fort is in the same location"
  • Citation style needs editing for consistency - for example, are you including locations for books or not?
  • What makes Meander Maine a high-quality reliable source? Cabot Mill Antiques? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe

It looks like a good start, but I think the article would need some work to meet the FA criteria. The issues I noticed were:

  • Prose: too many short, stubby paragraphs that would read better if combined.
  • "Mill factories on the site of Fort Andross" what's the source for this table?
  • "Cabot Manufacturing Company" there is a great deal of image sandwiching in this section. See MOS:IMAGELOC. You could fit more images if there was not an infobox there.
  • Related to the previous issue, infoboxes: one per article is usually seen as better than three. I realize that the site has been repurposed throughout its history but that doesn't mean that an extra infobox is the best way to convey information. There are also some verifiability issues with the secondary infoboxes. For example, I'm not sure what the Mule Frames: 65,000 (1891) is cited to unless this is a duplicate of the infobox entry for spindles. These second infoboxes for me mainly duplicate information that was already conveyed in a better way by the article text.

(t · c) buidhe 03:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insight, i really do appreciate it. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 04:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

  • There seems to be agreement that this article is not yet in shape for FAC, so I am going to archive it to allow the issues identified to be worked on off-FAC. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
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) 8 May 2023 [5].

Koryo Ilbo edit

Nominator(s): toobigtokale (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Koryo-saram newspaper that has significant historical importance for their culture and for Korean culture as a whole.

It's also just an interesting story; the newspaper has gone through much more turmoil than many newspapers in the West. It experienced:

It's a pretty gripping story imo.

The article has already passed a GA eval, and I think it hopefully shouldn't be far from being FA quality. I'm pretty responsive and receptive towards feedback, so should be able to get it up there.

toobigtokale (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination edit

  • Hi Toobigtokale, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, thanks for the consideration. I want to withdraw my nomination because I wanna focus on other things. I can't seem to find instructions on how to withdraw my nomination; would you be ok helping me out? toobigtokale (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll archive it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m close to an oppose on this for a few reasons, but before I dig in too far, is there any reason why there are a block of referees in the middle of the lead, and why punctuation has been placed after citations and notes? For the latter point, I’m looking at “peninsula[2][3][1][4][5],” and “Red Flag[note 3],” etc. Tidying those up before I start a full review would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I know it’s unusual to oppose after a withdrawal, but I’m going through wondering about all the citations (not sources, but citations) in italics, to add to all the other MOS discrepancies. To my mind, this isn’t of GA standard, so myriad are the MOS errors. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thank you for the feedback and for fixing up the article! MOS is not my strong suit; this is a good reminder for me to reread the rules on inline refs again.
    The italicized refs probably come from the Visual Editor, never noticed it... I'll watch out for that in future. Thanks again! toobigtokale (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2023 (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) 26 May 2023 [6].

Interstate 40 in Tennessee edit

Nominator(s): Bneu2013 (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about arguably the most important highway in the State of Tennessee by a long shot, and the eighth longest Interstate Highway segment within a single state (second east of the Mississippi River). This highway serves the three largest cities in Tennessee and traverses a wide diversity of landscapes and terrain. In addition, this particular stretch of highway is nationally significant in that it is connected to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling and passes through one of the most important regions instrumental in the development of popular music, hence its nickname of "Music Highway". This article was promoted to GA status over a year ago, and recently underwent peer review. This is the second FA attempt; the first was archived due to lack of responses, but since then, all of the outlying comments have been addressed, and a few other minor improvements have been made. If promoted, this would be the first article about a highway in Tennessee to become a featured article. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination edit

  • Hi Bneu2013, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:Moabdave edit

I have finished a first pass review of the article. I am satisfied the sourcing meets FA standards. The article is very thorough, one of the most comprehensive articles I've ever read, on any subject. It shows you've done a lot of research. All my issues have been resolved, except the below mentioned recommendation for a copyeditor to fix the minor stylistic stuff. I've pointed out a few things, but there's more. As an example, I don't know how many times I read the phrase "short segment". Need to find other ways of saying that without using the same words over and over. There are copyeditors who are good at stuff like this; I'm not one of them. As such I'll support on the basis of source checks and comprehensiveness, and leave the judgement of has it been sufficiently copy-edited to someone else. Dave (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General style notes

The general trend I'm seeing with this article is the sourcing is quite good (with the exception noted below regarding the use of Google Maps, which is subject to an open RFC) and the research is meticulous. So I agree this article is close to FA standards. However, IMHO this article needs a top to bottom copyedit. While I've given some suggestions below, copyediting is not one of my talents. I usually ask the services of someone else to copyedit my work, and would suggest recruiting someone for this article.

Lead
  • 2,556.61 miles - Might want to source that figure. (can just use the source used for the national I-40 article)
    • Done.
  • Footnote a - we have an article for milepost equation. Rather than explaining the concept in a foot note, you could just link to that article and be done with it. Granted, that article is in rough shape and needs some TLC. Though if the source used in footnote a could be used to improve the article on milepost equations, that IMHO would be the best solution, as it would still explain the concept without requiring a tangential footnote in this article.
    • I had no idea such an article (or a concept) existed. I think it's important to list why the mileposts are offset, as opposed to the plain fact that they are. Also, mileposts on Tennessee Interstates are posted every two tenths of a mile as opposed to every mile in most states, so this offset would likely be more obvious to motorists familiar with this route than others. The reason for this offset isn't always obvious to everyone. That being said, do you think "offset this discrepancy" would be an appropriate link to milepost equation? Bneu2013 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • My $.02 is footnotes to inline text are disruptive to an article's flow and I try to avoid them when I can. I was offering a suggestion to eliminate the footnote. Thinking about this a bit more, I think in the lead I would give the mileage figure, without explanation. The prose below already mentions a change in alignment without the plans, so IMHO the footnote doesn't add much. The specific explanation could be given in the junction list section, where there is a natural break in the flow of the article because of the table. I would work in a link to milepost equation, as that is where the topic is (or presumably someday will be) explained in more detail (again granted right now the article isn't much to read). Also I'd remove this line from the footnote, regardless of where the text ends up: "To offset this discrepancy, the first four mileposts are numbered 1, 1A, 1B, and 1C."
        • Done - moved to the exit list and removed the last sentence. Provided link. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All my issues resolved in the lead. Dave (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Route description

*"making it the eighth-longest stretch of Interstate Highway within a single state,[b]" I'm not really a fan of trivia like this. It's been my experience stuff like this tends to attract vandal and "you forgot about {insert irrelevant detail here}" type edits. My advice is to remove it. Though if others disagree I'll cede.

    • I was on the fence about this, especially due to how close it is in length to Interstate 80 in Nebraska (and the fact that different measuring tools can give negligibly different results). I do think it is important to list that it was originally planned as the longest stretch of Interstate Highway within a single state east of the Mississippi, however. That being said, should I maybe repeat that the Tennessee segment is the longest segment on I-40 here? Bneu2013 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
West Tennessee

*The length of the De Soto bridge should be sourced, unless source 5 (at the end of the paragraph) covers this.

    • Done. Note that some sources report the length as 3.3 miles. That appears to be the combined length of the main span (which is 1.8 miles long) and a number of ramps near the eastern end (including a few ghost ramps). Bneu2013 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a short distance beyond" that's a problematic statement, short distance means something very different to someone from Alaska or Nevada as it does to someone in New Jersey. I'd just delete it. IMHO it doesn't add much. Also, this paragraph is sourced to Google Maps. I don't see anything wrong with what you've done personally. However, there is an RFC (Request For Comment - Wikipedia's equivalent of a voter referendum) open on this very subject. While the voting is still open, the initial results appear to show no solid consensus on weather this is or is not an appropriate use of Google Maps. As such be aware you likely have a target on your back by trying to promote your article to Featured Article status while that vote is open (or if it fails). I personally prefer the state level Benchmark Atlases myself for a route description myself, as they have 3-4 sets of maps for each state, (recreational atlas, topo, etc.) I've found the recreational section of that atlas to have more stuff explicitly stated for describing the route of a long distance road. The down side is they cost $35/state, and all the ones I have in my collection are in the western US, so I don't have the Tennessee edition to loan.
    • There are a total of four uses of "short distance beyond" and 18 uses of "short distance". Do you suggest I get rid of all of them? Also, I do have a Tennessee road atlas from 1999; that wouldn't be too outdated for most of this, but I would prefer a newer edition. I do have a couple of US and Canada road atlases too. While these don't provide much more information than Google Maps, they do list the distances between interchanges. In addition to the county-level maps, TDOT does provide city-wide maps that are more precise than the county maps, with such information as precise distances between interchanges. However, the large cities are split between multiple maps, and I don't want to clog up the article with excessive citations. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't gotten that far into the article yet, but yes, in general I avoid relative phrases like "a short distance". Also, given the way things are going at the maps RFC, I would strongly encourage the use of TDOT maps and/or state level Atlases (such as DeLorme or whatever) when possible. Even before the maps RFC I only used Google Maps as a last resort in my articles.Dave (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I've reworded the four usages of "short distance beyond". I'm going to wait until you get further into your review before rewording the remaining usages of "short distance". In the meantime, I'm going to substitute most, if not all, of the remaining uses of Google Maps. In some places the usages are probably redundant anyways. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Update - removed all usages of "short distance". Bneu2013 (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Memphis
  • "where a pair or flyover ramps transfer its path to the northeast" - That's a bit rough. Any way to smooth that out?
    • Done.
  • "Entering a long straightaway" - I'd strike that, again long is relative.
    • Done.
Middle Tennessee and Nashville sections
  • "several steep ascents and descents," again steep is a relative term. To this western US person, if it's "steep" that means there's at least one runaway truck ramp, minimum. IMHO, either be more descriptive with words like steep or cut from the article. Similar verbose phrases with relative terms include "long viaduct" "A few miles later, I-40 enters Wilson County and, after a short distance,
    • Made recommended changes. By steep, I essentially meant the same thing, minus the runaway truck ramps. Essentially, in the Eastern US, from my understanding, a grade is considered "steep" if it is difficult for large trucks to ascend, and the descent warrants warning signs. After looking it over, that is not true of all of these grades, so good catch. If I understand correctly, "viaduct" in the common usage refers to a longer than average bridge, especially in an urban setting, although this words seems to be most common in the western US. Is that how you understand it? Lastly, I replaced the final strike with "then" to clarify that the SR 171 interchange is not directly across the Wilson County line (it's about 2-3 miles beyond). Any issue with that? Bneu2013 (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern Nashville Basin, Eastern Highland Rim, and Cumberland Plateau
  • Again a lot of relative words. However, "begins a steep ascent over a few miles where the eastbound lanes gain a truck climbing lane" is a good example of how to describe steep so it has meaning.
    • Done. Both Cumberland Plateau ascents are also inarguably steep, with truck lanes planned for both, and I believe a runaway truck ramp in the works for the western one.
Eastern Tennessee
  • "containing what some describe". This needs to be re-worded, "some" is a Weasel word. This is sourced to a University of Tennessee article by Moore. If the article describes the view as such, directly attribute it to the paper or Moore, rather than "some".
    • I have considered "containing dramatic views of the Tennessee Valley below", but "dramatic" also sounds weaselly. Even though it is hard to deny this if you have ever traveled this section. Let me know what you think. This view is actually shown in the photo in this section, although the clouds obscure some of it. I actually plan to get an updated photo of this section on a clear day, even though it will probably be at least a few weeks before I can do so. The appearance of the road has actually changed since this photo was taken, with additional stripings and warning signs for this curve. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The best thing to to in that case is attribute the words to someone else. If Moore describes it as dramatic, just quote him (directly or indirectly). Dave (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Moore is now quoted in the article. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knoxville

"Gradually ascending a steep ridge" - that's a bit clunky. I get it, but maybe think of a better way to say that.

Fixed.
Music Highway.

IMHO this is the most interesting part of the Route Description section. I'd move this to be the first sub-section. But that's just a friendly suggestion.

I'm hesitant to do that because I haven't seen that this is a common practice. A while ago I actually began drafting a section about honorary designations of the route in my sandbox. I think we should include something about this, but I don't want the article to get too long. If included, I am leaning towards combining the "Music Highway" section with this. What do you think? Bneu2013 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day you're the one that is defending the article as I, and others, pick at it. So it needs to be in a format you feel comfortable defending, and if you don't like a suggestion, so be it, that's your choice. At the project pages at WP:USRD, there is an evolving set of guidelines based on what has worked well and not in the past. But they are guidelines, not policy. As an example, one of my successful FAC nominations is U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. It had and has sections not contained in the "suggested formula" on those pages. At the time it was reviewed some of those sections were closer to the top of the article, though they have since been moved down (not by me).Dave (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm going to do that right now. Maybe sometime later. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History
Earlier construction

The word short is repeated a lot in this section, as well as the "later construction" section just below. The phrase "short segment" is used in two consecutive sentences, either change one or add "another" to the second, and consider eliminating more instances to avoid repetition of the word.

Fixed in both sections. Since nearly all of these are in the three big cities, I think it's fair to say that most people can figure out these segments were "short". Bneu2013 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Controversies

"The court found that Volpe had violated clauses of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 which prohibit the approval of federal funding for highway projects with feasible alternative routes" This needs explanation, to me it feels like the sentence is missing a word. Virtually all highway surveying studies list multiple alternatives, so there has to be something more to the prohibition.

There were alternative routes considered, but the city and state preferred the park route, most likely because it was cheaper. Working on fixing. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I see what I missed now. The legislation prevents the approval of funding for highway projects through public parks unless feasible alternative routes do not exist. Looks like I screwed up when I wrote this in the first place. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Major projects and expansions (I'd shorten the section title to expansion, major projects is kinda obvious)
I'm hesitant to change this because not all projects listed here would be considered "expansions". For example, the tailgating sensors. Most of the projects listed are generic widening projects which I'm pretty sure most people understand "expansions" to refer to. While other projects, such as the reconstruction of Malfunction Junction and the I-240 interchanges did add capacity, I still think it's important to distinguish these from generic widening projects. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with hazardously sharp curves". That's clunky. I'd just delete, the next phrase "with some of the highest crash rates in the state" gets the point across by itself.
    • Done.
Sourcing Spotchecks
  • "Several miles later, the highway enters Haywood County near the site of Ford Motor Company's future Blue Oval City manufacturing facility" -> sourced to [7]. Pass. However, again I'd remove phrases like "several miles later". IMHO it doesn't add much and again "several miles" means something different to a resident of rural Alaska as it does urban France.
Done.
  • "Traversing through a mix of additional level farmland and swamplands, I-40 enters Jackson some distance later and crosses the South Fork of the Forked Deer River." sourced to two USGS maps. The maps explicitly show swampland (legend uses the words wetlands, but that's not a big deal to me) The USGS maps do not explicitly label farmland in the area, though checking Google Maps satellite view does make it pretty obvious there is farmland along this portion of the freeway corridor. Again I personally don't have a problem with using Google satellite image maps in that way, however, there is an open RFC on the subject and there doesn't appear to be consensus on weather this is ok or not. As a backup, I found this site [8] you might want to use in case the RFC fails.
This site doesn't appear to contain maps of farmland in the county, but I'll take a closer look. I'll probably end up replacing with a zoning map of Madison County, but that will probably have to wait until the weekend. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update - replaced with a property search map, which lists the usage for each property. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crosscountryroads.com appears to be a personal website. Given there is an additional source of a newspaper article for this same sentence, I'd suggest to just delete this. To cite to a personal website on a FA class article you first have to establish the author is an expert. Not worth the trouble if you already have another source. I've done this once or twice before, but years ago, you'd probably want to ask one of the FAC co-ordinaters for the procedure if you really want to try to qualify that website.
    • Removed. Although I think it could pass as reliable. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • claim of highway being once called the Broadway of America - cited to a newspaper article- Johnson City Chronicle- Passed. Incidentally this road is mentioned in the article Auto trail, consider wikilinking.
    • Done.
  • "Most of these empty lots have since been built over." - Sourced to a Commercial Appeal article. Passed, but need to replace "most" with something like "some", article does not mention most.
    • Actually, many more have been built over since this article to the point that very little of this scar still exists. Will add an up-to-date source. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - replaced with "some". Bneu2013 (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • Just getting started more to come later. Dave (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moabdave: - I believe I've responded to and/or addressed all of your remaining comments so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for the glacial pace of this review. I am working on it today and will have more shortly. In the interim I stand by my recommendation above to have a good copyeditor review this article, we have some good volunteer copy-editors on Wikipedia. If you don't know of any, you can ask at WP:GOCE, also there are a few who hang out on the Discord server (that's where I go to beg for one ;) ). Dave (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Submitted a GOCE request. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, GoCE Requests were averaging over three months to be completed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I will leave some feedback shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. This is a long article, so I'll leave a few comments now and come back to this later.
Lead:
  • "At a length of 455.28 miles (732.70 km), the Tennessee segment of I-40 is the longest of the eight states on the route, and the longest Interstate Highway in Tennessee" - The first part of this reads slightly awkwardly, since you can just say "At 455.28 miles (732.70 km)". But it would be quite strange to say "The Tennessee segment of I-40, at a length of 455.28 miles (732.70 km), is the longest..."
  • Done, also did some minor rephrasing to the sentence. Please let me know if you have any issues with it. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Initially constructed in segments, most of I-40 in Tennessee was completed by the latter 1960s." - This contains a dangling modifier. I recommend "Initially constructed in segments, I-40 in Tennessee was mostly completed by the latter 1960s."
  • Done.
  • "is culturally significant in that it passes through a region that was instrumental in the development of American popular music." - I think you can drop "is culturally significant in that it", as the rest of its sentence speaks for itself.
  • Done.
  • "that culminated in this case; this resulted in the state abandoning the alignment through the park in favor of relocating the Interstate onto a section of what was originally part of I-240" - This is also a bit awkwardly phrased. Did the case, or the activism, result in the state abandoning the route through the park? Also, this could probably be shortened to something like "... this resulted in the state abandoning the original alignment and relocating the Interstate onto a section of what was originally part of I-240" to make the lead more concise.
  • Both the case and the activism resulted in the relocation, although not immediately. I have made the recommended change. If you still have any issues, please let me know. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Route description:
  • As I mentioned on this article's talk page, the route description is pretty long, even considering the highway's importance. There are a lot of minor junctions, bridges, and landscape features that are mentioned here. Even if someone is only reading about a specific section of I-40, that is a lot of text for them to read. Before I review this section further, I recommend removing some of the more minor details.
  • Removed additional minor details, mostly length descriptions that were probably unnecessary, a couple of interchanges, and trimmed down some of the landscape descriptions. With the exception of one or two urban thoroughfares, all of the junctions mentioned by name are with either NHS routes or state routes that are part of the Federal-Aid Primary Highway System, so there are no "minor" routes listed. Most of the bridges mentioned are river crossings (and there are a lot of rivers in Tennessee); the only others are a set of flyovers at an interchange in Memphis, a deck arch bridge in Nashville that is somewhat of a local landmark, and a railyard/parking lot crossing in Knoxville. Overall, the content-per-mile in the route description is on par with that of other featured articles, such as Interstate 82 and Kansas Turnpike, two articles I replied on as models for this one. That being said, I-40 in Tennessee probably has a higher rate of interchanges per mile with primary highways than many other Interstates, especially those in western states. The varying topography of Tennessee definitely makes many landscape features worth mentioning, however, especially those in the mountains. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. I still think that the RD is pretty long, but since the highway itself is also pretty long, your explanation is reasonable. I'll look at the prose for this section over the weekend. Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse the interruption. If I can chime in, I had similar thoughts as I was reading the route description. As a specific example, the last 4 sentences of the 1st paragraph in the Memphis section of the route description are a turn-by-turn description of how I-40 avoids the downtown by arcing to the north. I'm torn on this. If this were me I'd just have a single sentence saying something to the effect of, "the current route is a northern detour around downtown due to a freeway revolt canceling the original planned route through town", and call it good. However, that's a stylistic difference. Furthermore, there certainly have been other articles that have passed FA with this detailed "turn-by-turn" style of description. So I accept that is my opinion and I won't oppose over a stylistic difference of opinion on what makes a better description. However, to add my voice to what Epicgenius said, my preference is for brevity where possible.Dave (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only issue I really have with that is the reason for this alignment is extensively covered in the history section and alluded to in the lead. Also, this could give the incorrect impression that this alignment was entirely original, whereas it was a rerouting onto the former alignment of I-240. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - I have responded to all of your comments so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to review the "History" section first, since, in light of Dave's comment, I still think we can tighten up the RD somewhat. To be honest, for many people, reading the route description will feel a bit like driving on I-40 in Tennessee - people might find it too long. The length of this article might contribute to the fact that they only read the section about their part of Tennessee, rather than the other way around.
Music Highway:
  • This entire paragraph only has one primary source, the legislation itself. Are there no secondary sources:
  • "the areas in between played in the development of American popular music." - This reads strangely. I suggest rewording this so it's more clear that "the area in between" and "played in the development" are separate topics, e.g. "The designation commemorates the significant roles that Memphis and Nashville, as well as the areas in between, played in the development of American popular music."
  • Done.
Predecessor highways:
  • Should "Native-American" be hyphenated in "Native-American trails"?
  • There's been a big debate about this amongst journalists, but most guides, such as the AP stylebook, are moving away from this convention.

Bneu2013 (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update - removed hyphen. It was actually someone else who incorrectly added that, and I missed it. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the creation of the Southwest Territory, the territorial legislature authorized a wagon trail to be constructed between Knoxville and Nashville on July 10, 1795." - Since the trail was not constructed on July 10, 1795, you may want to mention the date earlier on, e.g. "After the creation of the Southwest Territory, the territorial legislature, on July 10, 1795, authorized a wagon trail to be constructed between Knoxville and Nashville."
  • Done.
  • I think there are places where the text can be condensed a bit. Specific examples:
    • "a veteran of the American Revolutionary War." → "an American Revolutionary War veteran"
      • Done.
    • "It was constructed out of portions of Tollunteeskee's Trail, Avery's Trace, and the Emery Road, and passed through the cities of Kingston, Carthage, and Gallatin. It was built from 1799 and 1801 at a cost of $1,000" → "Built from 1799 and 1801 at a cost of $1,000 (...) it was constructed out of portions of Tollunteeskee's Trail, Avery's Trace, and the Emery Road, and passed through the cities of Kingston, Carthage, and Gallatin."
      • Done.
    • "After the formation of the Tennessee Department of Highways, the predecessor agency to TDOT," → "After the formation of TDOT predecessor Tennessee Department of Highways"
      • Done, although I didn't have an issue with the previous wording. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, what is the Emery Road? You mean the Walton Road?
  • It was a section of the Walton Road built a few years before. Will add something about this promptly.

Bneu2013 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update - the Emery Road was a trail cleared a few years prior in an attempt to connect Knoxville to Nashville. Although I haven't been able to confirm, I don't think it was an entirely new construction; it appears to have been a link from Knoxville to Native American trails on the plateau. multiple sources describe Avery's Trace as the first road across the plateau and between Knoxville and Nashville. That being said, I've added a small descriptor. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in an effort to encourage the state to improve the network of roads that ran between Memphis and Bristol." - Was this effort successful? If so, you can probably drop "in an effort".
  • "This highway became recognized" - by whom? The source indicates that it was characterized in a Johnson City Chronicle headline as such.
Planning:
  • I think you can remove the link to the disambiguation page "Malfunction Junction".
  • Done.
  • "which was approved by the Bureau of Public Roads, predecessor to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on April 12, 1956" - This is missing a comma after (FHWA). Alternatively, you can rearrange this to "which was approved by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) predecessor Bureau of Public Roads on April 12, 1956"
    • Fixed.
  • "was part of 1,047.6 miles (1,685.9 km)" - I'd say "was among" instead of "was part of".
    • Done.
  • "I-40 in Tennessee was initially planned as the longest segment of Interstate Highway within a single state" - I'd reword this as "I-40 in Tennessee was initially the longest segment of Interstate Highway planned within a single state", as I-75 was also planned as the longest intrastate segment of Interstate Highway, just not until later.
    • Done.
More to come, hopefully soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epicgenius: - responded to all of your comments so far. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry again for the delay. I will leave some more comments about the history soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Guerillero edit

  • Oppose due to the use of Google Maps when USGS QQs are available in light of the unclosed Maps RfC that shows significant community oposition to the use of dynamic webmaps --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 10:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @In actu: - So does this mean you would oppose every other current highway FA that uses Google Maps? So far the RFC hasn't shown a consensus that Google Maps is entirely unreliable, and it has been upheld multiple times at RFC. There seems to be concerns about using Google Maps to cite certain specific features, and this article does not rely on Google Maps for this. Bneu2013 (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant community opposition to it being a reliable makes it almost certain that it is not a "high-quality reliable source" under any reasonable definition. This is especially true for the United States where state, local, and federal sources publish comprehensive maps on a regular basis. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would wait for that RFC to close before citing it. As an example why, at least one, maybe two, of the more prolific oppose votes at that RFC are opposing but with the opposite logic. They are claiming, you can't trust government maps for a government project, because it's not independent. They are insisting for government projects independent means the map must be commercial. And there's a lot of follow on "support per x" votes. Should that person's POV prevail when the RFC is closed, you have given the wrong advice here.
    I also have been known to raise concerns over misuse of Google maps in GAC/FAC/etc. However, I haven't gotten that far just yet. I would rather see what is sourced to Google Maps (and I'll get there, working on it) before raising opposition. Dave (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guerillero: - If you have any issue with anything specific that is cited to Google Maps, please list it. Otherwise, it would make sense to review lots of other highway FAs, some of which rely on Google Maps more strongly than this one. Also note that as a condition of the previous nomination, I added a lot more sources for terrain descriptions to corroborate what was originally almost exclusively cited to Google Maps. Now, it is used primarily for citing interchanges and distances. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My oppose on sourcing grounds stands and will be weighed by the coords when they close. I will reevaluate iff you decide to replace Google Maps with a "high-quality reliable source". As for other articles, I have consistent worked to make sure that all FAs meet the sourcing requirements found in 1c. I would not have a problem with !voting to delist at FAR based on the use of Google Maps. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently posted something related to this at the RfC, but I will provide a shortened version here. The gist of it is, if Google Maps is inappropriate to use to cite, for example, the numbering of interchanges or distance between interchanges, something millions of motorists use it everyday for navigation, then why do we even have maps at all? If you think this is an inappropriate usage of Google Maps, then I suggest you nominate all of the existing highway FAs that use it in the same matter as this article for review. Although I don't know of all of them, I do know right of the top of my head that all of the Michigan Interstate FAs rely on Google Maps for the RD even more than this one. But I'm not trying to start a discussion about that here. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a rather ridiculous statement. You won't indicate where you feel a particular source is used unreliably, based on an undecided "consensus" from an unclosed RfC, that the use of that source is unreliable, period. WP:DEPS is where such claims of invalidity should refer. Hopefully any closing coord would ignore votes not based in policy whatsoever, even though Bneu has since updated them. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guerillero:, how do you propose that the distances in the table be measured then? I don't like using Google Maps for that either, but when Tennessee doesn't publish the mileage data, there's not many alternatives. --Rschen7754 00:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will point out that [9] does appear to have the data needed, however some members of the community oppose any dynamic map application. --Rschen7754 01:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      After looking taking a look, this is a far superior source to Google Maps. If this isn't acceptable, however, then I don't guess anything is. That being said, I will be replacing Google Maps with this in the exit list, and possible elsewhere if appropriate. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Update - I am currently in the process of switching over to the USDOT source for the exit list. It will probably take me at least another hour or two. This source actually gives the mileages to the thousandths place, which I personally think is TMI for encyclopedic articles. If someone disagrees, please let me know. I haven't seen whether or not there is a consensus on this. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know whether there is a recorded consensus, but you should use the same number of decimal places as the source. VC 00:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Of the Department's of Transportation that publish milage logs that I'm familiar with, all publish lengths to either 0.01 or 0.001 miles. I usually stick to the resolution provided by the DOT. An exception is where I have to use multiple sources with differing resolutions. In that case I've done both, I've had differing resolutions in the table and have rounded figures for consistency. Also I haven't forgotten about this review. I'll work more on it probably tomorrow.Dave (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Update - I've about got the new mileage figures cited. But the FHWA and BTS appear to disagree on the length of I-40 in Tennessee, with the latter claiming it is about 0.6 mi shorter. This could, of course, be due to methodology (the BTS uses the eastbound lanes to measure the length; I do not know how the FHWA does it). Even though this FHWA table seems to imply that it is almost 1.5 miles shorter than what they claim elsewhere, although this might be neglecting the I-40/24 concurrency length. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to let you all know, I will am working on replacing Google Maps with superior quality sources, but this will have to wait until the weekend. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Guerillero: - I have replaced all usages of Google Maps with much better quality sources. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Struck due to the update --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:50, 7 May 2023 (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 movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I must object. This is a long article and takes time to thoroughly review. There have been plenty of other FAs that have had reviews take longer than this. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having been open for more than four weeks this nomination has only picked up one general support. As there seems little sign of a timely consensus to promote forming I am regretfully timing this out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2023 (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 May 2023 [10].

Early life of Cleopatra edit

Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC), User:PericlesofAthens[reply]

Once again, Pericles and I have joined hands and united to present another FAC for your consideration. Cleopatra is well-known for her later life, and probably most known for her death, but her early life is seldom discussed. Pericles has done a wonderful job starting and researching this article, and I am honored to have been granted permission to continue his work. After some effort and discussion with Periclles and Iry-Hor, I believe this article is ready for FA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not doing a full source review yet, but noted in passing that the article would benefit from some editing for citation consistency. At the moment we have some cites using {{citation}} and others {{cite book}}, some books which include publication locations and others which don't... rationalization needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria This has been fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Support by Iry-Hor edit

First of all I should declare some sort of conflict of interest: I discussed the article prior to its nomination (although in an extremely limited fashion!) and Unlimitedlead is currently reviewing at FAC an article I nominated. That said I think I can repeat what I stated in the discussion: the article is very well written and impressively well referenced. I found a few minor things to update:

  • Duplinks: in section "Reign of Ptolemy XII and Roman interventionism" to Seleucid Empire (twice), in section "Return to Egypt from exile": to Talent (measurement), to Gaul (appearing at "Gallic"); in section "Accession to the throne" to Thebes and to Ancient Egyptian Religion (this one first shows up in section "Birth and tutelage").Iry-Hor (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iry-Hor: All fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I am really happy to Support. I don't see what to add. The article is really nice, there is no point splitting hair it deserves FA. Good job ! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iry-Hor Thank you for your support and feedback! Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma edit

Reserving a spot here, review to follow. —Kusma (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: "The early life of Cleopatra ... began with her birth" sounds a bit obvious, and the rest of the first sentence is a bit too convoluted. Try to first quickly define the scope of the article, then use further sentences to give background. I would also suggest not to mention Cleopatra V before you first link to Cleopatra.
Done.
I think you are still saying too much in one sentence. The parenthesis about when she ruled is just a distraction at the point where it is, and her parents are so complicated that you might want to move them to the next sentence. Her mother isn't strictly "unknown" if I understand the body correctly; it is more that there is scholarly disagreement about the identification of her mother, who was likely Cleopatra V or Cleopatra VI, or both if these are the same. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I have made some more edits; please see if it is to your liking. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I would still like to see a very early link to Cleopatra. (Imagine this is a main page FA and you want to get from this article to her biography. She is the third Cleopatra that is linked, and the seventh link overall right now; not ideal) —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cleopatra's father was a client ruler of the Roman Republic" can this really be stated so directly/is this true before 60 BC? He is not listed at List of Roman client rulers.
Fletcher p. 5 and several other sources describe the Egyptian state as a client kingdom of Rome; if it is not true before 60 BC, it certainly was at the time of Cleopatra's eary life, which is the topic of the aricle. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK if that's what the sources say; it just seems a bit inconsistent with his own and some other articles. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only SEAOFBLUE issues I see are in cases of titles, such as Ptolemaic pharaoh Ptolemy XII Auletes. I believe that rewording sentences to avoid the SEAOFBLUE would make them extremely confusing to read. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
primarily-[[Hellenistic period|Hellenistic Greek]] [[Education in ancient Greece|education]] is still there, not a title, and a rather annoying SEAOFBLUE example.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Birth and tutelage: do you really need all the citations in "cousin or sister-wife Cleopatra V Tryphaena [11][12][13][nb 2][nb 3]"? They look a bit intimidating.
Sadly, yes. The topic of Cleopatra's mother is a much heated debate within academic circles. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have just pasted the footnote into the text without adapting it to its context within the article. You now have "Auletes" something like five times before you go and explain what it means. You mention the expulsion of Cleopatra V as a historical fact after talking about its implications for the question of identity or not of Cleopatra V and VI. Can you try to sort this better and clarify what is agreed upon as historical facts and what is a matter of scholarly disagreement? —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere apologies. This whole genealogical tangle is really messing with my brain! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Little is known of Cleopatra's early life". According to prozesize, enough for a 2480 word article ;)
We try ;) Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her Roman colleagues would have preferred to speak with her in her native Koine Greek." who is meant by "colleagues" and why would they have preferred to speak Greek?
The sources only states that the "colleagues" are "Romans with whom she came into contact [with]..." The same source only states, "...Romans with whom she came into contact [with] would insist on speaking Greek. Greek had been used officially by the Romans since the early third century B.C., and in Cleopatra's day Cicero complained that there were still people who demanded interpreters... Latin would have been useful to her not so much to speak to Romans but to read material in that language..." Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with your explanation of the Greek (I would expect educated Romans at the time to speak Greek well, but was surprised they preferred it to Latin), but "colleagues" sounds a bit like "people with the same job", which obviously doesn't apply. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "contemporaries". Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are told about intermarriage twice, separated by a sentence about Egyptian priests.
Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I am now curious what the Greek poleis in Egypt were. Are there any known examples? —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there are. In fact, there was a footnote in the article pertaining to this very matter, but was deleted at the suggestion of another reviewer. Would you like to me place it back? Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that suggestion and think that footnote should be restored. It addressed this very concern about marriage law in Ptolemaic Egypt and how different colonial Greek poleis in Egypt had different laws, especially different laws from native Egyptian cities. The reviewer below simply didn't understand that context for whatever reason. Perhaps they were speed reading through the article and failed to notice? Pericles of AthensTalk 22:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't strongly care whether there is a footnote or not, but if Alexandria is one of the poleis, saying "Although there were laws against intermarriage in the Greek city-states (poleis) of Egypt" right after telling us there was a law against intermarriage in Alexandria seems a bit repetitive. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I just move that sentence into the footnote as well? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think (but I can be wrong, and often am) that combining the two sentences about intermarriage would be the way to go. My suggestion is "Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians in these cities were legally segregated and lived in different parts of the city. In Alexandria and other Greek city-states (poleis) of Egypt, intermarriage was forbidden, although it was permitted in other parts of Egypt.", but you can perhaps combine/simplify this further depending on whether Naukratis and Ptolemais Hermiou are also considered Greek poleis, and whether there are any other ones. (I don't know the answer to these questions, and the article doesn't tell me). —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the (speculated!) Egyptian half-cousin relevant for her early life? "At the beginning of her reign Cleopatra sought the support and loyalty of the Egyptian priesthood" makes it sounds like this was something that didn't start until later.
Moved to the Accession to the throne section.
  • Reign of Ptolemy XII and Roman interventionism: introduce Antiochus IV?
Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All unlinked.
  • Exile of Ptolemy XII and Cleopatra: first sentence is too long and confusing. "the Roman Republic annexed Cyprus and drove Ptolemy of Cyprus, where he committed suicide" something seems to be missing here.
Fixed.
  • "Whether by force or voluntary action, Ptolemy XII left Egypt in exile to Rhodes and his Roman host, Cato the Younger, who castigated him for losing his kingdom while seated on a latrine and undergoing laxative treatment." there are too many things in this sentence, and they are not connected properly. And it isn't clear whether the person on the latrine was Cato, and whether he was in Rhodes while castigating.
That sentences was perfectly grammatically correct and clear, but nonetheless I have adjusted it according to your suggestion. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Both mental images (of Cato on the latrine or of Ptolemy on the latrine) were a bit unexpected. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop here for the moment. I think the article isn't quite ready and needs some copyediting and MOS:OL link removal. Happy to look at the rest once this kind of issues has been looked at in the whole article. —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma Thanks for all your comments thus far; they have all been addressed. I completely understand your concerns regarding overlinking and prose, and I shall take a thorough look at them when I am free tomorrow. I understand (based on what others have told me) that the article is rather well-researched and well-written, so I am hopeful that these minor issues will not be a setback to the nominations' progress. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma I have reread the entire article several times and done my best to fix any possible unclear language. I will say though, that @PericlesofAthens is a skilled writer and rarely produces any work that is not his best. Please let me know what you think about the article's state now; hopefully the review can resume. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will review the rest of the article, but it may take some time. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • "wrote Greek medical works" why link to History of medicine? I have also looked at the sources to check what we know, and it is far less definitive than what is written here. Fletcher says "Arab historians claimed that Cleopatra too 'wrote books on medicine'" and while Roller p. 45 names her "a medical author", this should be seen in the context of p. 49 "Cleopatra's education would also be reflected in her own publications, although the tradition of her as an author is obscure and full of problems" and "Connecting these fragments to Cleopatra VII is, admittedly, difficult" on p. 50. Why are you so certain she wrote these works in her youth? The corresponding section Cleopatra#Written_works in the main article seems much better.
I have tried to correct this. The article now reads, "During her youth Cleopatra presumably studied at the Musaeum (including the Library of Alexandria), and possibly wrote Greek medical works which may have been inspired by the physicians at her father's royal court.[28][27] Later Arab historians claimed that Cleopatra wrote medical texts,[27] but the long-held belief that Cleopatra was an author is, as Roller puts it, "is obscure and full of problems... [and] Connecting these fragments to Cleopatra VII is, admittedly, difficult".[29] Several works from antiquity, which now only exist as fragments, were labeled as Cleopatra's although Roller argues that "by late antiquity Cleopatra VII was by far the most famous person of that name and there would be a tendency to assume that the fragments were hers.[30]". Any thoughts? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think it is a bit long given that we don't reliably know that this is connected to her youth. I removed the extra "is". —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Romans— especially desperate financiers of Ptolemy XII such as Rabirius Postumus—were determined to restore Ptolemy XII" as it was against Roman law, perhaps phrasing it as "the Romans were determined" isn't optimal.
It was indeed against Roman law, but the plan was carried out anyways. How would you have me rephrase it? I was thinking about replacing "the" with "some". That way, it would be clear that now all Romans backed this plot. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Romans" sounds like it was the official government position, not that of one (powerful) faction. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which instance in the article are you referring to? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gabinius was tried and acquitted in Rome for abusing his authority." He was tried for abusing his authority, but was acquitted?
"Gabinius was tried and acquitted in Rome for abusing his authority. His second trial for accepting bribes led to a seven-year exile..." means that he was tried twice: the first trial resulted in him being acquitted, and the second trial led to exile. I think the sentences makes this clear: "tried and acquitted for abusing his authority... second trial for accepting bribes."Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link is rather unhelpful: it just says "term applied to a variety of administrative officials". Additionally, people here at FA do not like foreign language titles, for some reason. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ptolemy XII, who died of natural causes, designated " why do we need the cause of death here? His death isn't really under discussion until the next section.
Removed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cleopatra probably married her brother, Ptolemy XIII, but the marriage is uncertain". Again, not a fan of the "married" link. I didn't understand what is "uncertain" about this until I read the main article Cleopatra. It would be nice to hear how old he was at the time.
Removed that link. And both done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we have almost a paragraph discussing sibling marriage when we don't know that this applied to Cleopatra? I also don't see the point of including the image of Ptolemy II and Arsenoe II a few sections up. I have removed the image at your request. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "sibling marriages were nevertheless considered a normal arrangement for Ptolemaic rulers by the time of Cleopatra's reign" offers some rational behind why Cleopatra's incestuous marriage could have been plausible; if it had not happened, it certainly would have been ordinary for it to occur.

I have finished my first read through. The article looks quite well-researched and comprehensive, but after looking at the main Cleopatra article, I am still a bit underwhelmed by this one. There is a bit more background here (mostly on the historical context and on what other people did), but not so much extra information on the early life of Cleopatra herself. At the same time, the main Cleopatra article is better written and more pleasant to read (and some of my comments here, for example "the Romans" or "marriage is uncertain" seem have been addressed there). Looking at both together, one can still see that this article is based on an old version of the main article. Not supporting or opposing at this point; I'll ponder this for a while and let other reviewers have a go. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: That is quite alright! Thank you for your review thus far. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Buidhe edit

The footnotes look excessive to me. I would look into removing or integrating into the text. Examples:

  • Fn 1 includes information about the death date, but this article is about her early life so detailed information about the death date is not relevant to the article subject. Axe it.
  • The text says that Cleopatra's mother was Cleopatra V Tryphaena but the note suggests that it could have been Cleopatra VI Tryphaena. Seems to me that some of the note's content should be integrated into the text
  • Fn 4 is about Cleopatra's father and does not actually offer additional information about the article subject. It does not belong in this article.
  • Fn 5 is unnecessary because you already say she spoke a different language. Relevant to other articles about ancient Egypt but not this one.
  • Fn 6: why is the legal status of Alexandria and citizenship of its residents relevant to this article? Axe it.

etc. (t · c) buidhe 07:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe All done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion above led to me keeping note six (now note two). Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

I settled down to review this, but it seems a bit under prepared. The prose is often, IMO, clunky. Would the nominators mind if I were to copy edit a section or two by way of illustration - if they wish to stand by their original prose they can always revert - and we can then discuss? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, dear. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "well-versed" mean. Could speak them? Fluently? Could read and write them? Fluently?
  • "He and a daughter, ostensibly Cleopatra and not Arsinoe IV". For the lead this needs either further explaining (eg who is Arsinoe IV?) or removing.
  • "but it is uncertain if they married before engaging in open hostilities". It is uncertain if they married, or it is uncertain if they married before the war started? Do you mean 'She may have married her brother, Ptolemy XIII, but this is uncertain. By 47 BC they were engaging in open warfare.'
  • "were exiled from Egypt during a revolt." When?
  • Copy edit to lead.
  • Bernice, or Berenice IV?
  • "extending his provincial command to Egypt". What did this mean in practice for Egypt and Cleopatra?
  • "until he was killed by the Parthians in the 53 BC"> SO when Crasus was killed, wharever effects you list in answer to the question above ceased? And didn't carry over to the next Roman governor?
  • "Postumus was placed under protective custody". By whom?
  • "when his life was threatened". By whom?
  • "were allowed to harass people in the streets of Alexandria." This is a bit unclear. It could mean anything from racist name calling to robbing and raping at sword point.
  • "all of Ptolemy XII's debt". Just checking - a debt, singular?
  • "for draining Egypt of its resources". Was he? (Draining Egypt of its resources.) Or just collecting the monarch's legally due debt[s]? I ask because you seem to be (I am unclear) stating that he was (draining Egypt of its resources), in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Copy edit to two paragraphs selected at random.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog for your comments. May I take a look at them after Thursday? This upcoming world history exam is going to be the death of me... Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I am, regretfully, leaning oppose at the moment. A lot of the prose is not, well, taut enough. It doesn't say what you want it to say, or says it in a round about manner. Have a look through my edits and queries above on the five paragraphs I've looked at in detail and I think you'll see what I mean. It seems too deep rooted to me to get sorted during a FAC, so seems best to withdraw, tighten everything up at leisure and then bring it back. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: @Gog the Mild @PericlesofAthens Regrettably that has been proposed by more than one reader. If it is alright with you, Pericles, I would like to withdraw this nomination and re-nominate it at some undisclosed date in the future. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead That's a shame, but understandable. I am not free to address any of this anytime soon either, certainly not this week. I'll try to tackle it afterwards if I can. Cheers and thanks for all your efforts in trying to nominate this for FA status. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:11, 11 May 2023 (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 May 2023 [11].

Dietrich v The Queen edit

Nominator(s): MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important decision of the High Court of Australia. A former featured article, it was placed up for review in December 2021 and eventually delisted as it failed to meet the modern FAC criteria. Over the last 15 months it has undergone a total renovation from the ground up. I am nominating for FAC as I believe every issue raised in the delisting has been thoroughly addressed. The article has not only undergone a full re-writing by myself, but valuable assistance has been given to me by many other experienced editors. Over 4 weeks it was reviewed and eventually passed as a GA article. Since then one of the original editors supporting delisting from FA status has made edits to the article and it has undergone a full copyedit. I now propose the article covers all relevant literature and meets modern FA criteria. Very much looking forward to reviewing and acting on any feedback. Thank you all, MC MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closing COORD: Please be sure to update WP:FFA should this article be promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination edit

  • Hi MaxnaCarta, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Gog the Mild. No worries at all. I see this process is a little different to other nomination processes on Wikipedia and the nomination can take many weeks or even two months. I’ll just keep addressing feedback as it comes. I’ll start by checking every single reference myself so that when someone else does the source review it’s good to go. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ling edit

  • Durie, Graeme (1993). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
- Done
  • Grace, David (2001). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
- Done
  • Groves, Mathew (2018). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
- Done
  • Kift, Sally (1997). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
- Done
  • Roche, Declan (2001). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
- Not done, it's hard to explain but one does not access "pages" for this the way I accessed it. It is an interactive book the way I access it and you click on different concepts and links rather than a book with pages.
  • Wheeler, Fiona (1997). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
- Done
Comment by Buidhe

I do believe the article is reasonably comprehensive, however, there are some places that I marked that need an inline citation per the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Buidhe, I will address and ping you once done. If you find any other issues, please do let me know. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe these citation tags have now been addressed. Thanks for pointing them out. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Renascence did this address your comments? Are there any other issues you wish for me to address? MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaxnaCarta: Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Roche, Declan (2001).  § Lingzhi (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias edit

It's always nice to see former FAs return here, I'll take a look over this. If you would consider a reciprocal review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bronkhorstspruit/archive1, which is struggling for attention, I would greatly appreciate it, but don't feel obligated.

  • If "de facto" is being italicised as latin-language text, it should use the {{lang}} per MOS:LANG.
  • Done: Changed to which established an accused facing serious criminal charges must be granted an adjournment until appropriate legal representation is provided if they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and proceeding would result the trial being unfair. The "de facto" part was a little interpretative anyway. I thought I'd changed that already.
  • Can you provide a Wiktionary link for "indigent", as I don't think it is commonly enough known to use without some sort of explanation.
  • Done: I agree with this. Linked to poverty
  • "Dietrich applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia on the grounds the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding Dietrich did not have a right to be provided with counsel at public expense, and by not granting adjournment, his lack of representation meant a miscarriage of justice had occurred by finding Dietrich did not have a right for publicly funded representation and by failing to find that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to this lack of representation." Please find a way to split this sentence up. It is too hard for my little mind to follow in one go.
    Done: Agreed entirely. Reworded to: Dietrich applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia on the grounds the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding Dietrich did not have a right to be provided with counsel at public expense. It was argued that not granting adjournment meant a miscarriage of justice had occurred by refusing publicly funded representation meaning he proceeded to trial without being legally represented.
  • "Fairall noted the originating judge's comments.." Who is Fairall?
  • Done: Fairall is the author of the source cited. I actually removed that sentence, it was not necessary.
  • Given the case centres around Dietrich's lack of representation in his original trial, do we have any details of his representation in this case? I can't see any details of this.
  • Comment: It is obvious he ended up getting represented by Fairall (as Stuart Fairall is listed as his representation in the court decision) however there is never any significant discussion in the literature that I can find about how this came to be. So I do not think it needs to be put in. Certainly if I come across any commentary regarding this it would be a good idea though.
  • "..according to Wheeler (1997).." Who is Wheeler?
  • Done: changed to "according to an academic"
  • Sorry, my bad for not explaining this properly. What I was hoping was both; something like "..according to Fiona Wheeler, a constitutional law specialist, the justices regard.." Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..said the recognition by Dawson the interests of justice could not be pursued in an isolated case.." Something doesn't read quite right here, can you take a look and rephrase?
  • Done: changed to: noted Dawson recognised the interests of justice could not be pursued in an isolated case
  • The article says that "As a result of the majority decision, the court ordered the application to appeal be granted, the conviction be quashed and Dietrich be granted a new trial." But I can't see details on that retrial in the article, am I just being stupid?
  • Comment: Certainly not stupid and I think this is a fair point to raise. Unfortunately, the subsequent proceedings are not discussed in literature. As I understand it through speaking to colleagues and what I could read on the internet (not from reliable sources), he never ended up returning for a new trial. It appears though that he only briefly left prison, he was in and out before eventually being sentenced to life for murder. As that's not really discussed anywhere but newspapers rather than journal articles, I think it's best left out.
  • Fair enough, if we don't have the sources, there isn't much we can do about it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink "Attorney-General" on first use (in Case) rather than the current second use (in Implications for provision of legal aid).
  • Done
  • "..about applying principles from Dietrich v the Queen.."Capitalise "the".
  • Done
  • "Deanne said.." Is Deanne meant to be Justice Deane?
  • Comment: No, it's not. The justices are introduced in the first instance with their titles (see majority and dissenting) and then subsequently referred to by surname only. No set guideline for this one. I prefer a surname only rather than a title each time their name is mentioned.
  • My query was based on the different spelling. I wasn't sure if it was meant to be a different person or not. If it is meant to be Justice Deane, then please correct the spelling to match. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result, courts faced problems when applying the Dietrich test." Why past tense? Do they no longer face these problems?
  • Done: now reads: courts have encountered problems

That's the lot from me. Note that I have primarily reviewed the prose against criteria 1a, 2a, 2b and 4. I note that many of the concerns raised by Extraordinary Writ in the Featured article review revolve around the sourcing and comprehensiveness, neither of which I have looked at in any detail; hopefully whoever completes the source review will be able to look at these in detail. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will absolutely QPQ your article. I only just learned that anyone can review FAs. I’ll do my best to leave some comments of use in improving the article. Regarding your concerns, I will absolutely address within 48 hours. Thanks very much! MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done @Harrias. Your FAC looks great. I’m praying for two promotions. Fingers crossed. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta: A couple of follow-ups. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Harrias! Will address and ping you once done. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias, fixed the issues you raised. Please let me know if you have any other comments. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend withdrawal - Gog the Mld edit

Recusing to review.

I am going to do a little copy editing as I go. If you disagree with anything or don't understand why I have done something, could you flag it up here?

  • "which established an accused facing serious criminal charges". I am not sure what the unexplained technical term "accused" brings to this. Perhaps 'which established a person facing serious criminal charges' or similar?
  • What is "a stay"? (Other than part of a corset.)
  • "The Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal rejected the appeal". What appeal?
  • What does "applied for appeal" mean?
  • What is a "ground"?

I am assuming that the advice in the FAC instructions "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination" was not followed?

I am teetering on the edge of opposing on the grounds that the article is not yet ready. For example, the first paragraph of "Background" is, IMO, all but incomprehensible to a non-expert, is under linked and needs in line explanation of specialist terminology and institutions. I will give the nominator a chance to chip in before deciding. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild. Regarding your editing, I welcome assistance from highly experienced editors. I'm always happy for others to chip in on any of the articles I adopt or create.
About seeking a mentor, you're right, I didn't. The reason I did not was because I've had a lot of help from experienced editors the entire way through this. Right when I started editing Wikipedia properly, this article was an FA and was put up to FAR by Extraordinary Writ. A lot of issues were raised, and I spent almost a year addressing the issues raised by the FAR. After this was done, I then spent a solid month (far longer than a normal GA review) working on feedback by Goldsztajn who does have an FA. That editor held me to what I would consider a much higher standard than normal for a GA, and really helped me to address the issues raised at FAR. Other experienced gnome editors helped fix some minor issues, and I did send it for a copyedit (Although I confused copy edit with peer review, rookie error). I thought it would be right to go.
That said, if it is not too late, I am happy for you to mentor or psuedo-mentor? I am very happy to address any specific concerns. Am I right in saying that it is certainly within FA ballpark even if it is not immediately ready for your support? I'm happy to do the work. I will start by acting on the feedback provided so far. Happy to do whatever work is required to earn people's support including yours. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you please could list any terms within the article you think need in-line explaining, that would be great. Would a note suffice with footnote? Or you actually think what an appeal is should be explained within the text? Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I have made the suggested amendments. The one thing I did have to do was keep the word accused. Though, I changed it from "Accused facing serious charges" to "person accused of serious charges". The word accused is used often throughout, and an alternative does not work except defendant which sounds even more technical and choppy.
Please do have a read through and let me know if you find anything else a casual reader may not be able to interpret. I have had a good read through myself, standing in the shoes of someone without expertise. I do not think the article is overly technical, but happy to be pointed out to anything specific that needs fixing.
Thanks heaps — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that a lot of work has gone into this and the article is clearly close to ready for FAC. However, reading and digging a little further convinces me that it needs more work than can reasonably be expected to happen at FAC. I am therefore opposing with a recommendation that the nomination be withdrawn for further work on the article. Unfortunately shortage of time precludes my becoming a mentor, but a list of editors open to the suggestion can be found here - Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC.
In addition to my comments above and my copy editing I would like to restate that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where we explain things for a lay audience. Picking a further paragraph at random, the second paragraph of "High Court judgment" is unlikely to make sense to a non-expert, and I am left unclear as to what the last sentence is trying to say. I also note that the paraphrasing is awkwardly close in some cases. Eg "show the trial of an unrepresented person accused of a serious offence will result in an unfair trial" and 'shows that the trial of an unrepresented accused on a serious charge will result in an unfair trial.' And, IMO, court documents, including decisions, are primary sources subject to all of the usual rules; citing to them directly all too easily becomes OR or non-NPOV. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- per the above I'm going to archive this shortly. Regardless of whether mentoring is taken up, I'd recommend taking to Peer Review before another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2023 (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) 8 May 2023 [12].

Damen station (CTA Blue Line) edit

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous FAC of this article got closed due to trifling poppycock procedural issues, but I would like to nominate this article that I hope provides a thorough and comprehensive history of one of the most popular stations on the Chicago "L". The oldest station on the Blue Line, this aesthetic station is credited for developing the surrounding area. Although it and the neighborhood took a dive in the mid-20th century, being one of the roughest areas of the "L" by the mid-1980s, they have rebounded significantly and received multiple renovations since then. Unfortunately, the historic character of this station means that it has not received ADA accessibility despite these renovations. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - as is probably obvious; this one's in danger of timing out. I'd review myself, but am going to have an out of town work trip in a few days, so I don't really have the time to start a general review. Hog Farm Talk 17:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Four weeks in and only one general support. I am afraid that this has timed out and I will be archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: Sorry to see that this has failed to garner much interest. Please ping me if you renominate, as I'll be happy to provide my support once again. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias – support edit

Okay, let's get this rolling, and hopefully more reviewers will appear. I have a nomination that could similarly do with more attention, if you would consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bronkhorstspruit/archive1, I would greatly appreciate it, but my review is not at all dependent upon that.

  • "..due to the feared impact of property values." This might be an ENGVAR thing, but "on" would seem more suitable than "of" to me here.
    • Done.
  • "..making it upon its opening the first revenue electric elevated railroad in the United States." A couple of issues here. Firstly, "upon its opening" is redundant and can be removed. Secondly, the word "revenue" seems oddly used here. "revenue-generating" or simply "commercial" seem like better fits, unless I'm missing something.
    • I think "revenue" is the common usage for railroads in the US that are not heritage/special-purpose, but I could be wrong. In any event, removed "upon its opening".
      • Fair enough. It sounds weird and wrong to this Brit, but a Google search does show it is apparently suitable in USese. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..to the local portion of the elevated.." What does "the local portion" mean? Isn't everywhere local to somewhere?
    • The portion alongside Milwaukee Avenue; other parts of the Metropolitan were over other alleys (or, in downtown, directly above the streets).
      • I think that needs to be made clear, I don't find that obvious from the text as written. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tried to replace with "this part" of the elevated; if that's still unsatisfactory please feel free to come up with something that concisely refers to this specific stretch of the elevated rather than the other parts. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:TIME, "6 a.m." should have a {{nbsp}}.
    • All times either NBSP'd or nowrapped.
  • "..along with the other companies operating "L" lines in Chicago.." This is the first time I can see that you've mentioned ""L" lines" – what are they?
    • What they call the choob in Chicago – I've linked accordingly.
  • Why is "de facto" in italics?
    • Because it's Latin.
      • I would say that per MOS:FOREIGN ("Loanwords and borrowed phrases that have common usage in English – Gestapo, samurai, vice versa – do not require italics. A rule of thumb is to not italicize words that appear in major general-purpose English-language dictionaries." "de facto" does not require italics. However, if you feel strongly that it does, it should use {{lang}} as per MOS:LANG. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..the publicly-owned Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would not be created until 1945,[19] or assume operation of the "L" until October 1, 1947." Given that this is correctly placed in the narrative, the tense is wrong. It should be something more like "..the publicly-owned Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) was not created until 1945,[19] and assumed operation of the "L" in October 1, 1947."
    • Hopefully did something to the right effect.
  • "The Logan Square branch south of Damen was replaced.." This is the first time the station has been referred to as "Damen". The article mentioned that Robey Street was renamed Ramen Avenue, but never explicitly said that the station also changed names. This needs to be made clear.
    • The newspaper source never mentions the station specifically, so I've worded it appropriately.
  • "With the subway's opening.." Avoid the Noun plus -ing construction.
    • Replaced "with" by "upon".
  • "..and would be used until the Humboldt Park branch's 1952 closure." Replace "would be" with "was".
    • Done.
  • Link terracotta on first use, in Station renovations and rehabilitations, rather than in Infrastructure and facilities.
    • Done.
  • "..to California and Western stations.." Are these individual stations, or is "California and Western" a group of stations? If they are individual stations, it should be "..to the California and Western stations.." and provide Wikilinks to those stations if they have articles.
    • "The" not added as my American brain prefers them as false titles, wikilinks added.
  • "The Metropolitan's tracks and stations were constructed by the West Side Construction Company, a company with the same officers as the Metropolitan.." This was already mentioned in the History section. Pick where you want it, but don't include it twice.
    • Slightly trimmed, but see below.
  • "The 2014 renovation also added wider turnstiles for luggage and strollers, but did not include any accessibility improvements for riders with disabilities.." Again, this is a repeat of information in the History section.
    • I've often been suggested to occasionally repeat information on these types of articles in both the History section and Station details where appropriate.
  • "..between 6 a.m. and 6:30 p.m..." and "5:10 a.m." Again, add {{nbsp}}s. (There are more of these later too, could you check through and pick them all up please.
    • Done, as said earlier.
  • "(5 cents, $1.37 in 2021)" Expand this slightly on this first use to explicitly say "equivalent to $1.37 in 2021".
    • Done, for first use only.
  • "By 1985, the O'Hare branch around Damen and Western was considered one of the most dangerous on the entire "L" system." Make it clear whether this refers to the area or the railway.
    • The source itself is ambiguous on that matter, and indeed typical parlance, at least in Chicago, is to use (e.g.) the "Green Line" to metonymically refer to the area around the physical Green Line. It refers to the railway, moved accordingly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..ran either every 15 minutes or every 30 minutes depending on destination; during the day, streetcars in Chicago typically had intervals of eight to fifteen minutes." Per the MOS either all of these times should be words, or all should be numbers.
    • Decided for all words.
  • "On opening day.." It might be an ENGVAR thing, but I'd prefer "On the opening day.."
    • Probably ENGVAR, added "its" insteadsee above with "California and Western".
  • "..and in the 1940s struggled with California.." "struggled" seems an odd word to use here?
    • I agree, but struggle (hah) to come up with a better way to phrase it; how does "competed closely" sound?
      • I guess my issue is that these phrasings make it sound like having the highest ridership was some sort of competition. I'd prefer something like "..and in the 1940s had similar ridership levels to California on the branch as well." Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its global performance on the "L" was.." What does this mean? Is "global" being used as a synonym of "overall"? If so, use "overall".
    • Done.
  • A few times you use "Milwaukee-Dearborn" with a hyphen rather than an endash. Change all these to endashes, and check for other lines.
    • Done.

Overall, an interesting read, nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the feedback! For future reference, editors are always welcome to directly edit my FACs to make tweaks and minor corrections/lintrolling. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @John M Wolfson: A few replies above. Where I haven't replied, I'm happy with the changes or rationale. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those changes work for me, I'm happy to give this my support now, great work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: and Harrias, {{xt}} templates are creeping back in to FAC, contrary to FAC instructions (that they cause problems in archives with template limits) And the page is experiencing load issues, possibly as a result. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's please remove the templates for load time/transclusion limits sake as per the FAC instructions. I've left a courtesy reminder at WT:FAC; if the problem continues it may be necessary to manually remove transclusions. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Apologies, I'd actually missed that {{xt}} was one of those to avoid. Replaced throughout. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 7 May 2023 (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) 4 May 2023 [13].

Irghiz River Skirmish edit

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I can't tell you very many certainties about this. To start with, we don't know precisely when it took place. Because of that, we don't really know where it happened or really why. We sort of know who was there, but we don't know all of them for certain, or how well they succeeded in their roles and orders (which we naturally don't fully know about). In total, about all that I can tell you is that there was a battle in the early 13th century between a Mongol army and a Muslim one which would help to nudge the course of world history down a completely different path, for better or worse. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • My only comment on an initial read is that I think the article would benefit from a tiny bit more context as to who some of the people are. You don't mention that Genghis Khan was the ruler of the Mongols anywhere in the article. It would also be worth mentioning that Jochi was Genghis's son and Jebe his top general, as currently these two names are dropped in with nothing to explain why it would be noteworthy that they were (or weren't) present. That's all I got...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add the same context to the body as well as the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I would like to withdraw this nomination; RL has got in the way, and I'll be mostly off-wiki for the next few weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (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) 3 May 2023 [14].

All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2 edit

Nominator(s): – jona ✉ 01:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article discusses the second installment of All My Hits by the American Tejano singer Selena, which was released five years after her death. As a lesser-known album, I have chosen to feature this specific article for its FA status, owing to the cherished childhood memories I hold of singing these songs on this album with my mother. – jona ✉ 01:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There doesn't seem to be any structure to the critical reception section at the moment. May I suggest taking a look at WP:RECEPTION for alternatives? While there might be limited album reviews, I would not dedicate one paragraph to one review as this appears WP:UNDUE. Heartfox (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I revised the section and tried to summarize what the reviewers wrote. – jona ✉ 13:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox would you mind revisiting the article and checking to see if I fixed the issue or comment that the article is or is not ready for FA promotion? Thanks – jona ✉ 18:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There still doesn't seem to be any thematic organization, it's just three reviews given in a row. Some passages are a bit verbose, i.e. "ultimately deeming the second volume a satisfactory compilation", "underscore her facility for seamlessly transitioning". There is a bit of editorializing, i.e. "however", "noted", "nevertheless". "lighthearted and whimsical narrative" is subjective. "The ongoing dissemination of Selena's albums" is the first time I am reading anything about this; its missing an introductory sentence. newspapers.com sources should be clippings, google books links should link directly to the page and include via=Google Books, the Gale link seems to bring me to an error page, some of the shortened footnotes seem to include a "&" when there is only one author. The article is almost there, it just needs a bit more revision. Heartfox (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox I went back to several recent FAs and modeled their reception sections to this article, though it is definitely challenging with only three reviews. I removed the comparison to Madonna since I couldn't find a place for it in the revised version. I have replaced the editorialized terms and edited the texts you mentioned that needed attention. I tried clipping the newspapers.com sources but the site would not allow me, saying that my account is not authorized to do so. I added the "search terms" url to the newspapers.com link so that the terms are highlighted. The google books links have given me a hard time; for example, when I land on (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZhAEAAAAMBAJ&) and try to get it to land on page 54 by using (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZhAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q&f=false) which is what a recent FA's link is, it sends me to page 54, but it's not the page it is supposed to be. When scrolling that exact issue, when you go to page 74 and then try to go to page 75, the page numbers switch to page 51, and as I continue, it then lands on the correct page 54. I tried this with other links to Billboard and it does the same phenomenon. I did, however, added the via=Google Books. I fixed the Gale links and the sfn errors. Best – jona ✉ 01:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent addition of sources plus four more requested at WP:REX, I would suggest withdrawing the nomination at this time. When you think it's complete, I would be happy to do a full review. Heartfox (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2 is a greatest hits album by American singer Selena and was released posthumously on February 29, 2000" => "All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2 is a greatest hits album by American singer Selena released posthumously on February 29, 2000"
  • "expressed his interest in persevering his daughter's memory through her works" => "expressed his interest in preserving his daughter's memory through her works"
  • "The album peaked at number one on the US Billboard Top Latin Albums and Regional Mexican Albums chart" => "The album peaked at number one on the US Billboard Top Latin Albums and Regional Mexican Albums charts" (you are talking about multiple charts)
  • "The album was the second best-selling Regional Mexican Album" - I would say "....of the year" to make absolutely clear you don't mean of all time
  • "Concurrently, the artist was" - I think "At the time, the artist was" would work better
  • "The envisaged crossover album, Dreaming of You was" => "The envisaged crossover album, Dreaming of You, was" (need the comma to close off the clause)
  • "As stated by A. B. Quintanilla, Suzette Quintanilla," - clarify who these people are
  • "to commemorate the label's decennial milestone" - unnecessarily wordy. Just say "the label's tenth anniversary"
  • "The rendition of "No Quiero Saber" on All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2, originates" - no reason for the comma after 2
  • "Initially appearing on Amor Prohibido," => "It initially appeared on Amor Prohibido,"
  • "The seventh track featured on the album, "No Me Queda Más" originates" => "The seventh track featured on the album, "No Me Queda Más", originates"
  • "cited as her last concert before her death" - why "cited as"? Surely it either was her last concert or it wasn't.....
  • It wasn't, but it is universally reported as her final concert. I added a note with a source that clarifies this. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is followed by "Muñequito de Trapo", originally featured on the eponymous album, represents" => "This is followed by "Muñequito de Trapo", originally featured on the eponymous album, which represents"
  • "showcases the re-recorded rendition discovered on Ven Conmigo (1990)" - it wasn't really "discovered" on that album. Probably just say "included on"
  • "The album trailed the debuts of Shakira's MTV Unplugged and Los Temerarios's En la Madrugada Se Fue, respectively" - last word is meaningless in this context and should be removed
  • "The album unseated Shakira's MTV Unplugged from the top spot of the Top Latin Albums chart and climbed to number 171 on the Billboard 200" - when?
  • I added that it was during her fifth anniversary, let me know if it'll be better to just write the date. – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2 along with recent releases from Shakira and Los Temerarios, contributed" => "All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2, along with recent releases from Shakira and Los Temerarios, contributed"
  • Under References, you have a sub-heading of "websites", but some (eg Jasinski, Patoski, Perone) are not websites -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a suggestion during the GA process, but I added back "works cited". Thanks for your review, I really appreciated it! – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the ripped copy of Selena Remembered falls under WP:ELNEVER. Can you justify the use of Smoothvega 2020? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the link and removed the Smoothvega source. Thanks for the comments, much appreciated! – jona ✉ 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero would you mind revisiting the article and checking to see if I fixed the issue or comment that the article is or is not ready for FA promotion? Thanks – jona ✉ 18:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

  • "To commemorate the label's tenth anniversary, they released All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos in March 1999, achieving commercial success and prompting the announcement of a sequel." - who is they? Suggest replacing with a more specific name.
  • "spanning from tracks featured on Selena's Muñequito de Trapo (1987) to the posthumous 1997 club remix of "Enamorada de Ti" (1990)." - "spanning from" should be tweaked as spanning generally doesn't have a preposition after it. Suggest "spanning" or "ranging from"
  • "The album peaked at number one on the US Billboard Top Latin Albums and Regional Mexican Albums charts, and reached number 149 on the Billboard 200." - don't need the comma
  • "John Lannert, a Latin music columnist for Billboard, posited that All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2 attests to Selena's "legendary status" and her sustained capacity to attain the summit, notwithstanding her death transpiring five years prior." - suggest cutting this sentence. One critic's opinion is not needed in the lead.
  • "denoting 200,000 units consisting of shipments in the United States." - Is "consisting of" necessary? Not sure it is.
  • "At the time, the artist was engrossed in the development of a crossover, designed to propel her into the American pop market." - crossover album? Crossover what, specifically?
  • "The aftermath of her death yielded adverse consequences for Latin music, as Tejano music—which she had thrust into the mainstream market—experienced a decline in popularity in the wake of her death.[5][6][7] " - did the "aftermath" of her death do that, though? Or her death itself?
  • "The ongoing dissemination of Selena's oeuvre fulfills a commitment made by Abraham Quintanilla to his family in the aftermath of his daughter's death, vowing to perpetuate Selena's memory through her music.[11][12][13]" - This is awfully flowery. Could say the same with a lot less words.
  • I hope the new revision is satisfactory. – jona ✉ 23:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Selena reigned as the record label's most commercially successful performer.[17] " - Not sure "reigned" is appropriately encyclopedic language
  • "EMI Latin's president, José Behar, who initially discovered the singer at the 1989 Tejano Music Awards, recognized her contributions that made EMI Latin "the house that Selena built".[16]" - "initially discovered" is redundant
  • I removed "initially". – jona ✉ 23:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The compilation encompasses 16 tracks, spanning from compositions" - same note as above
  • "was initially slated for inclusion on the Don Juan DeMarco (1995) soundtrack, yet was ultimately shelved by music producers.[28]" - don't need the comma before yet
  • "protagonist's pursuit of "the guy in apartment 512".[29]" - romantic pursuit?
  • ""Tú Robaste Mi Corazón", initially recorded as a duet with Emilio Navaira, underwent re-recording with Pete Astudillo for Siempre Selena (1996); " - not sure a song can undergo re-recording... I'd rephrase as "was re-recorded with"
  • I'd argue some of the quotes in the music section should be moved to critical reception.
  • Do you think it would be appropriate to transfer the reviews present in the "music" section to the critical reception section, considering that they are evaluations provided by critics for other albums that feature the same versions included in this album? – jona ✉ 23:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An AllMusic review posited" - by whom? Unlisted author?
  • The source does not specify. – jona ✉ 23:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, Lannert maintained that All My Hits: Todos Mis Éxitos Vol. 2 serves as a testament to Selena's "legendary status" and her enduring capacity to reach the number one position, even five years posthumously." - I think "served" rather than "serves" would make more sense tense-wise

These are some examples I picked up from a first pass. Unfortunately, I have to oppose for now per criterion 1A. I think the prose needs some revision before it meets the FA standard. ceranthor 19:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review, I have gone through the article and corrected the issues you brought up. Let me know if the prose is still not on par and I'll give it another go. Thanks – jona ✉ 23:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Compilation albums don't really need a personnel except for new songs of course. In this case, I would just mention the credits for "Cien Años" like I did on Grandes Éxitos (Luis Miguel album)#Personnel. Once the my issue and the others have been addressed, I will gladly support this article! Erick (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

As this candidacy has been open for almost 4 weeks and is not making significant progress towards a consensus to promote, this is at risk of being archived in another couple days. Hog Farm Talk 17:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have pinged two previous commenters and asked if they'd be willing to provide a comment or two on whether or not the article meets FA standards. I also pinged the GA reviewer to see if he'd be willing to comment as well. Thanks – jona ✉ 18:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a request through WP:REX for four pay-walled links that could help expand the article and have asked a few to review the article. Best – jona ✉ 15:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I would like to withdraw this nomination since it was suggested. I'll expand the article once the sources from REX are provided and re-nominate at a later time. Thanks – jona ✉ 16:44, 3 May 2023 (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) 2 May 2023 [15].

Great Lakes tornadoes of September 26, 1951 edit

Nominator(s): ChessEric 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about three strong to violent tornadoes that caused vast destruction and numerous casualties. Several sources were used to make this article, including the Climatological Data: National summary, a highly respected tornado researcher named Thomas P. Grazulis, and the National Weather Service Green Bay, Wisconsin. The article also includes other non-tornadic weather events that came from the system as a whole. It may need some more details in a few areas, but I like the way it turned out.ChessEric 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review. There are no images. Can any be found? Or could a map be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I try to use only public domain photos because I don't know the process to get the license for other photos. The one time I did do that for another article I made, it didn't work out. To my knowledge there are no photos of the tornadoes, and the damage photos are not public domain. There are some photos of the system in the NWS PDF ref, but I don't know how to extract them. If someone could help me with that, I would appreciate it. ChessEric 07:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can either make a map for you or try to extract something from the PDF -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I would appreciate it. ChessEric 11:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a fellow editor who makes tornado maps all the time to make a map for me. ChessEric 07:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ian edit

Recusing coord duties to review... Although there are effectively no rules about length for FAs, I find it hard to believe this is comprehensive. Certainly I'm not an expert but WP has many featured articles on storms, and they seem to provide a good deal more material than is seen here (I notice the nominator admits there is room for more detail anyway). I'd be very interested in the opinion of our experienced editors in the field like Hurricanehink and Cyclonebiskit because at this stage I would be recommending withdrawal to flesh out the article (including the briefer-than-brief lead) before another attempt here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Cyclonebiskit edit

(Brought in by ping from Ian Rose) As it stands, the article is a bit messy and as mentioned by Ian it doesn't seem fully fleshed out. Verifying the information presented is difficult as the references for the Meteo Synopsis and tornado table are bulk refs at the end rather than attached to the associated information. Specifying which pages information is coming from—(Template:rp)—will go a long way to help with this. The reference formatting itself needs work for consistency. I don't know what's going on with citation #7, there are a ton of links in a single line and no indication of what information is being referenced with them. The table lists states times are in UTC but the given values are local standard time. The stats on the first F4 tornado from NWS GRB should be used over NCEI. The database is riddled with errors, especially in early years, and path lengths are determined from straight lines not what actually happened. I'm unsure if you have personal access but newspapers.com likely has information regarding the event that isn't present in the article as well. NCEI does not provide actual damage totals for events in 1951, it takes a damage range given by Storm Data and uses the lower-bound. According to the Climatological Data publication, the first Wisconsin tornado was $250,000, the second was $225,000, and the Michigan tornado was listed as (6) which is "losses occurred; amount not reported". I'll be happy to look over prose and provide comments on that once sourcing and content concerns are addressed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like to bulk sources so that there aren't like 10 sources in a summary box for 1 tornado. As far as what they are, they are reports from the NWS Green Bay and each of them have the tornado that was in there. I can use newspapers.com, but the person that gave this a GA just told me to remove the OR in the meteorological synopsis and they would let it through, which they did after I provided a source. Also, you are TOTALLY right about the NCEI errors. I feel like the person who entered all those statistics in was drunk or something. I've seen more than one instance of tornado paths being WAY off; I was pretty fortunate that that wasn't the case here. I've heard during all my GA reviews that getting newspaper clippings is what I should do. Also...I really didn't have a good way to expand the lead. I'll look into it though. ChessEric 22:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: Wait. How do I get onto newspapers.com again? ChessEric 22:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: you can access via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, though if you want to make clippings you'll need an email to register an account. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I remember that now. ChessEric 21:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too little information in the lead, too little in the body. Can I suggest you withdraw this and work on it away from FAC before returning? Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2023 (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. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 2 May 2023 (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_2023&oldid=1157651313"