Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2020

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2020 [1].

Shannen Says edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article is about a 2012 reality television series about actress Shannen Doherty's wedding to photographer Kurt Iswarienko. It aired for eight episodes on We tv, a television network that was already known for wedding and celebrity-based shows. The series had low ratings, and received mixed reviews. If successful, this would only be the second FA on a reality show after Family Trade. I would greatly appreciate any comments, and thank you in advance for any help. Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request edit

@FAC coordinators: I would like to withdraw this nomination. Although it has only been teen days since its nomination, this has already fallen to 16th on the active FAC list and I just do not see this getting any activity in the near future. I'd rather withdraw this so that the nominations that have received more commentary would get more attention. Thank you again to Nikkimaria for the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Aoba, that's a fair call. Given the lack of comprehensive commentary you're still free to nominate this or any other article when you see fit, without waiting for two weeks to pass. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2020 [2].

Manuel Noriega edit

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Manuel Noriega, a colorful and controversial figure in Central American history. He was a military strongman in Panama, and a large player in hemispheric politics of the 1980s. The article has passed an A-Class review from the military history project, and a detail GA review before that. I've gone deep into the source material, and believe it to be as comprehensive as a reasonable length will allow. I welcome all comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • Per previous review at ACR (t · c) buidhe 10:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Buidhe

I already did a source review of this article at ACR, so it would probably benefit from fresh eyes in that regard. So I will quote what SandyGeorgia is always saying at WP:FAR wrt Further reading sections: A Featured article should already be comprehensive, so that little other reading is needed. Does the further reading (7 items at present) contain encyclopedic information relevant to the subject that doesn't duplicate the article's current content? If not, it should probably be trimmed. I am not saying the article should be expanded, I think the length is good, but some of the further reading seems more relevant to other articles such as United States v. Noriega, just stubbed by me, which turns out to have significant legal implications unrelated to Noriega's biography. (t · c) buidhe 09:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I have rarely invested much time in further reading sections, so I'm not wedded to any of this, but I've always seen them as akin to see also sections; places where the reader can find information too tangential or too detailed for the article itself. I'd argue that holds true here. Ideally, perhaps, all that information would be present in spinoff articles or related articles, but given that it isn't (yet), the entries seem useful to me. If that's unpersuasive, I will remove them. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has passed into the Older Nominations section without much substantive review or support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Vanamonde93 if you will open a peer review I have been working on quite considerable commentary, suggesting that the GA nom should be re-visited. Please ping me if a Peer review is opened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2020 [3].

Johnny Owen edit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Johnny Owen, one of a string of fine boxers to emerge from the South Wales Valleys. His story is a fascinating one with an unfortunate ending as he was killed in the ring at the age of just 24 while challenging for the world title. I'm a football editor primarily, so this represents a departure from the norm for me, but I think formatting is consistent with other boxing articles and the content quality is there. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Juan_Francisco_Rodríguez_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead; what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: I've added alt ext, how would I discern the status of the image? Kosack (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is from a sticker book published by Italian firm Panini for the 1972 Olympic Games. The full image is located here. Kosack (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then, I'd expect PD-1996 would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the license to the page. Kosack (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has passed into the Older Nominations section without much substantive review or support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2020 [4].

Edict of Torda edit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a late-16th-century decree promoting religious toleration in Europe through sanctioning the existence of a radical Protestant denomination in John Sigismund Zápolya's "eastern Hungarian Kingdom". Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • All images are freely licensed and placed acccording to MOS.{{
  • File:Eastern-hungarian-kingdom1550.JPG lacks a source for the information on the map. It needs to be verifiable somehow; usually this is done by adding sources to the Commons image description. Such sources could be other maps which show the extent of the kingdom, textual sources which describe it in words, or some combination thereof. (t · c) buidhe 10:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: thank you for your review. I added an academic source ([5]). Please let me know if further sources are needed. Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine to me. I cannot check it, but AGF it contains the same information. (t · c) buidhe 20:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although the cited source does not contain the same information (because its timeframe is longer), it verifies the map's content. Borsoka (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Buidhe
  • Thank you for your comment. I decapitalized the word "antitrinitarian" in the article. Antitrinitarianism is a theological approach, Unitarianism is one of the Christian denominations accepting antitrinitarianism - so they do not exclude each other. Pope Paul III, Martin Luther and John Calvin adhered to trinitarian theologies, but the Pope headed the Catholic Church, Luther and Calvin established two Protestant churches. The originally trinitarian Dávid adopted an antrinitarian theology in 1565 and he became a "Founding Father" of the antitrinitarian Unitarian Church in Transylvania in 1568, but he died after adopting practices alien to mainstream Unitarianism. Summarizing, he was an Unitarian antitrinitarian for a while and a "heretic" (maybe Sabbatarian) antitrinitarian at the end of his life. Borsoka (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that Hussites were expelled in the 1430s
  • What makes Children of the Same God a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: thank you for the source review. I think the Hussites' flee from Hungary was the only sentence that was not verified in the main text. I added two sentences about the purge ([6]). Susan J. Ritchie is Associate Professor of Unitarian Universlist History and Ministry at Starr King School who holds a doctorate in cultural/religious studies from Ohio State University ([7]). I think in the article's context her book about the historical relationship between Unitarianism, Judaism and Islam can hardly be ignored, because it is a well-written book supported by references to academic works. Nevertheless, I added a second reference to all references to her book in the article, save one sentence (where her own PoV is mentioned); I also deleted one sentence that was verified only by her work and I also used her translation of the Edict ([8]). Is this approach is acceptable for you? Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has passed into the Older Nominations section without much substantive review or support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2020 [9].

Game of Thrones edit

Nominator(s): -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Game of Thrones for featured article promotion. The last FAC unfortunately didn't have sufficient number of reviews. I listed the article for peer review and received some feedback and comments to improve it. Game of Thrones has been a cultural phenomenon for more than a decade with record viewership numbers. I believe the article is comprehensive in its coverage of the show. I would appreciate any and all comments and suggestions to elevate the article to FA status. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has passed into the Older Nominations section without much substantive review or support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2020 [10].

Hi-5 (Australian band) edit

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editors. This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5 - as of this year, the band is inactive, ending a 20 year run. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and has since failed two Featured Article reviews. It has also undergone a more recent Peer Review in which I feel major issues were addressed. I have been working on improving this page over the past five years. I am willing to put in the work to improve this article and am happy to make any adjustments. Thank you for taking the time to look at this page. Below, I am notifying some other editors who have previously been involved with reviews.

@Aoba47: @Casliber: @Dweller: @HĐ: Thank you to these editors for supporting the nomination in 2019. Hopefully you will lend your support to the promotion again. @Nick-D: You were also involved with the Peer Review in 2019 and helped me to provide balanced viewpoints in the article. I would appreciate your continued feedback.
@Shaidar cuebiyar: Your assistance in helping this page to become a Good Article in 2016 was invaluable.
@Aircorn: Your support of Hi-5 (Australian TV series) in 2017 was indispensable. I would be grateful for further guidance.

I am looking forward to any support or feedback from any of these former supporters. Thank you in advance. SatDis (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Hi-5_hand_logo.png: source link is dead; any evidence of the claimed release? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have uploaded a new version of this file with the correct non-free copyright information for logos - see File:Hi-5 Logo 2009.png. SatDis (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: As non-free files are only permitted in articles, the logo was removed from the template and is therefore no longer on the article. SatDis (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has passed into the Older Nominations section without much substantive review or support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2020 [11].

The Masked Singer (American TV series) edit

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second nomination of this article and remains the first I have ever nominated for FAC! I withdrew the previous after one month with only an image review to work on it further. Since that time, I have revised sections, changed the layout a bit, and consequently believe it is in a more FA-worthy state than it was in June. I would like to thank Kingsif who performed a GA review and Nikkimaria who performed an image review in the first nomination, which was successful. There hasn't been any changes to the images since that time, except for some alt text expansion, so I am under the impression it remains valid. This article is about one of the most popular television series in the United States at the moment and receives about 500,000 pageviews per month when on air. I believe the subject and wording is pretty understandable to the average reader, so you shouldn't have to be an expert on media articles in order to review it :) Thanks for your time in advance and I look forward to responding to your comments. Heartfox (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif edit

I guess the first thing I have to say is that the fair use text should be updated if Nikki has suggested it. In my GAN review I recommended using less non-free mascot images and questioned the necessity of the image of the stage: the first happened and you gave me a good reason for the stage image. That explanation, in some form, should appear on the file page so that people can see it without having to dig for that. Otherwise, the phrasing has been improved from GA standard - which doesn't call for perfection - but I have yet to read it in-depth. I'll probably come back, thanks for the ping and feel free to ping me again when the image files have been updated. (Also, for WikiCup rules, I must note that I am still somehow taking part in this year's WikiCup.) Kingsif (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Kingsif. The fair use rationales were expanded in June per Nikkimaria's suggestions (costume image difference and stage image's). Perhaps there was a misunderstanding during the GA—you wrote that "an image of the set would be useful" and "a non-free image would be justifiable here". Are you saying the current rationales are inadequate? Given that Nikkimaria did not have any further comments after my second reply to their suggestions, and did not bring up anything else when I left a message on their talk page, I'm kind of confused as to how I should proceed here. Heartfox (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: I think maybe there was a confusion in my wording here, or my understanding of your comment above? You wrote above that the images had not changed, and there weren't any changes to the file that I thought were recent enough to be updates - if you did it straight away in June, that would account for that. When it comes sources and similar at FAC, Nikkimaria is a great reviewer and so I said I'd defer to them if you hadn't updated the file descriptions. And yes, your explanation at the GANR convinced me, but I suggested other people may not look there for that :) Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: sorry if that was confusing; by "hasn't been any changes to the images since that time" I meant I hadn't added any new ones to the article which would necessitate a new image review. If there's anything you want me to add to the rationales then let me know—I'm still unsure as to what justification I mentioned in the GA review for including an image that you are referring to. Heartfox (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:Masked Singer US Stage.jpg Could this not be replaced by a free-use image taken by an audience member? Alternatively, is it really essential that people know what the stage looks like?

Aside from that, all images appear appropriately licensed and used.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your image review, Wehwalt. As the set is in an enclosed space and audience members have their phones confiscated before entering it, a free-use image wouldn't be possible here unless a production staff licensed one under CC which I haven't seen and would be very unlikely to occur. The image of the stage was recommended in the GA review. I would personally be okay without it but if other people (perhaps English may be a second language or something) find the adjacent prose hard to visualize then I guess it helps. If you're satisfied with its fair use rationale then I'll keep it. Heartfox (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds reasonable. I'm satisfied.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has passed into the Older Nominations section without much substantive review or support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2020 [12].

Eurovision Song Contest edit

Nominator(s): Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Eurovision Song Contest, an international televised song competition held annually among member broadcasters of the European Broadcasting Union, and featuring music artists representing primarily European countries and performing wholly original compositions. It is one of the world's longest-running television programmes, with each edition regularly connecting with over 200 million viewers globally and receiving worldwide media coverage, and has launched the music careers of among others ABBA and Celine Dion. The article is listed as a Level 4 vital article and has previously been a Featured Article before being demoted in 2009. A great deal of work has gone into the article over the past couple of months, with a complete rewrite to improve prose and structure, adding further details on the contest's history, organisation and cultural influence, including criticism and controversial moments, while also improving the quantity and qualify of the source material. A request for peer review expired with no suggestions, so I'm putting this forward for FA now in the hopes that any improvements can be discussed here. Any and all comments are very welcome. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the multicoloured maps and the diagrams
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:EurovisionParticipants.svg: what's the source for the data presented? Ditto File:Eurovision_participation_map.svg, File:Eurovision_Participants_1992.svg
  • File:Eurovision_Song_Contest_logo.svg does not have a strong fair-use rationale. Why is the main infobox logo free when this one is non-free?
  • File:Eurovision_2004_Scoreboard.jpg has no fair-use rationale
  • File:ESC2016_Trophy.jpg: what's the copyright status of the trophy?
  • Don't see that anything has changed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hosts_of_the_Eurovision_Greatest_Hits.jpg: royalty-free is not the same as restriction-free. What is the licensing status of this image?
  • Don't see that anything has changed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Calls_for_boycott_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2019.jpg: what's the copyright status of the mural? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I believe all the points above have now been resolved through additions and greater clarification on the image descriptions. Please do reply if you believe I have missed anything or if there are further comments. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Buidhe
  • Usually you can get more comments at Good article nominations than peer review.
  • Some MOS issues, such as starting sentences with a numeral.
  • Other related competitions sections is unsourced, but contains many verifiable claims, such as that these competitions are "similar" to Eurovision. I would consider axing the section if they have no institutional relationship—or better yet, write a prose paragraph detailing the impact of Eurovision on other music events. (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Graham Beards

We need more work on the prose. This sentence illustrates common problems. "Each participating country submits an original song to be performed on live television and radio, transmitted to national broadcasters via the EBU's Eurovision and Euroradio networks, with competing countries then casting votes for the other countries' songs to determine a winner." It is too long, not quite a snake, but close and it contains a fused participle, "with...countries...casting". This construction, which is used numerous times in the article, (here for example "with several conservative politicians voicing displeasure in the result") lowers the standard of the writing. The issue can often be found by performing a global search for "with" and any related participles. For a full explanation of the issue, see Tony1's essay here. At the moment the prose is not FA standard.Graham Beards (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - It looks like this was not adequately prepared and could be best served by going through some other review and building processes before nomination here. --Laser brain (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2020 [13].

Laguna del Maule (volcano) edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a volcanic field that surrounds a lake in Chile, close to the border of Argentina. It has had eruptions over the past few million years and several during the last 10,000 years, and left a number of lava flows and craters which dot and cover the landscape around Laguna del Maule. The last eruption was 2000-1000 years ago but there is still magma underneath the volcano.

Recently (as in, during the 21st century) there has been an intense uplift of the volcanic field, which has attracted interest among the volcanology community and has raised concerns that another eruption may be imminent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Image review by Lee Vilenski edit

May or may not claim wikicup points - maybe?

Comment by Buidhe
  • The image in Geology section is not very helpful to reader understanding. The Nazca plate is not labeled, nor is the location of the volcano marked. I know enough about plate tectonics to guess from the caption that the fault in question is a subduction fault (west?—should be explicitly stated in the article) of the volcano, but it would likely be excessively confusing to a non-expert reader. (t · c) buidhe 16:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be averse towards ditching it completely. Most of the context there isn't relevant, anyhow. File:Subduction-en.svg might be a touch better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support the images if this change was made. I think the rest of my points were a bit too in-depth. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

Lead
  • Looks tight! A few comments.
  • "Volcanic rocks in the field vary from basalt over andesite and dacite to rhyolite" - little vague what you mean here; basalt physically overlying andesite, as well as dacite and rhyolite? Could you clarify?
    Rewrote this; I can see why it would be ambiguous. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The field was a source of obsidian with regional importance." - "regional importance" is super vague; historical, economic... what type of importance?
    I don't think one can specify much farther from the archeological record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and structure
  • "straddles the Chilean–Argentine frontier" - why trade border for frontier?
    Mostly to avoid repetition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Highway 115 passes through" - links to a disambiguation page
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Highway 115 passes through the northern part of the volcanic field,[6] and the Paso Pehuenche mountain pass is a few kilometres northeast of the lake;[7] the region is otherwise sparsely inhabited[8]" - wait, why would highways/mountain passes indicate that the region is densely populated?
    Not really certain but the point is that besides this road there is not much human activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The lake has a depth of 50 metres (160 ft),[15] a surface area of 54 square kilometres (21 sq mi),[16] and the surface is at an altitude of 2,160 metres (7,090 ft).[6][17]" - run-on sentence
    Split it up a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Terraces around the lake indicate that water levels have fluctuated in the past;[20] it is regulated by a dam at the outlet[5] that was built in 1950.[21]" - I assume "it" refers to the lake, but you should avoid using it there. I suggest just replacing it with "the lake"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Volcanic ash and pumice produced by the eruptions has been found in Argentina.[7]" - does the ref mention how far away?
    No, but another ref does; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the various structures in the volcanic field, Domo del Maule lava dome is of rhyolitic composition and generated a lava flow to the north that dammed the Laguna del Maule." - nitpicky, but no reason for "the" before Laguna imo
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section could use some copyediting for flow.
    Whittled a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
  • "Probably due to increased convergence rates of the Nazca and South America plates for the past 28 million years, a phase of strong volcanic activity began in the Andes 25 million years ago." - can you switch the clauses here? I think it would flow better
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you use parentheticals to briefly describe fault types and the terms mafic and pluton for a lay reader? Linking is fine, but I think a very basic explanation in a few words would be helpful too
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for the long subtitle "Composition of erupted lavas and pyroclasts" rather than just composition or composition of eruptive products?
    Shortened. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The andesites and basaltic andesites having medium K contents[48] and in the Loma de Los Espejos rocks a SiO

2 content of 75.6–76.7% per weight has been noted.[49]" - very wordy; could shorten and make sharper and more clear

Climate and vegetation
  • "During this time a 80 kilometres (50 mi) wide ice cap" - make sure the adjective matches the measurement (ie. should be kilometer-wide)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eruptive history
  • From my display, there's a formatting error where "The 36" is to the left squeezed out by the table.
    Not on my end ... I dunno what is happening there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cerro Barrancas[g] centre started being active" - became active
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fumarolic activity in general is small.[25]" - not sure I understand; do you mean it's limited / not widespread?
    Reworded this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Present-day threat
  • "with deformation slowing through to mid-2014.[103]" - should be slowing "through mid-2014"
    No; the source does not say that slowing did not last past mid-2014. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This uplift is one of the largest in all volcanoes which are not in eruption" - do you mean actively erupting? Confused
    Replaced this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some shallow earthquakes have been interpreted as reflecting diking and faulting on the magma chamber" - is "on" correct here or should it be "in?"
    On; magma chambers do not generally containdykes or faults. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting notes
reference info for Laguna del Maule (volcano)
unnamed refs 0
named refs 179
self closed 392
cs1 refs 61
cs1 templates 94
cs1-like refs 2
cs1-like templates 2
cs2 refs 1
cs2 templates 1
harv refs 113
harv templates 113
uses ldr yes
webarchive templates 1
use xxx dates dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates 37
cs1|2 last/first 86
cs1 mode 1
List of cs1 templates
  • Cite book (1)
  • cite book (3)
  • Cite conference (1)
  • cite conference (5)
  • cite encyclopedia (3)
  • Cite journal (12)
  • cite journal (60)
  • cite news (1)
  • cite web (8)
List of cs2 templates
  • Citation (1)
List of cs1-like templates
  • Cite GVP (2)
List of harv templates
  • harvnb (113)
explanations
  • Some footnotes have a space between p. and the page number; some don't. This should be consistent throughout.
    Tried to remedy that, but I am not sure what other text may have been changed in the process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You broke several |bibcode= parameter values and set author initials P. → p. I have fixed the bibcodes and one of the initials. I'll leave the author initials to you. Search and replace: it works great except when it doesn't. For FACs, editors should ensure that cs1|2 error messaging is enabled. The bibcode problems were clearly marked with Check |bibcode= length error messages.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, some footnotes have just initials; some have full author names - should be consistent
    Yeah, not all sources provide that information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, a well-researched article. Prose could use some fine-tuning. Will post more comments after these are fixed up/responded to accordingly. ceranthor 01:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I'm adding this to the urgents list for hopefully a few more reviews. Also the source reviews for one. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asked on the talk pages of pertinent wikiprojects and will ping Ceranthor again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, despite the above, this hasn't really had sufficient review to determine consensus to promote after remaining open more than two months so I think we need to call a halt and try again after a breather. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor grammar note edit

Should it be "a SiO2 content" or "an SiO2 content"? If it should be read as "silicon dioxide", then use "a". If you read it "ess-eye-oh-two", use "an", because it starts with a vowel sound. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...honestly I don't know about that. "a sio2" appears to be more commonly used than "an sio2" though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I somehow missed this one, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strontium appears to be duplinked.
@FunkMonk: Hey there! Do you think you'll be reviewing this soon? --Laser brain (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, within the week. But I'd of course also like to know if the nominator is watching. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk:Yes, I still watch this. Sorry for not actioning this immediately, but I thought you had more comments than these below (which I've actioned). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there will be more as I read through. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chilean–Argentine frontier" Argentine links to the people here, which seems odd, and why not link Chile then?
    Removed the link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should link Andes at first mention in the article body.
    Done, although there is a link earlier in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should generally be linked again at first mention outside the intro too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name of the volcanic field comes from the lake" And what does the name of the lake refer to?
    None of the sources on the volcano discuss this aspect. I figure it might refer to the name of the river that originates there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", Domo del Maule lava dome" The?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The well-preserved Colada de las Nieblas lava flow" What does it men that lava flow is "well-preserved"?
    Means that it's not eroded and surface features are still crisp. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wonder if this could be explained in the text for layreaders then? FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going to be hard since most sources just assume that folks understand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Laguna Sin Salida (so named because it lacks a river running out of it)" But if you don't give a translation, it will mean little to non-Spanish speakers.
    Translated it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nazca plate could be linked in the map's caption.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevado de Longavi volcano is located" The?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Eruptive history", the tables create extreme text-sandwiching on my screen. This could perhaps be solved by using the clear parameter or similar. Now, there are thin strings of text broken up by the table, and it is very hard to read.
    @FunkMonk:I cannot reproduce this behaviour. I've added some clear statements, is it better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but petroglyphs in Valle Hermoso may depict volcanic activity at Laguna del Maule" They must be very old, anything we can show here?
    Not really; none of the petroglyphs I did see on Google Images have either an implicit or explicit link to volcanism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Present-day threat" seems a bit loaded, if this article is written form a geological standpoint, calling an eruption itself a "threat" seems a bit humanocentric, as the section is not mainly about the human consequences. Maybe it could be called something broader, like "possible future eruptions" or similar?
  • "which surround Laguna del Maule lake" Surround the?
    @FunkMonk:Did these two changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me, with the caveat that I'm not a subject expert. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Let's finish this one up, shall we? Doing now Aza24 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Biblio:

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) 25 September 2020 [14].

The Who by Numbers Tour edit

Nominator(s): Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 21:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Who by Numbers Tour, a 1975-76 tour by the Who. The tour was the final tour by the band's legendary drummer Keith Moon. The article has gone through two peer reviews, one successful GA nomination, and one successful DYK nomination. Feel free to leave any comments and suggestions below. Thank you. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 21:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry. We need more work on the prose. I have made a few edits. Can you see the problem here; "The Who returned to America in 1976 after playing four shows in Europe. The leg set indoor concert attendance records, and the Who returned in America in 1976 after playing four shows in Europe"? I suggest withdrawing this nomination and returning to FAC after a fresh pair of eyes has polished the prose. Graham Beards (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the edits. I removed the part you mentioned in your comment and added a sentence in the lead section about Moon. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 01:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This looks more like a WP:FL than a FA. I second Graham's comments, for example you need to introduce Moon in the main body of the article, and the set list is not sourced. (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree about the FL part. The Breeders Tour 2014 is another tour-related article, and it is a FA. Also, the set list is sourced. I made it more obvious by adding another sentence. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 01:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"@FAC coordinators: I withdraw this nomination so the article can be copy edited"

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2020 [15].

1986 enlargement of the European Communities edit

Nominator(s): Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Spain and Portugal joining the European Communities, now the European Union, in 1986. Their accessions were hugely consequential for both countries; both had just come out of dictatorships and were fledgling democracies, and being within the Communities had huge consequences in terms of solidifying their development into the states that they are today. When I came across the article in May, it looked like this, which I didn't think did the subject justice, so I decided to research it more thoroughly and write up a proper article - and I'm very pleased to have ended up here, with my first FA nomination!
As this is my first nomination, I popped a message over to Vanamonde93 about it, who pointed out that there was quite a strong reliance on primary sources in some parts of the article. In some places, that's unavoidable, by sheer virtue of the nature of the article - specific legal and political technicalities are often best sourced, for instance, to a parliamentary transcript. However, I've added other sources to what I can, and I'd love to get other people's feedback too, especially if there's anything I've missed! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should note as well my huge thanks and appreciation to Lee Vilenski, who completed the GA review of the article, and made some really helpful suggestions for improvements! :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

All images are free. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R8R review edit

I'll start the review tonight.--R8R (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write a couple now and try to add more tonight.
  • Spain first applied for association with the European Economic Community (EEC) -- as a rule of thumb, I try to write texts in such a manner that don't raise questions, and while reading this article, I needed to reread on the difference between the EC and the EEC. It would be great to explain this somehow in the text. This could even be done relatively simply here: "Spain first applied for association with the European Economic Community (EEC), the principal institute within the European Communites (EC)"
    • Slightly rephrased this, but the same sentiment should be there - hope the revised text looks okay! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it would not have been able to apply for full membership as a consequence of being under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco. -- this is another fundamental matter that requires clarification. Why was this a requirement in the first place? What was the point of not allowing Franco's dictatorship to join if it was primarily an economic union? Also, I think this could be reworded: "being a dictatorship, Spain was ineligible for full membership."
    • Added a lot more detail to this - you're right, it was fairly ambiguous. Thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks much better now. I apologize in advance for that this review isn't likely to progress quickly. I want to say, "I'll write more tonight," but I'm not sure whether I'll actually be able to do so.--R8R (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the application was of some controversy -- this strikes me as possible but unnecessarily pompous. You could say, "However, the application caused some controversy";
    Unnecessarily pompous is my speciality! Change made :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • members of the European Parliament questioned -- without any further qualifiers, I consider we're talking about a majority of those MEPs. Are we?
    I don't have any evidence to claim that it was the majority - personally, I suspect it was, but I've qualified it with "a number of" (my intuition is probably not a WP:RS!) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • given the dictatorship Spain was under -- I should say that my advice on prose quality shouldn't be taken as the highest possible standard, but this, too, looks clumsy. How about simply "given the Spanish dictatorship"?
    I've changed it to "given Spain's dictatorship", which is just a slightly snappier version of the same change, methinks. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Francisco Franco -- Franco hasn't been introduced so far. How about "Spanish dictator Francisco Franco"? More importantly, the previous header also mentions Franco so presumably he could be introduced there. I'd personally write something like "Spain asked for association with the EEC in 1962. At the time, Spain was a dictatorship led by general Francisco Franco; the EEC said a Spanish association was impossible unless the country becomes more democratic."
    Franco is introduced in the lead, along with the Estado Novo dictatorship. Do you still think it merits a separate introduction in the article text? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course it does. Readers may be directed to a specific section and you shouldn't assume they've read the lead. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My assumption has been that you treat the lead section and the body of an article separately. Most people who read the lead section won't read the article as a whole and often people who want to read the article as a whole will skip the lead section because for a sufficiently long article, it's only meant to summarize what's in the rest of the article. (By the way, did you notice how I started this review not with the lead section, but with the first section of the body of the article?) I am not aware of there are MOS guidelines on this and I know there are writers who expect a reader to read an article as a whole and thus think that acronyms, people, etc. should only be introduced once. It's fine in a written encyclopedia, but this thinking doesn't reflect very well the nature of our online encyclopedia and how its readership is different, etc., so that's why I'm opting to introduce things separately in the lead section and in the body of an article. I hope it makes sense to you.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That was also why I suggested you introduce the EC acronym one more time.--R8R (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That's entirely reasonable; this is my first FAC, so still learning the ropes on some of this! I've added a separate introduction. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a "green veto" being used by France and Italy against its accession -- what's a green veto?
    This is a really good question. I'm a native English speaker, not a native Spanish speaker, and I'm genuinely not sure - "green" in Spanish has all sorts of connotations, ranging from success to sexuality to jealousy... I'm checking with a native speaker friend of mine, and will add it to the article when I have a more authoritative translation! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting; I thought it was something from the European bureaucratic slang :) I'll wait for clarifications then.--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out, I'm trying to read far too far into things - in the context of the article, it's a reference to the veto being based on agricultural concerns. Clarification done! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • negotiations were opened between the European Council and Spain -- it would be nice to introduce the European Council, too
    I've added a brief introduction, and reworded the rest of the sentence to fit it - let me know if you think it works. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got one observation, which is that you can't use a hyphen, either a comma or a dash of your choice, and one question: why are Member States always capitalized? I suppose this must be the European bureaucratic slang, but you don't have to write Wikipedia like that. Also, from what I found in the corresponding article, it appears the council is formed not by heads of state but by heads of governments.--R8R (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the hyphen. Re (M/m)ember (S/s)tate - the capitalised version is specifically what's used in the European treaties, and is used by the EU Publications Office as a consequence. There's mixed existing usage across Wikipedia - some articles use member state, some use Member State, some use a combination of both. I don't see any particular reason to change it here, as we're talking about affairs related to the treaties specifically. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think these capital letters are unnecessarily pompous, but I won't insist on it. The comment on heads of state vs. heads of government, however, still stands.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The February 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt -- this sentence could use some re-writing. For example, at the beginning of the sentence I hear about a coup attempt, about which I knew next to nothing, and I was anxious about it until I heard an explanation later on. The text could go like this: "The February 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt, in which the Spanish Civil Guard to remove the democratically-elected government from office but failed, brought a lot of attention to Spain from abroad; particularly, from the EEC. The official statement from the Community during the coup expressed "concern" about the unfolding events; soon after the coup failed, the EEC expressed its 'great satisfaction at the reaction of the King, the government, and the Spanish people, faced by recent attacks against the democratic system of their country'."
    I've done some fiddling about and rephrasing there, and added in more of an initial introduction - what do you think? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks very well now!--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an urgent acceleration of the negotiations did not immediately come to pass -- this, too, sounds overly complicated: "this did not drastically change the intensity of the negotiations" or "this did not significantly boost the negotiations."
    I've gone for a change to In spite of this, the speed of the negotiations was not significantly boosted by the events - let me know if you think that works. I think it's important to specify that it is about speed, not necessarily about intensity, as those two can be different things. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uneasy about it because I think that you can either boost something or you can increase its speed, but you can't boost the speed of anything. Or can you?--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Boosted its speed" sounds fine to me, but I'll change it to "increased" - makes no odds to my mind. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spanish Act of Accession eventually devoted fifty of its pages to fisheries-related matters. -- I'm wondering if this remark is needed. To begin with, is this a lot? I would expect the eventual act to be long by any means.
    I've clarified that this is significant, in that it's just over 10% of the entire treaty. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the end of 1983, the French government was pressing -- rather confusing. How about "In late 1983, the French government pressed"
    That's a change in meaning, though - it's a subtle one, but it is a change all the same. The French government were lobbying over a period of time for the closure of the negotiations, not just at one point in late 1983, so the continuous tense is apt here. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I got this vibe, too, I just wasn't entirely sure if that was what you meant. Could you rephrase it somehow to make it clearer for people like me? Maybe something like "throughout the early 1980s, the French gov't pressed for a successful conclusion of the negotiations, with their effort reaching its peak in 1983"?--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone back to the original source, and done some wordsmithing with it, which clarifies that it was an ongoing issue, but also better states the specific point at which the deadline was requested. How's it sounding now? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good!--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • closure of the negotiations -- I may be wrong about this, but I think "conclusion" would be better
    Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • more negotiations scheduled -- "were scheduled"?
    In this case, the version without "where" is grammatically correct; the "more negotiations" clause is part of a list in "with" - with questions [...remaining...], and more negotiations scheduled beyond the deadline. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; that one is on me, I'll try to be a bit more attentive the next time :)--R8R (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued.--R8R (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: Thanks very much - I've followed up on all the ones above, I think! :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I probably won't be able to write any more or write back to your responses today; my forecast about how this review won't be quick is unfortunately coming true. To make it up for you for the time being, I'll mention one big thing about this article before I would normally come to it: The article reads rather strange given how it's about an EC enlargement but the body of the article does not mention the enlargement itself, only the events before and after it. There clearly should be a section about the process of the enlargement itself. You said in the lead section that the event itself wasn't very pompous and I'll take your word for it; I don't expect this section to be longer than a couple of paragraphs anyway, but there should be one. Something like "The documents were finally signed in 1985... On January 1, 1986, the Spanish and Portuguese flags were raised at the headquarters of all three Communities. Articles in Portuguese and Spanish press in January 1986 indicated that local citizens thought their country entered a new phase of their histories (or not)." I'm entirely making this up but it should give you the idea what kind of material I mean.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I get what you're saying; to some extent, the problem is that I've looked for that with little success. When it says in the lead there wasn't much pomp about the whole affair, it really does seem to mean it; I can't find anything in particular to write about in a section about the actual event of the accession beyond "it happened and the flags went up". I'll have another look around, though. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the government of Portugal published a report decrying the decision taken by members of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation to establish the EEC -- it would help a lot if you said that they decried in 1961 the decision that was taken back in 1957. This paragraph is rather confusing because it's hard to keep track of the dates. I'd suggest rewriting the paragraph to produce something like this:
"The EEC was created in 1957. Sensing that the EEC was here to stay, the Portuguese sent in 1959 their first diplomatic mission to the EEC. However, Portugal didn't join for whatever reason they had; instead, they opted in 1960 to be a co-founder of the EFTA, which was meant to counterbalance the EEC.
The chronological order of events helps keep track of the events that are unfolding.
  • Done some fixing-upping on this - how's it looking now? :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, this looks much better! I presume you left the bit on the Treaty of Rome to a future background section as suggested by Brigade Piron below?--R8R (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • seeking entry as a member of the EEC would have been unlikely to end in success -- just in the last paragraph, the Portuguese opted for the EFTA; what changed?
    The fixes I've applied above clarify this - EFTA is a much looser arrangement than the EEC was. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks much better, thank you.--~~
  • there was no clarity established by the Portuguese government as to-- "the Portuguese government did not clarify"?
    Done! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was also significant opposition to any meaningful agreement being made, as a consequence of the Portuguese authoritarian regime -- confusing. Please clarify that this opposition didn't come from Portugal
    Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be just perfect if you changed "There was also significant international opposition" to "There was also significant international opposition within the EEC".sorry, I missed the word "international"--R8R (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portugal once again looked to open negotiations with the EEC in 1969, having had the prior negotiations in 1962 postponed indefinitely. -- one more call for the chronological order. That 1962 postponement could rather fit the previous para;
    Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note once more that such a change has improved the text :)--R8R (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • now under Marcelo Caetano -- and previously it was who..? Also, what is so special about Caetano?
    Clarified this above - António de Oliveira Salazar was the previous dictator. Caetano is "special" in that he was one of only two leaders to lead the country during its dictatorship. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • units of account -- first of all, what is this? it is wikilinked later (why not here?) but that wikilink gives merely an explanation of the general term, not these units
    It's wikilinked in both places as far as I can see, but I've explained it further in this context nonetheless. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • bore their first fruits -- sounds nice but not very fitting for an encyclopedia
    Why? That reads formally to me; indeed, other articles use it a fair bit. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with this language in a great number of contexts; it's not frivolous or anything. I think it's absolutely understandable if the chief negotiator of the EEC or the chief historian of the EEC (let's suppose for a second that was an actual position) wanted to write "bear fruit": it's not perfectly neutral language, but the EEC itself is not expected not to have any emotion for its development. We in Wikipedia, however, are in a different position: we are supposed to be neutral, to write in simple and concise language, straight to the point. It is perfectly fine for many people to write that, but it's not for us: that's one limitation of the format of a neutral encyclopedia, which is that we write in simple language, not idioms.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, at the end of 1979, after the government collapsed several times, Parliament was dissolved and fresh elections were called, leading to the election of a new Prime Minister, Francisco de Sá Carneiro. However, after having been in office for only a year, Carneiro died in the 1980 Camarate air crash. -- that's interesting but how exactly does this relate to the story at hand? what was Sá Carneiro's stance on the topic of integration into the EEC? was he maybe too busy to really consider it at all?
    Sá Carneiro has time to do very little prior to his death, but the governmental turbulence is hugely relevant - it's a significant factor in a reader's understanding of the context around the delay in the accession. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That could in fact very well be the case, the problem is simply that it's not very clear from the text right now.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portuguese Democratic Movement -- presumably most readers are not very familiar with Portuguese political parties. So some context would be nice. Was this movement important in Portugal back in the day? same for the Portuguese Communist Party
    Done some rewording around this and added a brief bit of context. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue later from "Greek veto."--R8R (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In total, Greece received US$2,000,000,000 in additional aid -- actual question: did the Greeks really receive 2 billion dollars? Not, say, the equivalent of that in Deutschmarks?
  • Eurobarometer surveys between 1985 and 1997 -- this could be useful for the upcoming section on the accession itself (no action here required)
  • the average per-capita income of Portuguese and Spanish citizens grew significantly, reaching 74% and 83% respectively of the EU average by 2003 -- to be fair, this doesn't seem very impressive for seventeen years. The inflation rate of just 4% for seventeen years straight gives a total growth of prices by 95%. Or do you mean real incomes as opposed to nominal ones?

Comments on the lead section and concluding remarks are yet to follow.--R8R (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spain and Portugal acceded to the European Communities, now the European Union, in 1986. [...] Spain and Portugal acceded to the Communities on 1 January 1986. -- it would be right to mention the exact date in the first sentence.
  • The mid-1970s brought -- I feel it would be better to give specific years here. I also feel that "brought" may not be perfect for the neutral encyclopedia of ours. How about "In 1974, Franco died in Spain and the Carnation Revolution occurred in Portugal"?
  • Membership talks began with both countries a few years later. -- similarly, why not give specific years?
  • Spain and Portugal acceded to the Communities on 1 January 1986. -- I will once again suggest following the chronological order. For that, you could simply move the last sentence in that paragraph to its beginning.

I think that would be it from me. I liked the article, and I'll be happy to support the nomination once all of my concerns have been resolved one way or another.

However, I will also note there is a comment below about the need of an introduction, and based on my past experience with the FAC process, it's going to need some resolution before the nomination as a whole could succeed.--R8R (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RetiredDuke edit

Some minor issues I spotted on a read-through:

  • "Estado Novo" - be consistent with the use of italics
    Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't Le Monde in the text be in italics?
    Not in this case; per MOS:BADITALICS, Names of organizations and institutions should be in roman, rather than italics. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the linked guideline, "Italics should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof: Major works of art and artifice, such as albums, books, video games, films, musicals, operas, symphonies, paintings, sculptures, newspapers, journals, magazines, epic poems, plays, television programs, radio shows, comics and comic strips." — Le Monde is a newspaper. (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, changed - thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 76 and 80 - it's actually "Arquivo Histórico da República Portuguesa" not "Arquivo Historico..."
    Thanks, I don't know how I missed that! Missing accents irritate me. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 72 - Isn't the author Marcel Niedergang? Honest question.
    Looking at it now, I suspect this was a Citoid error that I lazily didn't check. That's on me, fixed - thanks for pointing it out! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't access the Barreto pdf (ref 86). Might be a problem on my end, though.
    Looks like that was an expiring link to CloudFront. Sigh. I've changed it to a different link, which should work :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 122 - "Severiano.," - either the period or the comma has to go.
    Argh - the authors were all in |others rather than being in |last and |first form. Fixed! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue later. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke: Thanks for having a look, these have all been really helpful comments so far! I've responded to the ones you've left above. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron comments edit

I came to this article from its listing in ITN. It's an impressive piece of work, and an important article in the scope of EU integration history. However, I would like to make three comments/observations for the review:

  1. I'm a little concerned by the structure, however. I understand that it makes sense to keep the Spanish and Portuguese negotiations separate, but I would strongly suggest merging the pre-negotiation "background" into a single (perhaps separated) section at the front. There are obvious similarities between the two countries' pre-entry histories and at the moment one has almost forgotten of Portugal's existence by the time one arrives at the relevant sections!
  2. The current article takes quite a bit for granted from the reader. I was particularly taken by the first reference to Franco which reads: "Following the death of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who had ruled over the country for 35 years, and the beginnings of the Spanish transition to democracy [...]" I think this must be padded out more. There will need to be a brief discussion of the Spanish Civil War, Falangism, the 28 May 1926 coup d'état, WWII neutrality, Spanish and Portuguese economic underdevelopment in the mid-20th century, Portuguese Colonial Wars, Spanish miracle, Spanish Question (United Nations), Spanish accession to NATO etc. These are all important subjects in explaining the motivations and concerns of the parties involved in the 1980s and could be addressed with a "Background" section similar to the one addressed above. I don't think they can be glossed over or taken for granted.
  3. The same is also true for the background history of the European Communities which is not really addressed at all. The Treaty of Rome is not even mentioned until the last third of the article. There is also little mention of previous enlargements, aims, tensions etc.

Would be interested to hear thoughts on these! —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brigade Piron! With regard to merging backgrounds, I actually started writing the article initially with a single "background" section like that, split into subsections for the countries, but it quickly got far too unwieldy. The nature of the two countries' accessions is too different to make that viable, in my view; whilst the dictatorships are clearly an incredibly important factor, there are many others that seriously affect the both of them, and that are fundamentally different between the two. The Portuguese empire, the nature of Portugal's association to EFTA, and the relative isolationism of Spain at the time compared to the significantly more open economy of Portugal, even with a similarly-repressive state, I think makes doing that a very difficult task - which is why, realising that, I changed to the current way of doing it quite early on in writing the article.
As to the background histories, I'm all for giving the reader more information, but that's a lot of stuff for any brief discussion, in my view. I worry that the inclusion of such a comprehensive history would compromise the summary style of the article, as well as the on-topic nature of it, per FA criteria 4; I'd argue that it's better to direct readers to other appropriate articles for that information for both of those reasons. The Treaty of Rome is actually referenced in the first paragraph of the first section of the article, but it's not hugely relevant to the majority of the rest of the article, precisely because of what is observed there - there was no specific provision in the treaty establishing the EEC requiring that Member States be democracies. The Treaty itself contains little restriction on what countries could or could not be members of the EEC, and as a consequence, where the majority of the article talks about the challenges to the states joining, there's little opportunity for it to be mentioned further than to say "nope, not relevant here".
I'd love to know your thoughts on these points - and anyone else's thoughts too! Thanks for leaving a comment, it's nice to know that someone's reading the article from DYK :D Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naypta, thanks for your comments. I really do think some kind of background on pre-entry Spain/Portugal and the EC is essential for the article to "summarise the topic comprehensively" (see WP:ARTICLE), especially at FA level. The "topic" in question here is "how", "why" and "in what circumstances" Spain and Portugal joined the EC in 1986 and the link cannot be avoided. At the moment, there is a big chunk of content missing. I certainly accept it isn't straightforward to fit so much in, but I'm happy to help. It really can be brief, especially if it makes full use of wikilinks to other articles on the topic.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my earlier comment, here's an example I wrote up for Spain:

Francisco Franco took power at the head of a coalition of fascist, monarchist, and conservative political factions in the Spanish Civil War (1936–39) against the left-leaning Spanish government supported by communist and anarchist factions, installing a totalitarian regime which would last until 1975. The conflict resulted in the deaths of more than 300,000 people and lasting damage to the country's economy. His regime was sympathetic to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, though it remained neutral during World War II (1939–45). In its aftermath, Francoist Spain was considered a pariah state. It was not admitted to the United Nations until 1955. It also remained economically backward and largely agrarian despite a period of rapid economic growth from 1959 to 1974. An application to join the European Economic Community in 1962 was rejected on the grounds of the country's regime.

Does that give you any ideas? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: Thanks, that's really useful as a starting point. Do you think that would be best to go at the start of the country sections, or in the lead of the article? It naturally feels like lead material, but then it also feels quite long for the lead. Thoughts appreciated :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'd suggest the following as structure:
  • "Background"
    • "Portugal and Spain" - 3-4 paragraphs introducing the pre-1980s history of Spain and Portugual together
    • "European Communities" - 2-3 paragraphs on the history and values of the EC
  • Negotiations with Spain - current text under "Spain" heading
  • Negotiations with Portugal - current text under "Portugal" heading

etc.
Does this seem sensible? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think it's a wonderful idea. I was feeling, too, that the introduction could be better made differently, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. To me, your suggestion seems great and I'd take it if I were writing this article.--R8R (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I'm going to add this to the urgents list, but I'm leaning towards archiving this if there isn't some support soon, it's been on the FAC page since 20 July and still hasn't attracted any support. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naypta has not edited since 3 August. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2020 [16].

Let's Fall in Love for the Night edit

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2018 song, written and produced by Finneas. It's his most successful song to date. This is the third FAC nomination of the article. My goal is to at least get one article to FA status by the end of the year. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size

I apologize, I'm new to all of this. How can I fix this?

You've removed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption needs editing for spelling/grammar. (Suggest doing the same throughout the article).

Reword. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed it, but I repeat my suggestion to copy-edit the rest of the article as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, how does it look now? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Finneas_-_Let's_Fall_in_Love_for_the_Night.png: fair-use rationale is incomplete

Nikkimaria, fixed.

  • File:Let'sfallinloveforthenightvideo.png: why is this believed to be justified? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LOVI33 edit

Seems like the article is ready for FA, looks amazing. Thats a support from me! LOVI33 21:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from ThedancingMOONpolice edit

I'm going to have to oppose this being a FA. Article still looks like there could be multiple improvements, like missing/inconsistent/accidental punctuation and a noticeable citation error. Also please refer to WP:USCHARTS to see how Billboard charts should be handled. A peer review wouldn't hurt either. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This is not in the vicinity of FA quality and substantive work has not been performed to address previous concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2020 [17].

Don't Start Now edit

Nominator(s): LOVI33 18:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a song by English singer Dua Lipa. Probably her most successful single along with "New Rules" as it reached number 2 on both the UK Singles Chart and US Billboard Hot 100. The article was brought to GA status by Coolmarc, who intended to bring it to FA status, but has since retired. I have done some improvements and adds since then and would like to finish his intentions. LOVI33 18:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ edit

I haven't listened to this song yet so I believe I'd provide an unbiased review.

  • the same team she worked with on her 2017 single "New Rules" → I don't think this is noteworthy for the lede, unless the two songs sound very similar to each other
  • Removed.
  • numerous 1980s and disco tropes in its production → Wikilink to trope may be needed to assist understanding; I'm not sure if "1980s and disco" can be in the same sentence, since an average reader wouldn't know what the difference between them is
  • Added wikilink. I think 1980s and disco tropes just refer to 1980s styled disco or disco in general, and 1980s styled music. I don't know if viewers will know the difference, but I would say that it should be included since the track was also praised for its throwback sound as you can see in the critical reception section. Although, if you think it should be removed then I will remove it.
  • A post-break up song → Unnecessary
  • Removed.
  • the song charted in the top 10 in more than 40 countries → I'd say charted in the top 10 on charts in 40 countries
  • Rephrased.
  • I see inconsistent use of the Oxford comma here.
  • I have fixed it to like this: list item 1, list item 2 and list item 3.
  • The next morning they decided to write a disco song as "it's the most fun to dance to"; however, the session was unproductive → Reading this, I understand that they only decided to write, but did they initiate the decision right away? I think the bit about the unproductive session can be omitted
  • Although "Don't Start Now"'s bassline sounds live, Kirkpatrick created it with MIDI → Can't MIDI be produced live?
  • The caption of the file says synth-pop, but I don't see it sourced within the prose
  • Added to prose.
  • "Don't Start Now" is a retro-tinged nu-disco song,[12][13][14] incorporating several 1980s and disco tropes, and elements of dance-pop, Eurodance, and funk.[15] → Grouping of multiple sources to create a statement is WP:SYNTH. Consider breaking it down
  • Broken down.

Overall a well written article. I'll try to review the rest within a week. HĐ (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to drop in as I am not the nominator, but I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of WP:SYNTH. If different reliable sources separately use the descriptors "retro-tinged" and "nu-disco", and we trust both sources, then it must follow that we believe both descriptors apply to the song simultaneously, and whether we put them both in one sentence or cite them to each source separately, we are simply juxtaposing them and not leading the reader to draw a separate conclusion from their being combined; therefore, I would argue we are not violating SYNTH or WP:OR. That is assuming the adjectives are objective descriptors and not subjective opinions. In the latter case they should be attributed in the text, but the problem then isn't SYNTH, it's a lack of in-text attribution of opinions. I would be interested to know what other people think though. Ajmint (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what you say is totally what I mean. I may have not been very thorough in assessing whether it was a case of SYNTH, but the lack of attribution is definitely what I find problematic. HĐ (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LOVI33, any updates regarding my concerns? HĐ (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey HĐ, sorry I didn't think I would get a response this soon. I have addressed all your concerns above, and with this edit. I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the rest of the article. LOVI33 03:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Ultimate Boss edit

User:LOVI33, The article looks amazing! I am going to support it! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for almost a month without any substantive support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2020 [18].

Can't Get You Out of My Head edit

Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 20:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a 2001 monster hit-single by Australian singer Kylie Minogue. First of all, I would like to thank WonderBoy1998 (unfortunately, retired now) who made an amazing job with the article and brought it to GA status. Seeing the FA potential in it, I trimmed it and re-organized a bit and I believe with some additional tweaking it can get the bronze star it deserves. Also, much thanks to Twofingered Typist who copy-edited it and gave the prose a better flow! — Tom(T2ME) 20:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media review
  • Fair use rationale for the sound sample might be improved. Does it demonstrate any musical elements other than the "la-la-la hook"?
  • There is no contextual significance of the single cover, unless any reliable sources actually discuss the cover. Any of the images of her performing the song would make suitable header image.
  • If there's not any commentary on the cover, it's hard to see how it meets "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Again, if it is significant, why have no sources discussed it? NFCC is a policy and supersedes any guidelines on covers being beneficial to have in the infobox, if they are free. (t · c) buidhe 15:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I pointed before, there doesn't need to be any commentary/review of the cover. You can check any single/album article on Wikipedia. They all have covers, whenever they are a C, B, GA, FA status, because there is a license and it's possible to have them here in lower quality and not bigger than 300x300. Even when you upload the image, there is a license you can choose and by which they are allowed to be used freely in the infobox. — Tom(T2ME) 15:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use rationale for File:Kylie Minogue Can't Get You Out of My Head white dress screenshot.jpg is adequate.
  • Other images are free. (t · c) buidhe 14:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • I think the claim in the lead that the song is famous for its hook goes a bit beyond what's supported in the text - source for this?
  • "one of the best-selling singles of all time" - source?
  • M Magazine is a work title. Ditto Musicnotes.com, check for others
  • Still some issues of this type, eg MusicOMH. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN11: what's the end of the page range? Ditto FN12, check for others
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publication locations
  • FN13: you've listed the publisher that corresponds to the sheet music linked, but the website name provided should be listed under |via= or left out. Ditto FN71, check for others
  • Be consistent in when you include publishers
  • Still not consistent here - usually they're left out but eg FN59 still has it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmusic or AllMusic?
  • What makes Acclaimed Music a high-quality reliable source? IMVDb? Petrolicious? Psycho on Tyres?
  • FN64 is missing page
  • Fn24: the website is simply Pitchfork, Pitchfork Media is the publisher
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking - for example GfK is linked in FN40 not FN39
  • Fn49 is missing retrieval date
  • FNs 51 through 55 should specify chart
  • Fn57 is incomplete

Stopping there and oppose pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikkimaria! Thanks for the reference review. I fixed most of the issues, but I am still working on some of them. I should be done by the end of the week. — Tom(T2ME) 11:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I believe I resolved all of the above reference issues. Please feel free to double check when you have time. Thanks! — Tom(T2ME) 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN45: URL shouldn't be part of title. Ditto FN47, check for others
  • Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do there. The title is automatically generated from singles chart template. Those are preferred in music articles over manually cited chart references. — Tom(T2ME) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria It's easier to organize the references and the bot gets the right URL dates and chart positions automatically. Also, if you open one of the references, you can notice that that's the full URL name. And I think I resolved the rest of them, but please check again. — Tom(T2ME) 13:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • What makes Swide a high-quality reliable source?
  • Fn68: why not cite the book directly?
  • FN72 is missing work title and has the incorrect publisher name, but also what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN86: listed work title is the author
  • FN94: RSP indicates that AllMusic is questionable for biographical details
  • What makes Hectic but Eclectic a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN97 is missing date
  • FN169 is misformatted, but why not cite the original source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I'm adding this to the urgents list to hopefully get a few reviews. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another coord note—this is not where it needs to be in terms of thoroughness of reviews and consensus to promote. I'm willing to leave it open for a few more days but it will be soon archived if more substantial review is not forthcoming. --Laser brain (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Laser_brain, this discussion has 3 supports, out of which one user extensively reviewed the article and all the queries were resolved. The other support is by a user who did copy-edits on the article by himself. The reference oppose was struck, since all the issues were also resolved. I have to disagree with you if you find that one user's (HĐ) vote uncertainty to be a no consensus to promote. I will be more than happy to hear other user reviews here, however, if that doesn't happen, I don't think archiving this is a good call. Would like to hear the opinion of the other coordinators as well if possible. PS. the only thing missing that is the spot check reference review. — Tom(T2ME) 13:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tomica, as you're aware this isn't a numbers game nor is it a "vote". We look at the quality, rigor, and content of reviews above all else. For something that's been open for almost two months, I wouldn't say it's in the neighborhood of something ready for promotion. Especially with one substantive review expressing doubt about the quality. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware yes, (this is my eighth FAC article I have worked on and nominated it) however, the user's doubt express doesn't specify anything about the "quality" of the article. In total honesty, it is very vague. And precisely, it's been open for 2 months and extensively worked on it to be archived. — Tom(T2ME) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ edit

  • Following its release, the song has been performed by Minogue on all her concert tours, except the Anti Tour. It is also recognised as Minogue's signature song and a defining point in her musical career. In 2012, the song was re-recorded for inclusion on her orchestral compilation album, The Abbey Road Sessions. →→ I believe passive voice is discouraged
  • I see that passive voice is rather frequent in the article (i.e. Dennis and Davis had been brought together by British artist manager Simon Fuller,; The song was recorded using Cubase music software, which Davis ran on his Mac computer; The music, excluding the guitar part, was programmed using a Korg Triton workstation via MIDI), and I've just skimmed through the Background section. Consider revising to active voice, and passive voice should be avoided at all cost unless there is no better wording option
  • "Can't Get You Out of My Head" is a midtempo dance[7] dance-pop,[8] techno-pop[9] and neo-disco son → This is a case of WP:SYNTH
  • is composed instead with numerous "misplaced sections" → You may need to explain more on this so that readers can understand more easily
  • Through the song's lyrics, Minogue expresses an obsession with an anonymous figure. Dorian Lynskey of The Guardian termed the song a "mystery" as Minogue never reveals the identity of the object of her infatuation.[14] The critic suggested that the person Minogue is referring to is either "a partner, an evasive one-night stand or someone who doesn't know she exists" → This can be shortened into one sentence
  • Merged the sentences. — Tom(T2ME) 17:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the Critical reception section is a quote farm
  • I see that it's common practice for music articles to focus extensively on a perceived commercially successful song. I would advise to trim down to only include essential information, per WP:CHARTTRAJ
  • I shortened some details, however, having in mind the chart success this song had, the sections are just fined. There are Wiki articles with GA/FA status who have longer sections just based on how successful they were in one, two countries (usually US, since Billboard publishes a lot). — Tom(T2ME) 17:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two "Legacy" sections; one in the "Music video" section and the other is an independent section. I'd suggest to merge
  • I renamed the video one to 'Impact'. I feel like having them separately is better. — Tom(T2ME) 17:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Commercial impact" section can be completely included in the "Commercial performance" section
  • Various publications recognise "Can't Get You Out of My Head" as Minogue's signature song → But only two sources are included

The article has various prose issues, but I believe they can be resolved. However, I am not confident to support promoting this article to FA status. — HĐ (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, regardless of your vote HĐ thanks for your comments. — Tom(T2ME) 17:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd follow up with some prose issues that I come across in the article; I am not confident to say that the prose satisfies the brilliant criterion of an FA, and the following issues are not exhaustive:

  • "Davis used Cubasemusic software when he recorded the song on his Mac computer.[1] Davis began playing an acoustic guitar and ran a 125 beats per minute drum loop, on which Dennis began singing the line "I just can't get you out of my head" in the key of D minor.[1]" → I think the flow is not there. The bit can be rewritten as Davis started off by generating a 125 bpm drum loop on the programme Cubasemusic equipped with an acoustic guitar, on which Dennis sang what later became the song's lyric
  • singer Cathy Dennis and songwriter Rob Davis had been brought together by British artist manager Simon Fuller, → but the source reads, I think it was Simon Fuller who put us together via Universal Publishing
  • The first paragraph of the "Writing and release" section can be improved in terms of flow; plus I don't think the cited quotes are necessary as they don't provide substantial understanding of the process. The quotes can even be summed up in one sentence such as Davis and Dennis recalled that the recording process was "very natural and fluid" that did not rely on heavy instrumentation.
  • Ditto with Dennis's quote in the second para. I personally don't recommend excessive quotes because it makes the prose bloated and does not provide substance
  • Ditto with the quote box
  • After Fuller heard the demo, he felt it was not suited for S Club 7 and rejected it. English singer-songwriter Sophie Ellis-Bextor also turned down an offer to record it.[1][3] Davis then met with Kylie Minogue's A&R executive, Jamie Nelson. After hearing the demo cassette of the song, Nelson booked it for Minogue to record later that year.[1] → Can be shorten to something as "Before pitching the song to Minouge, Davis and Dennis unsuccessfully offered the song to S Club 7 and Sophie Ellis-Bextor"
  • Additionally, in their book, The New Rolling Stone Album Guide... → Why is the preposition additionally here?
  • The song does not follow the common verse-chorus structure but is composed instead with numerous "misplaced sections".[1] Dennis reasoned that these sections "somehow work together" as she and Davis didn't attempt to give the song a traditional structure.[1] → Two sentences with the same content, ditto

I am sorry, but I personally think that the article now satisfies up to GA quality at most. Though there have been vast improvements, especially with the Critical reception section, I am hesitant to endorse the article for FA status. I am well aware that you've successfully promoted quite a few articles to FA status, but this article needs more work to make the prose brilliant (which should be well within your abilities, I hope). Noting that two months have passed since the FAC initiation, I regret to oppose this for promotion, HĐ (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi HĐ. I re-worked the section based on your propositions here. Can you please check it out and review it again? Thanks! — Tom(T2ME) 11:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, my point is that the article does not appear to satisfy criterion 1a, and it definitely needs more work beyond my comments before it can proceed to FAC. The prose is filled with sentences that I do not consider well-written (i.e. "Jointly written and produced by"; "Commercially, it peaked at..."; "13 years after the song's release"; "whilst" (I don't know why the more common "while" is not used); "Subsequently, it became the most-played song of 2001 there"). The content also appears to be cherry-picked/indiscriminate in parts: there's a source indicating that the single peaked atop charts of all European countries except Finland, which is not there in the Commercial performance section (the section also selects very certain countries, which is only understandable for Minogue's "home countries" of the UK and Australia, despite the fact that the song received certifications in many other regions). "British red top newspaper News of the World speculating that the singer could be an alien"; does this relate to the music video? "The critic takes a ride with Minogue through a city and encounters various musicians and artists like the ghost of Elvis Presley, and Madonna, Kraftwerk, and [Ludwig] Wittgenstein"; yes... so?
The issues I raised are by no means exhaustive, and I suggest that you overhaul the article -- don't hesitate to remove anything that's not particularly relevant to the subject discussed, and make sure the sentences are straightforward without needlessly fancy prepositions/wordings. On a side note, I don't consider sentences starting with "In [year...]/On [date...]" to be well-written, except in unavoidable cases. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • For this part, "Jointly written, composed, and produced by", I am uncertain of the difference between "written" and composed". I think it would be more concise to just say "Written and produced by". I have a similar comment for this later part: "was written, composed, and produced jointly by".
  • In the lead, I would add the year "The Loco-Motion" was released as that would show the time between that song and this one.
  • I would cut down this part, "the revealing hooded white jumpsuit", to just "white jumpsuit". The current phrasing seems unnecessarily detailed for the lead.
  • I am a little confused by this part, "Although Davis was initially under the impression that the recording deal would be called off later", specifically the "recording deal" phrasing. I did not think a "recording deal" would have been drawn up for a single song, and I would associate this more with a "recording session" or something similar.
  • You are absolutely right. Fixed it. — Tom(T2ME) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change "performing it during the tour" to "on the tour" to be more concise.
  • I think there is a way to combine this two parts, "and it was released on 8 September 2001 by Parlophone in Australia" and "it was released on 17 September", without repeating "it was released" twice in the same sentence.
  • Since the obsessive love is linked in the lead, I would do the same in the article for consistency.
  • Done. 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not understand the purpose of the images in the "Critical reception" and "Cultural impact" sections. Neither of these sections are about the live performances so they seem more decorative than anything else.
  • I do not think this part, [Minogue's], is necessary in the AllMusic sentence as it can be assumed from context.
  • There is a lot of great information in the "Critical reception" section, but aside from the third paragraph, there does not appear to be any particular structure. I'd be curious to hear how you organized the information here?
  • Discussed on your talk page. — Tom(T2ME) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain if the music video screenshot's caption needs the citations since the references are already included in the prose.
  • I would start a new paragraph with this sentence, "Various scenes in the video...", as it is going into a different point, and the paragraph is rather long already.
  • For the Diane Railton and Paul Weston, I think it would be more helpful to include some sort of descriptive phrase to introduce them to readers rather than including the name of their essay. I would say the same for Lee Barron. I do not think adding the essays' names to the prose is particularly helpful, especially when that information is already present in the citation. A short descriptive phrase would give more context to the writer's background and better inform their approach.
  • I added their professions. Honestly, I am not very familiar with their work apart of this. — Tom(T2ME) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know MetroLyrics is commonly used in song articles, but I am uncertain on its reliability. I have found instances where it lists either wrong or incomplete information on songwriters. I will leave this up to you, but I would suggest removing it from the "External links" section. Again, entirely up to you on this.
  • Apparently, Minogue performed this on Good Morning America. I am uncertain if a reliable source can be found that covers this, but I wanted to raise it to your attention.
  • You were right, there isn't a reliable web source, so I cited a video. Also expanded the section a little bit more. — Tom(T2ME) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following Billboard issue (here) contains some useful info on the song's U.S. release. For instance, one music director said the song resonated more with "women 25 and up" instead of being a "club record kids call about". It seems to be a long version of the "Can Kylie Break In The U.S.?" source already cited in the article so there may be more information there. Just a suggestion.
  • That's a great read. However, where do you think I should add that info? — Tom(T2ME) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had initially thought it would fit in the "Oceania and United States" subsection, but upon further reflection, I am more uncertain. That subsection is already rather long, and there is already quite a bit of information on the U.S. reception so this may be too much unnecessarily detailed information. I'd be interested to see how other editors respond to this. So I would say wait for now with this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a rumor going around that Michael Rooney's choreography "was dictated by the size of his hotel room", and Minogue has addressed it in this interview at around the 3:40 mark. Do you think that is notable enough for inclusion?
  • Hmmm, she was not sure tbh if that's true. So I don't think adding it helps since she couldn't confirm herself :/ — Tom(T2ME) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Since it is an unconfirmed rumor, it would not make sense to add it to the article. I wanted to raise it to your attention to see if you knew anything more on it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few portions of the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box for the audio sample left incomplete (i.e. N.A.). Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, "It is notable for being Minogue's biggest and strongest commercial breakthrough", what is the difference between "biggest" and "strongest"? Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, I removed biggest and left only strongest. — Tom(T2ME) 20:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song was featured on Hustle (as seen in this video) in which a character poses as Minogue and performs it for as part of a con. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your research. However, since there is no 'other usage in media' section, I am not sure where this information can be appropriately added in the article. — Tom(T2ME) 20:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see this maybe fitting in the "Impact" section since it is mostly about recreating the music video, but it may be too trivial to mention. Just wanted to raise this to your attention. I will read through the article again in a few. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only have four more comments before I will support this for promotion. They are the following:
  • I am still not entirely sure on the structure of the "Critical reception". A possible alternative would be to have the first paragraph be focused on reviews that came out during the song's release and the second one on retrospective reviews.
  • Well, with the exception of the GQ review, the section follows that scheme right now. I can move that one into the second paragraph, but I feel like the first one then would be too short. :/ — Tom(T2ME) 08:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree actually. The first two paragraphs have both contemporary and retrospective reviews mixed in. For instance, the Pitchfork review at the end of the second paragraph was published in 2002. It seems odd to have almost the entire second paragraph being retrospective reviews and then end with a 2002 one. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooops, must have slipped it. Adjusted it now. — Tom(T2ME) 18:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about how this quote ("if Minogue had attempted to outshine it") is used in the prose as I was not sure of the meaning until I read the source. I also do not think this part ("her voice works fine alongside it") is entirely accurate as Lipshutz is praising Minogue for consciously matching her vocals to the production rather than over-singing it. I think this point could be made clearer.
  • Instead of quoting the whole sentence, I would suggest paraphrasing most of it and only use parts of it as quotes. Just something about the original wording seemed off to me. Maybe instead something like: (13 years after the song's release, Billboard's Jason Lipshutz praised Minogue's vocals as complimenting the production, and said "her voice operates alongside it, finding renewed power in its drive".) Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Thanks for the suggestion. Added it. — Tom(T2ME) 18:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say this ("after nearly 15 after the release") in the prose, but the article says 13. You are also missing the word "years" here.
  • Thanks for this, fixed it. 08:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed it with the second one. Too bad the other photo was blurry. That white outfit is an iconic Minogue outfit and same for the dancers' outfits. Madonna paid tribute to Kylie by using the same ones for her dancers during the MDNA Tour I believe. — Tom(T2ME) 08:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. My primary concern was the image's quality, but if other editors prefer the original image, then that is fine as well. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these four points, everything looks good to me, and I will be more than happy to support this for promotion when everything is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your patience with this review. I support this based on the prose. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any insight on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Aoba! I appreciate your constructive comments and support. :) I will dive into your FAC sometime this week! — Tom(T2ME) 21:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Status edit

  • The article looks great after all of the changes made above! Happy to support! — Status (talk · contribs) 18:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a bunch Status! — Tom(T2ME) 20:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

  • After a few minor adjustments where I improved the tone, this has my support as well. A job very well done, Tomica! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you SNUGGUMS! I appreciate it! And thanks for those edits. :) — Tom(T2ME) 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - As stated in my previous note, this is nowhere near where it needs to be and has been open for quite a long time. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 9 September 2020 [19].

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea edit

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this time for real. I nominated this article about a month ago but personal issues meant I couldn't put my full focus on Wikipedia. Anyway, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is one of the quintessential indie rock albums. Loved by many, but incessantly mocked as well, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is a weird album. The music goes all over the place with strange instruments like the singing saw and zanzithophone, and the lyrics are...well let's just say I don't think anyone really knows what the lyrics are about. This article has been a passion project of mine, and I think it's about ready to see an FAC nomination. Have at it.

Pinging @Aoba47: and @Casliber:. My apologies for not addressing your comments during the first FAC but I believe I have addressed both sets of comments now. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support thought it had only minor issues before and looks better now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media review edit

  • "Illustrates Jeff Mangum's abstract lyricism, in particular the focus on the life of Anne Frank." is an inadequate fair use rationale. (That purpose would be served better with a quotation from the song.—short quotations are to some extent exempt from NFCC)
    • You expanded the NFCC rationale, which now reads "Additional:To demonstrate the abstract lyricism found with In the Aeroplane Over the Sea. The audio sample contains the lyrics "With sparks that ring and bullets fly / On empty rings around your heart / The world just screams and falls apart". The audio sample illustrates how songwriter Jeff Mangum forms a coherent narrative by stringing together surreal imagery and seemingly unrelated subject matter." However, this doesn't work. If the purpose of this non-free content is to show the lyrics, the audio sample does not meet NFCC criteria because it could be replaced in the article by a short quotation from the lyrics without a loss of reader understanding.
@Buidhe: Would something like this work? I still need to mess around with templates as it doesn't look good right now. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that seven lines is too long as it's a significant part of the original song. The point could be made by the first four lines which would be more suitable. Likewise, the audio clip "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" could be trimmed as the point in the fair use claim is readily apparent from the first ten seconds, and the "Purpose of use" part of fair use rationale should be expanded. (t · c) buidhe 20:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:In the aeroplane over the sea album cover copy.jpg fair use would be stronger if moved to the part of the article where the cover is discussed.
  • Other media is free. (t · c) buidhe 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

"Frank's importance to the lyrics is the subject of debate however" is excessively vague. (t · c) buidhe 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I believe I have addressed the first and third issues you brought up. I am confused about what you mean regarding the In the aeroplane over the sea album cover copy.jpg. Do you want me to move the image from the infobox down to the artwork section? Or keep the image in the infobox and duplicate the image in the artwork section? Famous Hobo (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be better for the cover to be moved to the part of the article where it is discussed in text. NFCC doesn't allow multiple copies of a non-free image on the page. (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Unfortunately I don't think I should do that. It's common practice that every album article that has an album cover should put the album cover in the infobox. If you look at any of the featured articles under the albums section, you'll see that every article puts the album cover in the infobox. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47 edit

  • This part, "Robert Schneider worked with Mangum", is the first time Jeff Mangum is mentioned in the lead so I would use his full name and clarify his relationship with Neutral Milk Hotel.
  • I am uncertain about the "unique" word choice in this part: "he developed a unique recording technique that involved heavy compression". I understand why it is used, but I could also see someone viewing it as a peacock term. I would remove it as the sentence already points out that he developed this technique.
  • Link Neutral Milk Hotel the first time the band is mentioned in the body of the article.
  • In the lead, I would add the year that On Avery Island was originally released to the prose.
  • In this sentence, (The single brought enough exposure to convince Mangum to record more material under this name.), I would say "music" rather than "material". I have received notes in my past FAC/GAN reviews to avoid using the word "material" in this context as it is unnecessarily vague.
  • Lo-fi music is linked twice in the body of the article. AllMusic and Entertainment Weekly is also linked twice.
  • A link for acid trip may be helpful.
  • For this sentence, "Love is another prominent lyrical theme, although the concept of love takes on different forms.", I would just say "the concept" as I do not think the repetition of love twice in the same sentence is necessary.
  • There is a slight repetition in these two parts "To give the disparate drawings a cohesive look, Bilheimer" and "To add onto this effect, Bilheimer splashed" since they both use a "to..." sentence structure and start with Bilheimer.
  • For this part, "In 2003 Creative Loafing writer", there should be a comma after "2003".
  • I have always been told to only use audio samples in album articles if they represent the album's overall sound. I would adjust the audio sample's caption to better convey how this audio sample does this.
I believe the new description does a good job at describing the album's overall sound.
  • I think this is much better. Thank you for revising it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Winkie explain how the album was the subject of revisionist history? It is not uncommon for albums to get a more positive reception years later, and revisionist history makes me think that critics either put out a false impression the album was better received upon release or something else.
I've seen some articles say that In the Aeroplane Over the Sea was a critical success immediately, but I can't find them right now. Instead I rephrased it.
  • That's actually what I thought when I rad the sentence, but since a source does not explicitly cover them, then I agree with the decision to rephrase this part. If you do find those articles again, feel free to add this part back in of course. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Ferris Wheel on Fire be mentioned in the "Mangum's disappearance from the public eye" section as he did release more music with the band?
I don't believe so. The music from Ferris Wheel on Fire had already been recorded by the time the band broke up, so Mangum didn't work on it after his disappearance.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation, and I agree with you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence, (Although Mangum was expecting a lot out of the newly expanded band, many outsiders noted how caring and nurturing Mangum was toward everyone involved.), I would replace the second instance of "Mangum" with "he" to avoid the repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Working on this. Also, what do you think of the quote box in the lyrics section? A reviewer suggested it would work as opposed to an audio sample. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote box seems fine to me. I agree that it is better than an audio samples, as I have primarily seen audio samples used to convey information on a song's sound/composition not the lyrics. Since the lyrics are so bizarre, I would think including them is helpful to giving the reader a better feel for the album's content. Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Alright, I believe I have addressed your comments. I left individual notes for the comments that were of particular note. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I'll look through the article again in the next day or two to make sure that I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this for promotion. I will let another editor cover the source review, but all of the sources are reliable and high-quality for a featured article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

I'm adding this to the urgents list to hopefully get a few more reviews, and also to the source review list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: How is the source review looking? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Page ranges should consistently use pp. and endashes
  • What makes Dickinson a high-quality reliable source? Grantland? Tiny Mix Tapes?
  • The Smith link does provide a publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: My apologies for the late reply:
  • Endashes have been added. I'm not sure what you mean by consistent use of pp., I feel like all of the multi-page references use pp.
  • The Dickson source has been removed. The Grantland source was written by Steven Hyden, a music critic that has written for other reliable sources such as The A.V. Club (with that said though, the Hyden source doesn't play a major role in this article and can be removed without losing too much information). Tiny Mix Tapes is considered a reliable source according to WP:ALBUM/SOURCE.
  • Added publication date to the Smith source. Famous Hobo (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a long time and despite being on the urgents list, it doesn't have the necessary support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 9 September 2020 [20].

Single skating edit

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the figure skating disciple. If passed to FA, this will be the third figure skating FA. It has been thoroughly researched; I believe that it is ready for FA. I look forward to any and all feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Morgenstern skates a compulsory figure (1971)
Image review—pass
  • All images appear to be freely licensed.
  • Image placement could be improved. In the Compulsory figures section, there is narrow sandwiching of text between two images, which looks bad and should be avoided if possible (see the collapsed screenshot); you could fix it by moving the Morgenstern image to the right.
  • Most of the upright images would look better if rescaled with the |upright parameter as recommended in MOS:IMAGELOC. See the uncollapsed image for an example.
  • MOS:IMAGELOC states, "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement." The article has several left aligned images which break up section headings, which is undesirable. The Nobunari Oda and Artur Gachinski pics should definitely be moved to the right because they are breaking into the next section without actually facing into the text to a significant degree. (t · c) buidhe 00:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believed that I solved the above issues by: removing the Morgenstern image, since the Compulsory figures section is so short, removing the Gachinski image because it really didn't really illustrate the section's content anyway, and changing the image size of the Oda image to fit within the section. MOS:IMAGELOC also states, "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text." Everyone on the left is looking at the text to the right; that's why they're there. Hopefully, my changes have helped with image placement. Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Spicy edit

Interesting read. Just a few comments on prose... I know nothing about figure skating so do correct me if anything is off base.

  • "Single skating has required elements that skaters must perform during a competition - is "required elements" a technical term in figure skating, or is "required" redundant since we are told that they must perform them?
Yes, it is; there are elements that skaters can perform that aren't required
  • Compulsory figures, from which the sport of figure skating gets its name, was a crucial part of the sport for most of its history until the ISU voted to remove them in 1990.- is "compulsory figures" singular or plural? It is first referred to with "was", but later with "them".
No, it's plural. Thanks for catching the typo.
  • Free skating, also called the free skate or long program, is the second segment in single skating, pair skating, and synchronized skating in international competitions... - is it necessary to repeat the list of international competitions in this section when it is already in the "Short program" section?
I noticed that the last copyedit go-over I made. I think it's necessary if someone were to read the sections separately, but I can see it as being repetitive, too. What do you think? I'll go with your opinion, since I'm probably too close. Should we say in the "Free skating" section: "Free skating, also called the free skate or long program, is the second segment in single skating, pair skating, and synchronized skating, in the same international competitions as the short program"?
I think that would be a good idea - it communicates the same information without being repetitive. Spicy (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Championships and festivals focusing on compulsory figures has occurred since 2015 - have occurred
Got it.
  • Also according to the ISU, jumps must have the following characteristics to earn the most points: - is "also" necessary here? To vary the sentence structure you could change this to something like "Jumps must have the following characteristics to earn the most points, according to the ISU:"
Got it also, har-har.
  • "International Skating Magazine called this regulation the "Zagitova Rule", named for Russian skater Alina Zagitova, who won the gold medal at the 2018 Winter Olympics by "backloading" her free skating program, or placing all her jumps in the second half of the program in order to take advantage of the rule in place at the time that awarded a 10% bonus to jumps performed during the second half of the program" - very long sentence, suggest splitting
Done, broken up after the first "program".
  • "Single skaters must include the following in order to earn the highest points possible during choreographic sequences:" - "choreographic sequences" is plural here but the rest of the sentence refers to the sequence in singular - change to "during a choreographic sequence"?
Good catch.
  • "The first time a senior singles skater used music with vocals and lyrics during a major international competition was Artur Gachinski from Russia" - Gachinski is a person, not an event; could this be changed to something like "The first senior singles skater to use (etc)..." or "The first time... was Arthur Gachinski's performance at Skate America in 2014."?
Wow, that was a dumb mistake; good job being the first person to notice! Fixed.
  • Since 2003, women single skaters have been able to wear skirts, trousers, tights, and unitards, which was a change since the ISU requirement in 1988 that women skaters wear skirts during competition, a rule dubbed "the Katarina Rule", after East German skater Katarina Witt, who "skated her tapdance-based short program in a showgirl-style light blue sequined leotard with high-cut legs, low-cut chest, and similarly colored feathers on her headdress and sleeves and around the hips as the only perfunctionary gesture in the way of a skirt". - suggest splitting this sentence as well
Done, separated after first use of "unitard".

That's all - thanks for putting this up for FAC. Spicy (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Spicy. Thanks so much for the review; it was very helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and happy editing :) Spicy (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks again and same to you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia edit

  • S&P/ID 2018, p. 9 ... no idea what S&P/ID is, guessing it is "Special Regulations & Technical Rules Single & Pair Skating and Ice Dance 2018" based on the date but a) I can't figure out how we get from there to S&P/ID, and b) we shouldn't make our readers guess.
  • Yes, you're correct. It's what the ISU calls the document, but you're right that we shouldn't expect readers to know that. Changed to "Special Regs"; I didn't bother changing the ref names, though.
  • Similarly, Tech Panel, the source is Technical Panel Handbook ... spell it out?
  • Done.
  • The lead is underdeveloped, and it is jumping around, from one topic to another, then back to an earlier topic. The prose is not clear in the lead ... for example ... Deductions in singles skating include violations in time, music, and clothing, as well as regulations regarding falls and interruptions. Deducations are regulations? I think the lead needs a rewrite.
  • I moved some things around and expanded the lead.
  • History does not seem to mention single skating at all.
  • I bumped into this in the GAN. The GA reviewer insisted that this article needed a history section, which I disagreed with initially, but they insisted so in it went. I still don't think it needs it, for as I said then, the history of single skating, including those who have dominated the sport in different eras, is really the history of figure skating. Other skating discipline articles (pair skating, ice dance) have these sections because they were added to figure skating later. Plus, there is information about the histories of the other disciplines, for that reason, and not as much about the history of single skating alone, separated from general discussions about the sport's history. I'd be fine with removing the section for these reasons.
  • "The short program lasts, for both senior and junior singles and pairs, two minutes and 40 seconds." Is there any group for whom it does not last 2:40? ... If not, why the qualifier?
  • Yes, figure skating has other divisions, for younger skaters: novice, intermediate, juvenile. I didn't think that the time requirements for them was notable enough to include here.
  • The first paragraph of short program is unclear in scope ... it starts talking about what it is, but then moves to who holds records-- why are the record holders not in a separate para? At the end of the section ...
  • I went ahead and separated the paragraphs in the Short program section, but didn't in the Free skating section because the paragraphs would be too short. Personally, I think the records better belong before the discussions about requirements.
  • Short program talks about point scores without having first explained how those point scores are arrived at.
  • I'm not sure this is the place to talk about about how skaters earn points. I think it better belongs in the article about the ISU Judging System (IJS), which I intend to tackle in the coming months. I mean, when the infobox in Michael Jordan's article talks about his Career NBA statistics, as a non-basketball fan, I don't understand what the numbers mean, and the article doesn't explain the scoring system in basketball. I just looked at a few basketball articles, and they don't explain scoring, either.
  • Some reorganization and beefing up would help ... for example, short programs could have four paragraphs: 1) The short program is ... 2) both male and female single skater must ... 3) an explanation of scoring ... 4) record holders.
  • The Short program now has three paragraphs. In the Competition segments sections, it's in summary style. I could add more from the parent articles, which are linked in the Main article templates, if you like.
  • Free skating, I don't know what is meant by "in the same ... "
  • Are you talking about the phrase "...in the same international competitions as the short program"? That was a change requested by Spicy above. Can you tell me how it's unclear?

SO, as I read on down, I see the things I am asking for are given later ... reinforcing my idea that the organization is backwards. A more logical flow might be 1) Competition requirements, 2) Rules and regulations, 3) Competition segments, 4) Records holders. It feels like I am supposed to understand Competition segments and points and records before I know how those things are built.

  • Sandy, I understand your points, really I do, but the current structure of this article follows the traditional structure of articles about the other disciplines (pair skating, free dance). It could be true that for this article, your structure makes more sense, but I'm not convinced. Personally, I think a reader, even the uninitiated skating fan who only watches skating every four years, needs to begin at the segments. A viewer unfamiliar with the sport is gonna tune into the Olympics and the commentators are going to announce, "Welcome to the Short program" and they need an understanding of what that is in relation to the Free skate. And then they need to know what skaters have to do within the time frame of the short program and free skate. All the elements are linked and discussed later in the article. That being said, if you insist upon it, I'm happy to comply with your suggestions.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing this version. It's still not working for me at all. The lead still bounces around from one topic to another, now includes excess detail, and the idea that we have to include history (even though history contains zero mention of single skating) is odd. Why is there no mention of single skating in history? Did the original Olympics not include single skating? It seems they would have. If not, why would History be the first section, where we expect to find content relevant to the topic (single skating). Why did this happen? "As of the 2018–2019 season, however, only the last jump element performed during the short program ..."

The lead starts with two definitional sentences, than has a sentence that has no mention of singles, then in para 2 goes back to definitions (where the reader has to guess that "There are two segments in all international competitions" refers to single skating), then oddly has record holders in the same para, while going BACK again to history in the same paragraph, but again, without even mentioning singles. Then the third and fourth paragraphs go in to excess detail about definitions and rules. The lead isn't working at all for me, nor is the article organization, and the lead looks like the article is trying to develop content where there is little to cover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I state above, the problem with developing content about the history of single skating is that the sources (even Hines) don't separate single skating from the history of figure skating in general. That's why I asked if we should just remove the History section, thus removing it in the lead. No, the original Olympics (1896) didn't include figure skating, and along with it, the discipline of single skating; as the article states, the first time the Olympics included the sport, again along with single skating, was in 1906 in London. The 2018 rule change, which is explained in the final paragraph of the Jumps section, explains the reason (the "Zagatova rule") for it in the very next sentence.
There are two sentences in the first paragraph of the lead, and both mention single skating, so I'm confused about what you mean about "a sentence that has no mention of singles". I changed the first sentence in the second paragraph, which hopefully clarifies it, to: "Single skaters are required to perform two segments in all international competitions..." The records are in the short program and free skating program, so I thought that it belongs there. Along with removing history, I could also remove records. The definitions explain the elements single skaters have to perform. Perhaps what's confusing you is that skaters in other disciplines have to execute some of the same elements. I'm not sure how we can clarify that, so I'm open to suggestions. I'm willing to take your directions about changing how the article is organized. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Nothing really jumps out at me (so to speak) but there was a couple of confusing bits. I read it a couple of times, and there are some bits that are unclear to me (possibly because I've never performed an ice skating jump, and my knowledge of the sport comes solely from reading your Wikipedia articles):

Hah, for some reason, that made me laugh. ;)
  • "The use of vocals was expanded to singles skating, as well as to pair skating, starting in 2014" You mean music with lyrics?
  • Huh, that's exactly how the ISU describes it. Changed to "music with lyrics" in all instances.
  • "All jumps are considered in the order that they are completed. If an extra jump or jumps are completed, only the first jump will be counted; jumps done later in the program will have no value." Er, how many jumps are you limited to?
  • That's told in the separate sections about the competition segments above. Actually, the point is that you can do as many jumps as you wish; you just won't get points for all of them. I could put the number of jumps required in the short program and free skate here in this section, but wouldn't that be repetitive?
  • "Since 2003, women single skaters have been able to wear skirts, trousers, tights, and unitards. Since 1988, the ISU required that women skaters wear skirts during competition, a rule dubbed "the Katarina Rule"" Do women have to wear skirts or not? The text seems to be out of chronological order.
  • Switched sentences; the one starting with 1998 is now before the sentence about 2003.

Quibbles:

  • All done.
  • Reference required in the first paragraph of "Rules and regulations"
  • Do we need one there? It's a summary of what's to come. I could remove it, if you like.

I love the line about "excessive nudity". Aside: while competing in a 24-hour mountain bike race well past midnight, I was overtaken by a rider wearing nothing but the regulation cycling helmet. Apparently, nudity makes you ride really fast.

  • I know, that's always cracked me up, too. That reminds me of when I was in the arena for the 2010 Nationals in Spokane, Washington, watching an ice dance competition. The scores came up and the audience was confused about a one-point deduction. The commentators speculated it was because the team's costume was a bit revealing; I said, "But that's what my husband likes about this sport," and a woman pointed to her husband and said, "Him too" as he nodded enthusiastically. I'm sure the rest of the crowd wondered why there was laughter in our section. Figure skating can be so staid and conservative, but I guess mountain biking is not. ;)

Take care on the ice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! No worries there; I tried skating as a child and discovered I did not like falling, especially on cold, hard, icy surfaces. I love watching it, though. You too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "If there is a costume or prop violation, the judges can deduct one point per program." - source?
    Fixed, thanks for the catch.
  • What makes Cosmo a high-quality reliable source in this context?
    I understand the objection. I think what makes it a good source is the content; it's pretty much spot-on accurate and illustrated nicely with images and videos. See, one of the goals as editors who write figure skating articles on WP is that we make the sport accessible for what I call "the uninitiated figure skating fan", or the fan that only watches every four years during the Olympics. This particular Cosmo article also does that, so I thought it was appropriate to use. That being said, there's nothing the Cosmo article supports that can't be supported by another source, so if you want me to remove it, I will do so, but it will personally disappoint me, boo hoo. ;)
  • FN19 should omit work title and just use |publisher=NBC Washington
    Ok, done.
  • FN23 title is incomplete
    Fixed.
  • Be consistent in when/whether you include locations for newspapers
    It's my practice to include locations when it's unclear. For example, I wouldn't include the location of The New York Times or the Boston Globe. Are there any newspapers with unclear locations that I missed?
    By that logic I wouldn't expect to see it with Lake Placid News. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But the LP source (FN31) has its location. I just did a spot check, and I didn't see any other less obvious locations. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's my point - since the location is in the title I'm not sure why it's included. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, duh, I get you now. Yah, I'm assuming that not everyone knows that LP is in N.Y., so that's why I included it. But I can remove it if you wanna be really picky. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN31 returns 404 error
    Fixed.
  • Should use "Technical Panel" rather than "Technical panel" in short cites
    Got it.
  • FN56 is missing "p."
    Ack, another good catch
  • Fn63 doesn't match up with other cites to that source
    Ack again!
  • FN64 is missing caps on work title
    I think I got that one.
    This is now Boston Globe while FN 57 is The Boston Globe - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fns65 and 32 should have the same work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, actually no. Same author and magazine (Atlantic Monthly), but different articles.

Thanks for catching all those silly errors, that's why we copyedit. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a long time and despite being on the Urgents list, it does not have the necessary support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 9 September 2020 [21].

Everett, Washington edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 04:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of my early pandemic projects that grew into a long article about a blue-collar city with a long history of labor movements and strife. Everett is home to the world's largest building by volume, a base for aircraft carriers, and some of the worst traffic in the United States, among other honors. This article was rewritten a few months ago from the ground up with the intention of being an FA, complete with new offline sources that I have acquired to keep permanently. SounderBruce 04:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments by Nick-D edit

I don't think I'll post a full review here, but a few things jump out at me from a skim:

  • Watch out for recentism - some examples:
    • "An adjacent four-story apartment building was destroyed in a fire while under construction in July 2020." - why note unimportant recent fires?
    • "In response to a projected revenue shortfall of $14 million caused by the shelter-in-place order, which later spread statewide, the city government laid off 160 employees in May 2020 and plans to cut services.[131] The city's original 2020 budget had already been constrained due to a projected deficit caused by a spending gap identified in 2017." - surely similar (though less substantial) cutbacks would have occurred in the 2008 recession and previous recessions, but they don't seem to be mentioned?
  • "Everett is described as a "largely blue-collar city", but is home to a regional arts scene that includes galleries, community theaters, music, and artwork" - why the "but"? Do blue collar people (including skilled aerospace workers) not like live music and other forms of the arts?
  • The photo of Naval Station Everett is pretty dull - surely there's a better option
  • Are very similar sections needed on the results of both the 2000 and 2010 census (and why not cover earlier censuses?). Much of this material might be better presented as graphs or tables.
  • More broadly, the article has a bit of a 'boosterism'-type feel to it, with lots of unnecessary detail on various recent urban and cultural improvement initiatives (the 'Events and tourism' section in particular details a large range of very standard-sounding current events). I'd suggest reviewing this material across the article critically, and trimming it back. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

  • File:Monte Cristo Hotel, Everett, Washington (4861196624).jpg I don't think "no known copyright restrictions" is sufficient, see Commons:Commons:No known restrictions. To know if it is in the public domain, we would need to know when it was published and whether copyright notice was attached.
    • Replaced with a modern image of the same hotel.
  • File:Boeing 747 rollout (3).jpg — Swedish origin of this photograph is doubtful; source link dead; Russavia is now SanFran banned
    • It appears that this same image is credited to AFP or Getty Images depending on the source (e.g. NPR). I have replaced it with another image of the Boeing 747.
  • Other images appear to be appropriately licensed
  • Image placement is in accordance with MOS (t · c) buidhe 10:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments edit

  • The tables need some work to meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS; see MOS:DTT for a guide of how to add a table header, and row and column scopes.
    • All fixed, from what I've read of DTT. Wish there was an easy tool to check for compliance, though.
  • The article links to a few pages which redirect back to this one: History of Everett, Washington, Ebey Island, Schack Art Center and The Everett Channel.
    • I plan to write articles for all these redirects when I have time in the future, forking content from this article if necessary (but not likely for most cases).
  • What sources the content in the "Sports" table? From what I can see, a lot of it is unreferenced. Harrias talk 15:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added citations for years and venue columns. Thanks for the comments. SounderBruce 05:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive by comments
Some thoughts on the demographics section. The crime table is quite interesting, but it really should have a comparison between state and/or national statistics. 908 car thefts per 100k is meaningless without context, but if it's significantly different than either state or national average than it has context. Is it possible to add a column (or two) here? I'm also not sure the 2000 census paragraph should even be in this article. It's nearly 20 years out of date. Statements like "For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 102.8 males" 20 years ago is really trivial. I hope to have time to give a more thorough review later! Mattximus (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The crime statistics template is hardcoded and I don't believe there's an option to add extra columns, though I would be interested to add Washington and U.S. averages. The 2000 census section is present in most city articles and will likely be dropped in favor of using fresh 2020 data when it's available next year. I think that having the most recent two censuses is helpful for readers who want to quickly compare pieces of information. SounderBruce 05:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 10 September 2020 [22].

Kids See Ghosts (album) edit

Nominator(s): K. Peake 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for review against the FA criteria because it is a notable collaborative project between the two famous rappers Kanye West and Kid Cudi as Kids See Ghosts, which was highly successful critically and charted in numerous countries too. The article was heavily worked on by me when I brought it to GA status less than a year ago and I have since continuously expanding it, while put it through a peer review recently that I responded to. I have helped well-researched during all of this definitely and made sure that the writing has no errors, while citations have been fixed by me and I provided an appropriate amount of illustration. However, feel free to comment if my hard work has not covered certain areas! --K. Peake 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Aoba47 edit

  • I unfortunately do not have to do a full review, but I wanted to leave a few comments on the article's use of audio samples. I have been told repeatedly in the past to keep non-free media usage to a minimal and to only use audio samples in an album article if it is representative of a larger sound on the album. I do not see any of the three audio samples doing this so I do not think they fit this article.
  • The audio samples' captions are quite long and dense, and I am not sure this is the best way to present this information. There are also several parts that make question the neutrality of the text. For instance, look at this sentence: (The song has a liberating rush and in a bold moment of triumph, West energetically proclaims his freedom.) Phrases like "liberating rush", "bold moment of triumph" and "energetically proclaims" read too much like praise and is not objective. I can find several instances of this throughout the captions. I would encourage you to look more closely at the use of the audio samples and how the captions are worded. Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 It is fine I appreciate the drive by, but you kind of do have a point about the neutrality of the audio samples. I have started to fix this now by first doing the one you mentioned and will probably look at the other songs soon, though are you sure what you said about the captions needing to be representative of the album's sound is true? If yes, should I try and reword the texts to be of more relevance, which may include citing different ref(s)? --K. Peake 16:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my experience, it is encouraged that audio samples only be used on album articles if they represent something throughout the album (i.e. like a sound or style). So yes, if you want to keep any of these audio samples, then you would need to change the caption to better convey how they represent the album. I would honestly recommend rewriting the audio samples entirely, and moving the information already present in the samples to the prose. There are still some POV issues, like I find phrases like "emotive honesty" and "soft yet self-assured voice" to read too much like praise or a review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not believe the audio samples have a strong enough rationale for inclusion. The captions focus on how the songs represent the album lyrically, but this information can be conveyed with just the prose. It is recommended to keep Non-free media usage restricted to points which cannot be represented through the prose alone. For instance, I have seen audio samples in an album article show how a song is representative of the album's sound (whether it be genre, musical instruments, vocal style, etc.); in that case, a reader who is unfamiliar with whatever sonic element being discussed can listen and have a better understanding of whatever is being discussed. I still think further work is necessary, but that is just my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 I understand your concerns, though in this context the information written on the samples' texts would be too much to write out in prose, though it gives relevant information to themes and lyrics; are you sure things actually have to be 100% about the actual music of the album? --K. Peake 10:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have already repeatedly said, that is my understanding. I still do not see a strong enough rationale for either of the two audio samples' inclusion as the information in both captions can be read and understood even by an unfamiliar reader without listening to either song. I prefer album articles to have audio samples, but they still require strong justification for inclusion. Since this conversation appears to be going in circles, I will leave this to other editors. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47 I am sorry if I am sounding too repetitive here, it is fine for you to leave the discussion for now if you wish. --K. Peake 20:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just do not see this conversation going anywhere productive. I already let my opinion know (a few times) and you disagree. I will not outright oppose based on this, but I do have issues with how the audio samples are currently being used in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 100cellsman edit

  • "Prior to the release, West and Cudi enjoyed a strong relationship as close friends and musical collaborators since meeting in 2008, and expressed a desire to record a collaborative album. However, an album never initially materialized, with the duo instead experiencing brief fallings-out in 2013 and 2016. They reunited a year later, when the first studio sessions for the album began. "
This segment is a little wordy. I suggest changing to: "Prior to its release, West and Cudi became close friends and collaborators when meeting in 2008, and expressed a desire to record a collaborative album. But had not materialized and the duo experienced brief fallings-out in 2013 and 2016. After reuniting a year later, the first studio sessions for the album began."
  • Prominent production is featured from both members of the duo" Just use "the duo"
  • "Critics noted the genre of Kids See Ghosts as a fusion of psychedelic, rap rock and hip hop" Its a bit strange to me for critics to be mentioned here.
  • "with a number of music critics" Omit "a number of"
  • Completed all of the above with changes --K. Peake 16:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the full dates e.g. "February 14, 2016" and "February 24, 2016" interfere with readability. Though with release dates the month and day can be kept for more context.
  • I felt like the background and recording section was hard to read. To me I feel like it has too much detail, however, I'm not one to determine what to leave in and out since I'm not extremely familiar with the subject matter.
  • For the captions in the audio samples, I also second Aoba47's opinion.

I might find more to say, but these are my general thoughts, mostly on the lead. 웃OO 09:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman Thank you for the comments, I have used a number of them to improve this article. However, the dates seem mostly fine but the February instance you pointed out was an exception as they were very close to each other in terms of both time period and prose. For more context on the background and recording section, it may seem to have too much detail since the information about different albums is included but that is because they were all part of West's Wyoming Sessions, along with Kids See Ghosts. Though I did change the mentioning critics in the musical description, I have an answer to your question about that, which is that the genres should be mentioned in the lead but I changed to writers instead since it does read kind of weirdly elsewise. As for the audio samples, I explained my point of view to Aoba47 above. --K. Peake 16:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: There are a couple aspects of the writing I probably would have done differently. But they're not relevant for the discussion. I think the article has sufficient enough information to become FA. I just have a minor suggestion to make the album art alt text a bit more descriptive. 웃OO 13:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 and 100cellsman, I am replying at the bottom of this page because my comments are intended for both of you. First of all, I would like to say thank you for the suggestions to help improve this article. Now, to get to what I have done, the samples' texts have been edited by me to warrant usage properly in the article so I suggest taking a look at the captions; they are of relevance to the album now but I know the editing is only recent, so tell me if they read awkwardly or any similar issues. Also, I did change the cover art alt text as I actually agreed that it was improper at the time of the "weak support" minor suggestion. Any comments below would be much appreciated! --K. Peake 16:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
100cellsman How do you feel after my recent editing of this article? --K. Peake 20:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant a more literal description of the alt text, but the album art does has its own section so I don't think it should be necessary. Audio sample caption wise, given some of your values and the modifications you made, it isn't really an issue with me anymore. 웃OO 23:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
100cellsman Thank you for elaborating, are you sure still a weak support or willing to change the level now? --K. Peake 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change it. lol 웃OO 02:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from HĐ edit

The article looks in good shape. I have a comment about the Commercial performance section: this section includes disparate information on the album's chart positions throughout several regions. While I can see that this is a common practice in music-related articles, per WP:CHARTTRAJ it's usually not recommended, as this creates a collection of indiscriminate non-encyclopedic details. I'd suggest trimming down the section to essential information (i.e. overall US performance; high-tier positions in selected countries). HĐ (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Ultimate Boss edit

The article looks amazing, but I agree with HD though. Maybe you should trim the commercial section a bit. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Boss Do you have any comments in response after I have trimmed over a week later? --K. Peake 15:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, I'm so sorry for the late reply! I have been so busy with school that I didn't even notice it... It looks a lot better now, so I'm going to Support!

Commercial performance trimming edit

HĐ and The Ultimate Boss, I made this sub-section so I can reply to both of you at the same time. I have now trimmed the commercial performance section down to not including any positions below the top 10, is this fine now or should I have reordered it geographically as done for song articles? --K. Peake 14:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs more work. Here are some examples (not all)
  • Unlike Ye, Kids See Ghosts failed to give West a chart topper on the US Billboard 200, with the album debuting at number two on the chart, being blocked from the top spot by Dave Matthews Band's ninth studio album Come Tomorrow (2018), and selling 142,000 album-equivalent units, of which 79,000 were pure album sales, and being streamed over 90 million times → I don't see the comparisonn to Ye necessary, neither is the fact that it charted behind another album; the wording for the figures is weird, try something like "totalling 142,000 units including 79,000 pure sales and 90 million streams"
  • I reworded a good amount of this but kept the Ye statement since the album was released a week prior and both are from the Wyoming Sessions, plus kept the album's name that charted higher though did avoid repetition. --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite this, Kids See Ghosts stood as West's 10th top-five album and Cudi's sixth top-five album in the country → ditto; plus the wording sounds like Kids See Ghosts also failed to give Cudi's a number one like his previous
  • Yeah you have a point here, I also changed "the country" since I have not mentioned "the United States" specifically by this point. --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sales surpassed the first week projections of 100,000 to 110,000 album-equivalent units and 55,000 to 60,000 pure album sales, though a debut at number two had been predicted → overly detailed (WP:TOOMUCH and WP:NOTNEWS)
  • Removed pointless statistics. --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next week, it exited the top 10 of the Billboard 200, descending 12 places to number 14 on the chart, though fell down nine places to number 10 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart → I don't see the connection to use the preposition "though" here; ditto for overly detailed
  • I have read WP:CHARTS and am aware of the guidelines for trajectory, though it is fine here since this is only reporting the following week which is notable because not only did the album fall out of the top 10 directly after being at number one, but various sales stats are also notable like the exact number of streams. Also, "though" is used here because it shows the parallel of how the album was still in the top 10 of the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart but not the main albums chart. --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31,000 album-equivalent units were sold that week → Don't start a sentence with a numerical figure (WP:MOSNUM); plus passive voice is generally discouraged
  • Sorry I had not read that part of the numerical guidelines before, have made fixes to the sentence now. --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My overall suggestion is that, as an encyclopedia, the prose needs to be simple and comprehensive at the same time. Try to include every essential information, but also exclude anything that may come off as tabloid-quality (i.e. update on sale of every week). I'm not an expert in prose work, but I'll try to give the article a comprehensive look if possible. HĐ (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HĐ I have read through your FAC suggestions and implemented them, how do you feel now? --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month and has not seen any activity in recent weeks. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/September_2020&oldid=981099749"