Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2024

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Featured log
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 January 2024 [1].

Dolly de Leon edit

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having previously worked on Filipino related BLPs, here's my next work on actress Dolly de Leon. For the better part of her 3-decade career, De Leon was an obscure figure who predominantly appeared as a background actor with non-speaking roles or what she would call "a device to get the story moving or a sounding board for the lead". Then came 2022 when she achieved international breakthrough after being cast in Ruben Östlund's Triangle of Sadness, where she was described as the "breakout star", earning critical acclaim for her performance as the toilet cleaner, Abigail. She received significant awards attention, including nominations for a Golden Globe Award and BAFTA Award for Best Supporting Actress, becoming the first Filipino to be nominated for the awards. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

I hope this review is helpful. Apologies for not being more helpful, but I wanted to try and help with this FAC. Best of luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review Aoba47. Alt text added to the infobox image and I’ve removed the low quality image. Always appreciate your review and help. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response and for addressing everything. This passes my image review. Please let me know if there are images added to the article so I could review them later on. Everything looks good to me. Have a Happy New Year! Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will definitely let you know if I find some better quality images on Commons. Happy New Year! Pseud 14 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Chris edit

  • "British Vogue named her one the 30 most famous stars" => "British Vogue named her one of the 30 most famous stars"
A silly error on my part. Thanks for catching
  • "De Leon was cast in several screen roles, during which she also acted in plays," - she didn't act in plays during the screen roles. Maybe try "De Leon was cast in several screen roles, but also acted in plays,"
Revised as suggested
  • "De Leon's career prospect improved" => "De Leon's career prospects improved"
Done
  • "a television sequel of the 2013 film of the same name" => "a television sequel to the 2013 film of the same name"
Done
  • "has a running time of 4 hours and 10 minutes" - is this really relevant?
Agree. Removed this and tweaked to include something more relevant. Hope that works.
  • "De Leon stated that she is separated" => "De Leon stated in [year] that she was separated"
Added year
Thank you for your kind words and review ChrisTheDude. Comments have been actioned. Let me know if I may have missed anything or if they have been all addressed satisfactorily. Pseud 14 (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

  • I have a question about this part, (starring as a toilet manager), from the lead. What is a "toilet manager"? The article later on describes this role as a toilet cleaner and the Triangle of Sadness article calls the character a "cleaning woman". I do not understand what manager means in this context.
In the film, the part was actually called "toilet manager", and also mentioned in this article/interview: Abigail, the cleaning manager on a luxury cruise on a luxury yacht. Actually, you're called the toilet manager - that's the name that was used in the film. So the terms toilet manager, cleaning manager or toilet cleaner would all refer to her role and were used interchangeably in various articles/publications that I've read.
That may be true, but I still have no idea what it means. In my opinion, it is unclear, particularly to a reader who has either not seen the movie or really read anything about it like myself. If these titles are interchangeable, why not just use one of the titles that is more easily understood to a wider audience? Aoba47 (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched to toilet cleaner consistent with the article prose
  • I have a question about this part, (and credits Jose Estrella for teaching acting techniques). Who is Jose Estrella? I am guessing based on the context of the sentence that he was a professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman. If that is the case, I'd say something along the lines of "and credits professor Jose Estrella" as I was not fully certain who this person was when first reading this part.
He is a professor, along with Mabesa. I have added it now.
  • Could you clarify this part for me, (by the prospect of financial security)? Based on the previous sentences, De Leon was not having much luck in her acting career so I would think that if financial security was one of her focuses, that she would be more motivated to look a career that is traditionally viewed as more stable. I do understand how her daughter helped her, but this part somewhat came out of left field for me.
I think I might have removed that when I copyedited it. Revised the sentence where it is now mentioned that she worked odd jobs to make ends meet while struggling to establish her career, as this is also supported in the source, which says: Since she had to sustain a regular income for her kids
That doesn't really answer my question though. I had read the parts about her working odd jobs and such, but my question would be why would she view auditioning and an acting career in general as a way to sustain a "regular income" and get "financial security" after almost quitting because she was struggling with her acting career. The part that I quoted above seems to say that she viewed acting as this "financial security" that is somewhat contradicted in earlier parts of the paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understand what you mean, removed the financial security aspect, and stuck with just her being motivated by her daughter.
Done
  • Why is Ryan Oquiza attributed in one sentence for her review (i.e. for Billie and Emma) but not in another sentence for another review (i.e. for Verdict)?
I've indented to have some sort of variation, so it doesn't become repetitive. I've added it otherwise, but also, only used the last name after the first instance, since his reviews have been used a few more times in the article.
That's fair. I prefer consistency, but I am also fully aware that this is a personal preference on my part and I know that others disagree so it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember there was some talk about De Leon possibly getting nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for Triangle of Sadness. I am not sure if she was really "snubbed" for the nomination as it was not 100% expected by those who follow and gauge the chances for these awards, but was there any coverage about this? It may not be necessarily, especially since she did not get a nomination, but I was just curious as that is where I first heard of De Leon (i.e. in the Academy Awards-related discussions). There are already two paragraphs on this film though so it may be overkill.
I was bummed about that snub too, but from what I've gathered it was mostly Filipino publications that talked about the "snub" perhaps because they had higher expectations. Although I figured, since this was her breakout role and critically reviewed performance, and possibly her work which had the most coverage to this point, that I should focus on the critical ones to write about like how she got the role and the preparations she did, as well as the reviews and recognitions she has gotten, which hopefully I was able to succinctly cover in the two paras. To answer your question though, from a BLP perspective, snubs from Oscars or any awards organization for that matter, are generally trivial or insignificant IMO, so I would agree with you saying it's overkill. There have been plenty of notable actors that have been snubbed from an Academy Award (with FA or GA articles in wiki), but I have not seen such examples were them not being nominated or "snubbed" was ever discussed. Hopefully that makes sense, and sorry for the very long response.
No need to apologize. I appreciate the response. What you said makes perfect sense to me. I had similar thoughts, but I still wanted to get your opinion on it because I do remember a minor conversation leading up to the Oscar nominations about whether or not she would get nominated. I agree that it is better to focus on the other elements here, particularly since this "snub" was not widely reported and for the most part, it is not really something discussed on Wikipedia outside of the extreme cases. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment for this sentence: (She played Carlo Aquino's mother, who prompts her son to track his uncle's disappearance.) If read literally, it says that she is playing Aquino's mother in the movie as if he is a character and not an actor in it.
You're right, I just realized that. I have tweaked it to say she played the mother of Aquino's character.
  • For this part, (The critic for Rappler ), why not attribute the critic's name? Also the wording, "the critic", makes it sound like they are the only critic employed by that company. I would be consistent on whether or not critics are directly attributed in the prose or not.
I think I missed that. I've added the attribution to the reviewer's name.
  • I am not exactly sure what this means, (the dark character of a powerful and demanding retail mogul), specifically the "dark character" bit. There are so many ways that could be interpreted so further clarification would be ideal.
I removed dark to avoid ambiguity.
  • For this part, (she considers herself to be reticent and a "shy" person), I do not think the "shy" quote is necessary as it is already covered by describing her as reticent.
Removed
Unlinked
  • Is there a reason why the roles for If You Leave and Simula sa Gitna are left blank?
Unfortunately, there are no available online sources that I could find which provide her roles or names for the above work. I've learned in previous reviews, that in the absence of high-quality reliable source for roles, we should just leave in blank. (as far as I can remember)
That makes sense. I have run into similar cases myself so I completely understand that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Acting Credits" section, shouldn't there be a table for her theatre work? It is mentioned in the lead as something she is known for, and it has been done in other actor's filmographies, such as Natalie Portman and Anne Baxter for two examples.
I actually intended to create a separate article/list for her performances on screen and stage, however, since her main article a bit shorter, I decided to include the tables on it. As for her theatre work, I've only been able to find articles that mention the plays she has done, which estimates around which period that happened, likely after she was done with university, based on interviews and articles I've read. Since most of her career, she was an obscure figure that played minor or sometimes uncredited roles, there wasn't much information on her stage roles as well. I just worked off on what was available and wrote it as part of her early work.
  • That's fair. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again, but I doubt that I will find anything substantial. Just to be clear, I am focusing this review purely on the prose so I am not going into the sources really at all. Hopefully, other editors will participate in this review. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review Aoba47. I have addressed and actioned your comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Appreciate you doing both an image and prose review. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. I just have one point remaining with the "financial security" part. Apologies for getting stuck on such a minor point. It just felt a little jarring to read that she took all these odd jobs to support herself while acting and almost gave up on it because it was not going well to then read that she viewed it as a way to get "financial security". Hopefully, that makes sense, and apologies for typing a lot to try and convey what I am thinking. I am glad that I could help. I enjoyed reading the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 No worries at all, I took that part out so it is conveyed better. Hopefully that improves the flow and structure. Let me know if that works. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. Thank you for your patience. I will look through the article again sometime tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through the article again, I could not find anything further to discuss. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Wonderful work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and for doing the extra prose review. Very much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviewish edit

Spot-check upon request and noting that I am not deeply familiar with the reliability of entertainment sources. That said, it seems like they are mostly prominent websites and news sources, my usual worry about news sources notwithstanding. What makes preview.ph a reliable source? Ditto for DiscussingFilm. Source formatting seems mostly consistent, but it was a lot of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the source review Jo-Jo Eumerus. I have provided my response to your questions on the reliability of the 2 citations. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: I added Fn 70 to Fn 74 in this version for the section that discusses films that have already premiered at the 2024 Sundance Film Festival this month. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These seem OK too, with my previous caveats regarding familiarity and no spot check in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG edit

Recusing to review.

  • The lead is currently too focused on her awards. I read only four lines where it's not about her awards. Some variety would be good.
I've tweaked and expanded the lead a bit. I had initial challenges since she was pretty much obscure for most of her career, hopefully it gives a better summary and not sound to list-y with awards when you have another read through it.
It reads better now. FrB.TG (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason for why you have opted for the American date format (MM/DD/YYYY) when the rest of the world's default is DD/MM/YYYY? I suppose the key is consistency throughout the article, but it still strikes me as strange for an article about a Filipino.
Good question, I think (I could be wrong though) the Philippines traditionally follows MDY as with American. At least from what I've noticed with editors/patrollers fixing date formatting in wiki for Filipino articles. I sort of followed the same since referring to date format by country, where MDY is also acceptable.
Interesting. I didn't know other countries used this date format. Not a fan of this confusing format (when it's written in numbers) but that is just my personal opinion and I suppose it's fine as it is here. FrB.TG (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, number format confuses me. I never write months in numbers IRL either, always written in words :D Pseud 14 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dual parts of the nurse and the messenger" - you can't use definite article for "nurse" and "messenger" when they haven't been introduced before.
You're right. Fixed this to an indefinite article (I may have gotten carried away with usage of false titles that I've applied it elsewhere when I'm not supposed to)
  • " It won the Audience Award for Best Feature Film at the latter." "latter" is used to denote the second or second mentioned of two people or things, but there are four film festivals listed in the previous sentence.
Fixed this, hopefully it reads better.
  • "Lav Diaz's science fiction drama The Halt (2019) featured De Leon as the education minister in a post-apocalyptic Manila" - see my point above about definite article (unless she was the only "education minister in a post-apocalyptic Manila").
Same as above, corrected.
  • "In the film, De Leon played the mother-in-law of Eigenmann's character, who is conflicted in paying for her son's legal fees." Is it De Leon's or Eigenmann's character that is "conflicted in paying for her son's legal fees"?
Reworded
  • "De Leon portrayed Inday Arcega, a criminal from an organized syndicate that carry out political executions." "syndicate" is singular, so the verb should also be singular.
Fixed
  • "Set in the aftermath of the 1957 airplane crash of then-president Ramon Magsaysay" - president of which country?
Specified

More later. FrB.TG (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments and edits FrB.TG. I've actioned your comments. Let me know if the revised lead works or if some changes still need to be done. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Verdict was submitted for consideration for Best International Feature Film at the 92nd Academy Awards." Perhaps specify that it was the Philippine's official entry.
Changed as suggested
  • "She became the first Filipino to be nominated for the latter two awards." See above regarding my point about "latter". I think swapping it for "last" would work.
Done
  • "De Leon voiced Rosalinda in the adult animated drama The Missing" - which year?
Added in brakcet after the movie title
  • "She earned a Best Supporting Actress win" - too verbose; just "she won Best Supporting Actress" should do.
Agree, changed.
  • MovieWeb's Greg Archer called the film a "quirky and fun ride", and considered De Leon to be "deliciously savage and thoroughly fun to experience". Not seeing the source for it.
Thanks for catching this, I knew I read it somewhere and quoted it. Should be added now.
  • "A Very Good Girl was a commercial success, earning over ₱100 million (US$2.03 million), making it one of the highest-grossing Filipino films of 2023." The source cited calls it the "biggest Filipino movie of 2023". Was it later surpassed by (an)other movie(s)?
Yes it was later it was surpassed by another film in December, which eventually became the highest of all time, so I ended up tweaking it, since it has slipped to second.
  • "De Leon stated in 2023 that she was separated and a single parent" - unless she isn't a single parent anymore, I would add an "is" before "a single parent".
Changed
  • "When discussing her insecurities, she considers herself to be reticent as a result of struggles early in her career." - "reticent" to do what? FrB.TG (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I switched it up to say socially reticent. Let me know if that works, happy to revise it otherwise.
Thanks FrB.TG. Addressed the additional comments. Let me know if the changes look/read better. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Regarding the "socially reticent" part, this is what the source says: "Before I was so insecure, I could not even face strangers because I'm really an introvert. I'm shy. But because of what's happened, it's given me confidence. It's given me agency in my own life." The quote indicates that she has gained confidence and agency as a result of past struggles. Therefore, the article should reflect that she has moved beyond her previous social reticence to become more confident and empowered. FrB.TG (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this FrB.TG. I've tweaked this part to elaborate and be specific per your suggestion. Let me know if that reads better or if changes are still needed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on all criteria. FrB.TG (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support FrB.TG. Appreciate your patience as always and the MoS edits you have done as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ edit

  • "She made her film debut in Peque Gallaga's horror anthology Shake, Rattle & Roll III (1991), and was cast in small and uncredited roles throughout the 1990s and 2000s." - Comma is not required here
Removed
  • "starring as a toilet cleaner of a luxury yacht" - on a luxury yacht, perhaps?
Done
  • "a part she later described as "[having] the spotlight for a few seconds"" - do you mean a part during which she had the spolight for a few seconds?
Revised. Let me know if that's how you meant it.
  • "based on the 2018 novel of the same name by Liane Moriarty" - avoid WP:OFTHESAMENAME if possible
I'm serial user of this approach tbh. Revised.
Apologies for taking forever with this. Considering I also haven't had the motivation to write an FA myself lately, I hope it's more understandable, lol.--NØ 20:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never too late to the party MaranoFan, and as always your feedback is much appreciated. I'm sure it'll spark soon. I had a bit of a break writing this one, I think 4 or so months in between, so totally get the need for a breather. I've actioned your comments. Let me know if there's anything I might have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am as impressed as ever at your ability to crank out these high-quality biographies so frequently.--NØ 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and for this edit, that make sense now. Thanks for the kind words, I echo the same sentiments re your music-related FAs, it's like you do it in your sleep! Hope to see you here again soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2024 (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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2024 [2].

Ian Carmichael edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Carmichael was one of those who appeared in the Boulting brothers’ unofficial repertory company of actors that gave the cinema some wonderful and very British comedies in the 1950s - Private's Progress (1956), Brothers in Law (1957), Lucky Jim (1957) and I'm All Right Jack (1959), often appearing locked in a battle of wills with Terry-Thomas. He went on to play Wooster and Wimsey – two very different characters but with the same core that Carmichael had been honing for years. This has been through a recent re-write and had a solid PR with comments in from Tim riley and UndercoverClassicist. Any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

Not much on rereading now to add to my comments – all duly addressed – at the peer review. Very minor quibbles from a further perusal, none of which affect my support:

  • Lead
  • "from June 1944 to May 1945 saw active service from France to Berlin" might benefit if you changed the first "from" to between (and the "to" to "and")
  • Early life
  • "an optician in a family firm of jewellers" – seems a bit odd, like being a fishmonger in a family firm of plumbers or a lepidopterist in a family firm of dentists: what did an optician do in a jewellery firm?
    He opticled! The sources all say the same thing, but that means none gives any more clarity, unfortunately, except that he was a trained optician who operated a practice within the family jewellery firm. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess the two went together -- presumably the skills/kit for cutting and setting gemstones overlapped pretty well with those needed to do the same to lenses? A bit like being a surgeon in a company of barbers? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No further questions, m'lud! Tim riley talk 22:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early career and war service, 1939–1946
  • "he was informed he would have to wait until he was twenty—on 18 June 1940—before he commenced training" – a couple of rather refained words: a plain "told" and "started" might be preferable
  • Early post-war career, 1946–1955
  • "from October 1946, then ran at the Apollo Theatre" – in my book (being an old codger) "then" is not a conjunction and could do with "and" in front of it
  • "hits the bull's-eye" for his comic performance in one sketch" – I suspected I knew what that sketch was, and The Stage cutting confirms it – the shy young man changing on the beach (he repeated it on television in the 1960s and it was very funny indeed). I don't press the point, but it might be nice if you gave us a few words saying what the "one sketch" was about.
  • Wooster and Wimsey, 1962–1979
  • "the run ended after 23 performances, since the farce not being to the taste of New York audiences" – you need to lose the "since" for this sentence to be grammatically OK.
  • "No one was more delighted by the early close than Carmichael, who disliked his time in the US who said "I found New York a disturbing, violent city..." – should the second "who" be "and"? (And the implication that other people were also delighted by the early close seems a little strange.)
  • "they were able to start filming the first programme Clouds of Witness" – a bit of punctuation needed?
  • Semi-retirement, 1979–2009
  • "the voice of Galahad Threepwood for two radio productions Pigs Have Wings and Galahad at Blandings" – ditto

That's my lot. I greatly enjoyed revisiting the article and reviewing it again. It seems to me clear, balanced, comprehensive, well and widely sourced and a very good read. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 21:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim! All sorted where possible (only the opticlling issue unaddressed). Thank you so much for all your comments at PR and again here: they are all much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC edit

As with Tim, not much from me here:

  • audiences enjoyed seeing his portrayals: perhaps a slightly limp ending for the lead (and arguably unverifiable -- all of them?) Could we work in something a bit more concrete?
  • in his early years he had a "privileged, pampered existence" in a home that included maids and a cook, according to Robert Fairclough, his biographer: the according is about the privilege and pampering, not the maids and cook; suggest sometihng like Robert Fairclough, his biographer, describes Carmichael's upbringing as a "privileged, pampered existence"; his parents employed maids and a cook (I'm not sure a home can include people, though a household definitely can).
  • Would suggest rephrasing "infant education"; it sounds like this means Prep/primary school rather than actually being an infant (unless they had some very foul-mouthed toddlers in Yorkshire).
  • Speaking as a Lancastrian I have no quarrel with the end of that sentence. Tim riley talk 22:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will defer to you on Lancashire mores, though our own article suggests that "infant schools" have been considered under the umbrella of primary schools since the 1940s. There's also a MOS:COMMONALITY case that we should make concessions to our few non-Lancastrian readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as a child of Yorkshire (for all of four weeks, being shipped off to Germany while still a baby), I feel one should always ignore Lancastrians and Scousers whenever possible, particularly those named Riley! - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the main point, he was four, (which I've now added) - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carmichael enjoyed his time at RADA, including being outnumbered by women on his course by five to one: this doesn't quite say what it means to: it's not that Carmichael was outnumbered, but that men were outnumbered. Suggest the fact that women outnumbered men on his course...
  • Given the reference to the "Worsening European situation" in the blockquote, I'd put some (re)statement of the dates of Carmichael's time at RADA in the opening to that section (not all readers will have read or remembered the preceding one).
  • At the end of training manoeuvres...: not a huge problem, but quite a long sentence. Is it relevant here that Whitby is by the sea?
  • I'd go with a full stop after "Very much the amateur", partly for cadence and partly because the semicolon looks a bit odd after the quote marks.
  • a twelve-week tour round Britain: should this be around? I can wear "a round-Britain tour", but I'm not sure that this usage works in formal writing -- but will defer if you disagree.
  • Second oar-insertion by TR: When in doubt, turn to Fowler. This is what Butterfield says in the current (2015) edition: around, round: As both adverb and preposition these words are interchangeable in some contexts but not in others. In general, British English favours round and American English around. In AmE round is generally regarded as informal or nonstandard and is only standard in certain fixed expressions such as all (the) year round and they went round and round in circles. There's a lot more (pages 64-65) for them as wants to pursue the matter, but I think the present wording is OK. Tim riley talk 22:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1947 and 1951...: another long sentence, easily solved by swapping the semicolon for a full stop.
  • Is it possible or workable to clarify that The Globe isn't the more famous theatre by the same name?
  • How does that look? I don't want to over-egg the point in the text, but this should make it a bit clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would change the link on "officer in the Guards" to just cover "the Guards" per least astonishment.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done, aside from the first point - I'll work on that shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That done too - how does that look? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd go with the plural rather than "an audience" (unless he only had one good performance). Might wish to phrase "nurtured his performances" to something that more straightforwardly means "tried", just to keep it encyclopaedic (it's a matter of fact that he wanted to come across as dignified; whether he did is a fuzzier and less encyclopaedic matter). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gone with the plural. For the rest, it's summarising what 'Screen persona' says. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now superseded by the version worked on in KJP1's review. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, is there any more to come from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should have changed to support, per discussion below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks UC. Many thanks, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. (I like "resplendent".) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog! - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • Just a placeholder for now. Started reading but I'll pick up in the morning when I'm fresher.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and between June 1944 and May 1945 saw active service from France to Berlin. " the body of the article does not mention service in Berlin, unless this is meant to refer to the general Allied movement.
  • "Stone disagreed and signed the comic to perform ..." signed or assigned?
  • " They wanted him to appear in two film versions of novels—Private's Progress by Alan Hackney and Brothers in Law by Henry Cecil—with an option for five films;[40][41] the final contract was for six films.[42] " So was the contract for two films with an option for four, or for two films with an option for six? It might also be useful were you to mention at what point the contract terminated.
    Now clarified on the numbers; unfortunately the termination isn't mentioned. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tell us of a downturn in the sort of bumbling roles that suited Carmichael, and then mention Wooster. I think for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the gentleman that you have to make it clearer that Wooster is that sort of role. If the sources so state, of course.
  • Carmichael and Price may have made a priceless pair, but the latter is linkless.
    He was linked above, but as we're now allowed to duplicate links, I've added one here too. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including providing the voice for Rat in the 1983 film The Wind in the Willows[104] and as the narrator for the television series The Wind in the Willows between 1984 and 1990." perhaps rather than repeating the title say "of the same name" or some such.
That's it. Very interesting. I've seen very little of his work, some of the Wimsey adaptations, but will have to look for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Wehwalt, all sorted, thanks. If you like light-hearted British B&W films, you can't go wrong with Private's Progress I'm All Right Jack (although everyone was out-classed by Sellers's tour de force) and School for Scoundrels - Carmichael and Terry-Thomas as their best. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for the recommendations.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, as always your thoughts are always interesting to hear and very welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto edit

  • Marking my spot. I will say, from reading the first paragraph in the lead, is his very brief and somewhat inevitable army career worth mentioning so prominently here? It's no secret that most well-heeled actors born in the 1920s were commissioned quickly, and nearly all saw active service, of sorts. His service in Europe was equally brief - lasting barely a year - and he was demobbed quietley without any notable distinction. This of course might change the further I read on, but this is on first glance. CassiantoTalk 07:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cass (and sorry for the delay getting back to you). I've trimmed out the service details, while leaving in reference to the break in his career; does that work? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte edit

Reserving. I'm slightly preoccupied at the moment, so just give me a ping if it appears I've forgotten. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the lead, I think the new ending discussed below is much better. I've linked Second World War, but that was the only thing I noticed in that section. I will continue with the remainder of the article over the coming days. Anarchyte (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • I'm not set on the way the two biographers are mentioned in the first paragraph. Jennings' work as his biographer is categorised by the mention of the DNB; Fairclough's isn't. This isn't inherently a problem, it's just something I noticed.
    I tend to do it because when mentioning "biographer", the initial thought for most is a (normally lengthy) book' the ODNB is slightly different, in that is is much more like our own one-page entry summarising. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early career and war service, 1939–1946
  • "as RADA shut down in anticipation that war was about to be declared, which it was the following day. Carmichael returned to his familial" — Consider adjusting the end/start of these sentences: "as RADA shut down in anticipation that war was about to be declared. The United Kingdom joined the Second World War on 3 September, and Carmichael returned to his familial home and completed the forms to join the Officer Cadet Reserve, hoping to be commissioned as an officer". Happy to consider other phrasings. Just not pleased with "which it was the following day".
    Reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early post-war career, 1946–1955
  • "risen to sixth in the credits behind John Mills and Eric Portman." — does this mean he appeared in sixth in film's credits? Many modern films are leaning towards order of appearance, so this may confuse some readers.
    Some are, but the overall weight is still by importance, and I think it's clear from the context here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screen success, 1955-1962
  • "and his screen presence in the US was warmly" — write out "the United States" for the first instance.
    Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, the US is one of those where the full name does not need to be written out in full. -SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wooster and Wimsey, 1962–1979
  • Clarify how the tastes differed for those unfamiliar with the provided list of films.
    OK, clarified this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ended after 23 performances, the farce not being" — seems like a word is missing after the comma, like "with".
  • It's fine in BrEng, but I suspect this will be one of those sentences which helpful IPs will keep adding the word in later, so I've added it now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The addition of "with" turns good prose into bad. If you must redraw I suggest "as the farce was not..." Tim riley talk 10:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Great article. Anarchyte (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anarchyte, that's great - thanks for your thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Support. Anarchyte (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anarchyte; that's great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1 edit

As I go through. Feel free to comment while I do, or I'll ping when I'm finished and you can pick them up then. I'm not expecting to find much to quibble about. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "he nurtured his performances and screen persona to gain audiences' sympathies, while retaining a measure of dignity they could relate to" - I struggled a little with this final clause. Is it saying something like; "his performances of dignified ineptitude charmed and resonated with both critics and audiences"/"his performances of dignified ineptitude charmed and resonated with audiences and critics alike"? I'm not sure that's quite right, but I'm not quite sure I get the intended meaning. I think Dennis Barker's obituary line is what it's trying to convey - he could "play fool parts in a way that did not cut the characters completely off from human sympathy"?
I've struggled over this closing sentence more than anything else in the article, trying to strike a balance that does him credit and stays within the sources. I've reworked again to try this version out. Pinging UndercoverClassicist, who thought the first version also needed ammending. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - tricky, as there's a lot that sentence is trying to say. How's about:
  • "Although Carmichael tired of being typecast as the affable but bumbling upper-class Englishman, his craft enabled his inept but well-intentioned characters to retain a measure of dignity; audiences laughed at his antics, while sympathising with his sufferings."
UC will likely have better suggestions. KJP1 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it, but I'll have a go: I think the suggestion you make above would be great for an obituary but perhaps a bit too subjective for an encyclopaedia. Can we find a reviewer, or indeed an obit, saying words to the effect of in this manner, audiences laughed at his antics, but still gave him their sympathies, and then simply hand over to them: "his obituary in the Telegraph credited him with..." or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Barker's pretty good: "What made Carmichael notable was that he could play fool parts in a way that did not cut the characters completely off from human sympathy: a certain dignity was always maintained, so that any pathos did not become bathos"? That could give you something like:
"Although Carmichael tired of being typecast as the affable but bumbling upper-class Englishman, his craft ensured that while audiences laughed at his antics, he retained their affection; Dennis Barker, in his Guardian obituary, wrote: "What made Carmichael notable was that he could play fool parts in a way that did not cut the characters completely off from human sympathy: a certain dignity was always maintained." KJP1 (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you both. How does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like it a lot. What say you, UC? KJP1 (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent solution -- well done both. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both. I've written and re-written that line so many times it's unbelievable, so thanks to you both for your help in getting it there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "an optician in a family firm of jewellers" - I see it's been discussed above, but it still strikes me as rather odd. What does an optician do in a jewellery firm, make very fancy glasses? "an optician from a family firm of jewellers", perhaps? But I suppose if the sources say it, who are we to argue.
It's definitely "in"; I've tweaked this a bit, but it feels a bit laboured. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scarborough College" - this, Scarborough College, would be a better link, I think. The article lists Carmichael as a former pupil, with a cite, so I'm sure it's the right one.
  • "the spartan and authoritarian regime at the school. He described the discipline at the school as "Dickensian"" - I wonder if the second "at the school" could be lost, without loss?
Early career and war service, 1939–1946
  • "appeared as Flute in A Midsummer Night's Dream at RADA's Vanbrugh Theatre" - if you wanted, and you may not, I can see two possible bluelinks, either Vanburgh Theatre, I see it is now officialy the Jerwood Vanbrugh Theatre, or Vanbrugh Theatre.
Early post-war career, 1946–1955
  • "he appeared in two roles in the comedy She Wanted a Cream Front Door" - a query rather than a comment, do the sources say anything about the two roles? Was it an Alec Guinness, Kind Hearts thing, or simply that he played two minor roles? I see that this 1947 production has Clive Drummond in two roles. Just out of interest.
Carmichael had the roles held by Grenville Wright had on that link - info now added. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carmichael also appeared in The Colditz Story the same year" - this is super picky, but the year referenced in the immediately prior sentence is 1956. And the "year" in the sentence preceding that is "1954-55". Whereas Colditz was 1955. Perhaps, "In 1955 Carmichael also appeared in The Colditz Story"?
Screen success, 1955–1962
  • Footnote b: "the Boultings made films that took a 'sharp, but generally good-tempered swipes at such social bastions'" - I don't think the "a", works here as it relates to the plural "swipes".
  • Footnote c: His selection was..." - Mr Riley will likely correct me, but as he chose eight tunes, perhaps "His selections were"? Same query for Footnote g.
Wooster and Wimsey, 1962–1979
  • Image caption: "Carmichael played Bertie Wooster in The World of Wooster between 1966 and 1967" - with the first episode airing on 30 May 1965, I think this should read, "between 1965 and 1967".
  • "various factors—including money, Carmichael's association with Bertie Wooster in the public's eye and difficulty obtaining the rights". Again, more of a query, but do the sources say anything more as to the nature of the money difficulties? Was it general funding, or that Carmichael was demanding too much of it?
General BBC funding - I've changed it to "financing" rather than money - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • Just as a general issue, and as mentioned on your Talkpage, I think it's a pity there's nothing on his funeral. I think the scattering of his ashes along the banks of the River Esk would be a nice close to to this section, but if the sources (other than the unusable Findagrave) don't mention it, then we can't. And if his house, The Priory, Grosmont, North Yorkshire was listed, I'd do a stub, but it isn't, and it being his home is my OR. Though I see that Bruce Webber's NYT obituary mentions that he died at his home in Grosmont, so I'm getting closer!
I've run smoe news searches but can't find anything that helps on this - it's only Findagrave that makes the claim - not even the Mail or Express mention it, so it's possibly not true. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - And that's it from me. Shall be delighted to Support once you've had the opportunity to review my, essentially minor, nitpicks. It was a very good read. He wasn't Alec Guinness, but he was a fine character actor, albeit of a "type". It's a little sad that he, and the Boultings, recognised this, but wider opportunities never arose. KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers KJP1 - all sorted. Most should be straightforward, but the comment re the lead is the one which may need a bit more tweaking. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have done him proud. A fine article which I’m confident meets the FAC criteria and which I’m pleased to Support. Thanks for tolerating my quibbles, and for the prompt responses. KJP1 (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks KJP, that's great - your input is always welcome and spot on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

It seems like there is a consistent source format here. There are so many Fairclough, Robert around that I need a pointer on who this guy is. I find it a bit odd that I can't find much on Humphries, Patrick. The book sources and websites seem OK, while I can't vouch for most of the newspaper sources mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, just checking whether there is an actionable point in there? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd like to have some information on Fairclough and Humphries, mostly their credentials. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Humphries is a journalist and author. He's written works on Hitchcock, Hollywood and several biographies on musicians. A list of his works can be found here
Robert Fairclough is a writer and producer. He's written on The Prisoner, The Sweeney and Callan (TV series); he's also a broadcaster on BBC and ITV and is published in numerous magazines etc. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then it seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo. Didn't realise you wanted me to comment after your first comment - my bad. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2024 (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 promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2024 [3].

Running Out of Time (song) edit

Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A hit Paramore song about time management and social anxiety. Thanks to NØ for a great GA review and for helping to prep this for FAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Just wanted to note that I have not looked at this article in a long time. I had posted a list of additional things that the FA criteria would require after passing the GAN but have not gotten the opportunity to see if they have been addressed. Sorry for not being more help with this and best of luck.--NØ 19:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I addressed most of your comments that you made at the time and now that I have two FAs under my belt, I think this is ready for review here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

  • Per WP:CONFORMTITLE, the album title This is Why should be in italics in the citation titles. An example would be Citation 18 (i.e. the Helen Brown review in The Independent).
    • Done.
  • For this part, (which is described as a pop-rock and dance-rock song), I would clarify who is doing the describing. I would assume that it is critics so I'd re-word it to something like, (which critics described as a pop-rock and dance-rock song), but it is unclear and could also mean that either Paramore or fans or someone else entirely described the song this way. I have the same comment for this part, (has been described as a pop-rock and dance-rock song). Just best to avoid any potential misinterpretations.
    • Done.
  • I have a comment on this sentence: (Williams said when writing the song, she "wanted to challenge [herself] to write about ordinary things".) There is quite a bit of repetition of "writing" and various versions of it around this area, which is unavoidable since it is about songwriting, but I think this part could be cut down to (Williams said that she "wanted to challenge [herself] to write about ordinary things".). Previous sentences have already conveyed Williams was one of the songwriters on the song so I find "when writing the song" repetitive and it cuts down on the repetition of "writing" a bit.
    • Done.
  • I am uncertain about the change to the quote, ("mundane thing[s]"). I looked at the source, and it is singular on purpose as Williams is specifically referencing time management as the "mundane thing" she is writing about so I feel that the additional [s] does change the meaning quite a bit as Williams is referencing a specific thing while the Wikipedia article broadens that out.
    • Changed to "ordinary things", which is also quoted in the article.
  • This is just a clarification question, but was there any further information on the remix, such as reviews or coverage on how it differed from the original? I am guessing that this is not the case, but I just wanted to make sure.
    • Not that I have found.
  • I wanted to point out there is at least one area that the citations are not in numeric order (i.e. the first sentence of the "Composition and themes" section). It is not required to put them in order so it does not need to be changed. I still wanted to draw your attention to it just in case.
    • Done.
  • Why is Sowing not attributed in the prose for the Sputnik Music review while other reviewers and publications are explicitly stated in the prose? I would be consistent with that.
    • Done.
  • I would avoid linking pop-punk twice in the "Composition and themes" section.
    • Done.
  • I do not think the "standout tracks" quote is necessary. It could be easily paraphrased without losing any meaning. I have been told in the past to avoid quotes like this as it could take away from the more meaningful ones, and I agree with that sentiment.
    • Done.
  • I would link anacrusis as I could see readers not being familiar with that term.
    • Done.
  • I am uncertain about this part, (and released by Paramore). It is really released by the band and the record company. It was not just a release completely handled by the band itself.
    • Done.
  • Apologies in advance as this is a very random question, but when I was reading about the Alice in Wonderland-themed video, it did remind me a lot of the video for Gwen Stefani's "What You Waiting For?", which also involved a person being pulled from a recording studio into a Alice in Wonderland-themed world. Both even involve time management as Stefani's song is all about the pressures of going solo. Did any critics make these comparisons? I highly doubt it, but it was just something that came to my mind while reading it.
    • I have not seen any critical comparisons, but that's interesting. I guess Alice In Wonderland and time management are part of the cultural milieu.
  • I am not sure about the prose quality for this sentence: (After entering the world through a guitar case, Williams, along with guitarist Taylor York and drummer Zac Farro, navigate through a colorful world that reflects the anxieties of the song's lyrics.) I think it is the repetition of "entering the world"/"navigate through a colorful world", but something about this sentence just seems off to me.
    • Done.
  • Couldn't this part, (then run on a running track), be condensed to (then run on a track)? The current version seems repetitious.
    • Done.
  • Did Adrian Garro go into any further detail on how this video was like those by Nirvana and The Smashing Pumpkins?
    • Nope. Just that the "aesthetics" are similar.
  • The music video's release date is mentioned in the "Background and release" section, in this sentence: (The release of the music video followed on February 16.) It is not mentioned at all in the actual "Music video" section. I'd move this information down there as that is the more relevant section. In its current form, readers who want to learn more about the video would go to the "Music video" section and then have to search for the actual release date in an earlier part of the article.
    • Done.

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure that I have not missed anything. Apologies for the nitpicks and the random Gwen Stefani question. I look forward to reading the article again. I hope you have a great rest of the year! Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I've addressed everything above. Thanks for taking a look. Happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Realized I missed a couple. Addressing those shortly. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. It all looks good to me, and I appreciate that you took the time to respond to everything. I agree with all of your responses. I will read the article tomorrow, but I do not imagine that I will find anything major. Thank you for the kind words. Here's to a great 2024! Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 9 has the title as (This Is Why Review: Paramore Fight for the Present on Sixth Album), but the source's title is (On This Is Why, Paramore Fight for the Present Moment) when I click on it. Also the album title should be in italics.
    • Changed.
  • This is Why should be in italics in Citation 20, Citation 27, Citation 28, and Citation 43.
    • Fixed.
  • Any further information on their performance of this song on the This Is Why Tour beyond the Rodarte clothing?
    • Not that I have found.

This should be everything. Once all of my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this FAC based on the prose. I hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Everything should be good. Thank you again for taking the time to review. Happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything and for the kind words. I support this FAC for promotion. Happy New Year to you too! Aoba47 (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Link music video in the lead?
    • Why? It's not currently linked anywhere, so it would be useful to link it in both the lead and the body..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per MOS:OL, I think that "music video" constitutes "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". I'm happy to reconsider though if you have a different read or think it's particularly important to wikilink to it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band premiered the song on February 7, 2023, at a concert at the Grand Ole Opry " - I would suggest that "The band premiered the song at a concert at the Grand Ole Opry on February 7, 2023" would flow more naturally
    • Done.
  • "In September 2022, Paramore announced their sixth studio album" - I am British so talk differently and am no expert, but is it not the norm in US English to refer to bands in the singular? So it would be "Paramore announced its".....?
    • Done.
  • "Williams said that "wanted to...." =? "Williams said that she "wanted to...."
    • Done.
  • "She also stated writing about "ordinary things" had" => "She also stated that writing about "ordinary things" had"
    • Done.
  • "Writing for Rolling Stone, Larisha Paul said the song's" => "Writing for Rolling Stone, Larisha Paul said that the song's"
    • Done.
  • "In The Line of Best Fit, Steven Loftin said the song" => "In The Line of Best Fit, Steven Loftin said that the song"
  • "concluding they reflect the song's themes" => "concluding that they reflect the song's themes"
    • Done.
  • "Other critics have noted "Running Out of Time" addresses" => "Other critics have noted that "Running Out of Time" addresses"
    • Done.
  • "Alexis Petridis wrote in The Guardian the song captures" => "Alexis Petridis wrote in The Guardian that the song captures"
    • Done.
  • "Writing for The New Yorker, Carrie Battan said the song" => "Writing for The New Yorker, Carrie Battan said that the song"
    • Done.
  • "Williams has said "Running Out of Time" is about" => "Williams has said thar "Running Out of Time" is about"
    • Done.
  • "Williams said the song was also influenced" => "Williams said that the song was also influenced"
    • Done.
  • "He described it as "a sequel to Afroman's 'Because I Got High'"" - nothing to do with the article, but this amused me as I am not sure anyone would take that as a compliment! :-)
    • "Because I Got High" is a classic!
  • "Writing for NPR Music, Clarissa Brooks said the song" => "Writing for NPR Music, Clarissa Brooks said that the song"
    • Done.
  • "In Paste, Grant Sharples said the track" => "In Paste, Grant Sharples said that the track"
    • Done.
  • "and stated it is "accessible" and a "standout"" => "and stated that it is "accessible" and a "standout""
    • Done.
  • "where it is revealed Williams has been daydreaming" => "where it is revealed that Williams has been daydreaming"
    • Done.
  • "the band's stylist, said Westwood was her" => "the band's stylist, said that Westwood was her"
    • Done.
  • Again, nothing to do with the article, but really surprised it only got to 74 in the UK as I recall BBC Radio 1 absolutely playing it to death
    • That's odd. It's a banger of a song.
  • That's what I got - nice read! Paramore are/is one of my son's favourite bands so he will be pleased to know that I reviewed this one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review. I believe I've addressed everything. Happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox edit

  • "fourth single" → not supported in the body
  • praising its playful lyrics and well-balanced composition → praising its lyrics as playful and its composition as well-balanced
    • Done
  • The album's lead single "This Is Why" was released on September 16, 2022 → The sources support September 28, not September 16.
    • Done (I think I must have accidentally used 9/16 since that was the date of the Pitchfork article).
  • paramore.net URLS should be marked as dead
    • Done (must've gone down recently because it was live just a couple of months ago).
  • "Atlantic Records released "Running Out of Time" as a single on May 23, 2023" → seems to be odd to omit the specifics of the release, ie to American alternative radio
    • Clarified
  • "The song was written by..." → three "and" in one sentence doesn't feel nice to read
    • Split into two sentences.
  • YouTube video needs timestamps
    • Done
  • a one-sentence paragraph is discouraged
    • Fixed
  • There should be a sentence or so about where they are in their career, when they're last album was released etc. The background shouldn't just be about the current album.
    • Done.
  • "Other critics have noted", "best on the album and noted" → "noted" implies that something is a fact when it is actually an opinion
    • Changed
  • "Critics positively reviewed "Running Out of Time" for its tone" → I think "'Running Out of Time' received positive critical reviews for its tone" reads better
    • Done
  • critical reception and commercial performance in same paragraph (the third one) is jarring
    • Done
  • "As of December 2023" → is this expected to change? the access dates show July and September 2023.
    • Probably will not change at this point. Removed the as of.
  • should specify that Billboard charts referred to are US
    • Done
  • flexi disc May 29, 2023, release date not supported
    • Removed the date since the only source I can find for that date is Amazon, which I'm guessing wouldn't cut it for FA?
  • release history table needs row scopes, row headers, col scopes per MOS:DTAB
    • Done
  • suggest moving band image to background section, not as music sample image
    • Can I think about this? I put it as a music sample image because I didn't want a huge wall of infobox and then image on the right through the background section.
      • At least for mobile view it would work fine, it's just that there hasn't been an established relevance for the image in the "composition and themes" section

Heartfox (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox Responded above. Still thinking about your last suggestion. Thank you for the review! voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox @Ippantekina: image moved. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Anything else to work on? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of the first sentence in "background in release" is supported by the Billboard citation. Is there a mistake here? Heartfox (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does support the sentence: "According to the band, the hiatus — taken after the release of their 2017 record After Laughter — was set into motion by the death of one of York's family friends, which happened while Paramore was filming a music video. 'I just started bawling,” the guitarist shared. 'I didn’t know I had this capacity until that moment. We realized nothing is worth risking our health.' Afterward, Paramore scaled back their touring plans for After Laughter before deciding to take their first-ever break." The article mentions that the band was formed in 2004. I removed the date of the fifth album since I don't think it's important for the background here, and just changed it to 2017, which is supported in that source, and also clarified that they cut their tour short to take their hiatus. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping @Heartfox. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the source support that After Laughter was "critically acclaimed"? Heartfox (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Added a cite to Metacritic. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you are interested, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Breakdown (Mariah Carey song)/archive1 would benefit from your comments. Best, Heartfox (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll try to take a look. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina edit

I will do a prose review.

  • "Williams said the song is influenced by her personal struggle with punctuality and was inspired by her friendship with Taylor Swift" convoluted and confusing tense switch; why not "... was influenced by her personal struggle with punctuality and her friendship with Taylor Swift"
    • Done
  • "and it peaked on several music charts in 2023" I'd specify which charts as there are only four anyway
    • Done
  • Is the "See also" link to This Is Why necessary?
    • Nope. Removed.
  • "Atlantic Records released "Running Out of Time" as a single on May 23, 2023" I would add the radio format according to the source
    • Done
  • "The song was written by Paramore's lead singer Hayley Williams, guitarist Taylor York, and drummer Zac Farro, and Carlos de la Garza recorded and produced the song in Los Angeles" suggest splitting into two sentences
    • Done
  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs
    • Done
  • I'm confused with the organisation of the "Background and release" section; why are the February performances mentioned after the May single release?
    • Reorganized
  • I would remove the image of Paramore performing per WP:IRELEV
    • My thinking was that showing the band performing on the tour supporting the album/song is relevant to an article on the song itself. Do you feel strongly about removing it?
      • I would leave it for the "Background and release" section instead. Ippantekina (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.. Ippantekina (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina Responded to your suggestions. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions)
  • Repetition: "In May 2020, the band's lead singer Hayley Williams stated that" "The song was written by Paramore's lead singer Hayley Williams," "The music video depicts lead singer Hayley Williams"
    • Fixed
  • "Critical reception"; this section reads a little WP:QUOTEFARM-ish. I would paraphrase some reviews to avoid excessive quoting.
    • Do you have suggestions? I'm not really sure how to paraphrase most of these quotes.
  • Can the Billboard and Consequence reviews be merged into the preceding paragraph?
    • Done
  • Inconsistent tenses: "The song had peaked at number 18 [...] The song ranked 43rd"
    • Removed "had".
  • Repetition: "The music video for "Running Out of Time", directed by Ivanna Bori [...] The music video depicts lead singer Hayley Williams being pulled"
    • Fixed
  • Repetition: "Williams, along with guitarist Taylor York and drummer Zac Farro" (these people are already introduced in the "Background" section)
    • Fixed
  • Redundant: "In the "Running Out of Time" music video, Williams wears several outfits"
    • Done.
  • "British designer Vivienne Westwood" adding the to fix false title
    • Done (although I don't think false titles are an issue, and I appear to be in the minority of editors).
  • Suggest adding rowheaders for the "Release history" table.

— Ippantekina (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: A couple of questions above RE paraphrasing and row headers. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the row headers; any feedback on those quotes you asked me to paraphrase? I included those quotes as is because I found them difficult to paraphrase without significantly changing the meaning. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I agree that paraphrasing is a challenge; couldn't have done it better myself. Great work on this article :) By the way, it would be great if you could leave some comments at my current FAC for Wildest Dreams (Taylor Swift song)-- Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will try to take a look in the coming days. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review edit

Licence, rationale, use, ALT and image placement seem fine. Source-wise I am reviewing this version, spot-check upon request. Looks like most of the sources are magazines which are somewhat prominent but which I am for the most part not very familiar with. I wonder if Sputnik Music has any affiliation with the Russian newsgroup notorious for disinformation. It seems like source formatting is consistent throughout. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No relation to the Russian Sputnik. They're professional music journalists (with reviews indexed by Metacritic) and the website has been around since 2005. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK, with the caveat of no spot check and little familiarity with sauces. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 04:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'll take a spot check to be on the safe side given the error that @Heartfox found. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, using this version:
  • 2 Not sure what this supports.
    • It supports that After Laughter was critically acclaimed. Moved to the first sentence of that section.
  • 3 OK
  • 14 OK
  • 20 Where it is said that these views are generally held by critics?
    • Rephrased body text; I didn't mean to imply that it was generally held by critics, but that some critics have said that, which I now realize is an attribution issue.
  • 22 Not sure what this supports in its first use.
    • Removed; the first cite supports the sentence without it.
  • 23 Not sure that this is exactly what the source means.
    • Changed.
  • 26 OK, but it's not paywalled for me.
    • The New Yorker paywalls after a few free articles.
  • 28 OK, but assuming it's representative.
  • 29 I don't see any COVID-19 reference.
    • The sentence immediately preceding the quoted portion: "Across the album, the band longs for an acknowledgement of the fever dream we have all been experiencing post-pandemic."
  • 30 OK
  • 33 OK
  • 34 Where does it say third best?
    • It's a list ranking the songs and it's at number 3.
  • 36 OK
  • 39 OK
  • 41 OK
  • 42 OK
  • 43 Where does it say "daydreaming"?
    • Removed part about daydreaming.
  • 44 OK
  • 46 Does it say it was the "This is Why tour"?
    • It doesn't expressly say that, but it's discussing the tour and it's established earlier in the article that their current tour is called the This Is Why tour. I can remove that if you think necessary.
  • 47 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the review. I believe I've addressed everything. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, just wanted to check in. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some overview source that can be used to support ""Running Out of Time" received positive critical reviews for its tone."? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, there's no overview source that I've found describing the overall landscape of critical reviews of this particular song. That sentence is intended as an intro sentence for that particular paragraph. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's fine, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks. Anything else to address? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I remember, but there is my usual caveat about unfamiliarity with the subject. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you for the source and image review! voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments edit

I have made some changes here. Please check to see if I accidentally changed the meaning of something or messed something up. I have two comments that I would like some clarification on before I consider closing.

  • "and cut their fourth world tour short" - do we know why?
    Per this Billboard article, the immediate cause appears to be a death of a family friend, which then lead into the broader mental health concerns, but none of that is expressly stated.
  • "Hayley Williams wears vintage Vivienne Westwood (pictured in 2011) in the song's music video." The sentence sounds a bit strange because it implies that Hayley Williams is wearing Vivienne Westwood herself, as if she is physically wearing the designer rather than the clothing designed by Vivienne Westwood. While it's clear to most readers that the intention is to convey that Hayley Williams is wearing clothing designed by Vivienne Westwood, the sentence structure could be clearer to avoid any ambiguity. Something like "In the song's music video, Hayley Williams wears vintage Vivienne Westwood (pictured in 2011) clothing." FrB.TG (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed.
@FrB.TG: Thank you for the MOS edits. Those look good. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:13, 29 January 2024 (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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 January 2024 [4].

John Littlejohn (preacher) edit

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Littlejohn was an American Methodist preacher, sheriff, judge, saddler, and quite a number of other things, who notably served as a circuit rider during the American Revolution, and as a brief protector of the National Archives during the War of 1812. He left quite the paper trail about his life, so he has luckily been the subject of some very thorough academic biographies and historical coverage. I hope you all enjoy reading my article! I had quite some fun writing it. - Generalissima (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Is there no image of the subject?
  • Suggest adding alt text

Also suggest work on consistency in citation formatting before a full source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no images exist of John Littlejohn (at least, that I could find). Totally forgot alt-text, my bad; fixed. I'm unsure what you mean in terms of citation formatting. Generalissima (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting needs to be consistent across different citations of the same type. For example, sometimes you include location for books and other times not, sometimes you have access dates for online news and other times not, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the books have locations, except those for whom the name of the publisher is the location they were published (Princeton and Oxford). Just changed it to make it consistent in terms of access dates, however. Generalissima (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Were you planning on doing an image review? Generalissima (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did - there are no remaining issues to address. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, rad. Is the citation situation sufficiently resolved? Generalissima (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do a full source review and will leave doing one to another reviewer. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, a source review has already been done by another reviewer - I was just checking if the citation style is okay after clarification. Generalissima (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino comments edit

Thanks for the interesting read. A nice article on a figure I wasn't familiar with. Some notes below. Will add more as I have time.

Criterion 1a ("well-written"): A quick coat of polish on the prose would help. Prose comments below, all gentle suggestions to improve clarity:

  • Lead - "he traveled across hundreds of miles of the early United States"
    • Fixed. -G
  • Lead - "Settling after several years in Leesburg, Virginia, he served..." I initially misread the "several years" as having been spent in Leesburg, VA. Can it be rephrased to be more clear?
    • Fixed. -G
  • Lead - "he served as [jobs] for several decades, as well as [other jobs]" a slightly choppy read. I presume he didn't do [other jobs] for as long? Anything that can be done here?
    • Fixed. -G
  • Lead - "During the 1814 British raid on Washington, the Treasury entrusted custody... to Sheriff Littlejohn" There's something about this summary that made me think Littlejohn's role in this affair was greater than what the main article text led me to believe. If I understand correctly, perhaps I'd rephrase slightly to "As sheriff of Leesburg, Littlejohn oversaw a safehouse that contained the National Archives, including [founding documents], for the two weeks following the 1814 British capture of Washington." Your call, of course.
    • Fixed. -G
  • Lead - "they were collected and returned to Washington"
    • Rephrased sentence to no longer need this. - G
  • EL - "in Penrith, an English town within the county of Cumberland." → "in Penrith, an English town in Cumberland", "in the town of Penrith, Cumberland", or even "in Penrith, Cumberland"
    • Fixed. -G
  • EL - "Following the collapse of his father's business and relocation to London," who was relocated to London? His father's business, his father, or just young John?
    • Both him and his father, clarified this.
  • EL - "Within a year, he ran away from London, walking..."
    • Fixed. -G
  • EL - "During the passage...falling overboard." Reads as irrelevant to his life. Cut?
  • EL - "after a lengthy twenty-one week passage" unless that's particularly unusually lengthy, in which you could instead add more about why (if it's known).
  • EL - "Writing retrospectively...instilled by his mother" - should this be moved later in the section? It's before a sentence that begins, "In 1769" a time at which he'd be 12 or 13. Is that the time he was frequently gambling? Or was the gambling time later?
    • Yeah, it seems a little zany but the sources (ultimately via his diaries) describe him beginning to play cards and gamble at 12. - G
  • EL - "Northumberland County on the Northern Neck of Virginia with a local saddler" unless that bit of geography is important for reasons not clear to me?
    • Probably not important, you're right. - G
  • EL - "Littlejohn began selling "the private [pornographic] adventures of Sailors"[4]" - love the title, though the nature of what he's selling is a bit unclear. Is this work a pamphlet? Book? Puppet show?
    • The source sadly doesn't specify, but I believe these are going to be cheaply printed paperback books. - G
  • EL - "Littlejohn took interest... I will go & see him.'" The quote isn't doing much for me.
    • I thought it was funny but most likely not needed. - G
  • EL - "Littlejohn read The Pilgrim's Progress" - is this important?
    • It's a very important book in terms of early American revivalism, but not ultimately necessary. - G
  • EL - "despite ridicule from a Catholic coworker." is this important?
    • Probably not. - G
  • RA - "Sigman's preaching especially affected Littlejohn, writing..." a bit unclear who is doing the writing here. Perhaps "writing" → "who wrote" would help?
    • Good idea. Fixed. - G
  • RA - "although still struggled with doubts" missing a word (though perhaps this could be cut instead).
    • Fixed this up a bit. - G
  • RA - "Christian, Littlejohn confided in Sigman. He wrote that" - odd wording. Is it true to say "Christian. Little wrote Sigman that..."?
    • Rephrased this. - G
  • RA - "Methodist practices and wished to join them" - unclear who "them" refers to. The Methodist church? Sigman's followers?
    • Also rephrased this. -G
  • RA - "William Duke at Alexandria, Virginia, to found the town's first..." → "William Duke to found Alexandria's first..."
    • Ooh, good fix. - G
  • RA - "class leader" I don't know the significance of this position. Is there any way to clarify?
    • I think it's a fairly low level preaching position. I removed it, as I think what's most important is that he was appointed to a specific circuit. - G
  • RA - "he began to travel across much of Virginia" → "he traveled much of Virginia"
  • RA - "He preached to Quakers at Winchester, before traveling through Fredericksburg. Here, he was denied shelter, and rode 30 miles (48 km) before he was able to find rest at a sympathetic inn in Hanover County, before continuing onward to Petersburg" - Is this important?
    • I wanted to include the places he traveled through, but seems good to cut it. - G
  • RA - "...his mother's displeasure in his conversion to Methodism" - is there any way to add a bit of context for this? Is his mother not Methodist? Were Methodists viewed with particular skepticism? You note in the lead "While not particularly religious as a youth..." but his family's religious leanings aren't discussed in another section (or did I miss it)?
    • - His parents were almost certainly members of the Church of England, as this predated disestablishment. All that is explicitly stated in the sources is that his mother was strongly religious. - G
      • Scratch this, I just realized he describes his parents as "Part of the Church of Engl'd" in the first page of Andrews. Fixed. - G
  • RA - "1777 by the Maryland legislature required an" at least the way I read this sentence, it was asking for a comma after "legislature".
    • Fixed! - G
  • RA - "as well as issuing a tax on their property" I assume the law issued a tax on refusers' property? It reads as if those who refuse are barred from issuing a tax. I don't have a clever way to fix it, just flagging that it reads a bit weird.
    • Reworded this. -G
  • RA - "1782, a year after many other restrictions were lifted" just making sure I understood this. Were "many other restrictions" lifted in 1781 or 1783? I understood the former meaning, but if the latter was intended you could change to "a year later..."
    • I meant that restrictions were lifted in 1781. Should this be clarified more? - G
  • Lee - "Littlejohn refused, but continued positive relations with the Anglican church, the two officially separated..." Is the intended meaning that "the two" refers to the Anglican church and the Methodist church (which makes the most sense to me)? Or is it intended to refer to Littlejohn and the Anglican church (which the text implies, and I guess makes sense if there was some "official" separation between man and church).
    • The Methodist and Anglican church. I reworded this. -G
  • Lee - "property which had been revived" reads as if the property had been revived, though I assume its the federal revenue tax that was revived? Can this be gently rephrased to clarify?
    • Fixed! -G
  • Kentucky - "In June 1821... reduced" in Lawrenceburg." It's not obvious that this is important...
    • Yeah, I can shorten this to one sentence. - G
  • Kentucky - "In June 1830, he..." I assume the "he" is Littlejohn? Two other men are mentioned more recently, making the sentence a bit confusing.
    • Fixed this. - G
  • Kentucky - "Here he was granted readmission to the Baltimore Conference, with Littlejohn seeking to rejoin the conference where he had begun preaching" - Are the two halves of this redundant? Or is the second part referring to a different conference (early in the article you mention a circuit in Fairfax...)?
    • Tightened this sentence a bit. - G

That's all my prose comments. More to come. With the holidays I have time in bits and pieces. Will get through everything as soon as possible. Ajpolino (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: I made fixes based off your comments; were you able to look that over? Thank you so much for sucha thorough review! Generalissima (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the radio silence. I've given the article another readover, and the prose looks good to me. As to the "comprehensive", "well-researched", and "neutral" criteria, I read the top two pages worth of Google results and skimmed the JSTOR article I had access to and didn't find anything new and surprising. So I'm happy to support FA status for the article. Thanks again for the interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "he was transferred to a trade school and became the apprentice of a London tin manufacturer" At the same time? This seems awfully early for a school that teaches trades, and I would not expect an apprentice to have enough free time to attend school as well (or his master's leave).
    • The source says the school taught reading and writing, so I guess it might not have been much of a trade school after all. In any case, yes, he attended school and then was apprenticed. Thank you for catching this. -G
  • Do the sources discuss how it was he crossed the Atlantic? This was not a cheap undertaking, people basically mortgaged themselves and became indentured servants to have the opportunity.
    • No information beyond that it was a ship carrying indentured servants, and that he had been sponsored in some way by the shopkeeper. - G
  • "Within a year, he ran away from London, walking 284 miles (457 km) back to his mother's home in Penrith. At around twelve, he became the apprentice of a shopkeeper in Port Tobacco, Maryland. He crossed the Atlantic without his family in 1766 or 1767, ..." the second sentence seems out of place chronologically.
    • From what I can glean from this source, the shopkeeper was based in Maryland but was in London at the time, and arranged for Littlejohn to come over as an apprentice. - G
  • "Fisher died in 1772, and Littlejohn briefly stayed in Baltimore " Baltimore is not in Prince George's County, where you told us his mother "settled".
    • Ah, I clarified his mother moved to Baltimore after his father's death. - G
  • Can we account for Littlejohn's constant moving between apprenticeships? I realize labor was probably scarce and he could get away with things he probably could not have in England.
    • I'm not quite sure what you would like me to fix here? - G
  • "William Duke at Alexandria, Virginia," No need to repeat the state name.
    • - Fixed.
  • "as a class leader in the Fairfax County circuit in 1775 or early 1776." Well, yes, but the reader may be a bit misled as to the limits of Fairfax County if they follow the links, since Fairfax County at the time included both Alexandria and Falls Church.
    • Oh, good point. Let me correct that. - G
  • "Although Methodists were not pacifists, emphasis on "passive nonresistance" led to many refusing military service." Does this refer to service in the local militia rather than joining the revolutionary army?
    • It refers to military on either side; reworded to clarify this. - G
  • "during the incipient phase of the revolution" Huh?
    • Ditched that part of the sentence, you're right it doesn't make sense here. - G
  • "Methodists were officially exempted from bans on preaching in 1782, a year after many other restrictions were lifted.[23]" In which state was this? And the earlier restrictions were on Methodist preachers or someone else?
    • Reworked this sentence and added a more direct source. - G
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back to this as soon as I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Any updates? Generalissima (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, am traveling.
  • "to confess his love to Monica Talbott" Is this phrased in an encyclopedic manner?
    • I put in less flowery language here. - G
  • "Anglican nobleman Bryan Fairfax". I'm not quite certain if "Anglican nobleman" is unambiguous but in any event, Fairfax had not yet become a peer.
  • "promising material benefits from glebe and ordination within the Church of England in return for assuming responsibility for two local parishes." This feels in the wrong order since Littlejohn could not have benefited from glebe lands unless he had become an Anglican clergyman.
    • Good catch, fixed both of these. -G
  • "the twenty-second district of Virginia" The congressional district? Virginia's 22nd congressional district? Do we know who appointed him?
  • "a Virginia gristmill adjacent to Chain Bridge." Well, let's hold on a minute here. The Chain Bridge runs from DC to Arlington County today, so in 1814, before the retrocession of the Virginia portion of the District of Columbia, it would not have been in Virginia if it was "adjacent" to the Chain Bridge, but within the District of Columbia.
    • Ooh, very good point. Clarified it was an Alexandria County gristmill. - G
  • "On August 25, the day following the British capture of Washington, Littlejohn was given the keys to the home and tasked with supervising them. Littlejohn supervised the documents for two weeks before they were collected and returned to Washington.[36]" Supervising the keys or the documents (at end of first sentence). It might be worth mentioning that the British departure preceded the return of the documents to DC.
    • Good point. - G
  • What is a stationed preacher?
    • Preacher who isn't an itinerant. I added some clarification. - G
  • You refer to Washington City, which I have no objection to because that's how it was often referred to, especially the governmental area of today. But in the next paragraph, you're talking about "Washington, D.C." so it all reads a bit oddly.
    • Good idea, edited for clarity. - G
  • "Each slave was proscribed" Prescribed?
    • Oof, yeah. -G
  • Any more info on gravestone/markers, perhaps the text or photos?
    • I can't find a copyright-free image of either, or a non-user generated source which says what they say :( -G
That's it. Sorry to be so slow.
@Wehwalt: No worries! I took a long time on yours so I feel it's fair lol. Made changes as requested. :3 Generalissima (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Do all the requested changes look okay? Generalissima (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Yes, all is good. Support. Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm traveling right now and things are a bit disorganized. Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no worries! Thank you for all your great feedback. Generalissima (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Vami edit

References are from reputable publishers and meet the requirements of WP:THESIS. Spot check to follow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check:

  • 4: Wrong pages; the obituary for Littlejohn actually appears over pages 486–87 in the linked book.
    • Fixed this and SFN'ed the source! Thank you for catching.
  • 11: No problem here.
  • 12: I cannot access Andrews 2000, but confirmed that is citation is above-board via Google Books.
  • 19: No problem here. Text mentions Littlejohn coming over with a Broomfield to whom he was apprenticed. Was this borne out by other sources? If so, include it.
    • Good call, I included it to help resolve confusion about how he was able to come over. - G
  • 26: No problem here.
  • 30: No problem here.
  • Investigating for the possibility of WP:SYNTH, I found that citation [29] does not support the text "While regarding it as temptation," but does support the sentence before that. I believe you meant to cite another source here.
  • This citation correct, it's just buried in the footnote on this page, referencing Weiss' Preecher and Patriot (which I sadly have no access to). -G
  • Ah, oops, I missed it. It is as you say: at the bottom of the page. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 37: No problem here.
  • 46: No problem here.

All in all, the citations accurately summarize the references they are drawn from. However, in light of the discrepancies I have discovered, I encourage the nominator to immediately and comprehensively re-review the article and the citations and references within to fix these and other, possible issues. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by voorts edit

  • In general, could you please clarify in text when the following events/periods of time occurred (I've bolded the things that need time frames):
    • His father died soon after immigrating.
      • Sadly it's not specified in the sources when this occurred beyond "shortly after".
    • Littlejohn began to regularly attend revival preaching, after hearing a sermon by Robert Williams, an Irish Methodist preacher. The mayor of Norfolk issued a ban on revivalist preaching, claiming that it would incite a slave rebellion.
      • Added a date for when Williams preached, however the others are not specified in the sources. - G
    • Fisher died in 1772, and Littlejohn briefly stayed in Baltimore, where his mother had relocated following his father's death. He then began an apprenticeship under Joseph Selby in Annapolis, Maryland. In Annapolis, he began regular church attendance ...
      • This is not specified in the sources. -G
    • Soon after, he partnered with two other young Methodists ...
      • Not specified in source beyond "soon after his conversion, on the eve of independence." This is presumably 1775, but it could be December 1774. -G
    • He was dismayed to find his mother's displeasure in his conversion to Methodism. Depressed, he began to fear that his preaching had disgraced the gospel and considered drowning himself.
      • This is not specified in the sources. Presumably 1775-1776. -G
    • He was soon appointed as an itinerant in training, and accompanied Watters on the Berkeley circuit, now part of West Virginia.
      • Added date for this. -G
    • He met with his mother in Baltimore, who threatened to disown him if he did not stop itinerant preaching and return with her to England. Littlejohn refused, and traveled to confess his love to Monica Talbott, the daughter of a Fairfax class leader he had first met several years prior.
      • This is not specified in the sources. - G
    • Monica initially refused his advances, asking that his affections be abandoned. Staying at the Talbott residence the following day due to a storm, Littlejohn was able to eventually convince Monica to marry him.
      • This took place in August 1778. Added this. - G
  • "At around twelve, he became the apprentice of Thomas Broomfield, a shopkeeper based in Port Tobacco, Maryland. He crossed the Atlantic with Broomfield in 1766 or 1767 ..." - It's not clear if Broomfield was already a shopkeeper before he took Littlejohn to the colonies, or after. If after, what was Broomfield doing in England?
    • Sadly, the sources don't say what he was doing overseas, but he is referred to as "shopkeeper in Maryland" while in England. - G
  • "Littlejohn was among eleven Methodist preachers listed in a 1779 General Court docket, but all were able to evade attendance due to the public unpopularity of the General Court." - It's not clear to me how one can "evade attendance" due to "general unpopularity". Couldn't they have compelled his appearance in court?
    • Local magistrates and the general public were unwilling to turn preachers over to the court. I'll clarify this. - G
  • "Despite legal difficulties, Methodist preachers saw large growth in church membership during the war. In 1777, over 6,000 Americans were members of Methodist societies, with around half in Virginia and roughly a third in Delaware and Maryland. By the end of the war in 1782, membership had doubled to nearly 12,000. Repression of revivals and circuit riders was lightened as the war continued, with lower courts seldom indicting the preachers. Maryland Methodists were officially exempted from oath requirements and bans on preaching by an act of the Maryland General Assembly in November, 1782." - I think this should be footnoted, rather than in the body, since it isn't directly related to Littlejohn and provides background.
  • I'll footnote the figures on growth; the rest is however important background for Littlejohn's legal difficulties, which would not make sense to a reader otherwise. - G
  • "While regarding it as temptation ..." - It's not clear to me what "temptation" means here.
    • Temptation to sin. Added a clarification for this. - G
  • "From there on, Littlejohn traveled to Christian County, where he discovered land acquired from a fellow Methodist was unsuitable and falsely advertised." - I assume this means unsuitable for farming, but that should be clarified.
    • Good point, thank you! - G
  • "Despite previous opposition to the practice, Littlejohn purchased several slaves in his old age." - Do we know why his views changed?
    • Sadly no; he most likely just stopped being able to maintain his farming in old age, but otherwise no info. - G

Nice work. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anarchtye edit

Reserving a place. Anarchyte (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. Anarchyte (talk 07:38, 15 January 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Is the fact he walked relevant for the lead? It's very interesting, but would it be better to keep it in the body?
    • Yeah, fair point. Removed from lede. - G
  • Based on our article Itinerant preacher, itinerancy may lead some to the wrong conclusion. Perhaps a different synonym would be better.
    • The sources all describe him as an itinerant preacher, so I feel this is important phrasing to keep. -G
  • Any date for when he began his preaching? The lead ends saying "sixty years", but there's no commencement year.
Early life
  • "Following the collapse of his father's business, Littlejohn and his father relocated to London. He attended school in London, then became the apprentice of a local tin manufacturer" — can remove a full stop here: "Following the collapse of his father's business, Littlejohn and his father relocated to London, where he attended school and then became the apprentice of a local tin manufacturer".
    • - Fix made. - G
  • "Within a year, he ran away, walking 284 miles (457 km) back to his mother's home in Penrith." — minor tidbit, but I would rephrase this to remove the "he ran... walked" contradiction. I'm sure everyone understands what it's saying, but perhaps "he ran away, traveling 284 miles (457 km) by foot" would be better.
    • Fix made. - G
  • "in Annapolis, Maryland. In Annapolis, he began regular church attendance" — shorten: "in Annapolis, Maryland. Here, he began regular church attendance".
    • Fix made. - G
Religious awakening
  • "as he arose" — clarify. Unclear what this means.
    • Clarified. - G
  • "Littlejohn initially took a cautious outlook on this dream" — could be more concise: "Littlejohn initially interpreted this dream cautiously". Not fussed if this is not changed.
    • I feel it's more clear in the original phrasing. - G
  • "itinerant in training" — should this not be "itinerant-in-training"?
    • Ah yeah. - G
  • "Setting out on his own later in 1776," — concision: "Setting out alone later that year,"
    • Fix made. - G
  • "including waking up as early as possible, avoiding the discussion of worldly matters, and daily Bible reading" — this list starts with gerund, subject, additional details for the first two but then deviates into adjective, subjective, gerund. On first read, the "and daily Bible reading" item appeared out of place. Potentially, a better phrasing for the Bible item is: "and reading the Bible daily".
    • Fair enough! Fixed. - G
  • "sets of resolutions" — "resolutions" is already pluralised, so "sets of" can be cut, in my eyes.
    • I was trying to show that the preachers regularly made a list of resolutions to follow, rather than those specific ones. - G
American Revolution and persecution
  • "American magistrates fined and imprisoned many for preaching and refusal of service, believing John Wesley and the Methodists in general to hold Loyalist sympathies." — something here doesn't sit right here after a few reads. Consider "American magistrates fined and imprisoned many for preaching and refusal of service, believing John Wesley, and Methodists generally, held Loyalist sympathies." Could also consider "and Methodists in general" within the commas. I don't think "to hold" is best here.
    • Good fix, made! - G
  • Clarify "Tories" for those unfamiliar. A wikilink or a note would suffice (though the latter would be preferred).
    • Wikilinked since it's primarily period vernacular for Loyalists rather than the actual political philosophy. -G
  • "due to his preaching and refusal of military service, despite Patriot sympathies" — are these sympathies for Patriots or sympathies from Patriots? Ambiguous.

Support. Anarchyte (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sawyer-mcdonell edit

First of all, I'm so glad to see that you've taken this article this far! Per all the above reviews, it's an excellent article. I'm going to do a small review today on the religious history aspects, since that's what I know about. sawyer * he/they * talk 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. When referring to an English Anglican, like Littlejohn's mother, it makes more sense to wikilink the Church of England, rather than the broader Anglican category. However, I think wikilinking Anglicanism when referring to a colonial American Anglican makes sense, as there isn't a specific article about Anglicanism in colonial America (although there should be), and at this time Anglicanism was going through a major shift, particularly in colonial America.
  2. "In Annapolis, he began regular church attendance" - Is there any information about what church he attended in Annapolis?
  3. "Depressed, he began to fear that his preaching had disgraced the gospel and considered drowning himself." - "gospel" could probably be wikilinked to The gospel#In the Bible and Christianity.
  4. "Beyond Littlejohn, few Methodist preachers actively supported the revolutionary movement." Why was this the case? Opposition to military service, Loyalist sympathies, or something else?
  5. "Monica Littlejohn died on January 16, 1828, and was buried at Russellville. His son Lewis died that August" - "His son" should probably be switched to "their son" since the preceding sentence discusses Mrs. Littlejohn.
This is pretty much all I've got after reading through it multiple times; I think the above reviews have covered it very well. sawyer * he/they * talk 16:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly no info on what church he attended in Annapolis. I have made the other requested changes though, good ideas :3 Generalissima (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much about Annapolis. Happy to support FA status. Awesome work! :) sawyer * he/they * talk 17:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Putting down a marker for now - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Only a few things, all on formatting and two on overlinking:[reply]

  • It's a minor thing, but several of the page ranges are hyphens, rather than en dashes
  • Ah yeah. Let me fix that.
  • There's some WP:OVERLINKING of common terms, including London (twice), Washington, D.C. and magistrate (twice); it may be best to check for others
  • There are a lot of duplicate links too; I know recent developments allow more than one now, but many of these are too close to each other to be allowable, including Loudoun County twice in the lead and Port Tobacco twice in the first paragraph of Early life - there are others you should look at too.
  • Good catch that I shouldn't link London. Magistrate is an unfamiliar term in a US context so I kept one link for that; and "Washington City" is a very archaic but period-correct term for D.C., so I kept a link for that. Loudoun is only linked once in the lede; the other is Logan county. Good catch on Port Tobacco et al.!
    Loudon is linked twice in the lead: once at "served as sheriff of Loudoun County, Virginia" and once at "As Loudoun County sheriff".
    I think Washington, D.C. is in the same category as London: it's a capital city and will not be confused with anywhere else, so it falls under WP:OVERLINKING. - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah scheiße, completely missed that. Thank you very much for catching it! Generalissima (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot – and an interesting red it was too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2024 @SchroCat: Alright, fixed those up. Thank you for the little MoS improvements, it's a big help. Generalissima (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2024 (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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 January 2024 [5].

1964 Illinois House of Representatives election edit

Nominator(s): Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the time in 1964 when Illinois elected their entire State House at-large. In a twist no one expected, politicians played politics, leading to a redistricting deadlock and this fascinating election, the only one of its type. This is my first FA nomination and I hope y'all enjoy reading and reviewing it as much as I enjoyed researching and writing it :) I'm on holiday break the next few weeks so I should have plenty of time to respond to comments; also happy to provide digital copies of the offline sources if anyone needs them. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Airship's flyby edit

Welcome to FAC. Quick note: is it possible to format that lengthy table in the analysis section so that it is collapsible? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; did that now. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's review edit

I'll take a look at this and see what problems or issues I can find.

  • I know you use inline page numbers for some of them, but Improving the State Legislature: A Report of the Illinois Commission on the Organization of the General Assembly, the Illinois Blue Book, and Legislative Redistricting in Illinois: An Historical Analysis are lacking page numbers within the citations themselves.
    • I used inline page numbers for all of those (every book source). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I meant the pages used in the books itself. (Or the page count of the entire book, if you're using it all.)Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure if that makes sense to add? Could do it if that would be better though. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Yeah, that'd be nice. Generalissima (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing stands out in the lede as unnecessary. The ballot being 33 inches long is noteworthy enough, but why is the orange paper important? All four election ballots were on different colored paper, so it doesn't seem like this was particularly unusual. If this was a one-time-only instance of the paper being colored orange, find a source for that and mention it in the Ballot subsection
  • You need a source on footnote C.
  • Prose is generally tight and high-quality. American politics articles have a very particular tone of voice to them and I think you're spot-on at capturing it. Skimming through, I don't see any major prose issues springing out.
    • Only one I could find that irks me any. At the bottom of Constitutional procedure; "Overall, though, the maps were considered a significant improvement." You can avoid needing the 'though' here. "The maps were however considered a significant improvement" perhaps?
  • I feel this generally meets the Featured article criteria, albeit with some minor mistakes which I outlined. It is certainly well-written and comprehensive, and I do not see anything which would go against NPOV. Its of a good but non-excessive length. The images are well-used. (Ah, if only there was a picture of someone holding the ballot! That'd be good, but probably does not exist.) Obviously, someone needs to do a proper source review, especially on that monster of a citation #1. Good work! Hope to see this polished up a little so it can firmly pass. - Generalissima (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review! I've addressed your suggestions above. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking pretty good, thank you for the fast work! I elaborated on my first point. Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking back at everything, I can say Support. Good job! Generalissima (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

image review edit

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_Sample_Ballot.jpg is marked as lacking a description and author, and the tagging is contradictory. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a description and clarified the authorship. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 edit

  • I'll have a read through hopefully in the next week ish. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it did not provide any method of enforcement" What would a method of enforcement been? Do you mean it didn't specify when/how the redistricting would occur?
    • Basically, if the legislature didn't redistrict, there was no recourse in the courts, and no other mechanism for redistricting to take place. So, the legislature could choose not to redistrict and they would not be forced to. I've added "should the legislature fail to do so" to the end of the sentence -- hopefully that's good enough? Not sure how to phrase this best without being clunky. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with courts continuing to allow this practice" What does this mean? How did the courts 'allow it?
    • I've rewritten this as "with courts choosing not to intervene to force redistricting". Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A constitutional convention, approved by voters in 1918, aimed to deal with the issue" Where does this appear in the source? It's also not clear to me which issue you mean by 'the issue' here-- the broader lack of redistricting, or just the under-representation of Cook County. I see "allowing cook county representation in the State House of representatives on the Basis of Voting Strength" which would, I guess, address the latter but not the former
    • The relevant part of the source is on page 292: "...the 1921 general assembly was content to allow the constitutional convention then meeting to wrestle with the difficult problem of representation. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposed constitution in 1922...". Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason Keogh is red-linked and Fergus is not?
    • Yes! Keogh murdered an attorney and that case is probably notable, though I haven't been able to find quite enough sources for it to write a satisfactory article yet. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for periodic reapportionment of the Senate, but it did provide that for the House's 59 districts." periodic being?
    • I've clarified this to explain the practice of redistricting after each census. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in one legislative chamber, but limit its representation in the other, but these proposals died due to strong bipartisan opposition from downstate politicians." I don't believe you've mentioned or established another chamber yet.
  • "for if the legislature failed to redistrict." was there a timeframe on this?
    • Yeah. Am not sure it's necessary to spell that out explicitly though? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have districts that would cross include parts of both Chicago and its suburbs" Maybe just "...would include parts..."
  • "Democrats responded on the same day with a plan to instead have districts" I think the relevance of this is predicated on understanding that democrats are concentrated in cities, so would have been in favor of this, but that would not be clear to someone just reading the article-- if that was the case in Chicago at this time
    • Yeah, this was the case. I guess the thing is, it's so self-evident to political observers that it's often not described explicitly? So mentioning that this would give Democrats a political advantage would be SYNTHy given that the sources I'm using don't explicitly say it (though obviously a party isn't going to propose a plan that wouldn't give them some advantage). So not sure how best to deal with this. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that would only remove one district from there, at the expense of a district in Lake County" meaning that Lake County lost a district, or a district that would have been added to Lake County was not?
    • The latter. I've changed "in" to "planned for"; not sure if this is the clearest it can be but not sure how to better word it. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deliberate under-representation of Republican areas" I don't think it's clear what is being referred to as 'Republican areas'
    • The area here is particularly Lake County. Newspapers from the time mention this, though I haven't found one that makes the connection that the secondary source I'm using does (while that secondary source doesn't explicitly mention Lake County here). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which Kerner appointed five of each " the "of which...of each" phrasing is a bit awkward. I would maybe rephrase to "Each party's state central committee nominated ten candidates for the redistricting commission. Kerner appointed five from each party on August 14, 1963"
  • "Starting on November 14, the Republicans on the commission began boycotting the meetings" raising the questions: When did meetings begin? How often were they?
    • Sadly there isn't great secondary coverage on this. I think most of the meetings received some coverage in newspapers but I'm not sure if there's an easy way to find out how many they were. They started after the commission was appointed in August. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two days before the final deadline" consider adding something along the lines of "... to agree on a map"
  • "party to nominate 118 candidates for the 177 seats available." So was there no consideration for third party candidates?
    • There was, though it wasn't initially expected for third parties to run; they needed 25k signatures to do so (see this newspaper source cited later in the article. However, coverage about the election procedure doesn't mention the signature requirement, presumably because no one was seriously expecting a third-party run, and it was obvious that both major parties would qualify. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You never state the date of the election in the body of the article
    • Added a mention in the "Election procedure and campaign" section. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe just "stating that they still believed they had a chance of victory" -> "believing they still had a chance of victory"
  • "were reported on November 26" Do you know why the delay?
    • I think it was because of the extremely long ballot (and in general results can take a few weeks to fully count, even nowadays). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claiming that there were more votes cast than voters registered in five precincts" did they ever decide whether this was actually the case?
    • The recount didn't, and that's the most decisive thing that happened (and is mentioned). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "releasing the DuPage results only hours before legislators were sworn in" Were vote counts not typically released?
    • Nope! The results couldn't be sent to the secretary of state for certification due to the injunction. I think some partial results were released, but not in an official way if that makes sense? Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do the sources determine that "The results were strongly influenced by endorsements... [endorsements] were mostly responsible for the results"? That seems like something that would be hard to quantify
    • The results almost perfectly correlated with newspaper endorsements, and didn't really correlate with anything else. The sources on this are mainly just one guy's analysis (whose writing I've used as a source for much of this article), but he seems pretty reliable and there aren't any other theories mentioned in other sources that I've found. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be good to somewhere explicitly state the seat balance after the election
    • I've added a mention of the Dem seat number in the first Analysis paragraph (the Republican seat number was already mentioned there). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resulting maps were relatively fair to both parties, though caused a significant shift of power from downstate to the Chicago area" feels like there's maybe a missing word in here?
  • The two paragraphs beginning "The legislative process was not successful for redistricting" feel only tangentially related to this article. Could maybe be condensed?
  • "In 2000, Pat Quinn" maybe define who Pat Quinn is?

Interesting article. That's a first pass. Not wedded to any of these points at all. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: thanks again for your review! I've implemented many of your suggestions and explained my thinking regarding the rest. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, only a couple of responses which I'll put here:
  • Suggest adding the process for third party to make the slate, as you later say "that they had failed to gather enough signatures"
  • "legislature was required to redistrict the state, it did not provide any method of enforcement should the legislature fail to do so" Maybe just "...it did not provide any method of enforcement if the legislature did not"
  • I can't think of a great way to handle the Chicago/Democratic thing without being synth-y, so probably best to leave it out.
  • RE: "The two paragraphs beginning "The legislative process was not successful for redistricting" feel only tangentially related to this article. Could maybe be condensed?" I'm not sure why the sentences about happenings in 1991 or 2001 are really relevant here at all.
    • I get where you're coming from here. The problem is that it's relevant to mention the failure through the entire period (I definitely want to keep the "The failure of the legislature to redistrict in every cycle between 1965 and 2001" sentence), and if I only mentioned the 1990s and 2000s failures in passing, I think it could leave a reader wanting ("what happened in 2001 that caused the legislature to fail?"). I agree that it's a bit detailed for something that isn't super closely related but I don't see a better way of doing it. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to have another read through before supporting, but I doubt much else will come up Eddie891 Talk Work 20:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Think I've addressed all of your comments now :) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you cite the 87 / 90 seats in the previous election anywhere?
  • I'd expect to see two-thirds or supermajority mentioned in the article body
  • I generally think of the past tense of veto as vetoed, not veto'd
  • 33 inches should have a conversion factor
  • "which were made up of delegates elected on the old legislative lines" Do you cite this in the body?
    • Yep. "The emergency bill passed by the legislature in the special session allowed each party to nominate up to 118 candidates at their party convention.[13] Delegates to each party's convention were elected using the previous districts during the state's April primary.[1]: 301–302" (start of "Election procedure and campaign" section). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Both political parties received significant criticism for their failure to redistrict." Do you cite this in the article body?
    • I've added a sentence for this in the body, and changed the wording to "Politicians in both political parties...". Elli (talk | contribs) 20:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks for your responses and attention to detail. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami edit

I will also review this shortly. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will wait for replies to Eddie's comments (don't want to reinvent the wheel). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: I've replied to all of his comments now. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: I've addressed all of your comments now, though there are a few that aren't totally resolved (where I would like your opinion). Thanks for the review btw :) Elli (talk | contribs) 18:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Why are there two paragraphs to expand on a single sentence in the first sentence?
    • Not sure exactly what you're asking here? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Should have clarified. The second sentence of the lead first mentions a failure to redistrict. Paragraphs 2 and 3 walk us through the history of failure to redistrict in Illinois. The result is a lead of five paragraphs; that should not be. A more concise summary of no more than four but optimally three paragraphs is optimal. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've consolidated those two paragraphs into one and removed some less-relevant details. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several possible links missing from the lead. The Democratic and Republican parties. The Illinois Supreme Court. The office of the Governor of Illinois.
Everything else
  • Recommend linking the Constitution of Illinois.
  • "While the Constitution of Illinois stated that the legislature was required to redistrict the state" How often?
  • "and downstate legislators did not want their region of the state to lose influence." "downstate" already implies that the state (of Illinois) is shared; delete "of the state".
  • "legislators chose not to redistrict the state, with courts choosing not to intervene to force redistricting." The change of tense here is unnecessary; suggest "chose not to redistrict the state and the courts chose not..."
  • Worth mentioning that Cook County is where Chicago is, I think.
    • Done (not sure how I like the wording on this? couldn't think of something better though). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "requiring redistricting after every decennial U.S. census." Recommend a Wiktionary link for "decennial".
  • "Each chamber created their own map, and passed the proposed map of the other chamber," I'm confused; is this supposed to be "to the other chamber" or is this correct?
    • Basically, each chamber created a map only for their own chamber, but since the maps needed to be passed by both chambers to go into effect, they each passed the map that the other chamber came up with as well. Not sure of a better way to phrase this? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Each chamber created their own map and passed the proposed map to the other chamber..." as a start, I think. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, I've changed up the wording a bit; think it's more clear now. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The map used for the House of Representatives map was fairly apportioned" Too many maps here.
  • "Edward Jenison, a former congressman" State or federal?
  • Is there a need for repeating that there was a maximum of 118 candidates per party and their endorsements of straight-ticket voting in #Election procedure and campaign?
    • Probably not, but I'd like to keep that first sentence for flow reasons. Could remove the number (just say "allowed each party to nominate candidates") but not sure if that would be an improvement. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #Analysis has duplicate links for Stevenson and Eisenhower. Stevenson has another duplink in #Aftermath.
    • I usually link relevant terms in each section (even if linked earlier in different sections). I think this is compliant with DUPLINK? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Eisenhower 79th Republican" Recommend a "the" between Eisenhower and 79th.
  • Duplicate link for Touhy in #Aftermath.
  • "especially regarding improving how the legislature operated." Revise; too much happening at once, verb-wise. Suggest "especially improvements to the operation of the legislature."
  • "while new maps for the State Senate had to be passed to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Reynolds v. Sims" Clarify that this is the Federal Supreme Court; link the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • "and would be randomly chosen by the Secretary of State" link this
  • "However, the Supreme Court, controlled by Democrats," State or Federal?

All my comments have been addressed. Pleased to support now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink edit

Drive-by reviewing. This one intrigued me. It's a lot of small quibbles that add up to an oppose from me (for now). Conditional support.

Lead
  • You should probably wikilink "redistrict" in its first usage in the first paragraph of the lead.
  • Speaking of leaking, I feel like the lead needs to mention U.S. state at least somewhere. It takes until the end of the lead to mention the US, and not that "Illinois" is terribly ambiguous, but I feel like the country would be listed if it was in any other country.
  • Maybe something like:
  • The U.S. state of Illinois held an election on November 3, 1964, for all 177 members of the state's House of Representatives for the 74th Illinois General Assembly, alongside the other statewide and federal elections.
  • That way it includes the U.S. state link, and it removes one usage of "Illinois". It doesn't have to be exactly this obviously, but something along these lines would be helpful to include the country that it took place in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were expectations of widespread voter confusion before the election, and a high number of undervotes, but this did not happen. " - just to pick this apart a bit, there's no mention of the word "confuse" or "confusion" anywhere else in the article but the lead. So, I gotta ask, is there a source for that part? I see the undervote part mentioned later, when it says:
  • Before the election, the sheer number of ballots to be voted on led to predictions of a high number of undervotes in the House of Representatives election, but post-election analysis revealed that this did not take place."
I see that this is sourced, but I also notice that a lot of the lead was written in passive voice, and this sentence doesn't say who even made these predictions. Pundits? Election officials? This is me being picky, but it's something that I'm looking out for, now that I finished the lead and did a spotcheck.
  • The main source I'm using for this article (and for this claim in particular) doesn't go into detail on this, unfortunately. I've tried to improve the phrasing in the lead (think it's reasonable to infer from the source that at least some of these predictions were by pundits). Could use more improvement but not sure what to go with; feels wrong to leave this detail out entirely though it's less clear than I'd like it to be. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any quotes from election officials? That could be a useful way to convey the confusion. That's why I had such issue with passive voice. It's a way of getting around saying something without saying who said it. If this election happened nowadays, I'd expect a similar level of confusion. I still take issue because technically the bit about "Some pundits predicted significant voter confusion" isn't sourced. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • I got a bit confused for a minute in "1960 redistricting cycle" over the year. You first mention 1962, then 1964, then 1960 census, then "April 23", without any reference to the year. I believe it's 1963, but please double check.
    • Yep, it is 1963. I've clarified this in the text. I'd still call this the "1960 redistricting cycle" as it was based on the shifts in population shown in the 1960 census. For example we have 2020 United States redistricting cycle, even though almost all of the redistricting took place in 2021 and 2022. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The commission faced harsh criticism for its failure to agree on a map, with particularly strong criticism directed at the Democratic members for insisting on more Chicago-based districts than the city's population warranted." - this I think could be expanded a bit. "Criticism" is a pretty broad to be used twice without saying who criticized. Were there any opinion polls?
    • Clarified that the criticism was in newspaper editorials. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " This lawsuit was initially dismissed in Sangamon County Circuit Court before being appealed to the state's Supreme Court, which also ruled against Williams." - when? This is an example where passive voice can be eliminated to make it that much stronger, "The Sangamon County Circuit Court dismissed the lawsuit on X date"
    • I've expanded and rephrased this a bit to include the dates. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bill was signed by Kerner on January 29 after it passed 161–0 in the House and 46–6 in the Senate." - the six defections in the Senate is mildly interesting to me, and I wonder who they were, if there was a pattern. I'd imagine someone disaffected, but I'm not sure who.
    • Did some searching; seems to be that some Senators were unhappy over the limitations on the number of members of each party that could run in the election as they viewed it as corrupt. [6] has some who objected to an earlier vote and [7] mentions the bill's passing as well as some in the opposition. Looking for more comprehensive sources though to add more details. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't find a list of the 6 senators who opposed the final bill, but I've expanded on the general legislative process which should give sufficient context for the lingering opposition. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Election procedure and campaign
  • "The emergency bill passed by the legislature in the special session allowed each party to nominate up to 118 candidates at their party convention." - here is a great example where a bit of reordering makes for a stronger sentence. In its current form, it's a long sentence without a lot of structure.
  • "Third-party and independent candidates could also run, though they needed to gather 25k signatures to make the ballot." - "25k" is weird here, considering every other instance in the article writes the digits up to the hundreds of millions.
  • "The election was held on November 3, 1964, as part of the 1964 Illinois elections." - and also the 1964 presidential election. If you want to flesh that out, maybe mention why Election Day for president is on the first Tuesday of November? (Presidential Election Day Act of 1845)
  • "Delegates loyal to Percy refused to renominate nine incumbent legislators from the Chicago area, a part of the so-called "West Side bloc", who were viewed as loyal to the Democratic political machine in Cook County.[" Who?
  • "Incumbent legislators were placed at the top, ordered by seniority, alternating between candidates from Cook County and downstate. "
  • I'd love if you could add something like - "Accordingly, the Republicans nominated [Majority leader XX] first, and the Democrats nominated [Minority leader YY] first."
    • Ah, I think I was unclear here. Seniority is determined by years served, not leadership positions. I've linked to legislative seniority, which does... somewhat of a job of explaining this? Could also add a footnote though I wouldn't have a source for it (because my source did not go into detail on this subject, but based on the ballot it can be verified that legislative leaders were not placed first). Elli (talk | contribs) 12:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the election, the sheer number of ballots to be voted on led to predictions of a high number of undervotes in the House of Representatives election, but post-election analysis revealed that this did not take place." - was there an exact percentage given? Was it exactly zero? If you don't have the numbers for this, it's ok, I was just curious.
    • I've detailed this in the "Analysis" section (the best numbers on this are "about 5%"). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ensure representation from every district in Illinois". - I see this is in quotation marks. Did someone say this? Was this an official policy/slogan?
    • Tried to clarify this; it was the message of the Democratic State Central Committee which was responsible for the Democratic campaign. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • " However, at-large elections have been held for all of a state's congressional seats due to similar failures to redistrict." - what do you mean?

All in all, a really good read, and I kept wanting more. I hope that my issues are fairly minor to address. I'm not sure which parts I brought up can be expanded, but I hope it's not too arduous. I do believe this article is close to FA standards. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! You've definitely caught some things I've overlooked and I'll get to addressing them soon; shouldn't be too hard. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks for the quick responses! I expect to be able to support before too long. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: think I've addressed most of your significant concerns now. Couldn't actually figure out the best way to work "U.S. state" into the lead; would appreciate your input there (this actually isn't done in most state legislative election articles... maybe it should be though). Elli (talk | contribs) 03:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, good job on all of these fixes! I changed it to a conditional support. I suggested a change for including U.S. state link. The only other thing I'd like to see added are the bit about the confusion, and maybe the bit about why Election Day is held on the first Tuesday in November. Neither is significant enough for me to oppose, so I'm striking my oppose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented a (slightly edited) version of your suggestion regarding the U.S. state link. Thanks for that and for your support :) I'll continue looking for more sources about the confusion. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

What is the Illinois blue book? There are several citations with no explanation of what it is. And I get the impression that the format of the names is wrong. Some newspaper articles lack bylines. Otherwise, it seems like this article is primarily sourced to newspapers - are there think tank reports or political analyses in academia too? Formatting mostly consistent. Spot-check:

I've been meaning to write a page to explain what the Illinois blue book is; it's a biennial publication from the state government with info on the government. Many other states have them as well. As for think tank reports and analyses... I've used secondary sources where possible, but unfortunately a lot of the relevant details were only reported in primary sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2: The source gives two percentages, 60% and 80%; what is the logic between using 80% in the article? The redistricting commission appointment process isn't on page 299. And the date of the SuCoIl not on page 300. The four ballots paragraph needs an additional page number, especially regarding the undervote thing. Chicago American isn't mentioned on 306.
    1. The source is just written poorly here. 80% is the correct number.Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "That sequence of events required the nonlegislative apparatus for redistricting be employed in the autumn of 1963." Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3. The SuCoIl date is from the NYT source. This source is used to support there being two lawsuits (which NYT isn't clear about). Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Added the other page number four the four ballots paragraph. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    5. I've clarified this by using the source particularly about newspaper endorsements. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 OK
  • 5 I think my eyes glazed over at that giant list.
    • Yeah, sorry. No way to really avoid that and be comprehensive, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could verify the first few names at least, but not the numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I have them all listed in a massive spreadsheet (allowed per CALC). The numbers are there in the source as well, you just need to go down a few pages (I think each set of candidates spans over four pages). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 OK
  • 18 Where does it say that the House vote was unanimous?
    • "which had passed its version by a 156–0 vote" Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 The list in the source is quite a bit longer than in the footnote - I presume that not all politicians who were targeted failed renomination?
    • The other six did manage to become convention delegates, but lost renomination there. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22 Not seeing the names.
    • It's at the very bottom-right corner and also continues to page 8: "On the purge list were Reps. Peter Granata, Louis Capuzi, Peter Miller and Walter McAvoy, all of Chicago; Robert Austin, East Moline, and W. J. Murphy of Antioch". I've updated the clipping to add a link to the second part of the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23 Seems OK, although I think that 2 supports most of the content here.
  • 24 Need access to this source.
  • 25 Why are the United Auto Workers singled out?
    • Don't remember what my thinking was; I've included IBEW as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26 OK
  • 29 Where is the questionnaire mentioned? It also says "first" at-large election in the USA, not "only". I don't see the footnotes, either.
    1. In source 23. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. There aren't often news reports on the lack of at-large elections. This was the only one as of 1965, and there hasn't been once since. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 OK
  • 35 Where does it say "every Democratic candidate"?
    • "Republicans could not even come close to blocking the Democratic sweep." ("sweep" indicates that every candidate of a party has won) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36 OK
  • 37 Where does it say that the vote count exceeded the number of voters?
    • You're right, this isn't in the source. I've changed the wording accordingly. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38 OK
  • 41 Need a bit of explanation of where the information is.
    • "We can assume that the lowest Republican and the lowest Democrat realized all of their votes due to the marking of the party circle. [...] We see, then, that roughly 95% of the Presidential electors cast an at-large ballot." on pages 303 and 304. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 42 I think my eyes glazed over at that giant list.
  • 44 Need access to this source, Google Books snippets only support the chairmanship.
    • Am happy to email you a PDF of the book if you'd like. Also I did fix the page number on this, had mixed up with the number of suggestions with the page number. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the article has little to say about how this at-large election was opined about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for the review! I've addressed your concerns now and would appreciate another look. Apologies for the errors I made; hope they did not cause you too much of an inconvenience in reviewing.
As for the lack of coverage on opining... there really isn't much good coverage on that, especially in secondary sources? Which would be more necessary to determine due weight, compared to the other parts of this topic which can be more easily sourced to primary sources while remaining neutral.
Also not sure what you mean by "I get the impression that the format of the names is wrong." Elli (talk | contribs) 16:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the way the citations are formatted, I got the impression that you were using the author parameter for the subjects of the pages in the BB. Also, I think that editorial in prominent newspapers and prominent think tank reports would be adequate analysis, when attributed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm only using editor parameters, not author parameters. The editor of the blue book is the secretary of state, who is also documented in the book; I can see how that'd be a bit confusing. Not sure how to do that better though?
I'll look for more editorials. Not sure where to find relevant think tank reports, especially from back then. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one going? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check every number and name in the table so if there is something wrong in it (and there probably is - typos happen when writing up such large piles of data), I won't see it. Otherwise OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edge3 edit

I'm really excited to read this article! This is my first time reviewing at FAC, but I'm from Illinois and have written a few articles related to state politics, so hopefully you will find my insights to be valuable. My review comments will come within 2 days or so. Edge3 (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Here are my comments:[reply]

  • Citation 1 (Official Vote Count) – Link the publisher to Illinois State Board of Elections
  • There are many instances where you cite consecutive sentences with the same citation. You can consolidate these citations per WP:CITEDENSE.
    In the paragraph starting with "As the population of Chicago and Cook County grew...", you have a citation to [2]: 294, then [2]: 292–294, and then [2]: 294–295 after that. You could consolidate those to [2]: 292–295 for the entire paragraph, so I'm wondering if you have reasons for keeping them separated? The same applies to the rest of the article, where citation [2] seems to be used quite a lot. Edge3 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's intentional -- I try to keep the cites as specific as possible (so the parts cited to 294 are only from that page, while the parts to 292-294 are from all three of those pages). I think that makes it a bit more convenient for a reader to verify facts? Elli (talk | contribs) 21:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying. As for the paragraph starting with "Democrats received no Republican support..." uses the same citation to page 299 three times. Could those be consolidated, or do you have a reason for separating them?
    Similarly, for the paragraph starting with "Among the Democrats elected...", could you consolidate the citations to page 307? Edge3 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a similar idea: some parts are only supported by ref 2, while some parts are supported by ref 2 and another source. Separating these out makes it easier for readers to know what came from where. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Republicans passed a plan that would only remove one district from there – I would clarify again that "from there" really is referring to southern Illinois. A person reading quickly might not realize which part of the state you're talking about.
  • For all Blue Book citations, you can state that the "publisher" was the State of Illinois or Illinois Secretary of State.
    • Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! Would it also be helpful to mention the specific chapter(s) of the Blue Book that you are citing? Edge3 (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure? I include the page numbers and I think that's sufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "state's election board" – Link to Illinois State Board of Elections
  • For the entire first paragraph of "Redistricting", did you intend to cite page 16 instead of 17 from the Green 1987 source?
  • "five-judge panel" – As per Green 1987, would this have a five-judge panel of the state Supreme Court? Or did the Supreme Court refer this matter to a different group of five judges?
    @Elli: FYI this item is still awaiting your response Edge3 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, missed that, sorry. I'm actually not sure? Neither source (Green or McDowell) is clear about this. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After doing some more research I'm even more confused; newspapers from the time don't mention a five-judge panel and instead say a federal three-judge panel forced redistricting while the Supreme Court -- particularly, two justices from it -- did the remapping, which the federal judges then signed off on. Maybe that's how they get to five judges? Elli (talk | contribs) 16:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked into the case law, and I was able to find Scott V. Germano, where the US Supreme Court directed the US District Court to stay its proceedings, pending redistricting by the state. Simultaneously, the Illinois Supreme Court was considering People ex rel. Engle v. Kerner. See orders dated February 4, 1965 and September 9, 1965. In the state proceedings, three amici curiae to present maps for consideration. Ultimately, both the Illinois Supreme Court and the US District Court agreed to a provisional map. Edge3 (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for figuring that out :) I've expanded the section a bit. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! One more thing. In {{cite court}}, I think you are using the "pinpoint" parameter when you actually meant to use the "opinion" parameter. This applies to both the People ex rel. Giannis case and the Scott case. So the opinion number goes into the "opinion" parameter, and the specific paragraph or page number goes into the "pinpoint" parameter. See Case citation#Pinpoint citations. Edge3 (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you're right. Not very experienced with that template. Corrected now. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not successful for redistricting in 1971, 1981, 1991, or 2001" – Did this also continue in 2011 or 2021? Does it matter for the purposes of this article? Theoretically, this could happen again in 2031, but I'm not sure that you'd need to update this article even if that happens.
    • Nope, as Dems held a trifecta at both elections. And I don't think it'd need to be updated for the future? The relevant factor imo is that there were six consecutive redistricting cycles that the legislature failed on (counting the cycles before and after this election). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it makes more sense to point out explicitly that there were six consecutive redistricting cycles where the General Assembly failed to redistrict. That way, it doesn't look like you're just listing off decennial cycles (1971, 1981, 1991, 2001...) and then suddenly stopping at 2011 without explanation. McDowell was written in 2007, so I wonder if there's a source post-2011 that helps illustrate this point. Alternatively, you could state (with the appropriate citation) that 2011 redistricting took place without the need for a redistricting commission. Edge3 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I've clarified the "six cycles" point... I feel like 2011 wouldn't really be relevant though? I dunno. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You added the clarification to the lead, but I also think you could add clarification to the "Redistricting" section. Also, I do think it would help to point out that no commission was required in 2011, meaning that the trend stopped in 2001. Edge3 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm a bit confused... I did clarify it in the "Redistricting" section (Special:Diff/1198007854). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh you're right; I was confused. Would you also like to add the note about the trend stopping in 2011? Edge3 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd prefer to not have that note. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I've re-read your edit, and you're right: the current version is better. I think I was too tired yesterday afternoon and not thinking straight! Edge3 (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        No worries :) Elli (talk | contribs) 15:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the only time in which a state legislative election was held at-large in the United States. The source is from 1965. Do you have a more recent source that confirms that no at-large state legislative elections have occurred since 1965?
    • Unfortunately not, though more recent reports on the phenomena of at-large elections mention 1964 IL and nothing else. (I know for a fact there have not been any others, but, well, few sources report on things that don't happen.) Elli (talk | contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, at-large elections have been held for all of a state's congressional seats when states have failed to pass a congressional map. You cite only one example, so you should use the singular "election" and "state" instead of the plural. I would also suggest mentioning explicitly the Minnesota election in 1932.
    • The ref in the [h] footnote goes into more detail on this. If it was just Minnesota, yeah, I'd mention it, but there's quite a few others. The reason I cited the Minnesota source separately is because that drew a parallel between the Minnesota at-large election and this election, indicating the connection between those topics is relevant. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would be helpful to be more specific with this statement. Maybe mention a few examples from the source. The statement as currently written sounds vague: Which states? Did they "fail" to redistrict due to legislative gridlock, or because they outright refused to comply with the constitutional requirements? Did a failure to redistrict guarantee that an at-large election must be held in all cases? Edge3 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Annoyingly it varies by state. I have a large footnote written up listing all of them but it's commented out (see Special:Diff/1196669592) -- do you think it'd be better if I uncommented that? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Honestly I really like the footnote, despite its being long. I think you should un-comment it. Edge3 (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done so now. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, nice work! Edge3 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3: thanks for the review! I've addressed most of your feedback and will hopefully get to the rest of it soon. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I have a few more comments above that you may address at your leisure. Edge3 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've addressed everything now. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to support. Nice job! Edge3 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2024 (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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2024 [8].

Edward the Martyr edit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest of my nominations of Anglo-Saxon kings. Edward was regarded as a saint in his own time because the murder of a king was considered an unforgivable crime, and his feast day is still listed today by the Church of England, but he could not be more unworthy of the designation. Historians regard him as "an obnoxious teenager who showed no evidence of sanctity or kingly attributes". Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty edit

Just a quick note for now, but for the "obnoxious teenager" quote at the end of the lead, MOS:LEADCITE would want a ref for this. Easily fixed: just copy-paste {{sfn|Watson|2021|p=19}} at the end of it. Will do a full review later on; from a quick glance, the article looks excellent. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some quickfire comments from a quick buzz through the first third:

  • the future King Æthelred the Unready - maybe the future king, Æthelred the Unready?
  • which they believed really belonged to them - is "really" needed here?
  • veneration very undeserved - "very" doesn't feel quite right. "Deeply" or just plain "undeserved"?
That's perfect. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • his "magisterial and massively authoritative" Anglo-Saxon England - who says it's "magisterial and massively authoritative"?
  • I said who in the citation as it seemed break up the flow in the text, but I will add it inline if you think it is necessary. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think it's such a big deal, but WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would advise putting it there. It's not a deal-breaker for me in any case. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other pre-Conquest sources include - you've only linked "Conquest" in the lead, link it in the body too. (I see you've linked it in the second sentence of Family: link it at first mention?)
  • Changed.

I see in Edgar, King of England the Sources section is at the top, in front of Background; here it's the other way around. Why is that?

  • I put the sources section second with a vague idea that the background provided context to the "vague impression of disorder" comment, but on reflection I think it should come first so I have changed the order. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read the article fully, and don't really have any reason not to support. Really well researched and very readable. Reminds me of something you'd find in old Britannicas, and something which deserves the title of "Wikipedia's finest work". Just one thing to prove I've read it: I'm told that "due to" isn't proper British English and we prefer "owing to", or better yet "because of". Consider either of those (the bits I'm referring to are in Coinage, last sentence; and Death, last sentence before the blockquote). Happy (belated) new year too, Dudley. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. I see that my somewhat out of date copy of Fowler has a rant against "due to", but admits it is a losing battle. The Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus says that it is now so common in all types of literature that it must be regarded as standard English. I think that "due to" works better than "owing to" or "because of" in both cases where I have used it. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial edit

Pending, but in passing: just Æthelred, rather than his moniker, which didn't apply during his reign, let alone his youth.

I refer to him initially as "the future King Æthelred the Unready" and thereafter Æthelred so that readers know who is referred to. Do you think there is a better way of expressing it? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, re. the lead quote, LQ presumably applies?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure of your point here. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you may be some time. Anything you want to add?

Image review

  • File:Edward_the_Martyr_-_MS_Royal_14_B_VI.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:EdwardMartyr.gif. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead edit

Coming out of semi-retirement to help my good friend Dudley out. Comments to follow soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a big deal, but a circa template could be used in the first sentence.
  • Adding reign dates for monarchs mentioned (especially Edgar) in the article's body could be useful.
  • Done in lead and in the main text where the dates are not already given. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "(non-monastic)" really necessary in the introduction?
  • The citation is not necessary in the introduction; that same quote is repeated and cited later on in the body. Also, is it necessary to have a specific quote in the introduction as opposed to a more general statement?
  • I think a quote works better. It spells out Edward's character in a way that I could not do in a comment of my own without getting into POV. Dudley Miles (talk)

Let me know when you have addressed these; there will be more to follow. Thanks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlimitedlead. Sorry I have realised that I did not make clear in my last post that I have addressed your comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Unlimitedlead, anything further to come from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the inactivity. I have been busy with my studies recently. I have perused the article, and considering its current state and the comments made by others, I am comfortable supporting this nomination. Yet again, wonderful work, Dudley. I hope to see you all soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review. And unrecused considering that in the event I only made a couple of trivial observations. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Captions: "The post-Conquest Corfe Castle". It would be helpful for many readers if "post-Conquest" were linked; "Church of St Edward King and Martyr, Goathurst, Somerset", consider linking; "Church of St Edward King and Martyr, Cambridge", likewise; "Genealogical Roll of the Kings of England", is there any link for at least part of this?.
  • Done. I did not realise that I could link captions without duplicate linking. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also protected estates claimed by their rivals." What does "protected" mean here. (A genuine rather than rhetorical question.)
  • I am not sure what it means or how it got in there. Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you ping me once ULL is happy - they will probably do most of my work. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dudley. But I think I am going to step back. The nomination has had a good going over from better reviewers than me and once Jo-Jo has finished with the sources I may be able to don my coordinator's hat and have a look through with a view to closing rather than reviewing. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nf utvol edit

  • The Watson quote in the lead is repeated verbatim further down the article. I'd consider removing the quote from the lead.
  • The phrase "sin of the first order" in the lead is a quote and probably should have quotation marks and attribution if retained. Otherwise, consider rewording it.
  • The term pre-Conquest and post-Conquest is used as a time marker throughout the article. I know that this is referencing the events of 1066, but the lay reader, especially the one unfamiliar with English history, would not know this. The first reference is linked, but avoiding using the term or very briefly defining it on the first use will prevent people from clicking away.
  • The acronym ASC is used throughout the article. Though it is properly defined at its first use as Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the later uses append additional letters to the end. It is unclear what these letters are or what they signify to the lay reader, or even a reader familiar with the subject but unfamiliar with the terminology surrounding the Chronicles and their versions. Recommend not using them at all, just saying in prose, "A later edition of the ASC written in the 1040s..." instead of "ASC C, written in the 1040s..."
  • Consider thinning the Background section. It goes into, I believe, unnecessary detail on 9th and 10th century English history. Compressing it to provide a basic 'scene setter' for the article, linking off to other pages that get into the weeds would help the article flow. Much of the history of Edgar, Eadwig, Eadred, et al, is (or should be) covered already in their own articles, with the focus of this article remaining on Edward.
  • I have wondered about this. I think it provides useful background, but I would like to see what other reviewers say. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under family, there's a red link for Nicholas of Worcester. Recommend removing the link or finding another article that could be a suitable redirect (or creating a new one for Nicholas if he is sufficiently notable).
  • Also under family, the article goes into what I think is unnecessary detail on Edgar's family in the second paragraph that would be better left in the article on Edgar. Maybe a discussion of Aethelwold's influence in Edward's reign, but almost everything else should be trimmed.
  • This paragraph explains people who are discussed below.

All I have for now, I'll continue later. Very informative article, I've learned a lot so far! nf utvol (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Tim riley edit

Booking my place. Shall revisit after those ahead of me in the queue have had their say. Tim riley talk 18:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view: a splendid read, as we expect from Dudley, evidently well and widely sourced, seemingly balanced, and beautifully illustrated. I abominate the spelling "biassed" though both Chambers and the OED admit it as a variant of the normal "biased"; both dictionaries hyphenate "single-mindedly". No other quibbles and I'm very happy to sign up in support of this top-notch article. Tim riley talk 18:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never thought about any issue with biassed or singlemindedly and I have amended as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

  • Putting down a marker for now. Will probably review before the new year. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Edward was the eldest son of": "He was..."?
Sources
  • "Other pre-Conquest (before the Norman Conquest) sources": wouldn't "Other pre-Norman Conquest sources" be tidier?
  • The term "pre-Conquest" is used several times and I think it is better to specifically define it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed succession
  • "According to the best-informed account": this is a hefty 86-word quote. Is there a reason why it is in line in the paragraph while the "Now certain of the magnates of this realm" quote above (at 77 words) is set as a block quote?
    As some of the Stenton quote includes information outlined elsewhere ("the eldest son and the natural heir" is one example), ellipses could be used to reduce this down to a more efficient wording. This would also ensure the opening part of this section doesn’t feel quite do quote heavy, with three meaty extracts there.

Done to the start of "anti-monastic reaction" section. More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more, taking us down to his death:

The "anti-monastic reaction"
  • If " first'...Monks" is an ellipses, it should follow WP:ELLIPSES and have a nbsp before and a space afterwards.
Death
  • " an equal insanity...The soldiers laid" – ditto

(At the moment I'm heavily leaning toward support: it's well written, clear and meets the FA criteria). - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burial and translation
  • "arranging the translation of Edward's body": Piped link for "translation" to Translation (relic)? There will be some who only think of the word in terms of languages, I'm sure. (You have it linked lowed with "the relics to be again translated", but the first use would be better, I think
Early cult
  • "Edward's was recognised as a saint": Edward's what was recognised?
  • "lifetime...Much": see above on ellipses
Dispute
  • "according to the archaeologist Richard Gem they were "understood in the academic community".': I'm not sure I understand this bit – what was understood by the academic community and did/do they agree or disagree about the bones?
  • The full sentence is "Some historians qualify the comment because the results of Brothwell's examination were never published; according to the archaeologist Richard Gem they were "understood in the academic community"." I am not sure how to deal with this. "they" refers to "the results of Brothwell's examination". It is believed on the basis of rumour that Brothwell conducted an examination which concluded that the body was not Edward's. Clarifying would seem to verge on synth. Any suggestions? (I wonder whetehr he did not publish because there was something about his examination he was not happy about, but that is POV.) Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think it could be clarified slightly as '... Gem the results were "understood...' (which would deal with my initial confusion over whether "they" referred to the results or the historians). I don't have the source, so I'll leave you to think if there is a clearer way to phrase that, as "understood" is, I think the problem. It could mean that they (literally) understood what he was saying, or (probably more likely) they understood and accepted what he was saying. I'll leave it to your judgement though.
Hi SchroCat. How about deleting the quote from Gem and just having: "Historians' accounts of Stowell's findings usually mention that they were contradicted by the British Museum osteoarchaeologist Don Brothwell, who is believed to have examined the bones and concluded that they were of an older man and that the damage was probably post-mortem, although no report of his examination was ever published." Is that clear? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be excellent - no ambiguity in that and no confusion for me! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again SchroCat. Answers above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship edit

I asked a friend with knowledge of the period to comment; paraphrased, he said:

  • No need for the lengthy quotes from Stenton; he has been superseded by more recent historians, who should be preferred for quoting.
  • Stenton is dated, but I do not agree that he is superseded. He is still quoted and discussed, for example in Roach's Æthelred the Unready. Higham and Ryan summed up Stenton's standing in their 2013 The Anglo-Saxon World, p. 443: "this classic account shows its age but is still a rewarding read". Rory Naismith's 2021 Early Medieval Britain liats both Stenton and Higham and Ryan in the bibliography under 'Classic Studies and Textbooks'. Out of the three quotes from Stenton, I have replaced the first, the second is a good summary of a view still generally accepted, the third is an example of a view which is now disputed. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following could use some more in-depth discussion/greater detail to achieve full "comprehensiveness":
    • Ælfthryth's role in the disputed succession
  • As I comment below, it would be helpful to know what your friend thinks is missing. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The charters
    • The coverage of the reasons for Æthelred promoting Edward's cult, especially in relation to the specific contexts of Aethelred's reign when it occured.
  • This is extensively discussed, but I will look think what further might be said. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also think that Edgar is portrayed unduly negatively, but since they are personally biased towards him, they're classifying that as a "difference of opinion". In general, they felt the article is of a high standard.
  • There were major achievements in Edgar's reign, which are discussed in his article which I previously took through FAC, but modern historians see his legacy to Edward as very negative, and this is the aspect which is relevant to Edward's article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hear what you think of those comments, and then perhaps perform a prose review. If you want clarification, I can act as the messenger. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. it is very helpful to have feedback from an expert. I am away for Christmas and will give a more detailed reply when I have access to my books later in the week. On Ælfthryth, I would be interested to know what more your friend thinks can be said. No contemporary source says anything about her role in the succession dispute, and post-Conquest writers are prejudiced and unreliable on her. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again AirshipJungleman29. Please see comments above. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I have now finished looking through the points raised by your friend. I cannot see anything significant I have missed on Ælfthryth's role or Æthelred promoting Edward's cult, so can you please advise what your friend thinks is missing. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley Miles, thanks for checking. On Ælfthryth, they mention a recent biography by Elizabeth Norton which they recall provides more details on her role in the succession (they don't currently have it with them); on the promotion of the cult, they don't understand why the early promotion in the 990s is placed after later events, and is oddly disconnected from the "penance" trope you address earlier, which Keynes explicitly connects it to: In the early or mid 990s Æthelred and his councillors sought to placate a wrathful God by promoting the cult of Edward with a special foundation on an ancient royal estate at Cholsey...
So they would move the corresponding sentence, currently in the last paragraph of the section, to just after the sentence on Viking raids, and change it a little to explicitly link it to the "penance" purpose. I hope that's understandable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AirshipJungleman29. Norton's 2013 biography, judging by the summary on Amazon, is based on the lurid stories about Ælfthryth by post-Conquest writers. It is not cited by academic historians. I agree that the Cholsey comment is misplaced and have moved it as part of larger rearrangement to make the start of the cult section clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to your knowledge on that. On a prose level, I note we now have several top-level sections in the latter half of the article. Personally, I would put everything from "Burial and translation" to "Churches dedicated..." as subsections to a "Posthumous events" (or something) level-two section. Do you think that would work? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about 'Legacy'? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I haven't done enough of a review that I feel I should support, but all my issues have been resolved satisfactorily. Nice article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spot-check upon request. Source formatting seems mostly consistent. "Does The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters." not have an author? The church websites are probably reliable enough for the dedication of the church in question. I dunno, is "Liber Eliensis: A History of the Isle of Ely from the Seventh Century to the Twelfth" a publication by a historian or an expert? Who is Gem, Richard? Otherwise, it seems like we are mostly relying on books and academic papers by historians. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review .The Electronic Sawyer is the online version of a paper catalogue by Peter Sawyer. It has been revised and updated by many historians and is not usually cited to him. Richard Gem is a former president of the British Archaeological Association. Liber Eliensis is translated by Janet Fairweather, who is an independent translator and Latinist. She acknowledges the help of experts on Anglo-Saxon history, including Simon Keynes, who read and commented on a draft. The book is published by a leading academic publisher. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but remember that I neither spot-checked nor are deeply familiar with these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2024 (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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2024 [9].

Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims edit

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims is the groundbreaking Victorian-inspired first collection by British designer Alexander McQueen. Narratively, it drew on the famous serial killer, and aesthetically, it drew on Victorian clothing, erotica, and prostitution. Isabella Blow famously bought the entire collection practically on sight, and made herself McQueen's muse and mentor on the strength of it. Jack the Ripper was foundational for McQueen. It earned him a reputation for narratively-driven collections with wide-ranging inspiration, and many of the collection's aesthetic concepts resurfaced elsewhere in his work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "Editor Isabella Blow was" - I've run into issues with this sort of wording in the recent past. Apparently presented like this it creates a "false title" and it should be "The editor Isabella Blow"......
  • "British designer Alexander McQueen" - same here I think. Best to check for this throughout
Yes, this gets called out at every McQueen FAC. It's a style variation, both are accepted on Wikipedia, and I continue to prefer it without the clunky additional "the".
Butting in, this is an ENGVAR matter; in British prose false titles sound very American and wrong. I doubt the The New Yorker would let you get away with it either. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rendering false titles one way or another is not mandatory under the MOS. I hate the "the", and I'm not doing it. It would be inconsistent with every other McQueen FA, which have also passed without unnecessary "the"s. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we're just doing partly British English, then. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McQueen told Bobby Hillson," - already mentioned above so no need to relink and use her full name
Redundancy removed
  • "The show was photographed by Niall McInerney. Both his mother Joyce" - McInerney's mother.......?
Oops, victim of a sentence swap
  • "accessorized" - UK spelling is with an S not a Z
No, actually it isn't, in Oxford English, which is fine. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One day I will be a good Canadian and remember the British spellings first time, really
  • "Hillson felt he would have" => "Hillson felt that McQueen would have"
Fixed
  • "would have done better in a two-year program" - UK spelling is "programme"
  • "but Blow recognised it" => "but that Blow recognised it"
SC kindly fixed the Brit spellings for me
Hi ChrisTheDude, thanks as always for your comments. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

A marker for me. I always enjoy these ones. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I made a couple of BrEng and MOS tweaks here to finish off the last bits of BrEng. I will do my usual grumble about the false titles, but will still support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks always for doing those for me, I appreciate it, and your support :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Vami edit

All sources reliable or used acceptably. Spot-check to follow. No other comment at this time other than to say that it would be a good idea to emphasize Sussanah Frankel's friendship with McQueen to make her relevant as a primary source. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Despite what our article says, I don't recall Frankel being one of McQueen's personal friends. On a quick review, none of the major sources seem to support that either. She's a well-known fashion journalist and she covered him quite a bit throughout his career, but no more so than any other journalist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check
  • [3]: Checks out.
  • [14]: Checks out.
  • [18]: Checks out.
  • [25]: Feels like garnishing. Has a single sentence connecting McQueen and Hilson, which is serviceable but not useful as a sentence with another two references on it.
    • Yeah this is a relic, it was originally there to document that Hilson was the course founder, but I covered that with other sources without realizing it made that one redundant
  • [31]: Checks out.
  • [39]: Checks out.
  • [42]: Checks out.
  • [49]: Checks out; I would advise chasing "obsession" with an in-line citation so that its source is more immediately visible.
    • Per my usual, I prefer not to clutter my sentences with inline citations; end of sentence is MOS-accepted for quotes.

I'm satisfied with the text-source integrity at this point; supporting. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replies to two above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass) edit

  • Images are appropriately licensed, have succinct captions, and provide context where appropriate.
  • Suggest adding WP:ALT. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt text texted :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

Non-expert prose review, since I haven't dipped into a fashion-related article in the FAC space yet, although I have read your brilliant series of work on McQueen, and this one is no different. The article is grammatically perfect, well-researched and seems to present all viewpoints fairly. Not much to quibble.

  • Suggest maybe linking macabre, for those who may be unfamiliar with the term.
    • Sure, done
  • In the runway show subsection, perhaps the second para could me merged into the first, since it is only two sentences.
    • I see where you're coming from, but I think I prefer it separated since Costin's work is a separate thought
  • That will be all from me. It's a very great read on McQueen's earlier work. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. If you have spare time and interest, was wondering if I could ask for some feedback on a my current FAC)

Aoba47 edit

  • For this sentence, (In his early career, McQueen was often accused of misogyny for his extreme designs, a characterisation to which he consistently objected.), I'd recommend clearly attributing who made these accusations.
    • There's no one specific person who did this, it was a constant theme in reviews and early analysis of his work
  • I would move masters link up to this part, (the founder and head of the masters course in fashion), as it is the first time it is mentioned in the article.
    • As we have the luxury of doing duplicate links now, I've done that rather than have to choose between linking the first instance and linking the more relevant instance :)
  • I am not sure what "quietly providing" means in this part, (this meant quietly providing him with quality fabric from the CSM stores).
    • Basically, she was favoring McQueen a little bit on the down-low. None of the sources say so explicitly, but it appears that students were expected to supply their own fabric. McQueen was dirt poor so he always had cheap trash fabric. Hillson used her position to give him stuff which (again, not explicit, but implied) other students weren't getting.
  • This may just be a matter of personal preference, but I am not sure about the placement of File:Mourning brooch containing the hair of a deceased relative. Wellcome L0036419.jpg so that it is cutting across section titles (at least in my browser).
    • I think it's generally okay if it's breaking the section on the right side, where it doesn't interfere with the section title on the left Oop, looks like Ceoil fixed it in their copyedit and I didn't notice, so my comment is irrelevant
  • For this part, ( presented her Master's thesis project), I do not believe master's thesis needs to be capitalized.
    • Yup, fixed

I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again, but I doubt I will find anything major. Just to be clear, my review is focused on the prose, aside from a stray comment on image placement. I would be curious if this collection is ever brought up in the larger discussions on the fascination with serial killers and how they are represented in the media. Best of luck with this FAC! Apologies for not posting a review sooner. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aoba you never need to apologize to me, I'm always happy to see your name at my FACs :) Thanks very much for your comments, I've replied above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses and the kind words. I appreciate and agree with the explanations that you have provided. I am always glad to help whenever I can. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are doing well and having a good 2024 so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

Support another pleasing addition to this fascinating series. Made a series of trival edits while reading through. As a quibble, I found the closing titbit on Tina Gorjanc confusing and bordering on irrelevant. But great work notwithstanding, the prose are gripping and fun to read. Moare pls. Ceoil (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ceoil, thanks for your kind comments and your copyedit. I did revert one change, where you cut "to draw media attention in the hopes of attracting financial backers" down as "to draw media attention and thus financial backers". The "thus" wording, to me, reads like it's a sure thing. But getting a backer was really more like a gamble, which I think my wording communicates a little more clearly.
    I do see where you're coming from with Gorjanc. However, on balance, it feels fitting to me as the project would only be possible because McQueen put his hair into these specific items, and because McWade analysed it as part of McQueen's macabre legacy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine on both counts. Thanks for the considered reply. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - hello coordinators, there have been no new comments in over a week and there are no unresolved sections. Is there anything additional you're looking for here? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments edit

  • "The collection was presented on the runway at London Fashion Week with other graduating students". Do you mean 'The collection was presented on the runway at London Fashion Week with those of other graduating students'? At the moment the sentence is a bit of a puzzle to me; I wondered if other students were on the runway as McQueen's models. (If that was what you meant, perhaps you could firm it up.
    • Revised the sentence
  • "Many of the elements featured in the collection resurfaced throughout McQueen's career". I am unsure about "throughout"; I think that replacing it with 'during' may leave a more accurate statement.
    • I got into the weeds and revised the whole bit
Looks good. But it still says "Many of the elements ... resurfaced throughout McQueen's career" which seems to be labouring the point. (And technically inaccurate.). So I would again suggest "throughout" → 'during'.
"During" to me suggests less intensity, and I see the intensity as justified. I can't stress enough how the tendencies he established during JTR formed the core of how he designed going forward. His craft evolved and he certainly varied the mix, but he was always, always, doing something with narrative, the macabre, personal fixations, tailoring, and experimentation. This isn't a guy who dicked around for five years making blandly pretty dresses before figuring out what he was about. He came right out the gate with it, and it's significant to who he was as a designer.
Ok, but "throughout", in the context of the rest of the sentence, is pushing the grammar past breaking point. How about 'repeatedly'? Or 'frequently'? Or 'persistently'? Or recast the sentence so that "throughout" works. Eg, start with 'Throughout McQueen's career, many elements...' Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be difficult, genuinely, but I don't see how the use of "throughout" is a grammatical issue, let alone "pushing the grammar past breaking point". Substituting "during" as you initially suggested would make little difference in the grammar of the sentence, so what is it about "throughout" specifically that makes the sentence intolerable, where "during" would be acceptable?
Before I explain, and I can, honest, but it is past my bed time already, how you say the same thing in the main article does work. So could you live with 'McQueen held on to the narrative and aesthetic tendencies in Jack the Ripper throughout his career, earning a reputation for ...' in the lead? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Gog, I'm sorry; I thought you were talking about the usage in the body, I didn't realize you were referring to the lead. I apologize for the misunderstanding and I've replaced the sentence in the lead as suggested.
I thought it unlike you to be stubborn over something so readily fixable. Perhaps I could have been clearer. Any hoo, resolved now. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas, 2015, needs a publisher location.
    • Located

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ok with the CSM edit I made in the lead?
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yup that's a total oops on my part. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2024 (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 promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 25 January 2024 [10].

Speechless (Lady Gaga song) edit

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To have some mercy on my fellow reviewers, here's one of those rare articles by me with less than 5k words. I'm attempting my fifth FA on a track from Lady Gaga's megahit album The Fame Monster. Get ready for Gaga's "Speechless"—a track that might just leave you without words. It's more than just music; it's a journey that'll have you, well, speechless! FrB.TG (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • Infobox: "from the EP The Fame Monster". As the MoS suggests "Wikipedia uses sentence case for ... and entries in infoboxes" should that be an upper-case f? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's part of the phrase "Song by x, from the album x" but I see (and agree with) your point. That said, it's automatically generated by the infobox template and something that would need to be discussed at Template talk:Infobox song as it would affect all song articles on Wikipedia. FrB.TG (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do so, but Wikipedia not being a reliable source, a usage in other articles cannot be used as a reason for the same usage in this one. As you say you agree with my "point" (I was trying to tactfully phrase it as a question. :-) Ah well.) then why not change it?
I'll start a discussion there soon.
  • " "Speechless" represents Gaga's fear of death." I am not sure that "represents" is the word you want here. (If you think it is, which usage of the word in which dictionary are you trying to convey?)
  • "who praised it for its emotional depth and influences from the band Queen but some criticized it as weak and insincere." The "who ... but some ..." suggests that all of the second group also fell into the first; is that the case?
  • Just my opinion, but I think running the last two paragraphs of the lead together would improve it.
  • " "Speechless" charted in the US, the UK, Canada and Scotland." "Scotland": Is it usual to include sub-national regions in these articles? If so, why are US states and Canadian provinces not similarly treated?
The Official Charts Company is the official reporter of charts in the UK, reporting album and song performances separately in Scotland since 1994. It has coverage by major music websites like AllMusic (one example) but as Chris has mentioned below, it may not be considered a major market, thus not warranting a mention in the lead. For the US, Billboard is responsible for reporting charts and they do not have any state-based chart.
  • " "Speechless" is a track from the extended play (EP) The Fame Monster (2009), the reissue of Lady Gaga's debut studio album, The Fame (2008)." If TFM is a "reissue" of TF, then why is "Speechless" not described as being from TF? Or is the issue around how we are defining "reissue"?
The Fame was released in 2008, whereas "Speechless" in 2009 as one of the eight additional tracks in TFM. It's not unusual for a reissue to have original tracks. See reissue: "a reissue ... is the release of an album or single which has been released at least once before, sometimes with alterations or additions." Other such popular examples include Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection and Thriller 25. But I can clarify it in the article if needed.
  • "The song was recorded at Record Plant Studios". I am unclear as to whether this happened in 2008 or 2009, it would be nice to be told. In either case, is a more precise date known?
The interview where she discusses the song took place in 2009 but it doesn't give us any specific info on when the song was recorded.
  • I don't think that one can use the word "conduction" in the sense you do. (It means 'lead', as in to physically guide.)
  • "Fair did the song's arrangement and conduction." The link for "arrangement and conduction" is just to arrangement, which starts "In music, an arrangement is a musical adaptation of an existing composition." So did this take place sometime after the events retailed in the previous four sentences?
Yes, the arrangement typically takes place after the initial recording of the live instruments and vocals. Arranging involves organizing and adapting the recorded elements to create the final structure and form of the song. In the provided sentences, the recording process, including live instruments and Gaga's piano playing, is described first, followed by the mention of Ron Fair doing the arrangement. Therefore, the arrangement phase would occur after the recording of the live instruments at Record Plant Studios.

Much to my surprise, I am actually struggling to follow the thread of this article, and I have barely started it. So I am going to pause and await responses, which may elucidate things. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog. The ones I haven't replied to are done as suggested. Let me know if issues persist on your further reading and I'll see what can be done to prevent it from turning into a PR. Perhaps working on an article during the stress of holidays wasn't a good idea after all. ;) FrB.TG (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem seems to be around "the reissue of" in the first line of the main article. The lead as it currently is fine (in this respect). While aware that the track lists of both TF and TFM are movable feasts, I think that both the 13 tracks original "international" version of TF and the 14 tracks of the revised US version have zero correspondence with the standard edition of TFM. This seems to me to stretch the use of "reissue" beyond breaking point. Assuming that there is some correspondence between TF and TFM, perhaps what it is could be spelt out. I would suggest that MOS:NOFORCELINK ("Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links") requires this anyway.
I anticipate that somewhere between a couple of sentences and a paragraph will be required, but as a subject expert you may have a more elegant solution. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The standalone standard edition was not supposed to exist but it was Gaga who insisted that they be sold separately to avoid "ripping off" the fans who had already bought TF. That is the only explanation behind it. While it might not strictly adhere to the definition of a reissue, TF and TFM still charted as one album in many countries. I think the Release and artwork section already does a pretty good job at why the standard edition without the TF tracks exists. I've also gone ahead and added in the "Speechless" article that TFM consists of eight new tracks, it being one of them. FrB.TG (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Gog the Mild in case you have more to add. FrB.TG (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More edit

Apologies for the delay on this. I was away over Christmas which precluded doing much of anything that involved more than light cognition, and came back to an unusually busy RL and a backlog of Wikipedia activities. I don't think I am going to manage a full review, but let's see if we can sign off on what I have looked at so far.

  • I completely fail to see how "Lady Gaga reissued her debut studio album, The Fame (2008), as The Fame Monster, an extended play that consisted of eight new tracks" makes sense. We have agreed that that the difficulty is around "reissued". All dictionaries I have consulted agree that "reissue" means to issue a thing again. I can, just about, accept that a reissue may include a bonus track or two. To use it to mean to issue something with nothing in common with what is purportedly the thing being "reissued" seems perverse. So, which part of the phrase am I misunderstanding? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, but she did reissue the album on that exact date. The album's earliest release was on 18 November 2009 in Italy and Japan and in both countries, the reissue included The Fame tracks. The standard edition was released only later on by Gaga for reasons I mentioned above. That it may not meet the definition of a reissue is not something that has ever been disputed by sources (since I guess they found Gaga's reasoning plausible, which is very well explained in TFM article). And if I write up something like "although a reissue includes original tracks, this was not the case with TFM standard edition", it would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH since I cannot find a source that says this. Perhaps editors like SNUGGUMS, Sricsi or IndianBio, who are all major contributors to Gaga-related articles, can better explain this or have a better solution in mind. FrB.TG (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for intruding on this conversation, but would an end note clarifying what a reissue is in this context be an appropriate compromise? This style of reissue was decently popular in the early 2010s (with Kesha reissuing Animal as Cannibal and Katy Perry reissuing Teenage Dream as Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection as two other examples), but I do not think it is really done anymore so I could see some room for potential confusion for unfamiliar readers. Here is a source from Vanity Fair that discusses this phenomenon, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were other sources about this. So maybe add in a endnote that defines this type of reissue with an appropriate citation? Again, apologies for the intrusion. I just wanted to suggest a potential compromise. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think that kind of clarification is needed for "Speechless" as it's more of a TFM issue, and the album article already goes into great details how reissue is defined. I also want to emphasize that TFM was not the only album to have this many new tracks. Albums like OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017 and the 2017 reissue of Purple Rain had almost as many new tracks as their originals. Also, I think Gog's main issue is with the standard edition not quite meeting the definition of a reissue since it doesn't contain the original tracks, but like I said above the deluxe version is the main one and the standard one was only added later on by Gaga to not resell TF tracks to fans who'd already bought the debut album. Whether or not that explanation is enough, it's all we have and it's been accepted by sources. Anything else we add would be serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations. FrB.TG (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair and I agree. Heartfox's suggestion below is a far better option. I was over-thinking it and I agree further information could lead to violations. Just to be clear, I am aware of this style of reissue or the fact that reissues can come with a substantial amount of new material. I was not aware of more recent examples, but I do not really keep up with contemporary music. But long story short, I agree with your rationale and I want to thank Heartfox for their suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a rewording to "Lady Gaga reissued her debut studio album, The Fame (2008), as with The Fame Monster, an extended play" would clear things up, at least for me. Heartfox (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done FrB.TG (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that we are getting anywhere. The issue, I think is around the ordinary English use of the word "reissue", as defined in dictionaries. Wikipedia is supposed to explain things, that's why it is an encyclopedia. You are, I think, using "reissue" in a sense which will only be comprehensible to aficionados, and which according to Aoba only to those familiar with "reissues" from the early 2010s. Does "Lady Gaga reissued her debut studio album, The Fame (2008), with The Fame Monster, an extended play that consisted of eight new tracks" mean that the original The Fame (or some version of it) was reissued together with eight additional tracks. If it doesn't, then IMO the sentence is not an accurate statement of fact. As I said above, you manage to avoid this in the lead, and I don't see why it has become an issue here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Does ... mean that the original The Fame (or some version of it) was reissued together with eight additional tracks"? Yes, it does (if you check source 3, you will see that both the TF and new tracks are present), but it was also released as a standalone EP later on, which I think is the cause of confusion here. And while TFM article does explain that in great details, I don't think the same can be done for "Speechless". In any case, I have removed the use of "reissue" from the main body of "Speechless" as well. PS reissues of this kind (ones with additional tracks) have been around since forever and not just since the early 2010s, e.g. Thriller 25 (2008). FrB.TG (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: I haven't done a full review, but the bits I have looked are all IMO well up to FAC standard and criteria and from this partial review I see no reason why the article should not be promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 edit

  • I'd spell out extended play in the lead for readers unfamiliar with this type of music jargon. I'd go with how it's done in "Bad Romance" and "Alejandro".
  • I have a comment on this part, (to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve, and to remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents.). I was initially uncertain about the comma. I believe this part could be trimmed down to, (to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents.) Admittedly, I've never been good with commas, and this is mostly a suggestion.
  • I have a question about this part, (Gaga wrote "Speechless" to convey her "fear of death"). Gaga has talked about how each song on The Fame Monster represents a certain fear. I think it would be beneficial to briefly add that here to give some further context and to tie into the overall EP, but I could also understand if this type of information is left in the EP's main article. What do you think?
  • At the risk of sounding completely heartless, I do not think the tweet, ("My Daddy had open-heart surgery today. And after long hours, and lots of tears, they healed his broken heart, and mine,"), is necessary. All the reader needs to know is that Gaga's father had the surgery.
  • Is there any particular reason why the Musicnotes.com source does not have a link to the website?
  • For the File:GagaKoh Speechless 2.jpg, I would add the year that the photo was taken to the image caption as it would help readers to better contextualize it at a glance rather than having to either find this part in the section or click on the image for the further information.
  • I am uncertain about the prose for the last three paragraphs of the "Music and lyrics" section. It has great information, but I find the phrasing to be clunky at points, like how the analysts are introduced/referenced in the prose. I am also less certain about how spots like (The introduction, characterized by theatrical "ohs", immediately draws the listener into heightened emotional landscapes.) is done in Wikipedia's voice. This kind of analysis is difficult to write about on Wikipedia. For whatever reason, I'm struggling with how to clearly express my prose concerns so I will come back to this later. Apologies for that. I still thought it was worth bringing up. I'd be curious to see how other reviewers respond to this section.
I have tried to write an introductory sentence in each paragraph that conveys what it is about. You're right about certain sentences written in Wikipedia's voice. I wanted to avoid starting each sentence with "x opined that.." but I guess there's no way around it. (Too bad we don't have the "conjunctive" in English like in German where the form of a verb is different for indirect speech, making it immediately clear that these are not your own words.) See if it reads better now.

I hope these comments are helpful. Apologies again for not being clearer with my last point, and I will try to think of ways to phrase it better in the near future. It probably does not help that I am writing this review up after midnight. This is everything that I noticed after doing a first read-through. I will make sure to read the article more thoroughly several more times to try and do my best as a reviewer. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba. I have taken on board all of your suggestions. Let me know in particular how you feel about the last three paras in music and lyrics section. FrB.TG (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses. I appreciate the improvements to the section. I will read through the article in the near future. As always, you have done wonderful work with the article, and I am happy to see it nominated for a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think drums and guitar need links as a majority of readers are familiar with both. If the links need to be kept, they both should be moved up to the first instance.
  • Would the King Princess cover be notable enough for inclusion? It was covered by Billboard, MTV News, and Consequence as published in Yahoo! Entertainment.
  • I am probably just being dense, but could you clarify how "Speechless" is interpreted as an Oedipal-complex ballad? I thought the Oedipus complex involved some sort of hatred/aggression toward a parental figure, whether it be boys toward their fathers and girls toward their mothers, but I do not really see that type of emotion present in this song. I looked at the source, which makes it about seeing her father as an equal, but this wording left a bit confused. Not saying it needs to be changed, but I still wanted to ask.
I have altered my wording a bit in the song to add the "seeing him as an equal" part. From my understanding, the complex is used metaphorically in this context to capture the emotional depth and significant shift in Gaga's perception of her father. While the traditional Oedipal complex involves elements of aggression or rivalry like you say, the term here highlights a profound transformation in the dynamics of their relationship, where Gaga expresses deep emotions and addresses her father with a newfound sense of equality and heartbroken candor. It's not a strict adherence to the classic Oedipal complex but rather a poetic expression of the emotional journey depicted in the song.
Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I've got after a second read-through. The third point is more of a clarification question than anything. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a second look, Aoba. FrB.TG (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - pass edit

The article uses 3 images. They are relevant and fulfill the licensing criteria. The article has one non-free content in the form of a sample from a song. It has a fair use rationale and fulfills the requirements at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "was written by Gaga to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve and remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents" - I'd be tempted to go for "was written by Gaga to convince her father to undergo open-heart surgery for his malfunctioning aortic valve and to remind her younger fans to appreciate their parents"
  • "A rock power balald" - typo
  • ""Speechless" initially received mixed reviews from critics, who praised it for its emotional depth and influences from the band Queen but some criticized it as weak and insincere." => ""Speechless" initially received mixed reviews from critics, some of whom praised it for its emotional depth and influences from the band Queen while others criticized it as weak and insincere."
  • ""Speechless" charted in the US, the UK, Canada and Scotland." - I appreciate that Scotland does have its own separate chart, but as it's part of the UK, saying "the UK and Scotland" sounds a bit weird (at least who someone who lives in the UK). It would be like saying "it charted in the USA and California". I would be tempted to solve the problem by just not mentioning Scotland here, given that by itself it isn't a major market.
  • "She wrote "Speechless" and produced it with Ron Fair and Tal Herzberg." - this reads like she co-wrote it with those guys as well as co-producing it with them, which doesn't seem to be the case, so maybe "She wrote "Speechless" and co-produced it with Ron Fair and Tal Herzberg."
  • ""Speechless" is a rock power balald" - there's that typo again
  • "Robert J. Benton wrote although the song is dedicated to Gaga's father" => "Robert J. Benton wrote that although the song is dedicated to Gaga's father
  • " As of August 2010, the song has sold" - August 2010 was more than 13 years ago, so this really should be " As of August 2010, the song had sold"
  • That's it, I think - great work! I distinctly remember watching that Royal Variety Performance performance when it was originally broadcast. Funnily enough this year's RVP is on television in a couple of hours...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, Chris. All done as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass) edit

  • Is the IGN review reliable? The website is oriented toward video games I believe.
Well, as per WP:RSP is acceptable for popular culture. And the critic who reviewed the song has reviewed more films/songs/albums than video games so it should be acceptable IMO.
  • Consequence is not italicized but Idolator, which is usually not italicized, is.
  • Musicnotes is not my favorite source, but according to this discussion any usage should be clearly attributed within the prose; so it should be preceded by something like "According to the sheet music on Musicnotes.com" like it is on Bad Romance, for example.
  • The others are all the usual reliable sources used on pop music articles. Spotcheck upon request.--NØ 02:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ edit

Addressed comments from NØ 15:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this soon. It is always exciting to see Gaga stuff at FAC.--NØ 20:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The inclusion of "power ballad" in the genre field of the infobox is a bit unusual. Wouldn't the genre be rock and power ballad the musical style?
  • The song duration and labels do not appear to occur outside the infobox and thus seem to be presently unsourced
I'd say the external link of the audio is the "source" for the duration. :-)
  • "Retrospective reviewers described it as one of Gaga's best songs, praising her vocals" - Some editors don't like the ", ing" phrasing and have suggested this type of phrasing to me in the past: "Retrospective reviewers described it as one of Gaga's best songs and praised her vocals"
  • The 52nd Grammys happened in 2010, in case the last sentence of the lead is meant to be in chronological order
  • The November 2009 quote is a really good one but does it need to be a blockquote? The whitespace could be avoided if it was placed within the rest of the text.
  • Since the "Exploring Gaga's ... sociomusical activism piece" paragraph is discussing the songwriting, it might be a good idea to avoid describing the artists mentioned as "vocalists". This might confuse some readers that Gaga's vocal performance is being compared to Mercury, Lennon and John which does not seem to be the case.
  • The first paragraph of Critical reception seems entirely positive so I was a bit confused about the opening sentence saying initial reviews were mixed. Is this more of a general summary statement for the entire section?
It's meant to convey the overall early reception of the song.
  • The third paragraph should open by indicating these are retrospective reviews
  • "Speechless" topped the Billboard Hot Singles Sales chart, with sales of 7,000 units according to Nielsen Soundscan, becoming Gaga's third number-one single on this chart" - "on this chart" can probably be removed since it is sufficiently implied by the rest of the sentence
  • "It also shifted an additional 13,000 digital downloads to bubble under the main Hot Digital Songs chart" - Is it possible to swap "bubble under" with something more formal? The usage would be acceptable if there are no alternatives, obviously.
  • "performed" is used in three consecutive sentences in the beginning of the Live performances section. "Reprised" and "sang" are good alternatives to mix it up.
  • "Credits adapted from the liner notes of The Fame Monster." - This does not need a period. If you want to use it, though, this could be converted to a full sentence by adding "are" after "Credits". Also, it is generally fine to unlink the main artist's name from the Credits.
  • Vevo should not be all caps in the External link. But the inclusion of the link itself is probably redundant given the official audio is present in the infobox.
Apologies for this running a bit long. I am open to hatting this after the review comments are addressed if you like. Cheers!--NØ 02:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the source and prose reviews. Unless stated otherwise, I've taken on board all your suggestions. FrB.TG (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing everything. The only other thing I noticed was that the release date also doesn't occur outside the infobox and doesn't have a source. I believe this might work.--NØ 15:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done FrB.TG (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox edit

  • I'm not really a fan of musicnotes. For example, there is no way to verify if there is a key change; we don't know if it is C major throughout the whole song. One of the reviews with 40 likes says "This is not the original sheet music published by lady gaga and hal leonard". I really don't think a random sheet music preview on musicnotes.com is a high-quality reliable source. It should really be citing the official book by Hal Leonard, the digital one published by hal leonard on sheetmusicdirect.com, or not given at all. For example musicnotes.com cited source has 76 bpm and sheetmusicdiret.com has 74bpm...
Musicnotes.com source removed. Not sure about the hallenoard.com one since the question remains whether or not this is the original one or an altered version.
  • "underscoring the "performativity" in using vocal damage." → I don't understand what "vocal damage" means here
  • "She was the sole musical accompaniment" → I don't get this
It just means that Gaga was the only one providing the musical background for the performance, in this case, by playing the piano but I think it's redundant anyway so removed.

Heartfox (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, Heartfox. Let me know if they have been resolved. FrB.TG (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you are interested, my current FAC would benefit from your insight. Best, Heartfox (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GagaNutella edit

I have made few adjusts and run a bot. The article is really great and ready for FA status. Support. GagaNutellatalk 01:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina edit

Whoosh, I might be late to the party. First of all kudos for improving this article. Are you planning to take The Fame Monster to Featured Topic status soon? I believe this article is veryyy close to FA status. Some comments below:

I don't exactly have a plan for a FTC since I don't know if I'm going tackle more TFM-related articles but if I do get enough FAs for an FT, I might give it a go.
  • Per Template:Infobox song#released, album release dates are fine for tracks as well. I know that this song was not released independently, but not having a release date in the Infobox gives an impression that this is an unreleased song, which is not the case here.
  • In light of the article on false titles I'd introduce the song as "by the American singer Lady Gaga"
  • I'd suggest adding {{short description}} manually as I discovered in GANs that sometimes short descs don't appear automatically
  • Link Rock in Infobox
  • "Billboard magazine included the song"
  • Decapitalise "the" in the Monster Ball Tour per MOS:THEMUSIC
  • Not obligatory but I prefer Oxford commas...
  • "On November 18, 2009, American singer Lady Gaga" ditto false title; or maybe remove "American singer"
  • "In a November 2009 interview" with whom?
  • I know we've done a source review but somehow IGN still irks me as it's a video game site. Not sure if this satisfies as a high-quality source for a Music article?
Well, RSP lists it as a reliable source for popular culture not just VGs. And the reviewer seems to be doing music reviews more than anything else so I think it should be fine IMO.

More to come.. Ippantekina (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done except where stated otherwise. I look forward to the rest of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see inconsistent tense usage in the "Music and lyrics" section ("Apolloni wrote that Gaga's vocal affectations verge on the melodramatic" // "authors Lori Burns, Alyssa Woods and Marc Lafrance wrote that in "Speechless", she adopted a 1970s rock ballad style reminiscent of artists like Mercury, John Lennon and Elton John"). I strongly suggest consistency for this
Done (past tense for words like said, wrote etc. and present tense for the song itself).
  • Also I think you can remove "according to Apolloni" for the later sentences as the opening sentence of that bit ("Musicologist Alexandra Apolloni wrote that...") already establishes attribution
  • The "Music and lyrics" section reads pretty.. staccato? I'm not seeing a coherent theme but rather disparate opinions being lined up like a list.
  • Ditto inconsistent tenses in the "Critical reception" section at some places
  • You included the journalists' names for the initial reviews but not for the retrospective rankings (Billboard's Lipshutz, Guardian's Craggs...). Any particular reasons for this?
Given how so many are listed, I thought it would be a bit of an overkill to mention both the author and the publication. And one of them doesn't have an author so it would look a bit awkward IMO.
  • "debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 chart at ninety-four" number ninety-four?
  • "debuted on the Billboard Canadian Hot 100 at sixty-seven on the same issue" ditto number; also what was the "same issue"?
  • "On the UK Singles Chart, "Speechless" reached number 88" inconsistent WP:MOSNUM
  • "It has sold 60,000 digital downloads and acquired 3.38 million streams" as of?
  • ""Speechless" was performed for the first time" I prefer the active over the passive
  • "collaborating with Canadian performance artist, Terence Koh" remove the comma, ditto false title
  • The "King Princess cover" section is dramatically short... I think we can merge it with the "Live performances" section and rename it "Live performances and cover" or similar

The most jarring issue is the staccato prose of the "Music and lyrics" section. I know your capabilities so I look forward to the revised prose. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Let me know if the Music and lyrics section reads better now. The first section is about the song's musical elements (genre and Gaga's vocals) and the second is more about the lyrical and contextual elements of the song. FrB.TG (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reads much better now, which admittedly doesn't surprise much because I know your capabilities lol. Support on prose, brilliant work as always. On another note, I'd appreciate it if you could provide some comments to my current FAC. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2024 (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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 January 2024 [11].

OneShot edit

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 23:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about OneShot, a popular indie game released in 2016 known for its fourth-wall-breaking narrative. This article was first written and expanded by Mir Novov, and I later did many edits to make it reach the current GA status and opened peer reviews. I believe the article now meets the FA criteria. Skyshiftertalk 23:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Support from NegativeMP1 edit

Okay, I find it kinda funny how two video game FACs went up on the same day, in the same hour, both about indie games. I'll take a look at this article soon. NegativeMP1 23:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Looks fine.
Gameplay
  • What exactly do these dreams contain, or do for the gameplay?
  • Added.
Plot
  • Looks fine.
Development and release
  • Don't think specifying 2022 is necessary when you already said "the next year".
  • Removed.
Reception
  • Looks fine.
Article overall is solid. Since the two issues I pointed out aren't that major, gonna go ahead and give this my support. NegativeMP1 19:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 19:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "in other ways, which includes" => "in other ways, which include"
  • "In there, they encounter" => "There, they encounter"
  • "Niko's goal is to carry the sun through its three areas" => "Niko's goal is to carry the sun through the world's three areas"
  • " Nafria stated that it is generic" => " Nafria stated that it was generic" (to be consistent with the previous sentence) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Skyshiftertalk 12:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Skyshifter, as per the instructions at WP:FAC, please avoid using graphic templates like {{done}} as they are known to cause issues with the loading time of FAC page. FrB.TG (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry. Skyshiftertalk 14:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69 edit

We meet again, Skyshifter! I've been looking for a good FAC to review, and this seems like an excellent choice, especially since I still feel like I didn't completely hold up my end of the quid pro quo bargain. I'll be back with a review shortly. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay! I always forget just how much the holidays throw my schedule off. Anyways, have a review. Citations numbers from this revision.

  • I think the details of which websites distrubute the game is a bit too much for the second sentence in the lead. I would cut it down to just "... it was released for Windows on December 8, 2016.".
    • Done
  • Unlink "player"
    • Done
  • In the lead and § Gameplay: the player is a separate character → the player is separate
    • Done
  • Related to the above, I'd probably mention somewhere that this is unusual for video games of this kind, as a layperson is not guaranteed to know that.
    • Will try to find a source for it.
  • Unlink "lightbulb"
    • Done
  • the user account they have signed in with → the name provided in their user account
    • Done
  • § Plot is currently at 797 words, and I feel it can easily be brought below the 700-word mark recommended by WP:VG/PLOT. In fact, I don't feel the game's plot is of sufficient complexity to require the maximum length, and should probably be even shorter — especially the pre-Solstice section.
    • I've reduced its size quite a bit in a previous PR, so I'm unsure how I would reduce it even more (Glen is at a sentence and a half...) I also see some people who count sub-sections as another separate Plot section instead of summing both for the 700 words length, but I don't know if this is correct or not. Either way, specific comments on what to remove would be appreciated.
    As a general note, I feel like the section is too focused on maintaining the strict chronological order of how the player discovers information. This might be important in some contexts, but take something like "... emerging in a barren wasteland" and then "They are currently in the Barrens." a sentence later. I understand that we only find out the name of the place after talking to the robot, but maintaining that narrative flow is not helpful to someone reading an encyclopedia, so I would merge these. Also, rather than cutting whole parts out, I feel like there are several individual sentences that could be tightened up instead. Semi-arbitrarily picking an example again, "three phosphoric items ... the final one." could easily be "three phosphoric items: the amber, the feather, and a third one gifted by George." (11 words shorter). Hopefully that gives you some ideas; let me know if you'd like any additional feedback. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69: Done Skyshiftertalk 20:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In § Plot: Niko, a catlike child → Niko; it's already mentioned in § Gameplay
    • Done
  • which addresses ... their computer., as above
    • I think this, or something similar, is necessary because "player" could still be interpreted as Niko here.
  • Remove quotation marks from terms like "Solstice" and "Glen" throughout the article
    • Done
  • Nightmargin (Casey Gu) → Casey Gu (under the pseudonym Nightmargin), since the rest of the article subsquently refers to them as "Gu"
    • I'm changing Gu to Nightmargin throughout the article instead, since she is better known by that name.
  • I would get rid of citation 15 since citation 16 already verifies the statement.
    • Done
  • The gender of Niko → Niko's gender
    • Done
  • Optionally, I would add a statement like "This article uses singular they for consistency." to justify the placement of the footnote in the prose.
    • Done
  • Italicize and correct capitalization for all instances of the game's title in the references
    • Done
  • In citation 1: OneShot on Steam → OneShot
    • Done
  • In citations 1, (15), 21, 22, 25, 26, 32, and 33: use |publisher= so the website isn't italicized
    • Done
  • In citation 2: [INTERVIEW] OneShot → [Interview] OneShot
    • Done
  • In citation 7: Edition - A → Edition {{endash}} A or whatever alternative you prefer per MOS:DASH
    • Done
  • Similarly as above in citation 16
    • Done

More comments to come. Feel free to reply in line, and let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More comments are here. Use the same revision for citation numbers.

  • The comment about Psycho Mantis feels too detailed for the lead, I'd remove it and just mention the fourth-wall-breaking narrative.
    • Done
  • In § Gameplay: With these concepts, OneShot was officially described as a game where "the world knows [the player exists]"; this quote doesn't add very much to the description of the gameplay and feels almost promotional in this context.
    • Done; also removed from the lead
  • I'd prefer a couple of words explaining what RPGMakerWeb is.
    • Rephrased.
  • "finalized product ... original version" is too closely paraphrased. I would rephrase the first sentence and just turn the second one back into a direct quote.
    • Paraphrased
  • "The game's atmosphere was inspired by the RGB color model" This statement is so vague it means nearly nothing. I'd prefer removal but wouldn't mind if it was paraphrased carefully, though I have no idea how you'd do that.
    • This makes sense, actually. The game is separated into three areas: Refuge (which is mainly red-toned), Glen (which is mainly green-toned), and Barrens (which is mainly blue-toned). Unfortunately, this isn't explicitly stated by the source, but that's what it means with RGB color model inspiration. Maybe I could do something like "The game's areas were inspired by the RGB color model"?
    Ah, that makes more sense. I suppose I wouldn't know since I never actually played past the Barrens myself. Anyways, I found this source that briefly mentions that the areas go in "reverse RGB order"; maybe that's enough to clarify the statement for a general audience. Also, do you know if the color palette gets brought up at all in that "interview" video? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know if I'm allowed to comment under others reviews or not, but I want to point out that Gaming Trend is marked as an unreliable source at WP:VG/RS. λ NegativeMP1 17:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're definitely allowed, and I appreciate the note! I guess I should have looked at the perennial sources lists first... —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm changing to "game's world", should be slighly better. Skyshiftertalk 20:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • along with Metal Gear Solid
    • Previous sentence (and source) only talked about Psycho Mantis specifically, while in this other interview they mentioned the entire game.
  • "they wanted to do a unique take on the story ..." This phrasing almost makes me think Undertale and OneShot are two interpretations of the same story. Rephrase as you see fit.
    • Done
  • OneShot's fifth anniversary
    • It's a relevant date, in my opinion, to show that they had a reason to announce it at that specific date.
  • review aggregator Metacritic → review aggregator site Metacritic (MOS:SEAOFBLUE)
    • Done
  • In § Reception: remove the duplicate link "operating system"
    • Done
  • No other comments for this section; good work here!
    • Thank you! Reception sections are always a hurdle for me, so it's good to hear this!
  • In citation 19: add |via=[[YouTube]]
    • Done; also added channel name as publisher
  • In citation 24: link IGN
    • Done

Also, I'm refraining from giving any more detailed feedback on § Plot until it's been whittled down per my previous comments; could you ping me once you're all done with that? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: I'm honestly not sure how to reduce the plot even more, as I said above. If you have any suggestions feel free to post them. Skyshiftertalk 16:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last round of comments. I'm not going to conduct a full source review for this candidate — I'd prefer to leave that to a more experienced FAC contributor — but I'm taking a closer look at some of these websites and have concerns about whether they're "high-quality reliable sources", as required by criterion 1c. Here are the ones that are sticking out the most to me:

  • Heavy: I'm not seeing that this publication has an editorial process, and the writer appears to be a student.
    • This is an interview, and I'm exclusively using the developer's words.
  • KOMODO (livestream): This is not a formal interview, and is basically just unedited footage of the developers answering random questions from viewers in the chat.
    • It's still what the developers said, correctly attributed to them. This should count as a self-published source.
  • Tumblr and Tumblr: Yes, the blogs are run by the developers, but what's the rationale for accepting self-published sources in this case?
    • It's important to confirm that Niko's gender is ambiguous, and the developers are the only ones who do it; secondary sources use either "he" or "she" randomly for Niko.
  • rpgmaker.net: Another blog, and it's not clear whether this post was written by the developers or a community member. I'm pretty sure both of the statements this source verifies are covered in other sources, so I would get rid of it in a hurry.
    • This is written by the developers; I went through other games in the website and found descriptions like this one.

Great work on the prose, by the way — § Plot is looking a lot better! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 12:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, it seems most of the questions about the sources I had fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF umbrella, so I have no further concerns that can't be addressed during a source review. Really nice work on this candidate, Skyshifter; I'm happy to support! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 17:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from NatwonTSG edit

I'm not sure is this should be removed or not because I never work on a featured article before so, some of the links here such as "items" and "lightbulb" should not be link because according on WP:OL, it say that everyday words should not be linked like items for examples so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Item" is linked to Item (game terminology), which is an important link IMO.
Removed lightbulb. Skyshiftertalk 20:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay and thank you for that @Skyshifter. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Night Watch edit

Saving a spot, probably will get some in within the next week or so. The Night Watch (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are still forthcoming, should be able to get them in today. The Night Watch (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a standard notification, but as a first time FAC nominator you need to go through a spot-check on the sources before this article can be promoted. I will make a few checks sometime after I've finished my other points.
  • Steam is not a high-quality reliable source and should be replaced as the source for the Linux release if possible. Even the developer's own website would be alright as a source for this release, but Steam just will not do.
  • I couldn't find a replacement. This is an official post by the developers, though; would it really be necessary to change?
  • Yes, it should be changed. Steam is a storefront and not a reliable source. At this point a primary source from social media or an official website would be a better alternative.
  • WRT Steam, I think it's a reliable source for what is on Steam, and they are kinda prominent so if we are supposed to include such content at all they'd be a suitable source for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I digress, but if that is truly the only source that contains such information, you can cite it. The Night Watch (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game received positive reviews from critics, who praised aspects including the story, art, and gameplay" is confusingly worded and doesn't provide a significant amount of information on how the game was received. Perhaps something more like "The game received positive reviews from critics, who praised the story, art, and metafictional aspects of gameplay" and then add an interesting factoid about how the game was received. For example, in The Longing, critics compared the game to life under COVID-19 quarantine.
  • Tried something.
  • The Development seems to be heavily based upon primary sources which are not used sparingly, as per the source analysis by TechnoSquirrel above. Since the sources are of dubious reliability and are mostly primary/self-published, I would say the development section is currently not up to the sourcing standards for FA.
  • I've removed the "Oneshot Livestream" source. I'd like to keep most of these if possible. OneShot's development was almost exclusively discussed in primary sources or interviews. If I were to remove them, the "Development" section would extensively lose information, something that I want to avoid. (necessary reminder that I'm new to FAC so if I'm completely wrong here just tell me, but I thought WP:ABOUTSELF would apply here)
  • ABOUTSELF would be fine if the cited content is overall used sparingly, but since there are several primary sources not of high-quality making up the bulk of this section, some information would have to be cut to meet the sourcing requirement. The potential problem would be that the ensuing development section would not be comprehensive enough for the criteria, but at the moment I would suggest culling some information and see what is left over afterwards.
  • I've removed "Heavy" and removed one of the usages for RPGMaker. Now the section is mostly formed by interviews published in reliable sources per WP:VG/S.
  • The Reception section has many scare quotes that could easily be paraphrased and currently take away the quality of the prose. Doing so would greatly improve the writing quality and make it more engaging to read.
  • Made some changes.
  • There is some word choices that should be changed, such as using "awakens" rather than "awakes". I will go over a deeper check later, but that was one wording issue that showed up at first glance.
The Night Watch (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on spot-checks starting this Wednesday. The Night Watch (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checking sources, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28 The Night Watch (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1: Article is paywalled, but was able to find a way to access it. Confirmed
  • 2: Developing film part confirmed, Psycho Mantis also confirmed, but the IndieCade information is not confirmed. The article says that the author was at IndieCade, but the post does not say that OneShot was featured at IndieCade.
  • Added another source confirming the IndieCade appearance, which also led me to add information about the game's nomination at the event. Skyshiftertalk 19:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: All confirmed
  • 5: All confirmed
  • 6: All confirmed
  • 8: I see that the game changes the wallpaper, but it doesn’t say that this leads to any clues. Am I missing something? Everything else confirmed
  • 9: All confirmed
  • 12: All confirmed
  • 18: All confirmed
  • 20: All confirmed
  • 21: The source does not say fifth anniversary; otherwise confirmed
  • Would it be fine to keep? I think it's relevant to mention that the announcement was done in a relevant date in the context of the game. Skyshiftertalk 19:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skyshifter: I had the same issue with the "fifth anniversary" comment when I did my review, and I'm just realizing that you decided not to follow my suggestion. Maybe this is getting a bit too far in the weeds, but just inserting that comment might be bordering on original research since it's not called out in the source. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Skyshiftertalk 21:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22: All confirmed
  • 26: All confirmed
  • 28: All confirmed
I will do one last brush-up after this. The Night Watch (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support The Night Watch (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review edit

I kinda wonder if all of these nonfree images are necessary, I see the rationales but currently it's a bit of an edge case. There isn't consistent ALT text. Source-wise, reviewing this version and spot-check upon request. Going to list out some of the sources:

Source formatting is mostly consistent except as noted above. Some of the article seems to be sourced to the videogame itself, nothing overly interpretative that I see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Few quick notes: I intend to perform the spot-check after the sourcing is cleaned up. TouchArcade, Gematsu and Nintendo Life are considered generally reliable per the WP:VG/S. Not sure if Brett Makedonski is considered a reliable author, haven't looked into their history. RPGMaker appears to be a blog and would not consider it high quality. The Night Watch (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for TouchArcade, Gematsu and Nintendo Life. Brett Makedonski was an official writer for Destructoid, so it's not WP:USERG. RPGMaker is a primary source; it was written by the developers. I've removed one of its uses to make the usage as minimal as possible. Skyshiftertalk 00:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the non-free use images:

  • The image presented in the infobox is the main logo/identification for the subject of the article.
  • The image in the Plot section presents the game's main gameplay atmosphere (top-down perspective, etc.) This is comparable to many video game articles which have an image illustrating the Gameplay section. Most of the game is played in that perspective and presents similar elements.
  • The GIF currently in Gameplay is a necessary image because of the game's unusual fourth-wall-breaking nature, which I'm not sure can be explained with text only. Having to drag the actual window of the game around your screen to solve a puzzle is something unusual that in my view require a non-free illustration.

Skyshiftertalk 00:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Jo-Jo, as this is a first-time nomination, I would be grateful if you could do a plagarism check and a source to text accuracy check. Thanks. If and when you are happy with the standard source and image reviews that is. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Bleh! Ignore that, sorry. Let me know when and if you are content with the image and source reviews. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, seems OK then. Although the images are somewhat on the edge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2024 (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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 January 2024 [13].

Yugoslav torpedo boat T4 edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about another of the dinky little steam torpedo boats that ended up with the Yugoslavs after seeing extensive service with the Austro-Hungarians in WWI. The Yugoslavs got eight of these, and so far five are featured, and I'm working on the other three. This one didn't make it to WWII, as she ran aground in 1932 and broke in half. The stern was towed to a major naval base 240 kms south, resulting in a standing joke among Yugoslav sailors that she was the "world's longest torpedo boat". This one passed Milhist ACR back in 2020, but has been substantially expanded in the last few months thanks to newly published sources. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm edit

I'll review this - please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Thursday. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a possible link for ventilation cowl? This isn't the most familiar term
No it isn't well known. I forgot to remove this, as I think it is detail that better belongs in the class article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until October 1915, the boat was painted black, but from that point it was painted a light blue-grey." - do we know if this was for camoflague purposes?
Yes, they thought black was effective at night, but discovered it made the ships stand out more. I'll find a source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find one specifically for Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats (my recollection that it also applied to destroyers). Pinging Parsecboy, might you have or know of a source for this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look through what I have and couldn't find anything relevant - but I know Sturmvogel 66 has some other stuff on Austro-Hungarian destroyers and torpedo craft that I don't, so he might be able to help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just repinging Sturmvogel 66 in case he has a source for this, otherwise I think it'll just have to go as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her captain realised the situation and instead he moored in the Castelnuovo anchorage and put his crew ashore" - is this an indication that he was doing this for fear that the mutiny would spread to his vessel, or that he did not want his ship to serve a function similar to those of the loyal ships from Bocche which later arrived?
The source isn't specific, but I imagine he thought that returning to the Bocche would just add fuel to the fire. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May and June 1929, six of the eight 250t-class torpedo boats accompanied the light cruiser Dalmacija, the submarine tender Hvar and the submarines Hrabri and Nebojša, on a cruise to Malta" - do we know if this ship was one of them?
Well, we didn't, but I found the account of the cruise published by the Adriatic Guard (the Yugoslav naval association) and it says T3-T8. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a brief gloss of the nature of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was is needed. My assumption is that this is some sort of short-lived rump state to the old empire, but this could perhaps be made clearer.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No major concerns here; excellent work as always. Hog Farm Talk 03:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hog Farm, is your statement above intended to be a support? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am supporting this article's candidacy. Hog Farm Talk 21:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias edit

Essentially there are two issues here, what the "best known name" is, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships that changed name or nationality, and the low value in splitting it. Yes, it was busy in Austro-Hungarian service in WWI, of course, which is why it has so much on that period and a lot less on its Yugoslav service which was in peacetime. However, it spent only one quarter of its service life in Austro-Hungarian service and was lost in Yugoslav hands. The significant coverage in reliable sources (which reflects which the "best known name" is), is in my experience split roughly equally between its Austro-Hungarian service and its Yugoslav service. Add to that fact that it was lost in Yugoslav service and therefore the Yugoslav flag was its final flag, and I think the Yugoslav just outweighs the Austro-Hungarian. It is also relevant that at all of the Yugoslav boats of this class are at the Yugoslav name, and six of them had wartime service with the Yugoslav names (under the Yugoslavs, Italians and one with the Germans), so some element of consistency is also important I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "79 T and the rest of the 250t class.." – The MOS asks us to avoid starting a sentence with a number as a figure; can this be rephrased? (And again later with "79 T laid mines off the town..")
Good point, reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four mounting points were installed so that the machine gun could be mounted in the most effective position.." – To avoid repetition, could "be mounted in" be changed to "be fitted in"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the 250t-class boats came into service, they joined the 1st Torpedo Flotilla, was initially led by.." – It feels like this is missing the word "which" before "was" (or maybe remove "was")?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..hitting Novara and damaging 80 T and wounding three of her crew." – I think the second "and" would be better replaced with a comma?
Better, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, not sure how I missed that... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like you've got the wrong ISBN for Freivogel 2022, I think it should be 978-953-366-063-9.
Well spotted, typo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a really nice article, with just some minor fixes to be done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, do you think you can address these soon? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done thanks Harrias. Happy New Year! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this looks good to me – the naming issue isn't relevant to the FA anyway, but I'm content that the ambiguity means that at the very least this is a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

At six weeks in and just the one support, the nomination is liable to be archived in the next week or so unless there's significant progress towards a consensus to promote. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Christmas break? It has two supports now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review edit

Pretty sure that File:Marins appartenant à la défense de l'ile - Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine - AP62T103401.jpg pre-dates the CC licence and needs a different one. ALT text should probably be capitalized. Not all images have ALT text and I think they describe the image, instead of replacing its purpose in the article. 978-953-366-063-9 is apparently a broken ISBN, but otherwise the sources seem OK. Source formatting seems consistent too. Spot-check upon request and keep in mind this ain't a topic where I am familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a typo. Fixed. I will swap out this image shortly. AFAIK, alt text doesn't have to be in CAPS? The ISBN is correct, copied from the book itself. Will ping once I've replaced the image. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Jo-Jo Eumerus, I have swapped that image out, as while I expect it was published at the time and would be PD-ItalyGov, I can't prove it. The replacement image is a propaganda poster isued by the government at the time, what do you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, is the licence here in question? Re: ALT text, I prefer correct grammar and spelling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. I can't see an image licence there, am I missing something? There is a copyright symbol and photo credit claim by the French government, but how a photograph taken by the Italian Army can be copyrighted or even claimed for credit by the French government is beyond me. Can you also be clearer about which alt text you are referring to? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Taranto map ALT text isn't capitalized. I don't read that licence as the French government claiming rights on an Italian image, rather as the French government hosting the image without anything to say on its licence, us attributing that licence, and the image data insinuating a licence even though it doesn't apply - it's not uncommon for software to attribute a copyright status that doesn't exist. Is this a propaganda image or so that we could expect to be published soon after it was created? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. You mean the initial letter? If so, fixed. I see a copyright symbol, which I assume means they are claiming copyright on it. Yes, any piece of propaganda of this type would have been published by public display as soon as it could be after production, in order to gain value from it in a timely manner after the event. The caption on the poster actually includes the "approved by the censor" authorisation from the government in the bottom right margin, ie APPROVATA DALLA CENSURA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, they (or perhaps the software) claims copyright but as stated by the licence they can't. So File:Marins appartenant à la défense de l'ile - Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine - AP62T103401.jpg should be OK to use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well Jo-Jo Eumerus, I agree in principle, IF a publication before 1976 could be argued from some evidence. The PD-ItalyGov licence, which is on it at the moment, isn't really right to be fair, as I would need to at least be able to persuasively argue there was publication prior to 1976, which I can't. Given the nature of the image, it could have been published, but I haven't been able to find anywhere it was published prior to being published online by the French (obviously after 1976). And without a known author whose date of death is known, none of the pma licences can be used either. So, I don't think it is useable, and we'll have to go with the propaganda poster. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, even in copyright cases we are not generally that strict. The reason why I asked about whether it is a propaganda photo is because such a photo is liable to be published soon after creation, while e.g a family photo may be unpublished for decades. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say that in 80+ FAC nominations I've never had anyone say we aren't "that strict" about image licensing. My experience is that anything even slightly dubious licence-wise gets the heave-ho via FAC image reviews. The replacement image is actually a poster rather than a photo, and given it is propaganda, almost certainly published immediately after production. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz edit

Hello PM, not much from me...

Description and construction

  • The torpedo tubes were mounted in pairs, with one pair mounted between the forecastle and bridge - second "mounted" not needed?
Yep, trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World War I

  • Not long after being commissioned, 79 T joined the rest of the 1st Torpedo Flotilla in an attempt to engage part of the French fleet operating in the southern Adriatic on 17 October 1914. - date placement is ambiguous? Maybe moved to after "joined the rest of the 1st Torpedo Flotilla" if that's what is meant?
Yes, moved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Led by Helgoland, the whole 1st Flotilla steamed to the Ionian Sea - this is the only place not using "1st Torpedo Flotilla ", is that intentional?
No, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one targeting Rimini on 18 June - move Rimini link up to here
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • raided the Otranto Barrage - move this link up a sentence?
Done, with the explanation attached. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the original (now duplicate) link was left behind unintentionally? JennyOz (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • often employed in the mine sweeping role and - one word minesweeping per elsewhere
changed to one word. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the naval historian Zvonimir Freivogel, sources - ZF is already introduced above in Description section
Of course, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Szent István capsized less than three hours after being torpedoed,[43] and 79 rescued several members of Szent István's crew - her crew rather than repeat Szent István?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pelogosa v Pelagosa - is different spelling intentional ie both are Palagruža?
Yes, typos. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post World War I

I wasn't sure, but given you picked it up, I've linked it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

  • The island of Pelogosa was garrisoned by Italian sailors in 1915 - is a sentence, add full stop?
Yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Strait of Otranto was blockaded by the Allied navies from 1915 until the end of the war to stop the Austro-Hungarian Navy from leaving the Adriatic Sea - ditto
Ditto. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. HNY! JennyOz (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, JennyOz! Thanks for taking a look, and HNY to you too! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PM. I've added a comment above re Otranto Barrage links for you to pls check but am very happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
  • Putting down a marker on this one. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just one very minor comment here, about the IB. You have "Fate stranded then scrapped"; maybe use a capital S on Stranded? (it would bring it into line with the capitalised "Assigned" for the other Fate). That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2024 (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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 January 2024 [14].

1982–83 Gillingham F.C. season edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings, O denizens of FAC. Here is my holiday gift to you - yet another bloomin' Gillingham F.C. season article. I hope you enjoy it. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! Ho ho ho!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

  • Suggest merging the 2nd paragraph of the background section into the 3rd, since it seems to be two sentences only.
  • the reporter for the Sunday Mercury contended that -- maybe this can be a separate sentence.
  • Three days later they beat Orient -- comma after Three days later
  • Two days later they began a run -- same as above
  • Brilliant work on your Gillingham series, as always. Not much to quibble and very well-written as we would expect. Hope you're enjoying the holidays! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review - all done! And yes, the out of office went on yesterday lunchtime and all is good. Hope all is well with you too! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

I'll review this later this week. Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The number formatting for the 16 October '82 attendance at Cardiff City is different than the others
  • "Bruce and Adams were both voted into the Professional Footballers' Association Team of the Year for the Third Division by his fellow professionals" - by their fellow professionals?
  • Recommend consistency with linking publishers in the sources and with linking or not linking the publishing locations
  • Recommend including publishing locations for all sources if feasible
  • I see no obvious concerns with source reliability (although I did not conduct a source review)
  • No red flags for images

I'm going to go ahead and support; none of the minor issues I noticed would keep me from supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for those who are wondering, I did cross-reference the results table to the article body for consistency, and also recalculated the goals for and against; noted no issues. Hog Farm Talk 03:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - thanks for your review - all addressed! Re: the works cited, all publishers are linked which have articles, and all locations are linked bar London, which I believe doesn't need to be linked per whichever guideline it is that says not to link extremely well-known places -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Nice to see some big names early in their careers. Very little for me to complain about here:

  • ”one victory in the first 14 games” -> fourteen games, per WP:NUMBERS
  • ”Six wins in the final 11 games” -> eleven games
Third Div
  • ”A week later, Ken Price...” This is a bit of a run-on sentence that could be split after “remaining”: either full stop or semi-colon would work well.

That’s my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: - thanks for your review, all done!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review edit

Reviewing this version: Is there a source for the kits in the infobox (not for the images, but that these are the actual kits). Otherwise, image licence and use seem fine for me. I think the ALT text needs some work; I don't think you mean to describe the appearance of the players in this context. Source spot-check upon request. Who published the "Gillingham Vs Oxford United Matchday Programme"? https://www.newspapers.com/article/western-daily-press/136096230/ and https://www.newspapers.com/article/reading-evening-post/137167991/ are given without a date. Is https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-guardian/136845998/ really untitled? Sometimes sfn references are given with p despite there being multiple pagenumbers, and sometimes with pp despite only one page number. I guess these local newspapers are just about adequate sources for this type of topic. Nothing among the books jumps out as unreliable, but note that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with source reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus::
  1. The kits are sourced in paragraph 2 of the "background" section.
  2. I am not really an expert on alt text, how should I improve it?
  3. The match-day programme was published by the club
  4. https://www.newspapers.com/article/western-daily-press/136096230/ has a date, not sure what the issue is there
  5. So does https://www.newspapers.com/article/reading-evening-post/137167991/
  6. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-guardian/136845998/ is an "insert" below an article about an unrelated match and has no specific title of its own
  7. Fixed the p/pp issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of thumb I use for ALT text is "ALT text should substitute the function the image has in the article". So unless the looks/appearance of a player is important, it doesn't need to be in the ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - altered the only one where this seemed to be an issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I didn't notice that the dates were already there for 4 and 5, mea culpa. With the caveat of no source spot-check, this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harper J. Cole edit

Hi there, a few thoughts.

  • Six wins in the final eleven games of the season, however, meant that Gillingham finished the campaign in 13th place. Maybe mention how many teams were in the division here, to give context to their finishing position.
  • The highest attendance recorded at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium, was 14,446 for the League Cup game against Tottenham. A bit ambiguous—this could be read as meaning it was either the highest attendance in 82–83, or the highest attendance in the history of the stadium.
  • It's not something needed for FA status, but I see that current football season articles, e.g. 2023–24 Gillingham F.C. season, have a different style of listing results. The colour coding makes it quite easy to see how the results went at a glance. Is that something you might look to change in the future? Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is something like the 30th Gillingham season article I have brought to FAC and personally I would prefer to keep it consistent with all the previous ones. It's also worth noting that all those collapsible boxes on the 23/24 article are not compliant with accessibility requirements...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harper J. Cole: - many thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - support. Harper J. Cole (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment edit


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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 18 January 2024 [15].

George Griffith edit

Nominator(s): TompaDompa (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Griffith inhabits a fascinating position in the history of science fiction. He got a couple of years' head start on H. G. Wells, and was briefly the leading sci-fi author in Britain. Since then, however, he has descended into obscurity so completely that the article was nominated for deletion back in May. I spent some time tracking down sources in order to bring the article to WP:Good article status, which it reached in August. Since then, it has been at WP:Peer review for a few months. The peer review attracted less feedback than I had hoped, but I was at any rate encouraged to move on here to FAC. TompaDompa (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have left messages at the user talk pages of the participants of WP:Articles for deletion/George Griffith, alerting them to this FAC and (neutrally) requesting their input here. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto the editor who reviewed the article at WP:GAN. TompaDompa (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:George_Griffith.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
    • I suppose we'll have to ask Artem.G who uploaded the image. I'll note that the only credited illustrator at the source is Harold H. Piffard who died in 1939, and who is explicitly given as the illustrator of two illustrations inside the book (but not explicitly this one). TompaDompa (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we consider the author to be unknown, this is of course a case of {{PD-UK-unknown}} as it was published in the UK in 1901. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sir_Arthur_Pearson.jpg: as this is hosted on Commons, it needs a tag for status in country of origin. Ditto File:Southern_Africa_1890s_Political.jpg
    • Done. TompaDompa (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the UK tag on the latter, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • As the description says, the book in which it was published does not state the author of the map. One may suspect that it was James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce (1838–1922) who was the author of the book and wrote "I have to thank Sir Donald Currie and Messrs. A.S. and G.G. Brown for the permission kindly given me to use the maps in the excellent "Guide to South Africa" (published by the Castle Mail Packets Company) in the preparation of the three maps contained in this volume", but it is not clear whether he created the finished map(s) himself or had someone else do it for him. If you think that quote is sufficient evidence to conclude Bryce is the author of the map(s), we can replace the UK tag with Template:PD-old-100 (I think that would be the right one?). TompaDompa (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:H.G._Wells_by_Beresford_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unclear. The National Portrait Gallery, London only states that the photograph is from 1920 and that they purchased it in 1939. An educated guess would be "in the UK, no later than 1939". TompaDompa (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any evidence it was published before the NPG acquisition? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not that I have been able to find (not that it's particularly easy to find information about its publication history). One would of course expect a professional photographer like George Charles Beresford (1864–1938) to have published a portrait like this during his lifetime, but I haven't been able to track it down. TompaDompa (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, what do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On File:George_Griffith.jpg, if we consider the author to be unknown, the tagging will need to be changed, and the proposed tag requires the addition of evidence to the description page. For File:H.G._Wells_by_Beresford_(cropped).jpg, if no publication can be demonstrated the tagging will also need to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I changed the tagging and added evidence for File:George_Griffith.jpg. For File:H.G._Wells_by_Beresford_(cropped).jpg, I gather that the issue is whether it is in the public domain in the US (if I understand UK copyright law correctly, it's in the public domain there as more than 70 years have passed since the death of Beresford)? I'm not entirely sure quite how to resolve that, to be honest. It's also not crucial to have an image of Wells here, so I commented it out for now. It would of course be good to get this resolved as File:H.G. Wells by Beresford.jpg (from which this was cropped) is used rather heavily on various projects, but this is outside of my area of expertise. TompaDompa (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, anything else? TompaDompa (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Support. I had my say at the peer review and have just read through and found nothing to add. You might consider adding a mention of Griffith to this, but that's not an issue for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I have done so. TompaDompa (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article and I fully support it being promoted to featured article. As a side note, I can think of no other article on Wikipedia that in less than a year went from an AfD to being considered for FA status. Very well done!--SouthernNights (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support As the one who AfD'd this back in May, I had never heard of Griffith and I thought I knew my Victorian authors! I join the rest of you in commending TompaDompa (though I do wish he'd start a proper account already) and supporting this article's promotion. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spot-check upon request. I don't think this article uses pagenumbers consistently - some SFE citations include page numbers in rp templates and others don't. Some inconsistencies in usage of OCLC and ISSN, and The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction lacks many identifiers. Is Don D'Ammassa's book the same as this encyclopedia of science fiction? What makes victoriansecrets a good publisher? What sets the works under Further reading apart from the sources used in the article? I see that the citations include many prominent authors and publishers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of the SFE (The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction) citations have page numbers, as it's the online edition. That's also why there is no ISBN or similar for those citations. Don D'Ammassa's 2005 Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is a different book. I removed all OCLC uses for consistency, as well as the single instance of an ISSN where there was also an ISBN. Victorian Secrets is a publishing house specializing in Victorian-era authors, and here used for a biographical detail on one of them. The difference between the "Further reading" sources and the ones cited in the article is really just whether I've cited them inline or not, which to some extent depends on the order in which I happened to come across them. TompaDompa (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie edit

  • I'll try to have a read through sometime this week. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owing to the family's financial situation" Do we know from prior content what the family's financial situation was? I feel like this holds the implication that the reader knows what their situation was, but it hasn't been state
  • "Following the death of his father in January 1872, he studied at a private school in Southport." might be helpful to add the level/age he entered school at here
  • "He left Worthing to study at a university in Germany, returning a year later to teach at Brighton." It's not clear when he left, so "a year later" is not super helpful. Also, Where did he teach in Brighton?
    • The sources don't specify beyond "Brighton". "A year later" is intended to clarify the duration of time he was in Germany rather than the point in time (which the sources also do not provide). TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "writing for local papers among others" among others... papers? Were there any national publications then of note?
    • Some of the sources mention writing for an American newspaper and Stableford says that he "apparently did some writing for the freemasons". TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He quickly rose through the ranks to become the magazine's editor, and eventually took over as owner." Do you have the name of the paper?
  • " opting instead to represent himself" Represent himself or the paper? Who was the subject of the suit?
    • Good catch. Moskowitz says that he "defended himself in court" while Ellis says that "soon the paper was inundated with libel suits"; Harris-Fain says "As editor, he was charged with libel". Unless one of the sources is mistaken, my best guess is "both" (Griffith being legally responsible for the paper, presumably). TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he likely never received payment for it." Because the company failed? I'm not quite clear on this
  • "intended as a prestige competitor to" What does "prestige competitor" mean here?
    • It was intended as a high-quality/upmarket magazine that would compete with The Strand Magazine. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wells also supplanted Griffith as the best-selling science fiction writer, and the one most acclaimed by the public." It's a bit strange to me that you haven't mentioned that Griffith was the best-selling science fiction author and (presumably) the most publicly acclaimed one, until he lost the role.
    • Fair enough. It is of course mentioned in the "Place in science fiction history" section (as well as the lead), but I added a brief mention in the appropriate chronological place in the body as well. TompaDompa (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a portions of material from the paragraph beginning "At this time, Pearson was expanding his business" isn't directly about Griffith and could be cut without losing anything (primarily the last sentence)
    • I see your point and was myself rather surprised at how much the sources (Moskowitz in particular) went into details not strictly about Griffith, but I also understand why—it really is impossible to tell the story about Griffith's career without telling the story about Pearson's publications in the 1890s, and that requires at least some amount of background information for context. Similarly, Wells being such a ubiquitous point of comparison makes providing a bit of additional context rather enlightening in my opinion (and apparently also the sources'); for instance, I think it aids the reader's understanding of Griffith's career to note that Pearson could not afford to monopolize Wells's writing talent as he had Griffith's (otherwise the reader might very well be left wondering why Wells seems to exit the story at this point rather than displacing Griffith from Pearson's roster entirely). There is a fair amount of additional detail of this kind in the sources that I have deemed a tad too tangential to include in this article, so this already represents tightening up the scope somewhat compared to the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, if the sources place similar emphasis then I'm fine with that. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • are all the red-linked short stories notable?
    • I'm not certain that all of them are, but most of them probably are. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That year, he appeared in the British Who's Who," Is this the first year he was?
  • "As he had done many times before, Griffith travelled abroad, this time to Australia," When?
    • Presumably in late 1899 (or possibly very early 1900), but the sources don't say explicitly. Moskowitz states more generally that "The number of trips he made and when he made them is not clear." TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Griffith's health was failing" Suggest "by YEAR" or something
    • There's already a paragraph that starts "In 1896", one that starts "By the late 1890s", and one that starts "By 1899", so this would feel a bit too repetitive to me. The timeframe should be clear from the preceding paragraph ending in 1904 and the following sentence also mentioning 1904. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With his finances likewise deteriorating as a result of decreasing book sales after 1904" What were his finances like before this? Seems like he would be able to handle a slightly less successful career riding off of what he had previously experienced
  • We know his books were not published in America, but what about other countries?
    • I have unfortunately not found any information on this. The sources tend to focus on the UK and US to the exclusion of the rest of the world. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Melchiori similarly says about Griffith's views on internationalism that "In theory he accepts it, but in practice he is very strongly pro-British"" How was this demonstrated 'in theory'?
    • Melchiori writes about the passage included in the quote box that "Why this very mixed group of international terrorists, led by a Hungarian Jew, should have worked towards this end Griffith does not explain. He simply does not seem to see any inconsistency." and suggests that "he shared with his readers a number of basic assumptions regarding [...] the dominant position of Britain". As quoted at The Angel of the Revolution#Reception, Melchiori comments that "Griffith, whose plot purports to turn the world upside down, leaves a great many things in what he considered, after all, to be their right places." My reading of this is that Melchiori finds Griffith to profess to be in favour of internationalism but not act in a manner consistent therewith. One might perhaps call it lip service. TompaDompa (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Griffith's failure to establish himself in the US has also been proposed as a contributing factor" If it's just the one source, suggest attributing"
    • Says Ellis: "Why has this major talent in science fiction writing not survived? According to Moskowitz [...] Another reason has been put forward that Griffith was anti-American [...]". So it seems inappropriate to attribute this to Ellis when Ellis says that others have made this point before. TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd generally expect a short description of who the people being credited with opinions are, rather than "Brian Stableford comments that this was a forerunner" with no explanation. Is there a thought process behind not including it?
    • I typically provide a gloss when writing articles like this, but only when I can come up with a comparatively brief one that gives the reader useful context. Thus, Sam Moskowitz is described as "Griffith's biographer" when contrasting his view against that of a Wells scholar and E. F. Bleiler is noted as writing "in the 1990 reference work Science-Fiction: The Early Years", but I settled for merely linking e.g. Darko Suvin, and since John McNabb does not at present have a Wikipedia article and I don't think it would be possible to explain why his viewpoint is relevant (for the record, in his own words he "stud[ies] the history of Palaeolithic archaeology through the lens of Victorian and Edwardian science fiction – the so called scientific romances") without going into way too much detail for an inline gloss I decided the reference itself would suffice. The reader should be able to assume that the attributed opinions are relevant or else they would presumably not be included in the first place, after all. Simply describing everyone as an "academic" (or similar) doesn't strike me as particularly helpful to the reader. TompaDompa (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel a bit like there's a problem with long sentences (39 semicolons and 30 dashes, for instance, is too much imo), and some could be broken up for readability. Readability is not everything, and should not be placed ahead of accuracy. But I think some of it can be improved in this article.
    • To some extent those numbers can be explained simply by choosing certain types of punctuation rather than others (I try to keep parentheses to a minimum when they are used so heavily for years, and use dashes instead), and the semicolon count is slightly inflated by the reference list, but there are indeed a fair number of rather lengthy sentences. I have split some of them into shorter sentences—see what you think. TompaDompa (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, loooks better. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Moskowitz notes that malaria (which Griffith contracted in Hong Kong, and which Peter Berresford Ellis writes at least contributed to Griffith's deteriorating condition) can have a similar clinical presentation, but nevertheless concludes—primarily from Griffith's self-description as "a waterlogged derelict"—that his early death was most likely the result of alcoholism." Is still a bit of a mouthful. Any way to break up? Eddie891 Talk Work 14:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you decide what stories/books to mention in the article versus just in the bibliography?
    • I try to reflect the extent to which the sources go into detail about the works versus just name-checking or listing them. TompaDompa (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass. These are all just thoughts, not must-haves. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Responded to all comments above. TompaDompa (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A well thought-out article. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

  • Putting down a marker for now. Will be back shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall
  • "serialized"? I see the article is tagged as BrEng, but you have "serialize", "capitalize", "fictionalized", "monopolize", "weaponized", "summarizes", "prioritization", "recognized" and "characterizes". If you want to spell in Oxford English (no problem with that, obviously), then it would be worth changing the "Use British English" tag to "Use Oxford spelling" or you'll get well-meaning people trying to change it.
    Where British and Oxford English agree, it is that there is no room for "bestseller" or "bestselling", which are best left to the North Americans: "best-seller" and "best-selling" are better suited to this article.
IB
  • I'd be tempted to strip out the Language field (we don't show nationality when it can be inferred from the other details and this feels the same). Your call, however, and I don't push the point.
  • "Period 1893–1906" This one I will push the point and you should either remove, add a citation or change so it's in line with the body.
    • I think it is in line with the body? His first novel was published in 1893 and he died in 1906. TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      His first book was published in 1883. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, but that was a poetry collection. I think it would be one of those "technically accurate but rather misleading" kind of things, much like putting the end year as 1911 when his last posthumous work was published. Oh well, I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably best you removed it. The body currently says "He started his writing career while at Brighton", which was in the 1880s, so it's something that would have been discussed on the talk page more than once if left in there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "hired by C. Arthur Pearson": as you don't say what he was hired to do, maybe "hired by the publisher C. Arthur Pearson"
  • "anticipating the outbreak of the real Boer War": do we need "real"?
    • I suppose it is not strictly speaking necessary, but I think the sentence reads better with it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It really doesn't. When I read it, I automatically thought "'real' as opposed to...?" "the real Boer War" suggests there's a fake one, or a musical version - "anticipating the outbreak of the Boer War" tells readers exactly what it is and reads far better because it doesn't trip us up. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a fake Boer War, or more accurately a fictional one—that's what Griffith's book is about. I tweaked the phrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • But the text doesn't say that's what's in the book - and "actual Boer War" is as troubling as "fake". As a reader who doesn't know anything about this bloke or his work, this still comes across as lumpy. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would say that stating that the novel anticipated the real war in itself tells the reader that the novel is about a fictional version of it, but I removed it anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "moved repeatedly during his childhood due to his father's career": which one – military or ecclesiastical?
    • The latter. He was already a clergyman when Griffith was born. TompaDompa (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may also be the case that he was never a colonel at all—I suspect that Stableford is mistaken here. I removed the part about having been a colonel and added an invisible comment about it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "homeschooled": "educated at home" or "studied at home" would probably be better, but if you insist on keeping the word, "home-schooled" in Britain. Ditto for "homeschooling"
  • "his father had had less than £300 to his name": I did a double take on this as it reads as if his father is still alive. "his father died with less than £300" would be better
    • I think "had had" does the trick, but I rephrased it anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sam Moskowitz says": who?
    • Glossed as "science fiction historian", but see my comment on the topic above. In short: I could gloss everyone as "academic", but I don't think it would be an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I, as a reader, have to know why I should trust his judgement. A name means nothing, neither does "academic" (if he were a professor of divinity, for example, his opinion would mean little), but now I know he is a science fiction historian, then that's someone I can take seriously. It's a short-cut to allowing your readers trust what's being explained to them, that's all. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the start of Teaching career: more to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this is becoming too much of a struggle to have some simple bits addressed that need to be addressed, and we haven't even reached the bit where he started his writing career in his early 20s. I'm not going to have the energy to continue arguing on each point, so I'm going to withdraw from this now.
I doubt it will make any difference to the passage of the article through FAC, but I am going to have to put in an oppose on this as it stands. It's not something I enjoy doing and I never do it lightly, but I have concerns about the language used in this article. A quick skim through the text shows numerous uses of Americanese (which isn't appropriate for this rather British writer), colloquial slang, loose writing and some unexplained events/developments that jar. As well as the non-actioned comments above, the following popped out – and this is on a very quick skim through, without doing a thorough review:
  • home-schooling is hyphenated and best-selling and best-seller are hyphenated, according to The New Oxford Dictionary of English
    • I'm looking at the Oxford Dictionary of English included on my digital device, and it does not have the hyphens. Odd. Added the hyphens, at any rate. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the definite article is needed in multiple places to avoid false titles
  • "studied nights": Americanism
  • Brighton... He then took a job teaching at Bolton Grammar School" Bolton is a city at the other end of the country from Brighton, and the move from one to the other is fudged over too much
    • The sources provide no details about this. They say that he worked at one place and then the other. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Bolton": Either "At Bolton Grammar School" of "In Bolton", but not "At Bolton"
  • "promptly quit": quit is too slangy
  • "working as a journalist at a paper there": "there" is poor
  • "rose through the ranks": no, he was promoted – he wasn't in the services and didn't rise through any ranks
  • "took over as owner": glossed over too much – did he buy out the previous owner?
    • The source unfortunately does not go into details about this, only stating that "Eventually the owner turned it over to him". TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Griffith was highly politically active, advocating for socialism and secularism": is secularism a political cause?
  • "hiring an attorney": Americanism. In the UK you engage a solicitor or lawyer

That's all in the part down to Early career on a very quick read. Sorry, but I don't think that this strikes the right tone or uses the right language, although I'm sure this will go through with the supports you already have here. – SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, but thanks for your feedback anyway. I don't speak (or write) either British or American English and may unwittingly use phrases that come off as more American, but I don't mind making the text more British (although I frankly find the requirement to apply a particular variety a bit silly—the point of MOS:ENGVAR as I see it is to avoid edit wars from one variety to another). I've addressed your comments above. I understand what you mean about unexplained events and developments—this is largely a consequence of being limited to details provided by the sources and as such is to some extent unavoidable. TompaDompa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2024 (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 promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 January 2024 [16].

American Bank Note Company Printing Plant edit

Nominator(s): RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, this is a companion piece to my previous FA, Fleetwood Park Racetrack. We've moved (1.5 miles (2.4 km)) away and it's 10 years later, but it's a different world. Fleetwood Park was the end of the Bronx as a rural area on the outskirts of the city, where the rich and powerful had their estates and playgrounds. Now we're into the rise of the Bronx as a densely populated area and a center of industry. Both sites are adjacent to railways, but instead of bringing in crowds of people seeking entertainment, it's bringing in industrial supplies and shipping out finished products. While the racetrack fell victim to the economic pressure to build houses driving it out of existence, here we see the printing plant and the surrounding residential development having a symbiotic relationship, with the newly built housing providing a place to live for the workers in the plant and the plant providing additional incentive for developers to build new houses. Another contrast is that while physical evidence of the race track is all gone today, the printing plant, while no longer used for its original purpose, remains as a highly visible reminder of the history behind it. RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did say I would comment at the PR. I did not. I am saying I will comment here. And I will. I promise. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also said on the PR that I would leave "comments later", which I never did. I'll probably have some commentary up soon, but there were a few things that I didn't quite get around to pointing out on the PR. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, the PR referred to above is at Wikipedia:Peer review/American Bank Note Company Printing Plant/archive2 RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: This has four supports and has passed the image and source reviews. Is there anything else that needs to happen? RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I did notice something about the article's structure. More specifically, the article is laid out roughly chronologically, with bits and pieces of architectural detail, operational detail, etc. interspersed throughout. It might be too much of a hassle to separate these into "History", "Operations", "Architecture", etc. sections, though—especially considering that the current section structure isn't actually bad—so I'll leave that be.

General:

  • I notice a few places where periods are placed after references (" the New York Stock Exchange.[15].", "Haiti, and Cuba.[23].", etc. I would check the article for unnecessary punctuation like that.
    • Oh my. I just got a new OS which has been automatically inserting periods when it thinks you're at the end of a sentence! Ugh. I found six and fixed them. And figured out how to disable this "feature". If you see any more, let me know.

Lead:

  • Para 1: Like I said in the PR, there's a little inconsistency over whether these are referred to as wings or separate buildings. If you are treating these as separate buildings, I would say "Lafayette building", "Garrison building", "Barretto building"; otherwise, I'd refer to these as "three interconnected wings". A similar issue applies to the rest of the article.
    • I had added an explanatory note (note 2) which talks about this. I've tried to use whichever usage made the most sense at that point, i.e. mostly followed the usage of the source I was citing. I think it would be bordering on WP:OR for me to pick one or the other and use that exclusively. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
      • Oh, okay. In that case I'd reuse that explanatory note in the lead too. Epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "1909 – 1911" - This should be an unspaced endash unless you also have a month or a day
  • Para 2: "70 Broad Steet" - Spelling error. Also, I'd link this to American Bank Note Company Building.
  • Para 2: "sawtooth roof" - I would link to saw-tooth roof.
  • Para 2: "a design philosophy of specifying the production lines first, followed by the building which could enclose them." - Currently, this is tacked very awkwardly at the end of the sentence. In other words, this basically reads "The design incorporated [...] a design philosophy of specifying the production lines first, followed by the building which could enclose them. Perhaps you can split this out to another sentence, e.g. "The plant's layout was based on a design philosophy of specifying the production lines first, followed by the building which could enclose them."
  • You don't mention the dates of any of the subsequent Bank Note additions in the lead. Nor do you mention the 1977 bombing, which has a top-level header, though perhaps you may want to merge it with another section. Come to think of it, the "Previous land use" and "Land acquisition and construction" sections do not get any mention in the lead, either.
  • Para 4: This paragraph is quite short; it summarizes all the renovations, subsequent sales, and the landmark designation in one sentence. This fails to convey much about that section (for example, who is the current owner or what was it renovated into) I would recommend expanding it to at least two sentences (you give "Operations" four full sentences in the previous paragraph).
  • Para 4: "The plant was used by American Bank Note until 1986" - This is not cited in the article itself, which says American Bank Note moved out "By 1984 or 1985 (sources differ)".
Heh, it turns out, in a single report, the LPC says 1984 and 1986 in different places. Upon re-reading it, I pretty sure the 1986 one is wrong. I've reworded this to equivocate a bit.

OK, I think I've dealt with all of the above RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry for forgetting about this.
Previous land use:
  • Para 2: "Central Realty, Bond & Trust Co" - I'd spell this out as "Central Realty, Bond & Trust Company"
  • Para 2: "In 1910, the size of the Barretto Street block was increased as a result of a land swap between American Bank Note and the City, moving Barretto Street slightly north of its original location." - I would say "the city government" instead of just "the City". (Not really an issue, but the source seems to say that the company gained land to the northeast but had to give up some land to make way for Barretto Street.)
Land acquisition and construction:
  • Para 1: "in a building which would later become the United States Customs House and eventually National City Bank." - So 55 Wall Street, then. (The 55 Wall article actually mentions American Bank Note already. I'm not going to say "ironically" because I actually improved that article, but yeah, it would be good to just link to 55 Wall somewhere.) Also, it's the United States Custom (no plural) House.
    • New comment: "known at the time as 48 Wall Street and later renumbered as 55 Wall Street" - This doesn't seem right to me. It's more likely that American Bank Note was at 48 Wall (which is across the street from 55 Wall and is now the site of this building), then moved to 55 Wall. It is the latter building that became the U.S. Custom House and then National City Bank. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: " In parallel with this effort, the company was also looking for a separate location into which they could move their production facilities" - I think "also" and "in parallel" are redundant to each other, so you can just drop "also".
  • Para 2: "it was felt" - by whom?
  • I'm going to leave this one alone; the sentence already has a subject (the company), so it's clear who was doing the feeling.
  • I completely missed that. The passive tense nonetheless seems a bit awkward, though; how about "they felt"? Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "One factor in the site selection was proximity to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad" - The text "New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad" links to the company itself, so you could probably reword this as "One factor in the site selection was proximity to a New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad line" or "proximity to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad's Hell Gate Line".
  • Para 3: "in the next two or three years" - From 1908, or from when the plant was completed?
  • Para 4: "The firm was already at work preparing preliminary plans" - I'd remove "at work" since the sentence retains its meaning without it.
  • Para 5: "In what turned out to be an understatement," - (1) This needs a source from after 1909. (2) This could perhaps be reworded more encyclopedically, e.g. "The Times said that the design represented by the model might still "be subjected to some minor changes", although this was an understatement." Or, you could remove this altogether, as it looks like the sixth paragraph describes the extent of the changes.
  • Para 6: "The design change is also believed" - By the LPC?
I still need to think about the best way to handle the "understatement" bit, but I've addressed all the other items. RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I'll look at other parts of the article tomorrow or Monday. I mentioned the address numbers 48 and 55 Wall Street above, but I'm unsure about the address renumbering, as this is not something that ever came up in any of the sources about 55 Wall Street that I consulted. The source does say "All three companies were in lower Manhattan - American in the Custom House at 48 Wall Street (which is 55 Wall Street under the revised numbering system)". If I can find a source saying that odd- and even-numbered addresses on the street were indeed swapped, then this is a non-issue. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back to what was essentially my original wording. This is interesting from the point of view of a history of the company, but only peripheral to the Bronx printing plant, so no reason to live on the edge of WP:V. FWIW, there's an illustration on page 41 of that source which says it was the Merchants' Exchange building and looks like the photo at 55 Wall Street in the original 4-story configuration, but it's just not essential for this article. RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. The source does explicitly call out the building as being 55 Wall Street/the Merchants' Exchange Building (they're the same thing, and the 55 Wall article already says as much, with sources). But even if that weren't the case, what I meant was something like this—namely, I was just asking if you can link the 55 Wall article without needing to explain it in prose. In other words, this was more a minor nitpick than anything else. Epicgenius (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://tribecacitizen.com/2017/10/10/nosy-neighbor-why-are-tribecas-street-numbers-messed-up/ RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Henry B. Hoffmann. "Changed House Numbers and Lost Street Names in New York of the Early Nineteenth Century and Later" (PDF). anthonywrobins.com. Retrieved 23 December 2023., page 71. RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response. I promise to get to this over the weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Initial configuration:
  • Para 1: "In 1913, Harry Cook described the plant as "mammoth" " - Might benefit from some context on who Harry Cook is (e.g. "In 1913, guidebook writer Harry Cook...")
I think this got shuffled around a bit since your first read. The place you quote is now the second mention of Harry Cook. He's introduced the first time he's mentioned, under "Land acquisition and construction"
  • Para 1: "Architecture & Building Magazine had referred to its "arsenal-like appearance with a pervading sense of strength and security."" - The period should be outside the quotation mark since the quoted text isn't a full sentence, per MOS:QUOTEPUNCT.
  • By the way, it is strange that the Architecture & Building article doesn't seem to be digitized, because that would have been a good source to use directly.
  • Para 2: "The electrical requirements were exceptional for the day" - Any idea how much electricity the plant required, though? Like thousands of megawatts?
1.21 jigawatts?
  • Para 3: "This runs the full length of the Lafayette Avenue frontage," - The offices and workrooms run the full length?
  • Para 3: "Lafayette avenue" should be capitalized as a proper name.
  • Para 3: "Although the building used modern incandescent and arc lighting" - There should be a comma after this.
  • Para 3: "The steel framework allowed three times the window area as would have been possible in an all-brick structure" - You mean a structure with brick bearing walls, presumably.
Probably. The source says "traditional brick structure". The way I have it and the way you suggest seem like equally reasonable interpretations of that.
  • Para 4: "The lower floors of this building included a vault for storing over 130,000 printing plates" - A single two-story vault, or separate vaults on each story?
Subsequent additions:
  • Para 1: "In 1925, a fourth story, only two bays deep, was added to the top of the Lafayette building, using materials that closely matched the style of the original" - At this point I'm nitpicking, but do the sources say why this fourth story was built? I ask because reasons are given for all the other additions mentioned in this paragraph (e.g. the garage was expanded for ink production, the Barretto Street wing was for a laundry and pulp mill, etc.)
The source does not say.
  • Para 2: "built a number of other buildings" - I'd just say "built several other buildings" (or, to be less repetitive, "developed other buildings").
Operations:
  • Para 1: "In 1919, the plant employed 2,000 workers" - Are there any other data on how many workers were employed at the plant (e.g. are there sources about employment in either the 1920s, '30s, '40s, or '50s)?
Not that I've been able to find.
  • Para 1: "railroads, steamship lines and others" - And other transport lines?
The source just says "railroads, steamship lines, and other clients"
  • Para 2: "The company employed, according to Meyer Berger," - I would briefly introduce Berger, i.e. "The company employed, according to journalist Meyer Berger".
  • Para 2: "The house style favored" - The house style of the engravings?
  • Para 3: "to whom it offered an advanced employee welfare program" - What did this program entail, for example?
The source does not say
  • Para 5: "from 1908–1914" - I think this should be either "from 1908 to 1914", "in 1908–1914", or even "for six years starting in 1908" (the 1914 end date is already mentioned at the end of the paragraph).
Bombing:
  • Was anyone killed or injured in the bombing? (I assume not, because the FALN bombings largely resulted only in property damage, but it doesn't hurt to check)
  • Para 2: "This was the fifty-first attack attributed to the group in the previous three years." - The previous paragraph says the FBI office was bombed the same day. The source says there were 51 total bombings attributed to the FALN; the FBI attack happened five minutes after the American Bank Note attack, so technically the American Bank Note attack was not strictly the 51st FALN bombing.
More in a bit. This is a long article but I should be done really soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've take care of all those. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Bank Note:
  • In general, I was wondering whether this should really be divided into two or three subsections, since this section is pretty long and has one comparatively short subheader for landmark status.
It's unclear what a logical division would be. This was previously in two sections, one which talked about owners and another which talked about tenants. That proved to be problematical (see Eddie's review) so I ended up merging this into a single section which takes a chronological approach.
I personally would have divided this into "1980s and 1990s" and "2000s to present" sections, though I can see why this may not work, especially if occupants like the John V. Lindsay Wildcat Academy Charter School were present in the building during both eras. Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "The center occupied 146,000 square feet (13,600 m2) (about 1/3 of the site), housing several tenant companies in the clothing and fabric industry." - Do you know if this still exists, or if not, what happened to this? I would also use Template:Frac for "1/3".
I'm reasonably sure it no longer exists, but can't find any sources that say so explicitly. Tenants moving in tend to be covered well. Moving out, not so much (unless there's some controversy about it). I made it "one third" to match the style I used elsewhere, i.e. "one half", etc
  • Para 2: "The space was renovated" - Was this in 1997 or later?
2005, added.
  • Para 3: "The Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance had their first home in the complex in 1998[41]" - the comma should go before the ref, per WP:REFPUNCT.
Fixed.
  • Para 3: "In 2013, the Academy left the building after fifteen years of tenancy" - I think "after fifteen years of tenancy" is unnecessary as it's already mentioned that the academy moved into the building in 1998. Also, since Taconic bought the building in 2008, would it be better to mention that first before mentioning that the academy's lease wasn't renewed?
I tried to keep everything about a given tenant or owner in a single paragraph, in response to a comment from Eddie. That means the paragraphs overlap in time sequence. I think this makes logical sense, even if it means the events aren't all in strictly chronological sequence.
Sounds good to me. I trust Eddie's reasoning on this; although personally I would have arranged the info more or less chronologically, grouping the info by owner/tenant makes sense. Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 5: The New York Times should be italicized.
  • Para 5: "At the time, comparable rents" - You mean "rents for comparable space"?
Well, yes, that's what it means, but "comparable rents" is the phrase used in the source and I believe is the standard phrase used in the industry (if not just "comparables"). But chasing this down led me to the 1985 rent being $3.50, so I added that.
  • Para 6: "Sunshine ceased operations in 2017" - It might be better to use a secondary source for this claim, if one exists. In addition, the website says that Sunshine was founded in 2001 and closed "after 15 adventurous years", which indicates that it must've ceased operation in 2016.
  • Para 7: "combining four existing offices" - Personally I'd say "combining existing offices at four locations"; otherwise it sounds like you're combining four existing adjacent offices.
Landmark status:
  • Para 2: "The Real Deal describes the building as "one of the most architecturally distinctive office properties in the Bronx" - Was this description made when the building became a NYC landmark?
No; I've moved that sentence elsewhere.
Transportation:
  • Para 1: "When the plant was originally built" - I think you can remove "originally" here.
That's it from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done with all those. RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I understand that there are a few details that can't be added due to a lack of sourcing (which is something that's out of our control). Overall, though, the article is really good. Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support edit

I'll take a look. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "American Bank Note" and "American Banknote" are used interchangably. I'm moderately familiar with the name from collecting postage stamps, and I belive I've always seen it as American Bank Note in that context
    • Fixed
  • "Until the late 19th century, the land where the plant stands was part of the Village of West Farms in Westchester County" - not sure how we can get this from the source. We know the plant was in the Bronx, but this source indicates that the Bronx was a mix of West Farms, Morrisiana, and Kingsbridge
    • The cited source says "Morrisania was created out of a division of West Farms in 1855" and Kingsbridge is nowhere near this area, but in any case, I swapped a different source which speaks more directly to this.
  • "except eighteen lots on Mania Street" - per both the source cited for the quote and one of the later NYT sources, this should be Manida Street
    • Fixed
  • "Switchboards were in the basement." - rather nit-picky, but the source mentions only a single switchboard
    • Fixed
  • "and most of the lampposts have been removed" - source says "none of the original lamposts remain"
    • The footnote says "One historic, non-original globe light fixture remains on the right gate post of the main pedestrian entrance, but is not functional; non-functioning remnants of other light fixtures are present atop the remaining original posts of the brick wall; a historic globe lamppost remains atop a brick pier within the parking lot, but is not functional." I changed the citation to directly reference the footnote.

Ready for the subsequent additions section; will resume tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "According to a Landmarks Preservation Commission report, this was done in 1910, but this date is questionable since that predates the main plant's completion, and the garage does not appear on a 1911 map. " - slight SYNTH/OR here, as all that's cited in the LPC report that provides the 1910 date
    • I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here. RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems a bit problematic to me to say "RS A says this but it must be wrong because of X Y & Z" without directly citing anything but RS A, but then again you are indirectly citing the other sources in the statement. I'll leave this for other reviewers to comment on - Eddie891? Hog Farm Talk 02:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Were this me, I would say "According to a Landmarks Preservation Commission report, this was done in 1910.[CITATION] However, the main plant was not completed until after this date, and the garage does not appear on a 1911 map.[CITATION]" Then, you're allowing the reader to infer the "is questionable" part and providing the relevant citations for them to check it all out, without going out of your way to say it. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I found another source saying 1910, so I'll go with that as correct. On the other hand, it's another LPC document so they may just be regurgitating their own pablum :-) RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Building News: New York". The American Architect. New York. 101: 14. May 22, 1912. ISSN 2836-6638 – via Google Books." - URL for this is giving me a 403 forbidden error?
    • No clue why, but I'm getting the same. I've added the archive URL and marked the primary URL as dead. IABot generated the archive but I have no clue why it didn't insert the archive URL into the citation. RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2023 the ABCorp web site lists custom-printed playing cards as a currently available product.[29]" - this does not seem relevant to this article in particular; in fact I would recommend paring down the entire playing cards paragraph to a couple of sentences stating that American Bank Note produced playing cards as well, but they were not as high of quality as the rest of the company's offerings
  • "When Taconic Investments purchased the site, the Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance was forced out due to rising rents. " - recommend rephrasing. This makes it sound like this happened quickly, but later in the article we are told this occurred 5 years after Taconic bought the place
  • ""BankNote Building Tears Down Mural as Artists Leave and City Moves In". DNAinfo New York. Archived from the original on November 13, 2017. Retrieved February 3, 2018." - source is missing the date published

That's it for my first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 23:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than being unclear on what to do about the LPC report item, fixed all of the above. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie edit

  • Is American Bank Note not the same company as the one we're talking about here? Is there a reason it isn't linked?
Wow, don't know how I mised that. Fixed.
  • "described the plant as "mammoth" and noted" It feels a bit out of place to include your first description of the plant here (ie before it is built chronologically), I would either move the mention down or remove it
Moved
  • ", and was reported in the next day's New York Times" I would remove this, unless it's particularly relevant that it was reported in the NYT (what about other publications?)
  • "It was expected" expected by who? -- this whole paragraph as a whole has a lot of unattributed passive voice, which I'm wary of, at best. Maybe attribute?
I reworked the paragraph to place the expectation on the NYTimes. The source article doesn't attribute the expectation to anybody in particular, so I'm treating it as if it were the NYT's editorial opinion.
  • "with the facility being" maybe "and the factory was" if that doesn't change the meaning incorrectly?
Made it "plant"
  • "Sources differ on whether the main portion of the site is a single building with three wings (Lafayette, Garrison, and Barretto), or three distinct but interconnected buildings. In this article, the terms wing and building are used interchangeably." for this note, I'd include some of the sources that conflict
That would require listing a lot of sources. I changed it to "variously refer to", which I hope conveys a more accurate feeling than "differ"
I didn't mean as much the phrasing, but add a couple citations to back this up. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final design was apparently influenced" I'd try to tweak the word choice here since "apparently influenced" is the same as the source and that's pretty distinctive word choice
  • "The Lafayette wing is a tall" Tall is not very descriptive -- can you use any other word?
I think it's fine the way it is; later in the paragraph I talk about the number of floors, so if there's any confusion, it doesn't last long.
  • I'm not clear from the article when the initial construction went from to-- do you know?
I'm not following. It's mentioned in several places that it was completed in 1911.
I was wondering if you knew more specifically when it was completed, or had any idea when construction actually began. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "what were said to be the world's most skilled engravers" Were said by who?
Added a attribution.
  • "One official counterfeiter was Will Ford's father, William F. Ford" Feels a bit out of place-- why does he get mentioned here?
This paragraph is about the anti-counterfitting efforts, and Will Ford is mentioned in the preceeding paragraph. It seems logical to me.
  • "Although the company's financial documents were of the finest quality" Feels unnecessary to say here, maybe "Although the company's financial documents were of the finest quality their playing cards were not, lacking" -> "Their playing cards lacked"
I kind of like the way it reads now, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
  • "It is now one of the cornerstones of a Hunts Point revitalization" Feels like this sentence doesn't actually say very much-- was there a project to revitalize hunts point that placed the plant as a central aspect? Do the sources establish this? Because I didn't see it in my reading of them. I'm especially reluctant to say "now" and cite it to sources that are 9 or more years old
Dropped that sentence.
  • "In 2002, Lady Pink organized a group of female graffiti artists to paint a brick wall on the Barretto Street side of the property." was this to make some sort of statement?
Added "anti-war", which is all I could find, and another citation.
  • "Rice-Gonzalez also said that Taconic initially demanded a six-month penalty" what does "a six-month penalty" mean here?
  • Why do you describe the moving out of the Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance in two different places? In my mind it would make more sense to combine the two
Originally, the first part was about the controversy around the new owners forcing out existing low-rent tennants and the second part was about the organization. I've coalesced those into a single location.
  • "The building design emphasizes security by deliberately limiting access to a single entrance, despite having over of street frontage." is there still only one entrance?
There's an entrance on Lafayette Ave, and another by the loading dock on the Tiffany St side. I've made some edits to clarify this, and to avoid calling either one the "main entrance".

That's a first pass. Interesting article. Not wedded to any of these points. I made some smaller changes, feel free to revert any. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've addressed all of the above. Awaiting the next salvo. RoySmith (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "describing a design which was abandoned before the end of that year" Was the design entirely abandoned, or just heavily modified? If it was abandoned, do we know where the new design came from?
I guess abandoned vs heavily modified is a subjective thing. I've broken out a separate "Design evolution" sub-section and shuffled things around a bit to (hopefully) make this more clear, with the first paragraph talking exclusively about the original design, and the second paragraph introducing the second design and why it came to be. I hope that works.
I think that helps things
  • "in 1928 to provide space for ink production" so did it cease to be a garage?
Hmm. The source(s) call it a garage, but I suspect that's meant in the more general sense of "a small building out back" and was probably never used to store vehicles. In much the same way that my garage at home is filled with bicycles, lawn mowers, and other random crap and has never had a car parked in it :-)
  • "On March 20, 1977, the complex was damaged by a bomb planted by the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group which had chosen to attack the plant because of its role in "capitalistic exploitation"" I would maybe attribute this quote (ex "in what they deemed "capitalistic exploitation"")
  • "This caused a number of controversies with community organizations" were there any (others) worth noting? You only describe one
The other was the eviction of the Bronx Academy of Arts and Dance. I had originally covered part of that here and part in a later section; these got combined at the urging of another reviewer. I'm open to suggestions as to how this could be presented better.
Hm. On second thought, was the anti-war graffiti also a protest over/caused by rising prices/values? Eddie891 Talk Work 19:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a tie-in, but I can't find any sources which say that. RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so we've really only got one of a "number of controversies". What do the sources say on the matter? Eddie891 Talk Work 22:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that what I've got now is sub-optimal. I'll spend some time thinking about the best way to fix up this section and doing some more research; give me a few days on that. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no rush. Besides this there's just the two points above (look for my signature in the first round) of comments. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 OK, I've reshuffled the way the Post-Bank Note section is organized. Instead of one part talking about the changing building ownerships and another part talking about the tenants, I've merged those two into a single chronological presentation covering both aspects. Along the way, I got rid of the "number of controversies" statement and just talked about the individual controversies in-line. It's kind of a long section, but I think it works and I don't see any good way to break it up into smaller sections.
What were the other two points that are still pending? RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest standardizing between 'Sunshine Business Incubator' and 'Sunshine Bronx Business Incubator'
  • Done
  • " Sources variously refer to the main portion of the site is a single building with three wings (Lafayette, Garrison, and Barretto), or three distinct but interconnected buildings. In this article, the terms wing and building are used interchangeably." Is it possible to add citations to the end of this note?
  • Perhaps somebody with better template-fu than I posses can figure out how to get one footnote to include a reference to another, but I have been unable to make that work. I have, however, added an example of the LPC using "building" and "wing" in the same sentence, which I think should assure our readers that it's a thing. RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 Talk Work 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was emblematic of the "New Bronx"." maybe add a bit about what Díaz meant by that?

Thanks for your work to date. Probably everything for me. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done with all this. RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for your work on this. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Review of this version to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All sources appear reliable. Spot check upon request.
  • In some refs, publication names are WL-ed (e.g., ref 6 and ref 31 WLs to NYT, but ref 34 does not). It should be all or nothing for consistency.
  • In general, I think website names should be the name displayed in the browser tab on the home page of the website rather than xyz.com.
    • Which ones in particular? As far as I can tell, that's what I've got. The urls that show up in the refs are the url= field because that's how the citation templates present it. Did I miss any?
      • I'm referring to the website= parameter. For example, in ref 8, it appears as "nyc.gov". Per the examples given in the citation template documentation, I would suggest that it should be "Official Website of the City of New York", which is to the left of the logo on top of every page. Or, the website parameter might not even be necessary in that case, since you name the agency as the author. Similarly, in ref 1, the website parameter is not "6tocelebrate.org".
        • OK, fixed those. Ref 1 is a {{cite report}}, not a {{cite web}}, so not sure what you're looking at on that one.
          • RoySmith: I got caught up in the weeds of the template parameters. I think ref 8 should be cite report instead of cite web.
  • Per ELNO #1, everything in the external links except for the official website should be incorporated as cites or moved to the talk page using {{refideas}}.
  • Ref 2 should use {{Cite map}}, instead of citing to the website, using the title on the map itself and the publisher/date information provided by the NYPL. I think the NYPL stuff and collection information can be included using the via parameter.
  • Since ref 6 is paywalled even in the archive version, I don't think the archive url is necessary.
    • Unfortunately, I don't have any control over this; I could take it out, but the next time IABot runs, it'll get reinserted automatically.
    @Voorts do you remember which ref this was? I looked at ref 6 in Special:Permalink/1193596913 and that's not it. RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: It is ref 6. The archived version has this underneath the page image: "Full text is unavailable for this digitized archive article. Subscribers may view the full text of this article in its original form through TimesMachine." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. IA seems to handle other NYTimes articles OK. I'm not actually sure how they do this, since it means they need to get past the paywall, but they do. I added the {{cbignore}}. Which annoyingly breaks Visual Editor's ability to edit that ref. Oh well. Bigger battles to fight than to worry about this. RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 does not link to EbscoHost through TWL, but it's listed as being via TWL. I would either change the link or change the via parameter.
  • Ref 10 the word "story" should be capitalized.
  • Ref 18 is fine, but I just wanted to note that I love that Cement Age: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Uses of Cement exists.
  • Ref 23 is a duplicate of ref 20.
  • Ref 25 does not support the proposition stated in text, and should also be cited using {{Cite AV media}} if you're going to use it as a cite for something else.
    • Wow, not sure what happend there, but the mis-ref goes back years. That sentence wasn't essential so I dropped it. I'll put it back if I can ever find the correct reference for it.
  • Refs 38, 41, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55 titles should be changed to title case per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
  • Ref 44 article title should just be "Culinary & Hydroponics".

RoySmith: Source review completed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: I still need to figure out how to deal with the Ebsco URL, but other than that all of these are resolved. RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got that sorted. RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The archive url still is for Ebsco directly instead of the TWL proxy. Also, I replied above to your question. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is another case of IABot generating a bogus archive URL. I'll do some research to see if I can figure out how to make IABot do the right thing, but in the meantime, I don't have a good answer.
@Voorts: With David Eppstein's help, I was able to beat IABot into submission. See WT:Citing sources#How to cite an archived EBSCO source? if you're interested in the details. I believe that was the last item on your list. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more notes:

  • In ref 37, do you think it is worth WL-ing "Bronx Borough President" to Borough president?
    • Not really.
  • In refs with "New York City Economic Development Corporation" and "Landmarks Preservation Commission", WL to that article for consistency with other refs. Same for MTA in ref 55.
  • Upon further review of ref 54, I suggest: {{Cite web |date=January 15, 2008 |title=Testimony of the Municipal Art Society Before the Landmarks Preservation Commission |url=https://www.mas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Testimony-American-Bank-Note-Co-Printing-Plant-Historic-Preservation-2008.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161009214235/http://www.mas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Testimony-American-Bank-Note-Co-Printing-Plant-Historic-Preservation-2008.pdf |archive-date=October 9, 2016 |access-date=February 1, 2018}} My reasoning is that the author of the statement is not actually Benika Morokuma because it is the "Testimony of the Municipal Art Society" and the statement is written in the second person, with the speaker noting that they are speaking "on behalf of the Municipal Art Society". Since the organization's name is already in the title of the document, it would be redundant to list it as the author as well.
    • I left the first alone, did the others.

We're almost to the finish line here (this version):

  • Still need to WL Landmarks Preservation Commission throughout the refs.
  • Ref 16: Since the book is self-published, I don't think you need to indicate that the author is also the publisher.
    • If I leave it out, I get "CS1 maint: location missing publisher"
  • Ref 21: I suggest {{Cite web |last1=Bady |first1=David |last2=Butler Munch |first2=Janet |last3=Ultan |first3=Lloyd |title=American Bank Note Company |url=http://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/buildings/American_Bank_Note.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220502224947/https://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/buildings/American_Bank_Note.html |archive-date=May 2, 2022 |access-date=February 2, 2018 |publisher=Lehman College Art Gallery |work=Bronx Architecture}}. This webpage is part of this broader work: https://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/index.html and the authors of the architectural descriptions are listed here: https://www.lehman.edu/vpadvance/artgallery/arch/credits/index.html
  • Ref 24: WL Oxford University Press.
  • Ref 25: WL Fordham University Press.
  • Ref 30: WL Committee on Government Reform and U. S. Government Printing Office.
  • Ref 36: URL is dead and the title of the webpage needs to be converted to title case ("the", "and", etc. are all capitalized).
    • Are you sure that's the right ref number? The 36 is Geiger, Daniel (September 15, 2014). "Architecturally Notable Bronx Building Sold for $114M". Crain's New York Business. ISSN 8756-789X. Archived from the original on April 1, 2017. Retrieved December 31, 2016. which is live.
      • Ref 38, sorry.
        • Fixed.
  • Note 1 needs references.
    • I'm going to push back on this one. There's many sources that use "wing" and many that use "building". Listing them would be silly and add no value to the article.
  • Note 2 should be converted into a bulleted list and put in the refs section per WP:CITEBUNDLE. Each of the cites should also get archive URLs.
  • Unrelated to the source review, but the ellipses in the quotes in "Previous land use" and the block quote in "Landmark status" do not need to be in brackets per MOS:ELLIPSIS, unless there are ellipses in the original that need to be distinguished from ellipses that have been inserted here.

I think that's everything for now but I'll do one final look once those are fixed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts other than as noted above, all done with these. RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, last note: Ref 10, WL ABCorp. Per Template:Inflation/fn#Reference_grouping, you can change the inflation/fn to be in the ref list instead of as a note. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: one more note per above. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to push back on this one too. The data to support how the inflation calculations are done is a low-level detail, not essential to the reader's understanding of the article's subject. I don't think there's any reason to clutter up the references with this stuff. WP:FACR requires consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes. I believe what I have now satisfies that. RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This version of the article passes my source review. Thank you for your work documenting the history of the Bronx! voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Pass edit

All images, as far as I can see, have alt text and evident encyclopaedic value. Licensing checks:

To my eyes, the only quibbles are formalities; it seems almost certain that the images are all PD. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist is there anything else I need to be doing here? RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the copyright tag on the Dutch Gilder is wrong: is there anything stopping you from changing it over? I don't think we need to worry about the possibility of copyright notification and renewal unless there's some cause to think there's a reasonable chance that those things did happen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Putting down a marker for now - will be back with a week - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IB
  • "Type: Printing Plant" should be "Type: Printing plant"
Previous land use
  • "Village of West Farms" doesn't appear to be a formal name (or, at least, not according to the linked article), so it should be "village of West Farms"
Land acquisition
  • Being British I don't know all the vagaries of AmEng, but isn't "totalling" spelled with one l in the US?
  • Why do you have "The ''[[The New York Times|New York Times]]''" instead of the correct "''[[The New York Times]]''"?
Design evolution
  • "The New York Times" should be "The New York Times" (x2)

Done to the end of Design evolution. Reading nicely so far; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all those. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to the end of Subsequent additions with no problems - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Bank
  • "The site was purchased by Taconic": it jars a bit to hear about the purchase after hearing about them kicking out some of the tenants. More jarring is hearing abut the "mecca" promise after hearing they had broken it. I can see you're dealing with each party in a semi-chronological manner, but I think it breaks down around this point.
    • SchroCat An earlier reviewer objected to my dealing with BAAD in two different places, which is what led to the current organization. I've tried another variation which addresses your specific concern, and I can see your point about this being a particularly discordant sequence. <span class="pushback">I don't want to go too far down this path (i.e. similarly split the JVL Academy chronology) because I think that would make things too disjointed. I will talk to the real estate folks about trying to get their tenants to move in and out in a more convenient order in the future.</span> RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that flows much more freely than before, thanks for sorting.
        It's not a question of when people moved in or out, but about not tripping up readers when they have to jump back and forth on the chronology and be told things they may already have half-guessed. I think the JVL Academy part reads just fine as it is—as does the Lady Pink paragraph—but the Bronx Academy bit was the bit that was problematic. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot – an interesting article. – SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Nice read and an interesting bit of NY history. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2024 (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 promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 January 2024 [17].

Guallatiri edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in northern Chile, one of the more active volcanoes in this remote region. It is covered by a shrinking ice cap and it has conspicuous fumaroles that can be seen from around the mountain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support edit

I intend to review this over the coming days; please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Monday. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The summit may be either a lava dome or a pyroclastic cone," - the "the volcano" section doesn't make any indication that this Guallatiri could be a pyroclastic cone so far as I can tell and instead suggests it may be a volcanic plug
    I hate dealing with disagreeing sources. Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guallatiri has been active in historical times with a number of eruptions, the latest in 1960" - the article also mentions a poorly documented eruption in 1987?
    Yes, but Global Volcanism Program does not accept it. I figure there is disagreement on whether it was an actual eruption or merely increased gas emissions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term wallatiri means "abundance of the Andean goose" in Aymara[2] and refers to its frequent occurrence in the area" - this needs rephrased; as it stands the "its frequent occurrence" would grammatically be referring to the term wallatiri itself, not the geese
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we are given conflicting height figures, how was 6,071 selected to be the one used for the lead and infobox?
    Because Echevarria is probably the best source for elevation data. I've removed the figure from the lead and infobox, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Echevarria 1963 and Echevarria 1999 are the same person, should the 6,087 figure that is currently source only to the 1963 source be ommitted as probably superceded if no other high-quality source for it can be found, since the author is now reporting a different figure for its height?
    Aye, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note C has topographic isolation as 29.1 kilometers, while the infobox has 25
    Was mended on Wikidata. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox lists the volcanic field as the Nevados de Quimsachata in a matter as if this is certain, but the lead and body both indicate there is some debate about this
    I just keep forgetting about the infobox, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and displays levees, ogives, polygonal cracks and blocky surfaces" - a link or gloss of some form is needed for ogives; this is not a common term
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the redlink for pioneer vegetation point to pioneer species for now?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The older Humurata and Acotango volcanoes are heavily eroded,[11] Capurata is better preserved.[30] " - I'm not sure that this is really on-topic for this article; all three of the peaks are separate for Guallatiri and no direct connection between this information and Guallatiri is made
    I think it's valid contextual information since they are right next to each other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tuffs and pyroclastic flow deposits occur both in the summit region and in radial valleys that emanate from Guallatiri,[34] although some of the valley deposits have been reinterpreted as being reworked sediments" - but then we have "Pyroclastic flow deposits extend to 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) distance from Guallatiri. Radiocarbon dating has yielded ages ranging between 6,255±41-140±30 years before present.[38] These flows are unrelated to the lava domes, which show no evidence of collapses that could have formed pyroclastic flows" later in the article; this seems to be at least a partial contradiction
    Not seeing it - some valley deposits are sediments, other are pyroclastic flows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that the first passage suggests that it is possible that some or all of these pyroclastic flow deposits in the valley are related to Guallatiri, while the later bit seems to rule this out entirely. Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a small correction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The composition of volcanic rocks ranges from andesite to rhyolite;[1] with dacites being predominant." - it is unclear if this sentence refers to volcanic rocks in general or to those at Guallatiri specifically
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something seems to have gone wrong with the title of Echevarria 1963
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glaciología. "Glaciares del Volcán Guallatiri". Glaciología (in Spanish). Retrieved 2021-06-30." - this looks like the personal website of one Andres Rivera, what makes it high-quality RS
    It's this professor with a number of publications on Chilean glaciers and not just Chilean ones per his profile on the University of Chile website. One example from Wiley is this one. Google Scholar refers to his website and has some well-cited publications by him. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jaksic et al is missing a publisher
    That had a few more issues, which I have now fixed. I kinda wonder if "Estudios Publicos" is a journal rather than a publisher, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to be a journal: https://www.estudiospublicos.cl/index.php/cep/ RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, corrected the citation thusly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is it for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 03:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this has been stalled for a few weeks. Is it OK to ping the participants in my last FAC (Mike Christie, Volcanoguy, Esculenta, Hawkeye7, Gog the Mild and Mujinga) to see if they have input? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fair -- the FAC list isn't long ATM and I think we can afford this one more time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So done, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • Can we sort the references into alphabetical order? Anales, Reyes-Hardy and Reyes are out of order.
  • Why is DAVID in capitals?
  • Titles for Inostroza and Muñoz are in capitals - lowercase
  • Date formats are inconsistent:
    • Alvaro et al, Jorquera, Reyes, and Rodriguez et al use mdy - should be dmy - and why is SERNAGEOMIN in capitals?
    • Bouysse-Cassagne, Glaciología, Gliß et al, Stern et al use ISO - should be dmy
  • ISBN formats are inconsistent:
    • Bouysse-Cassagne - isbn should be 978-2-37154-004-0
  • Access dates required for Cáceres, Chacón Cruz, Charrier, David, Espinosa, Francis, GVP,
  • Link for Jaksic is broken
  • Unlink Concepción, Melipeuco, Naples
  • location for Bouysse-Cassagne, David, Villalba et al, Wörner?
  • DOI for Romero is invalid or incorrect
  • Incomplete journal references:
    • Bion should be volume 15, issue 1, pp. 183-184 issn 0065-6925
    • Echevarría (1963) should be volume 13, issue 2, pp. 425-452 issn 0065-6925
    • Estudios públicos ISSN is 0718-3089
    • Hydrological Sciences Journal ISSN is 0262-6667

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SERNAGEOMIN is an acronym, hence the caps. Cáceres doesn't have an URL at the moment so it can't get an accessdate. I don't see a location for Bouysse-Cassagne and I don't think that it, Wörner or Villalba need one. I sent a report for that DOI, and just sent another one. Done otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SERNAGEOMIN is defined in the lead but not the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks:
    • 54a, 69, 77, 84a - okay

Sources are of good quality.

Pass Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • "Other names are Punata which is also Aymara, Huallatiri and Huallatire." Suggest "Other names are Punata, which is also an Aymara word, Huallatiri, and Huallatire." If you don't want the Oxford comma in this case, then perhaps "Other names are Punata (which is also an Aymara word), Huallatiri and Huallatire."
    Went for the parenthetical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other towns include": suggest "Other nearby towns include".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Arica worth mentioning?
    Because it's the first large city - even Putre is more a village. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Economic activity in the area includes the Tambo Quemado border crossing, agriculture, animal husbandry as well as tourism and mountaineering": I think this needs "agriculture and animal husbandry" (or with an Oxford comma if you prefer); "as well as" following a list grammatically implies the list could stand alone, meaning that the last two items need the "and" between them.
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't quite what I meant so I tweaked it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your version works even better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [c]'s mention of other reported heights seems significant enough for more of it to be in the main text. Perhaps something like "Guallatiri height has been variously reported." and then give any reasons for trusting the two you put in the main text, and mention that higher and lower figures exist. Optionally I think you could also move the rest of [c], about topographical prominence, to the main text. Or if you do reduce [c] to a note about topographical prominence as I'm suggesting, you could move it to after "Guallatiri rises about 1.7 kilometres (1.1 mi) above the surrounding terrain".
    Moved the note down and left the heights thing behind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ice area has been retreating": can we get an indication of the time period this is referring to? E.g. was this a 2017 paper reviewing the previous 20 years, or an assessment of the 20th century retreat?
    Added a parenthetical to explain why. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is a consequence of the climate in the region, where glacier extent was more sensitive to increased moisture supply than to decreasing temperatures": I would think both increased moisture and decreasing temperature would tend to increase glacier extent, so this seems an odd thing to say -- the relative sensitivity to these two factors doesn't explain why the climate in the region led to a different time of maximum glacial extent.
    In practical terms, glaciers respond more to temperature than to precipitation except in very dry regions. Guallatiri and other Central Andean volcanoes are simply an exception to the rule. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but I don't follow the logical connection between that sentence and the previous one. Why does this fact mean peak glaciation was at a different time? Is there a missing connective statement, perhaps about the climate during those times? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one of these cases where the explanation isn't contained in the source. I've moved part of the sentence to a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if we can't explain the connection the simplest thing to do would be to remove the second sentence of the footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. I was surprised to see a word like "presumably" in Wikipedia's voice, but I looked at the cited abstract and I think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some glaciers were still present during the Holocene, as the Domo Tinto lava dome bears traces of glacial erosion and is partially covered by moraines." "As" should mean that the information after it implies the information before it, but I don't see a causal connection here -- the traces of erosion could predate the Holocene. If the point is that the Domo Tinto dome is of Holocene age, I think that needs to be mentioned here.
    Mentioned that DT is of Holocene age. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moraines have been emplaced on volcanic units." This is in the last paragraph of the "Ice" subsection; I think it's here because you're summarizing, but it's rather repetitive since you've already mentioned that there are moraines.
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It contains about 58 volcanoes which are potentially active or active": I misparsed this on first reading as having "potentially" apply to both "active" and "active". Suggest "It contains about 58 volcanoes which are active or potentially active".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can sort of guess what "overprinted" must mean, but it feels like a term of art. Can it be linked? Or failing that is there a lay term that is sufficiently precise to use instead?
    Used a layman formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano may be an important cause of arsenic pollution in the region." Suggest linking "arsenic pollution" to Arsenic#Environmental issues.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done through the flora and fauna section; more to come, possibly later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • "The older Humurata and Acotango volcanoes are heavily eroded, Capurata is better preserved." This is a run-on sentence. A semi-colon would fix it, but I also think some context needs to be given -- these other volcanoes have not been mentioned before. Presumably they're in the same region? We're comparing them because of their proximity? And similarly for the mention of Parinacota and Lascar. At least Parinacota is linked so a reader could figure out it's nearby.
    Humurata is actually mentioned before, as Umurata. I've matched the spelling and mentioned Capurata before too. Lascar's being compared b/c as mentioned a few sections above it's the most active CVZ volcano. I put a semicolon but perhaps another rewrite is needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later research subdivided the growth of the volcano into seven separate stages": if we're going to contrast early and late research we should mention that the early conclusions are based on early research at the start of the paragraph. If it's not a contrast, just a statement that the two broad phases given at the start of the paragraph can be further divided, then I don't think we need to say "later research".
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest "Another suggested subdivision" or "Another proposed subdivision", but this might change depending on how the next point is resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seven separate stages,[69] of which 1–4 crop out mainly at the periphery of the volcano and 5–6 in its central sector". So where's stage 7?
    You know, that's a good question. The source says "seven" several times but I see only six stages. Unless Tinto is supposed to be a stage by itself, between 5 and 6, but the numbers don't make sense then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate using sources that are internally inconsistent. Could we elide mentions of stage numbers in order to avoid the problem? Something like "Another proposal subdivides these two stages further." We might not need more detail than that since the "early = peripheral, late = central" point is already given in the first division. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opted to put an explanatory footnote, á la Copiapó (volcano) and footnote 1 in Biddenden Maids. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some lava flows are well preserved, others have been glaciated." Run-on sentence.
    Does a "while" resolve the problem, I've put one in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evidence indicates that large eruptions similar to the 1993 eruption of Lascar may have occurred at Guallatiri." I think this could be cut to just "Large eruptions similar to the 1993 eruption of Lascar may have occurred at Guallatiri"; the "may" and the citations imply that there's evidence.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pyroclastic flow deposits extend to 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) distance from Guallatiri." Suggest "Pyroclastic flow deposits extend 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) from Guallatiri."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guallatiri is, after Lascar, the second-most active volcano in northern Chile": I added parenthetical commas to this but I think it's still not quite right. The construction with "after" should exclude the exception from the comparison -- that is, Lascar is excluded, so we should get a statement about Guallatiri that is true without referring to Lascar. More natural would be "Guallatiri is, after Lascar, the most active volcano in northern Chile" or "Guallatiri is the second-most active volcano after Lascar in northern Chile". To keep "second-most active" it would have to be something like "Guallatiri is the second-most active volcano in northern Chile" with a footnote or parenthesis naming Lascar.
    Recast this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this is my mistake. You used the second form of words I suggested but I didn't edit it correctly. What I should have said is that I think it should be "most active", not "second-most active". Saying "after Lascar" already implies "second-most", so using both implies third-most. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't read such an implication at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On rereading I think putting "after Lascar" in parentheses, as you've done, resolves this for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They believed that the waters of ...": we don't have a referent for "they". Should it be "The Chipayan people"?
    Yes, added a variant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • Would it be possible to add the height to the lead. Ideally in the first sentence."
    Not keen on doing this for mountains with unclear height. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see two values for the height (6,060 m and 6,071 m). Surely the lead could say something like "approximately" or "variously reported as"? And since I'm here, I'm confused about Lower values appear in recent publications, as well which is sourced to the CONAF web site (https://www.conaf.cl/parques/reserva-nacional-las-vicunas/) but I don't see anything on that page which even mentions Guallatiri. Would it also be possible to talk about why there's uncertainty about the height? Is it because it's hard to measure, or because it keeps changing as the volcano does its thing? RoySmith (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because CONAF uses the alternative spelling "Guallatire". Telling the height of a topographic feature isn't easy and this mountain isn't well-known or well-studied. You can see another example at Ojos del Salado. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so I found (in English translation) "Guallatire (6063 meters above sea level)". I don't understand how that jives with "Lower values appear in recent publications" since that's higher than the 6,060 you give as the first figure. In any case, with the three recently reported values of 6,060, 6,063, and 6,071 it seems like you could certainly give an approximate value in the lead. You should also mention "Guallatire" as being the Spanish spelling, or alternate name, or whatever. RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the Pacific Ocean". Perhaps 'on the Pacific coast'.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guallatiri rises about 1.7 kilometres (1.1 mi) above". It would be usual to give this in m and ft, not km and mi.
    For such relative height estimates I tend to rely on km. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covers a surface of about 85 kilometres (53 mi)". What does this mean? (That it 'covers an area of about 85 kilometres2'?)
    Typo, resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guallatiri rises about 1.7 kilometres (1.1 mi) above". It would be usual to give this in m and ft, not km and mi.
    For this kind of measurement I prefer km and mi. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covers a surface of about 85 kilometres (53 mi)". What does this mean? (That it 'covers an area of about 85 kilometres2'?)
    Typo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have been reinterpreted as being reworked sediments." Is it worth saying how recently this happened?
    I don't think so, no. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi)". I suspect that this conversion is a false precision. "thicknesses of 15 metres (49 ft)" similarly.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanic units": what is a volcanic unit?
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It contains about 58 volcanoes which are active or potentially active, 33 of which are located within Chile." Is it possible to avoid "which" twice in the sentence?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is evidence that the terrain was tectonically active during the Quaternary." As the Quaternary runs to the present day, this is not providing any new information.
    Volcanic processes are not a form of tectonic processes, from what I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I need to pay more attention.
  • "The occurrence of obsidian has been reported." Your phrasing makes it sound as if this were contentious. Is it? If not, perhaps 'Obsidian is also present'?
    It's the formulation I use when discussing a finding that isn't contested, but hasn't drawn the attention one would expect.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a formulation which when used in Wikipedia's voice is commonly taken to mean Wikipedia is distancing itself somewhat from the claim and so shouldn't be used in other circumstances. If it is important to note that "a finding that isn't contested, but hasn't drawn the attention one would expect" then say so in as many words.
I think such an explanation leans itself too much into OR territory, sorry. It's a single lava bomb, so I've rewritten in that sense, but it might be worth deleting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sulfur deposits are reported from its southern flank", Again, why the distancing "reported"? If they exist, why not simply say so?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bofedales". Foreign language words should use lang templates, not just be in italics. (Except for proper nouns.)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this tree forms the world's highest woodlands." On Guallatiri?
    And in general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unlike "Guallatiri I" units". Is this a reference to volcanic units?
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and flows preserve flow structures." What?
    That was hard to write, check if it works better now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
  • "Another subdivision". This is the first mention of a "subdivision".
    This isn't a technical term, though; you "subdivide" a thing into components. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am happy with that. But "another" grammatically requires a previously mentioned 'other'.
That's the Guallatiri I and II one, which seems to be more common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "six separate stages, of which the first four crop out mainly at the periphery of the volcano". A stage cannot "crop out". You need to say something like 'with extant evidence of the first four present in outcrops...'
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All these units were erupted by". What are "units"?
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before Present". Why the upper case initial letters?
    This one is a technical term, hence the link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holocene lahar deposits have been found in river valleys." How does this relate to those at Guallatiri?
    Expanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A further uncertain eruption took place in 1908". Does this mean that is uncertain if the eruption actually took place?
    Yes, or whatever GVP defines as "uncertain". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "additional poorly documented eruptions are reported from". Again the use of "reported". Are any of them known to have taken place? The current wording means that it is at least possible that none of the six took place.
    That's the point. Activity of this volcano is not very well documented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(SERNAGEOMIN~)". Is thata typo at the end?
    Yes, fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are recorded at Guallatiri". "are" means right now. Do you mean 'have been recorded in the resent past at Guallatiri'.
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Satellite imaging has not shown any evidence of ongoing deformation of the volcanic edifice." Is it known over what period this has been the case?
    1992 and 2000, but the thing here is that it's a negative - no reports of deformation after 2000 does imply no deformation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and mud pools have been reported as well" seems a little clunky. 'and mud pools have also been reported'?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fumaroles form alignments". Should that start with 'The'? (It may not, just checking.)
    I don't think that's necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "6 metres (20 ft) wide and 3 metres (9.8 ft) high cones". False precision in the second conversion?
    Let's see if the sigfig makes it go away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there are small explosion craters with widths of 5 metres". They are all 5 m wide? Or do you mean 'up to 5 m wide'?
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "15 metres (49 ft) long pahoehoe-like flows". "metres" should be singular. (Or you could say 'pahoehoe-like flows 15 metres (49 ft) long'.) And is 49ft false precision.
    Yes, but here I am less certain on the sigfig. I dunno how to change the plural. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liquid sulfur has formed 15 metres (49 ft) long pahoehoe-like flows." This suggests to the uninitiated that the sulfur is (still) liquid.
    Not sure how to correct that impression. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano produces between 123±47 and 50±12 t/d of sulfur dioxide". What's t/d? Abbreviations in full at first mention?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the direction depending on the wind direction at the time of the eruption." "direction" twice in six words is not ideal.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guallatiri is ranked second in the Chilean scale of dangerous volcanoes[45] and is the 30th most dangerous in the country." How can it be both 2nd and 30th?
    Corrected, but I am afraid that the scale isn't well explained anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcano hazard maps have been published." Of Guallatiri or of volcanos in Chile as a whole? (Or both I suppose.)
    Both, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Kuntur Ikiña (Sajama) listed under "See also"?
    I dunno, removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming my recent minor copy edits are agreeable - if not, let's discuss them here - I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias – support edit

  • It seems weird that the height isn't mentioned in the lead. Looking at other volcano FAs, they generally include it, and it seems like the sort of information a reader would expect to find there.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..around the summit. The summit may.." Try to avoid this close repetition of "the summit".
    Can't do; using a synonym might suggest we are talking about two distinct things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term wallatiri means.." This is the only mention in the prose of the word "wallatiri". Explain its relevance.
    Guallatiri is the Hispanicized version of Wallatiri, e.g here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sorry. To clarify, can you explain its relevance in the article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the Andean goose" in Aymara[2] [3]" Remove the stray space between references.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other names are Punata (also an Aymara word).." Do we know what this means / why it is given this name? Also, "Punata" should also be in a {{lang}} template.
    Not as far as I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the prose give two possible heights plus the possibility of further hand-wavy variation, while the infobox only gives one, precise value?
    'cause I forgot to remove it from Wikidata, which is now done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..make up the edifice." What does "edifice" mean here? My only understanding of it is as a synonym of building?
    "Edifice" is the term I used to describe the volcano and its rocks as a whole. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lava flows have a lobate appearance even when they are heavily eroded, and display levees, ogives, polygonal cracks.." What do "lobate" and "levees" mean?
    Same as in the colloquial meaning. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the colloquial meanings. Are there pages we can link to on either Wikipedia or Wiktionary? Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Domo Tinto is 100 metres (330 ft) wide and 100 metres (330 ft) high while Domo Sur is 120 metres (390 ft) thick and 750 metres (2,460 ft) wide." Why is one measured in width and height, and the other in thickness and width? Are height and thickness the same, or different measures?
    The source uses two different terms with no explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Above 5,500 metres (18,000 ft)–5,800 metres (19,000 ft) elevation the volcano is covered with ice.." Again, we are given a range here, while the lead gives a single value?
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and thicknesses of 15 metres (0.015 km). Shouldn't we convert this into imperial, not a different order of magnitude of metric?
    Probably a typo when trying to fix excessive precision, solved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..between 13,500 and 8,900 years ago[e].[40]" Moved the footnote after the full-stop.
    This kind of footnote is put after the word it pertains to, not after punctuation where I put the references. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that, but the MOS doesn't differentiate between the types; where they appear adjacent to punctuation, they should be after it, not before. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I've merged that footnote into the text. As for other footnotes, the MOS itself says "occasional exceptions will apply" and I do attach footnotes to the statement they pertain to, which is often not an entire sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I basically skipped the Geology section because it is too technical for me to follow. I will trust that it is fine. It needs to be technical, so I'm not going to complain that I can't follow it.
    I realize that this is mostly technical terms such as the name of minerals and volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and the wetlands – Bofedales – in the.." I'd suggest using {{lang-es}} here, to get: "..and the wetlands (Spanish: Bofedales) in the.." The endashes just break up the sentences too much for my liking at the moment.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and a 200 metres (660 ft) high plume.." This should be "..and a 200-metre(660 ft) high plume.." using |adj=on.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and a 400 metres (1,300 ft) long fracture.." And again.
  • "..sometimes form 6 metres (20 ft) wide and 3 metres (9.8 ft) high cones.." And again.
  • "..has formed 15 metres (49 ft) long pahoehoe-like flows.." And again.
    All done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..are visible for more than 201 kilometres (125 mi).." I'm guessing the source is using 125 miles as a rounded figure, so I'd recommend rounding 201 km to 200.
    Let's see if the sigfig solves the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guallatiri is ranked second in the Chilean scale of dangerous volcanoes and is the 30th most dangerous in the country." I'd suggest rewording this; it took me a couple of reads to work out that the first half wasn't saying that it was the second most dangerous. Something vaguely along the lines of "Guallatiri appears in the second-most dangerous tier of volcanoes according to the Chilean scale, and is the 30th most..."
    See comments to Gog. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..protective mountain spirit.[95] [2]." Stray punctuation.
  • "..points to the volcano.[96]." And again.
  • "..every January 1st. [97]." And again.
  • "..in the center (daughter) [3]." Ref should be after the full-stop.
    Serviced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like some of the Mythology and religious importance has been added recently by another editor, and it doesn't really flow with the rest of the article right now. It could do with rewriting to match the style of the article, and improve the formatting.
    Yeah, that was added only a few days ago by @The Arjhatiri:. I've rearranged it but problem is it's a book and I don't have access to it. I've asked the editor who added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Harrias:Got the pertinent content by The Arjhatiri here and rewrote a bit, accordingly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very interesting article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, happy to give this my support. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RoySmith edit

I already crashed Gog's party with some drive-by comments, so might as well do a full review...

General notes edit
  • You spell out "metres", "kilometres", etc, but abbreviate "ft" and "mi". Likewise for "square/cubic" vs "sq/cu". I know this is the default that {{convert}} produces, but it seems odd. Could {{convert}} be coaxed into producing the short form for both sets of units?
    Looks like this is the abbr=off parameter. Applied it to first mentions and abbr=on to next mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have a different setting for the first mention? MOS:UNIT doesn't say to do this, at least not that I've found. RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was working off Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name. I've changed a bit around but I notice that there is no linkable unit for several of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope that even the most freedom-unit-loving American would not consider the meter (or the metre) to be "unfamiliar", but I guess anything is possible. RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead edit
  • "A large prehistorical eruption took place 2,600 years ago", drop the "prehistorical", add "approximately"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "active in historical times with a number of eruptions, the latest in 1960." -> "active in modern times, with the most recent eruption in 1960".
    Hmm, not sure that modern times here includes 1960. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SERNAGEOMIN" no need to define this acronym since you never use it.
    Actually, it's used a few times in the source list and once in the article text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Name and ascents edit
  • Is there a need for this paragraph to be a section by itself? It's not even about a single topic; what it's called and who climbed it have very little to do with each other.
    Yes, because it's about the way people treat the mountain and I don't like micro-paragraphs on FACses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and refers to": -> ", referring to"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Huallatiri, Huallatire[6] and Guallatire[7]" what language do these come from?
    Alternative transliterations I presume, but source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano is considered to be easy to ascend" should be attributed to who offered that opinion.
    According to the French Grade (climbing) scale, from John Biggar I presume. Dunno if that needs spelling out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please. Something like, "It is rated a grade XXX climb by (whoever assigns these ratings)". Looking at Panajew and Galas, I don't see anything that supports "The volcano is considered to be easy to ascend" In fact, the abstract says, "The authors describe the grueling trekking trails". RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They do say The climb is not technically difficult (grade F on the IFAS scale) but I spelled it out intext. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and geomorphology edit
  • "it has a cemetery, a 17th-century church and a refuge of the National Forest Corporation" does knowing this improve the reader's understanding of the volcano?
    Of things that are potentially threatened and what climbers can do there, yes, but I removed the cemetery mention as a cemetery is kinda routine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "130 kilometres (81 mi) farther west," I think "further" is the preferred spelling.
    Hmm, Googleing says that both are acceptable for physical distances. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Economic activity in the area includes..." as above, is this relevant to the main subject?
    It's a bit of contextual information, which is asked for by WP:WIAFA; Guallatiri doesn't exactly rise in the middle of nowhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Possible reasons include ... or ..." I think you want "and" here; it's a list of things that make up the set of possible reasons.
    Yeah, swapped it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You still have "or" RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now changed for reals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano is remote and thus poorly known." That's an odd sentence. Maybe something along the lines of, "Due to the remoteness from large population centers, few expeditions to Guallatiri have been undertaken and little is known about it"? (assuming the source actually supports that).
    Unfortunately all the source says is Due to its remote location little is known about the volcano. It's kind of a given that volcanoes in this region are poorly understood. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The volcano edit
  • "Guallatiri is 6,060 metres (19,880 ft)[23][24][10] or 6,071 metres (19,918 ft) high" -> "... has been variously reported as ..."
  • "It is a composite volcano[5] or stratovolcano" are those synonyms, or have some authors called it one and other authors called it the other, in which case you want some variation on "has been described as either a ..." The same comment applies to "lava dome, lava complex[1] or volcanic plug[26]".
    Mmm, not sure that these changes aren't making them too long. It's not an opinion, but rather disagreement about facts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "make up the edifice.", I think of "edifice" in the sense of Building (and indeed, Edifice redirects there). I gather this has a different meaning in the context of volcanos. Could "edifice" be linked to someplace that describes that sense of the word, or a short description be added here?
    Yes, in the context of volcanoes it means the entire pile of volcanic rocks but also things like calderas etc. Here I've changed it to mountain and structure, respectively. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emanate in all directions,[32] but are primarily", I don't think you need the comma
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These domes form a northwest–southeast line and are 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi) apart." work this into the next sentence, something like "while Domo Sur" -> "; Domo Sur, 1.5 km to the southwest, is 120 metres..."
    Isn't it better to first describe the dome complex, then its components? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just think that "These domes form a northwest–southeast line" is an overly complicated way to say "one is southeast of the other". Any two points for a line. Or are you saying that there's three points (these two, and the main peak) that are all on a line? RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, got it now. Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ice edit
  • "a small ice cap" Does the source characterize it as "small"?
    Actually not; I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heat emitted by fumaroles may have contributed to the enhanced melting of the ice" It's difficult to imagine a scenario where the application of heat to melting ice hasn't contributed in some way to the melting, to the extent that the reader is left wondering if such an obvious statement doesn't have some deeper meaning. It seems like some kind of attributive statement ("Rivera has theorized that ...") would be in order here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "still present during the Holocene, as the": perhaps "as evidenced by" instead of "as the"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll take a break here and come back another day, but let me jump forward to the item that actually prodded me into doing this review. The "Geological map of Guallatiri" image under "Eruptive history" has a legend that is almost impossible to read because it's so small. Fortunately, https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/andgeol/v41n3/art04.pdf contains a PDF version of this image which could (i.e. should) be extracted to use in place of the low-res jpg that's there now.)

Did that too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geology edit
  • You define NVZ, CVZ, and SVZ as acronyms. Two of those are never used, so no reason to define them. CVS is used, but only twice, in the immediately following paragraph. It would read better if that was rephrased to avoid the acronym.
    Eh, I think "Central Volcanic Zone volcano" reads a bit weird. Removed the other acronyms though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three links in Northern Volcanic Zone (NVZ), Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ) and Southern Volcanic Zone (SVZ) all go to the same article. Maybe rephrase this as "...responsible for the volcanism of the Andean Volcanic Belt, which is divided into norther, central, and southern zones".
    That's a quirk in how Wikipedia has set up its pages, not in how the topic is discussed elsewhere where each of the volcanic zone is often discussed separately. I'd rather not do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ranges from andesite to rhyolite,[1] with dacites being predominant" To me, "range" implies some continuous spectrum ("particle sizes range from 0.1 mm to 0.7 mm"). Is that the case here? Are dacites a type of rock which falls on that spectrum between those two endpoints? This needs to be clarified.
    Aye, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite and contain". "and contain" -> "which contains"?
    No, it's a property of the rocks rather than the suite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fumaroles have deposited minerals such as anhydrite ..." -> "Fumaroles have deposited mostly anhydrite ..."
    Kinda wonder if this suggests that we are talking about anhydrite, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sulfur deposits occur on its southern flank", I assume "it" refers to Guallatri, but you have to work your way all the way back to the previous paragraph to find that, so be more explicit here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", and according to the first" either make that "; according to...", or start a new sentence.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "800,000 tonnes" would this benefit from {{convert}}?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flora, fauna and climate edit
  • There's so many wikilinks here, it's hard to read. I don't have a concrete suggestion for how to improve that. Maybe some other reviewer could suggest something? Would this work better as a bullet list?
    Eh, I think here it works better as a prose list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Tundra climate instead of Tundra
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 236 millimetres (9.3 inches) per year" -> "averaged 236 ... between 1997 and 2017".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eruptive history edit
  • "The older Umurata and Acotango volcanoes are heavily eroded;[13] Capurata is better preserved.[32]" this sentence seems out of place with the rest of the paragraph.
    Moved it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "higher than Lascar" -> "greater than at Lascar"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear what "Guallatiri I" and "Guallatiri II" mean. Are these terms that some specific author used? In which case, "What Jorquera (or whoever) has called..."
    Went to specify this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another subdivision envisages six[j] separate stages" This is unclear. I think what this paragraph is trying to say is "Jorquera et al. in 2019 described a two-stage history where "Guallatiri I" grew in the form of andesitic and dacitic lava flows ... In 2021, Sepúlveda et al. proposed an alternate scheme, with six separate stages ..." Including the years in the attributions is useful to show how one author built their work on the other's previous report.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spaces around ± per MOS:COMMONMATH
    Think I got them all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ranging between 6,255±41–140±30" I'm not sure what the official rule is, but I'd think "ranging from 6,255 ± 41 to 140 ± 30"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll finish this up later)

Hazards and monitoring edit
Mythology and religious importance edit
  • "They regarded Guallatiri ... a family consisting of a ..." Something doesn't parse right here. Maybe, "... to be a family"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. RoySmith (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through your last set of updates. I've still got a few questions, which I've scattered about in-line. I guess see the edit history. RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this looks good, thanks for writing this; I now know more about volcanoes than I did before, and this makes a nice addition to the encyclopedia. Marking this for support. RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Marker for now: I'll be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name and ascents
  • "the German-Bolivian geologist": why not just "the geologist"? Does his nationality help understanding here?
    Removed, since it doesn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
  • "closest to it;[18] it has a 17th-century church" -> "the town has a 17th-century church" ("it" refers to the volcano as it stands
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The volcano
  • Just a suggestion, but at "high.[11][1] Claims" a semi-colon would work better here than the full stop
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ice
  • "According to Rivera et al. 2005, heat emitted": do we need the publishing year here? If so, it would be better written into a sentence (as you do with "Jorquera et al. in 2019" and "In 2021, Sepúlveda et al."), rather than just left like this
    Yes, there are a number of Riveras and their publications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't "According to Rivera et al's 2005 study, heat emitted..." work? As WP isn't a scientific paper, I think avoiding academic shorthand is better for the general reader. Your call and I don't push it, but it's a stumbling read as it stands. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I think spelling out it's about a study is reasonable so I've done it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "evidenced by Holocene-age Domo Tinto lava dome bears traces of glacial erosion": I think the grammar has gone slightly awry here
    Added something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the start of Eruptive history. Reading well so far. – SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical and seismic activity
  • "Guallatiri is poorly known[79] and historical eruptions are poorly documented": can we swap out one of the "poorly"s?
    I confess that nothing comes to mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The eruption history of Guallatiri is... 'little known', 'largely unknown', 'largely undocumented', etc" - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initially attributed to Acotango volcano": "to the Acotango volcano"?
    I am not sure that that is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure the grammar is right, but no-one else seems to be objecting to it, so maybe its just me! - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mythology
  • "Guallatiri was considered to be an apu or mallku, a protective mountain spirit." I think I would feel more comfortable is this was somehow linked to whoever considered it. Local tribes from the 13thC? Missionaries from the 19th? Geologists of the 20th? Connecting the myth with the believer is always important, I think.
    The sources attribute it to the "territory", i.e the inhabitants. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we add that (and any idea of when it was believed? Was it an ancient belief, or is it still thought so today?) - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, mythology of any particular volcano is rarely documented to a significant degree. From the present tense one would infer the beliefs are still held today, and as generic as the source is I wouldn't attribute it (too much of SYNTH potential), but that's it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine: you've got the sources and the knowledge, so if it's not possible, that's OK. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Interesting article, with only a few very minor quibbles. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Nice article on something I didn't even know existed before I started. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Is there anything needed yet, like spotchecks or prose review or something else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good from a quick scan. I’ll have a better look tomorrow unless one of my fellow coords beats me to it. FrB.TG (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2024 (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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 January 2024 [18].

Jamie Kalven edit

Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Kalven never intended to be known as a "guerrilla journalist" in Chicago. He was initially planning to become a foreign correspondent in Asia, but the sudden death of his father, a legal scholar at the University of Chicago, set him on a path towards writing about freedom of speech, public housing, and civil liberties issues. His reporting helped uncover police misconduct surrounding the murder of Laquan McDonald by an officer, and he founded a non-profit that has catalogued nearly 250,000 other allegations against police officers. One of his lawsuits, Kalven v. City of Chicago, became a landmark decision involving the public records statute in Illinois. Edge3 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk edit

Reviewed this at GA after seeing it at DYK and was impressed by the quality! Happy to see it at FAC! Some comments:

  • Something I notice is that many sentences begin with "He", in reference to Kalven. This repetitiveness reads oddly- perhaps reorder the sentence to put the pronoun later, or use other names, like "the young journalist"
    I tried fixing this with this edit, but please let me know if there are other revisions that you had in mind. Edge3 (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • which led him to give up serious mountaineering - don't think serious is needed here
    Removed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • spent the following 14 years working on his father's manuscript, which was eventually completed and published in 1988 as A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America.[2][4] He had reviewed annotations - here, is "he" Jamie or his father? Both are mentioned in the previous sentence
    Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • described Jamie's work as "an extraordinary act of intellectual and filial devotion." - period outside quote mark, per WP:LQ
    Moved the period. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1988, he was teaching - new para, use his name instead of a pronoun
    Fixed, and I used his first name instead of last name. It should be clear based on context which Kalven we're talking about, but given that Harry was mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I think it's good to be extra clear. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a label that Kalven likes. - "concurs with" may be more formal than "likes"
    Changed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the team grew into an association of collaborators working on race and poverty issues in Chicago, including civil rights attorneys and law students at the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, a legal clinic at the University of Chicago Law School - the last comma is confusing me, is mentioning the name of the clinic important? IMO it's fine to just say "including civil rights attorneys and law students at the University of Chicago Law School". If you do make this change, make sure to cut future mentions of the Clinic
    I'm reluctant to avoid mentioning the clinic because a legal clinic is a specific program at a law school that is less academic and more practical in nature. The phrase "civil rights attorneys and law students at the University of Chicago Law School" would imply that this was more of an academic, classroom-based exercise. In any case, the "civil rights attorneys" might not even be part of the academic faculty at the school. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough then MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As part of discovery in Bond's case, Futterman requested - because this starts a new section, it's probably worth clarifying who Futterman is
    Clarified. Do you think I also need to clarify who Bond is? Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bond is clearly defined in the previous paragraphs, while Futterman gets one sentence- I think this makes sense, but I don't believe Bond needs to be clarified. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the court decision, Invisible Institute - whether "Invisible Institute" is preceded by an article is consistent: the header uses an article, but some of the text doesn't
    Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The data project houses complaints and allegations made against officers, the number of sustained complaints, and individual officer profiles that list officer salaries and discipline they received for use-of-force incidents. The data is from 1988 to 2018. - merge these two sentences, perhaps: "...and discipline they received for use-of-force incidents, ranging from 1988 to 2018."
    I deviated slightly from your recommendation to clarify that the "from 1988 to 2018" range applies to the data project as a whole, not just the use-of-force incident disciplinary reports. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official story initially suggested - who wrote the "official" story? The police department? The city govt?
    Mainly the police department. I've added that clarification. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got nothing else- these are all minor concerns, as the bigger ones were addressed at the GAN. Excellent work- happy to see an important journalist make it to the mainpage someday! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, both on the GAN and also on this FAC! I've addressed most of your comments and hope to get to the remaining one shortly. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not sure which remaining one you mean, everything I commented about has been fixed. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I replied over two separate edits. Thanks for your support, and your generous feedback as always! Edge3 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding alt text
    I've added alt text. Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is sandwiching between images and the secondary infobox - why is that here? Suggest removal
    Where do you see sandwiching? Everything looks fine on my screen. Also, what are you suggesting be removed? Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second infobox - why is it there? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kalven v. City of Chicago is a landmark court decision interpreting the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. The case has notability independent of Kalven as a person, but I'm just covering both topics in the same article for efficiency. Court cases typically get their own infoboxes in their respective articles, to cover key aspects of the decision such as the lower courts being appealed from, the judges sitting, and the authors of the appellate opinion(s).
    I'm happy to reconsider my position on this. Do you think certain information can be trimmed to make the infobox shorter? Or would you rather remove the infobox entirely? Edge3 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the case has notability independent of this subject, I'm of the opinion it should have an independent article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider a separate article, but felt that there would be so much overlap with Kalven's biography that the writing would be duplicative. The genesis of the lawsuit was Kalven's reporting at Stateway. An article on the court decision would not be complete without a summary of his journalism. Similarly, the court decision led directly to the expansion of the Invisible Institute, so an article on the case would not be complete without covering the Institute's accomplishments.
    It seemed to me that Kalven, Kalven v. City of Chicago, and the Institute are three distinct topics that have independent notability, but are best addressed in one article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Since all topics can be adequately covered in Kalven's biography, I kept it as one article. Edge3 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But while there is overlap, they are really different topics, and an article about the case could mention the other two without the same level of detail that would be appropriate for articles on them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, and I'm happy to consider splitting Kalven v. City of Chicago into a separate article. I'm going to ping @MyCatIsAChonk, who reviewed at GAN, and @Cielquiparle and @AirshipJungleman29, who reviewed at DYK, in case they have any thoughts. I'm probably too close to this article to make a sound decision, so I'd rather make sure there's agreement to create a separate article for the court case before I do anything. Edge3 (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it makes sense to have the court case part of this article, as it a) is an essential point in Kalven's career and b) entirely surrounds his efforts to get the police department's records. Kalven v. City of Chicago is not a very complex case, and splitting it would result in a rather short article. Even if it was split, much of the current prose under "Obtaining police misconduct records" would remain, as there's a lot of context needed to understand Kalven's involvement in this case. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Laquan_McDonald_autopsy.jpg: why is this believed to be ineligible for copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is ineligible for copyright per Commons:Threshold of originality. Blank forms are not copyrightable under section 313.4(G) of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Additionally, the medical examiner's notations are merely representations of factual information under section 313.3(C) and do not rise above the level of de minimis authorship under section 313.4(B). Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria Just wanted to see if you had thoughts on my responses above? Edge3 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria Do you still have any concerns regarding what we've discussed above? Edge3 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have any concerns about the image license; I'm still of the opinion that the case would be best split but am not opposing over that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment edit

Why are 5 citations required to support his approximate dob in the first line of the lead? Normally citations are avoided in the lead as the information should be contained in the body of the article. I suggest you begin the "Personal life and early career" with his birth. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved those citations to the personal life section. Edge3 (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TonyTheTiger edit

I have added a bunch of projects to the talk page. I see that you have not directly informed projects of this discussion. Although a lot of projects have automated processes, sometimes people are only following the project talk.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged a few of the WikiProjects as per your suggestion. Edge3 (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term well-published is a vague term. Can you document notable media outlets that he has published through.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any info on which media outlets he worked for in his mid-20s. I've removed the "well-published" term. Edge3 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same lines, can you mention who published the book in 1988 since they are a major publisher.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't explicitly mention Harper & Row as the publisher of A Worthy Tradition, so I'm reluctant to include it in the prose of the article. The publisher is named in the "Works" section. Edge3 (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the publisher is named in the works section, is there a chance that they were not the publisher? Some times WP:PRIMARY is allowed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review of the sources, I'm not so sure who is the publisher. The Greenhouse source suggests that Harry Kalven had submitted the manuscript to the University of Chicago Press, but Harper and Row is still listed as a publisher in various primary sources. Edge3 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know , it would not be uncommon for a publisher to reject a manuscript and another to publish it. If it is currently available for sale, it probably has an ISBN number and publisher in the public domain (especially places like Amazon). Whatever those are they are.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the name of the publisher Edge3 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the names of the student consultants. Have any of them become notable people worth mentioning?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of the students were explicitly mentioned as consultants who helped with the manuscript. Edge3 (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the assault, I am left wondering if the case went unsolved or if any arrests were made.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find any info on the perpetrators, but I did find this article about Kalven's activism following the rape of his wife. I thought it was very informative so I've expanded the article accordingly. Edge3 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Turkel be described as a Chicago Journalist rather than just a Journalist to clarify the connection.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and note that Turkel is now mentioned twice in the article. Let me know if you think I've phrased it correctly. Edge3 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2nd time you don't need to repeat that he is a Chicago journalist.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I wasn't sure. I've removed it. Edge3 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the outcome of Bond v. Utreras?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bond's lawsuit settled out of court for $150,000. As for the appellate case, in which Kalven was seeking to intervene, the federal appeals court ruled that Kalven lacked standing and that he could still try to get the records he wanted under Illinois state law. Edge3 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just seeing this in the later section.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the court decision-->After the 2014 court decision or After the March 2014 court decision-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added '2014'. Edge3 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also break up that sentence making the 2017 content separate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Edge3 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to recall the public sentiment regarding the Laquan McDonald case. Was there broad public interest in the release of the video or am I misremembering this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kalven and Futterman called for the release of the dashcam recording, but I'm not sure if there was broad public interest. In most FOIA cases, the public typically doesn't realize the importance of the record until it is actually released. Edge3 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any link between the publicity for this case and the city's preference for a subsequent mayor who had served on the Chicago Police Accountability Task Force?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightfoot is mentioned only once in the Murder of Laquan McDonald article, so I don't believe her subsequent election was linked to the murder. Edge3 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The depth of research surpasses any expectation I could have imagined.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @TonyTheTiger! I'm flattered by your compliments. Edge3 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spot-check upon request. Source #14 can probably get a link. I don't know much about the news media cited here so I'll need to AGF for the most part. Completeness-wise, does this guy have a family? How does ""They Have All the Power": Youth/Police Encounters on Chicago's South Side" relate to Kalven? Source formatting seems consistent for the most part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is available via the ABA journal website, but I did not personally use that link because it's paywalled. The citation states that I used Business Source Complete, which I accessed through a university subscription.
As for "They Have All the Power", Kalven co-authored that book. The "——" is a placeholder for his name. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Are you satisfied with my response above? Edge3 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the caveat about unfamiliarity and the lack of a spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jo-Jo. You say "Spot-check upon request." As this is a first time FAC it needs one. Any chance that you could do it? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go, from this version

  • 1 Where does it say "Asia" or "communities"? I notice that the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the source. Also, not a source thing necessarily, but why does the article sometimes say "Kalven" and sometimes "Jamie"?
    "Asia" was covered by citation 3, and I've adjusted accordingly. The term "communities" is cited to citation 1, which states immersing himself in Chicago communities experiencing poverty, over-policing and violence. (Emphasis added.) I have modified the sentence structure to avoid close paraphrasing. Lastly, the article uses "Jamie" when "Kalven" would result in confusion with his father. See MOS:SAMESURNAME. All of these edits are addressed in this change. Edge3 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 OK
  • 4 OK
  • 5 OK
  • 6 Where does it say "alumnus"?
    Harry Kalven is mentioned in the UChicago Magazine as "Harry Kalven Jr., AB’35, JD’38". The last part indicates that he graduated from the Law School in 1938. Edge3 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 Can I get a quote that supports the claim?
    From the source, He climbed mountains on several continents, once rode from Paris to New Delhi on a motorcycle, and had begun a career as a free-lance writer when his father died. (Emphasis added.) Edge3 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 Where does it say Terkel?
    Studs Turkel, a friend of Kalven and Kalven's late father, presented the award. Edge3 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 I notice that the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the source. Also, where is 500,000 mentioned?
    I've rephrased many portions. Also, the $500,000 corresponds to burned through nearly half a million dollars in legal fees. Edge3 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 OK
  • 14 OK
  • 16 Can I get quotes that support the claims?
    I'll make it easier for you and provide a full copy of the article. Edge3 (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like this checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 I notice that the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the source.
    The source has a CC license mentioned in the citation, therefore reuse is permitted. Edge3 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 OK
  • 20 This should probably specify which arguments were rejected.
    The article already states in the preceding sentence, The city denied the requests, arguing that the complaint register files were exempt from disclosure under FOIA because they related to the police department's adjudication proceedings, and also because they contained preliminary recommendations on potential disciplinary actions. Both arguments were rejected. Edge3 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 OK
  • 22 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 24 OK
  • 26 OK
  • 27 OK

I am a little uneasy about the similarity of some sources to the text in the article, some may fall under WP:LIMITED and others might not. Something unrelated to spotcheck, but have these sources been mined? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I started responding above and will address the remainder soon. I have used Google Scholar before, but it's been a while since I last checked, so I'll take another look and see if anything needs to be added. Edge3 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've responded to all of your feedback above. As for the Google Scholar results, thanks for sharing them! Most of them were written or co-written by Kalven himself, and the remainder didn't necessarily catch my attention as sources that I should use. Edge3 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "Along with his wife and an associate". I think that you should name the associate here.
    Eads only gets mentioned twice in the entire biography, so I'm not sure that he needs to be explicitly named in the lead. However, I did notice that Kalven's wife, Patricia Evans, was not named in the lead at all, so I've changed that accordingly. Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "incorporated as a nonprofit". You need a link or a few words to explain what a nonprofit means in this context. Does it have a defined meaning under Illinois law? If it is just a general term for a nonprofit organization then it would be helpful to say "nonprofit organization". (This may be a UK comment if "nonprofit" is AmerEng.)
    "Nonprofit" is commonly used as the shorter form of "nonprofit organization", and I've expanded that term accordingly. In the US, the nonprofit most commonly referred to is the 501(c)(3) organization. The Invisible Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization. Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kalven, born c. 1949,[1][2][3][4][5]". Five references is too many for a simple statement.
    If memory serves, there was a slight disagreement among the sources, which is why I have to use the circa qualifier. Let me take another look and see if I need to add a clarifying note. Edge3 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed this matter. There is disagreement among the sources on the year of birth. See below:
Estimated year of birth
Source Date of publication Reported age Estimated birth year
Hyde Park Herald May 25, 2022 72 1949–1950
Chicago June 7, 2007 (byline) 57 1949–1950
August 2006 (issue date) 1948–1949
The Forward December 28, 2015 67 1947–1948
Chicago Tribune August 3, 1988 39 1948–1949
The New York Times April 25, 1986 37 1948–1949
  • The reason Chicago is listed twice is that the article was published on June 7, 2007, but was part of the August 2006 issue. This results in different estimates of the birth year.
    All sources support a possible birth year of 1949, except for one: The Forward. I am using circa 1949 to reflect the uncertainty, and I've provided all five sources as inline citations to allow the reader to make their own judgment. Edge3 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Afterwards, he graduated from Wesleyan University." Is it not known what he studied?
    I'm unable to determine what he studied, but I was able to find his graduation year. Edge3 (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The attack prompted Kalven to understand the drivers of violence, poverty, and racial divisions in America". "understand" claims too much. Maybe "seek to understand" or "investigate".
    Changed to "investigate". Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2007, Bond's lawsuit settled out of court for $150,000." This is ungrammatical and confusing. A lawsuit does not settle, it is settled. Presumably Bond received the money, but you should say so.
    I switched to the phrase "was settled". It's not clear whether Bond received all of the money, or if a portion went to her attorneys. The sources don't say exactly how the payout was allocated. Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 'Works' I would prefer his name each time instead of a line, but that is a personal view.
    This format is consistent with MOS:WORKS#Template, which states: {{Cite book}} may be used to format bibliography entries; for single-author lists, use |author-mask= to avoid repeating the author's name. Edge3 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 Shots (2019), producer. It should be "co-producer".
    Changed. Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 'External links', why is 'Citizen Police Data Project' double indented?
    The data project is a project of the Invisible Institute, and the Institute's website provides the link to the data project. Edge3 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments! I'm starting to respond to around half of them, and will address the remainder soon. Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: Thanks again! I've responded to all remaining feedback, above. Please let me know your thoughts. Edge3 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks fine now, although I would spell out that sources differ on his date of birth, which would explain why there are so many citations for it. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I've added a footnote to explain the ambiguity on the year of birth. I appreciate your support! Edge3 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments edit

  • "Kalven has been referred to as a "guerrilla journalist" ... "landmark decision" ". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
    I've added attribution for "guerrilla journalist". As for "landmark decision", I initially used quotation marks because I regarded it as a legal term of art. However, the quotation marks are probably unnecessary because I'm linking to landmark decision. See MOS:QUOTEPOV, stating: "Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation." I've removed them. Edge3 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formally incorporated". What does "formally" add? I mean, can one informally incorporate?
    Removed "formally". Edge3 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually mean to say "became a hub for information related to ... police whistleblowers"?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was meant to refer to reports from police whistleblowers, but it's not essential to the lead section so I'll remove it. Edge3 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with 'and reports from police whistleblowers', but it's your call. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it back in. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much, @Gog the Mild, for making this a pleasant experience at FAC! I appreciate your guidance throughout the whole process. Edge3 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2024 (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 promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 11 January 2024 [19].

Holidays (Meghan Trainor song) edit

Nominator(s): NØ 20:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho ho! And the "ho" is for "Holidays", of course. This is a Christmas song by Meghan Trainor. One of those unique Trainor songs not to receive negative reviews. The credit probably goes to featured artists Earth, Wind & Fire, though, considering critics could not stop comparing it to their other work. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here and Merry Christmas :) --NØ 20:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (pass) edit

  • the images are licensed appropriately. Suggest alt text to the image of the bow. The audio sample has an appropriate FUR and meets WP:SAMPLE. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just added the alt text.--NØ 13:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude edit

Comments
  • "horn bleats in its production" - bleats links to sheep#vocalisations, where nothing about music is mentioned. Is this really an appropriate link?
  • "most of the work for the album was done in "July and August"" - don't think it's really necessary to present the last three words as a quote, given that it's only three words and is a simple statement of fact which couldn't be paraphrased anyway
  • "Ray Brown plays horns orchestration" - "horns orchestration" isn't an instrument, you can't play it. It means he arranged the horn parts played by Ross, Artope, etc
  • "She wore a nitid bodysuit" - never seen the word "nitid" before, what does it mean?
  • Note doesn't need a full stop
  • That's it, I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: - Many thanks for the review, all done! I was hoping you might enjoy this one since some R&B/soul chart juggernauts are involved :) NØ 13:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • For Citation 21, (i.e. the Pressparty source), I would use the press release template. It would more clearly inform readers that this source is a press release, and it would just be best in general to use templates that best match the sources. I believe the same comment would apply to Citation 23, (i.e. the Contactmusic.com source).
  • I do not see any clear indication the Contactmusic.com source is a press release. Am I missing something?--NØ 09:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever reason when I first looked at the source, it read like a press release to me, but since it is not clearly marked as such and it is published by an online magazine, it is likely just a case of me over-thinking it. The current citation structure should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was advised against doing this in a previous SR, so I believe it is best to avoid this except on articles with an inordinate amount of liner note citations.--NØ 09:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fair. Thank you for the explanation and the link the the source review. I can understand the concern about linking the album in the liner notes. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that almost all of the coverage is from 2020. That's not an issue as it is understandable that the coverage may be restricted to when the song was first released. I have tried to do a quick search for any citations beyond that time period, and I did not turn up with much, although it doesn't help that the song's title is so broad. Although it has a silly title, this Parade source has a good positive review of the song that may be worth incorporating into the article.
  • The citations are high-quality and appropriate for a music-related article. Everything is structured appropriately, aside from the brief comments that I have above. I have done a brief spot-check, and the information in the citations I have checked matches the sources. The citations also include the information being sourced in the article.
  • This is not really part of a source review, but I just do not really see the value of File:Golden Bow.png, especially when the infobox image shows Trainor wearing bows. Feel free to ignore this because like I said above, this is outside of the purview of a standard source review so it may be best to gauge how other reviewers respond to this image.

I hope that this review is helpful. I think it is always best to get the source review done earlier in the FAC process whenever possible. I will look through the article again after you have addressed everything. Apologies for not doing a more in-depth review. I have not looked at the prose, and I am limiting my review to just the sources (aside from my stray image comment at the end). I hope you are doing well and having a great December so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aoba47, thanks for the great find with the Parade source! I have addressed everything accordingly. I hope your month is going great as well :) NØ 09:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response and kind words. I hope you are having a great month so far. Everything looks good to me. I understand the rationale for not linking the album title in the liner notes citation, and the citation structure for the Contactmusic.com source is appropriate as is as it was just a case of me of over-thinking it. This FAC passes my source review. I hope you have a happy holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NegativeMP1 edit

  • This was my first time reviewing a featured article candidate, and I saw no issues within the prose of this article. The only thing I question is if the usage of File:Golden Bow.png is truly necessary as somewhat pointed out by Aoba47, especially when she is already shown wearing a bow in the songs promotional poster. Whether or not you personally think it is necessary is your call, but nonetheless it's still minor enough to the point that it won't stop me supporting this candidate. NegativeMP1 21:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honored to be your first FAC review :) I hope you like it and decide to stick around.--NØ 09:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from QoH edit

I'll reserve a spot here. First FAC review, so no guarantee it'll be competent, but I'll try my best. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 19:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excited for it! Queen of Hearts--NØ 20:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I thought I already did this. Very good work as always, here are my very minor complaints that honestly might just be stylistic:
Lead and background
  • "Trainor wrote the song with...and its producer, Mike Sabath." IMO, "and Mike Sabath, who also produced the song" flows better, but up to you and might add lexical ambiguity.
Composition
  • Should "Sabath", "Benjamin", and "Bailey" be expanded at their first mention? Probably stylistic; up to you.
Either way; neither of these are dealbreakers, and I am happy to support. QueenofHearts 04:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for rescuing this flopping nomination from weeks of inactivity! Sabath, Benjamin, and Bailey are first mentioned in the Background section with their full names. Much thanks for stopping by.--NØ 08:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

Hopefully not too late to the party. I have very little to add as I think this is already a solid article and have been reviewed by other editors much earlier than I did.

  • In September 2020, Trainor announced the album title as A Very Trainor Christmas -- I think this is the first instance in the article prose, so it should be worth linking.
  • The lyrics of "Holidays" are about celebrating the holidays and having a party -- May I suggest using a different for the holidays? Hopefully there is some better alternative ;)
  • Perhaps worth linking music video in its section
  • This would cause an overlink from the Background section.
  • I overlooked that bit in the earlier section. My bad.
  • That's about all I got. You've capped 2023 bringing great music articles to FA, can't wait to see what's next. Happy New Year and hope all is well! Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review and the very nice message! I have been listening a lot to a Filipino-American artist who is nominated for several Grammys this year. I expect you might enjoy my work on her stuff later this year :)--NØ 18:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I’ve listened to a few of Olivia’s songs and her music is great and I think you’re doing good stuff on her body of work. Can’t wait to see those in the FAC space. Btw, if you have time or interest, would love your comments on a current FAC. Understand though if you’re in some sort of wiki break. Also best of luck and early congrats on being part of FTC. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: Would appreciate permission to open another one and an update on this whenever you have some time.--NØ 00:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I’ll look at this nom very soon. FrB.TG (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, FrB.TG! Turns out I don't have anything ready, welp. I hope your week is going well.--NØ 13:10, 11 January 2024 (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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 January 2024 [20].

Alpine ibex edit

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this article to GA ten years ago and recently expanded it, added more sources and got a peer review. How about it? LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Leefgebied_alpensteenbok.JPG: what is the source of the data presented? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
replaced LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FM edit

  • I was the one who GA reviewed it 10 years ago, so I'll see what has happened in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, I see a lot of modern countries linked, which should removed per WP:overlink. Italy is even linked twice.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the point below that the single paragraph naming section is too short (single paragraph sections are discouraged), it should be merged into taxonomy as a paragraph.
It doesn't fit in taxonomy.
It's there in most other featured animal article, so should be fine here too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ibex on the wall of a dam licking minerals" Since this is a man-made object, could be interesting for context to state where it is.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Biologist transporting an ibex" Likewise, the Commons description also states it is carried for reintroduction, context which should be added to the caption.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Miocene and Pliocene.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with the Iberian ibex" give its binomial in parenthesis like you do with the other species mentioned right after.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following cladogram is based on mitochondrial evidence:" Give date for this and other genetic studies cited for context.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold Alpine ibex in cladogram.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • it seems odd to have an entire paragraph on foreign common names, yet no mention of what the actual English common and specific name, ibex, means or derives from.
Ibex is a name used to describe several species. There's an ibex article for that. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it's the specific name of this particular species, not any of the others, so it should be explained here. I could understand that rationale if it was only the common name, but it's the scientific name too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alpine ibex skull" State the sex, more important than repeating the name.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are they physically distinguished from related species?
It already states "Compared with most other wild goats, the species has a wide, shortened snout" and "It is duller coloured than other members of its genus." LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grass genera that are the most commonly eaten" I don't think "the" is needed here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "will try to sneak pass the tending male" Past?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hunting of the ibex has banned in 1821" Was?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hunting of the ibex has banned in 1821 by the local government of Piedmont and the park" What park? I see you spell out Gran Paradiso National Park in the intro, but you should do so in the article body then.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "new populations but they but also" Double but.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "highly deleterious mutations" Which means what? The link to mutations doesn't explain it.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hybridization and domestic goats.
Linked goat. Hybridization is linked in taxonomy. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local extinction could be linked in the article body too.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think this looks good, a real blast from the past. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from RoySmith edit

Lead edit
  • goat antelope isn't mentioned in the body
  • European Alps implies there are non-European alps
  • one of seven species the body says "at least seven"
    • There's still a mis-match. The lead says one of seven species in the genus Capra (the cladogram shows seven as well) but the body says classified in the genus Capra ... with seven other species of wild goats which implies there's a total of eight.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • closet living relative is the Iberian ibex Other than spelling "closest", this isn't explicitly stated in the body although it can be inferred from the cladogram. Maybe that's good enough, whatever is generally accepted for animal species articles is fine
  • coat colour is typically brownish grey the body states this a fact; why the need to equivocate in the lead with "typically"?
  • scale nearly vertical surfaces not stated in body
  • Probably not strictly a FACR, but it's almost impossible to see the one small orange ("introduced") patch in Slovenia. Maybe that could be called out in the caption to draw attention to it? Also, I'm curious why the map doesn't include the Bulgarian data. Could it be added?
The map is based on the IUCN. They don't give the Bulgarian data. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed rest. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naming edit

No issues, but this is so short, maybe it doesn't need to be its own section?

Taxonomy edit
  • Fossils ... are found ... a transitional fossil mismatch of number
    • Still a problem. The full sentence is Fossils of the genus Tossunnoria are found in late Miocene deposits in China and it appears to have been a transitional between goats and their ancestors. What does "it" refer to in "it appears"? Does it refer to "fossils", in which case you need "they appear". Or does it mean, "the species whose fossils were found", in which case you need to say that. Also, not clear what "a transitional" means. You need a noun in there somewhere. And now that I look at it, "are found" should probably be "have been found", unless you're trying to say that the finding is an ongoing activity.
  • date back to delete "back"?
  • during in the last glacial period "during" or "in", not both
  • it probably evolved I guess the referent of "it" is the implied "species Alpine ibex", but it reads like "Fossils ... is".
  • supported them as separate species, maybe "as being"?
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appearance edit
  • a wide, and shortened snout use either the comma or "and", not both
  • substantially larger than those of females, which reach only 18–35 cm (7.1–13.8 in) in length rephrase as "substantially longer ..." and drop "in length". Also "females, which reach only 18–35 cm" rephrase to make it clear that the horns are that long, not the female animals.
  • A beard exists in males -> "males have beards", perhaps?
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat edit
  • native to the Alps mountains I think you can just say "Alps" without having to specify that they're mountains.
  • new areas like Slovenia and Bulgaria maybe "such as" instead of "like"? Or if those are the only two areas, leave it out entirely: "... as well as new areas in Slovenia and Bulgaria".
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviour and ecology edit
  • zig-zag path on gradients of up to 155% Earlier, you talk about slopes in degrees. You should be consistent about which unit you use. Is a gradient of 155% greater or less than a slope of 45 degrees? Beats me. Maybe use {{convert}} to show both?
I have no idea how to convert them. LittleJerry (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/slope-percentage plus WP:CALC. Also Gradient is the wrong place to link to. I think you want Grade (slope), which also has a table of sample conversions which will be useful as a sanity check on your math. RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reproduction and growth edit
  • results in the birth of one but sometimes two kids -> "typically results ..."
  • Males live for 16 years while females live 20 years I assume these are not hard-and-fast numbers, so "typically", "usually", "as long as", whatever.
  • grow up to 20–25 mm -> "grow to 20-25 mm"
    • This is still weird. You've got grow 20–25 mm ... by two months. If you're describing how much their length increased, you want "... in two months" or maybe "... in the next two months". If you're describing what size they've reached at the end of that time, then you want "grow to ...". Also, comma instead of period after "In males. the horns grow..."
  • about 8 cm (3.1 in) a year "per" instead of "a"
  • slowing down -> "slowing".
Fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mortality edit
  • appear to have a low rate of predation. The source says "Predation is negligible"; why quibble with "appear to have"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation edit
  • due almost entirely due duplicate "due"
  • hunting and poaching by humans why differentiate between these two? There may be a legal difference but from the point of view of the animal population, they're they same.
  • with a population of 100 individuals was there an exact census, or does this need "about"?
  • ibexes is the plural "ibex" or "ibexes". You use both.
    • Under "Appearance", "Ibex mould in spring" -> "Ibexes ..."
    • Under "Social life", "Male ibex fighting" (caption)
Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, having gone through a genetic bottleneck, they have low genetic diversity. Some people might object to starting a sentence, let alone a paragraph with "However". It's also odd that there's no obvious referent for "they". I mean, it's clearly, "the ibex population", but you have to go back to a previous paragraph to find that.
  • highly deleterious mutations were lost ... also gained mildly deleterious ones. give some examples of both kinds.
That's way too techincal. Fixed rest. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more items edit
  • The image in "Behaviour and ecology" is not a great image. In the small thumbnail size, I can't tell what it is at all, and even looking at the full size version, it's hard to understand what's going on. Maybe one of the other images from c:Category:Cingino Dam would work better?
  • In "Behaviour and ecology", did you intentionally use the British spelling of "Behaviour"? I'm guessing yes, since you also use "colour" If so, add {{British English}} to the talk page.

RoySmith; fixed all. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith; fixed rest. LittleJerry (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anymore Roy? LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've run out of things to complain about. RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible images edit

There's a bunch of excellent images on iNaturalist including a few of animals climbing near-vertical cliffs. They're not all commons compatible licenses, but some are. One of these might replace the Cingino Dam image I objected to above. RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like they have the right licensing for upload to Commons. LittleJerry (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little pop-up menu at the top to filter by license. This one for example is CC-BY, which should be acceptable to commons. As is this one RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Aterbiou edit

A small comment: In "Taxonomy" it says the Nubian, walia, and Siberian ibex are now considered separate species. However, the cladogram in the next paragraph omits the walia ibex, presumably because it was not included in the study. Should there be a note about this? I was confused for a while, and had to check whether the walia ibex is one of the other ones in the cladogram but under another name (e.g., the Markhor or the Bezoar). Aterbiou (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I wonder if that was the source of the confusion about seven vs eight species that I noted in my original remarks? RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spot-check upon request. I kinda wonder if the lack of non-English sources here reflects WP:RSUEC or lack of comprehensiveness. MDPI is a somewhat dodgy publisher; I don't use it on my own FAs but I don't know about this particular journal or what the attitude at FAC is in general. Otherwise, the sources seem reliable. Again on my own FAs I've been told that long page ranges are a problem, but again I am not sure what the attitude at FAC is in general in that regard. Formatting consistency-wise, it seems like the format is mostly consistent, aside from the use of distinct identifiers which I guess is down to the sources. Gonna request hold until the MDPI and completeness questions are resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using English sources for English wikipedia. Why not judge the comprehensiveness of the English sources. LittleJerry (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, your comments would be welcome. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question I have is whether using only English sources on a topic primarily about a non-English language topic can meet the comprehensiveness requirement. It seems like the coverage is comprehensive, but from only English sources you can't tell whether the sourcing is representative. Right away I notice no mention whatsoever of the cultural and symbolic role of the species, e.g it is the heraldic animal of the Grisons. Sounds like the logical consequence of using only non-native sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many if not most of the authors of the papers and the books cited are continental Europeans, particularly Swiss. Just because they are in English doesn't mean they are written by Americans or Brits. I'll see what I can do in regards to cultural importance. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added information on cultural things. LittleJerry (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:RSUEC is clear on this; "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance". @FAC coordinators: ? LittleJerry (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the article meets comprehensiveness criteria with the dependence on English sources is a matter for discussion by reviewers, not the coords. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-reviewer comment) Just because this is the en.wp doesn't mean you can't use foreign language sources. Imagine writing a FA on the Russian revolution without Russian sources, NPOV would be near impossible. It doesn't mean that every language has to be scoured, but I think JJE is right to question whether an article about a wholly non-English topic can be fully covered by solely English language sources. It's definitely worth discussion, although, as David Fuchs points out above, its a matter of consensus. Which is what we (hopefully) arrive at, and they ajudge. ——Serial 22:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said. The papers are mainly written by Europeans, mostly in the species native countries. English does not equal non-native. The Vladimir Lenin FA is mostly English language sources but some are written by Russian authors. LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the lead authors for each of the papers and books cited and where they are stationed: ToÏgo, C. (France), Brambilla, A. (Switzerland), Parrini, F (South Africa), Pidancier, N (France), Shackleton, D. W (Canada), Robin, M (Switzerland), Geskos, A. (Greece), Adamič, M (Slovenia), Grignolio, S (Italy), Wiersema, G. (N/A), Neuhaus, P (UK), Aublet, J.-F (Canada), Signer, C. (Austria), Biancardi, C. M. (Uruguay), Bon, R (France), Villaret, J. C (Portugal), Bergeron, P (Canada), Willisch, C. S (Switzerland), Stüwe, M (Switzerland and USA), von Hardenberg, A. (Canada and Italy), Ferrogilo, E. (Italy), Moore-Jones, G.; (Switzerland), Carcereri, A (Italy), Cassini, R (Italy), Biebach, I (Switzerland), Grossen, C (Switzerland), Moroni, B (Italy), Calenge, C (France), Schirpke, U (Austria), García-González, R (Spain). LittleJerry (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience with e.g Andean volcanoes, using English-language sources by authors from the region does not guarantee completeness. As for concrete examples, de:Alpensteinbock#Literatur has several dedicated books in German. Google Scholar has several German-language publications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the MDPI source and added seven foreign language sources. In French, German and Italian. LittleJerry (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, this looks better now. Spot-check still upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

I already gave a bunch of comments during peer review, but I take a fresh look now.

  • Link Capra in lead?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wild goat" links to the species article
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • males fight for access to females, and use their long horns for fighting – somewhat redundant wording, maybe "males fight for access to females using their long horns"?, or something even more specific by saying how they fight?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the information on fossil history is too brief. At the very least, we need to know where the mentioned fossil taxa were found. With Capra camburgensi, when and where did it live, and is it also ancestor of the Iberian ibex? Also, more information on the Alpine ibex fossils themselves would be good, too. Localities? Do the fossils indicate larger individuals than modern ibexes?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nubian (C. nubiana), walia (C. walie), and Siberian ibex (C. sibirica) were considered to be subspecies of the Alpine ibex – google search also gives many results for "capra ibex pyrenaica", so what about this one?
I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question was why you do not mention that C. pyrenaica was also considered a subspecies of the Alpine ibes. Is this less relevant than the other formerly considered subspecies you mentioned? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C. pyrenaica was not considered to be a subspecies. Its not in the cited source and found no mention elsewhere. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention that the beard in males is diagnostic for this species?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about glands and body odor (also mentioned to be diagnostic in the Mammalian Species article)? Need to cover this.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the horns seems meager too. The ridges only seem to be on the anterior surface, and the anterior surface is flat?
Added some. The "Reproduction and growth" section talks about the growth of the horns. LittleJerry (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stopping here for now. Based on my comments above, my main concern is that the article is not broad enough in coverage, and that important aspects are not dealt with in sufficient detail. While we need to be concise, I think this is just not informative enough. Could you go through the "Mammalian species" article again (which is an excellent and highly relevant summary), to find additional bits that are missing, and add them in? I would then have another look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some more but you'll have to be more specific. I think I've covered the most important topics in the mammalian species article which gets more granular. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Females have a shoulder height of 73–84 cm (29–33 in), a body length of 121–141 cm (48–56 in), and weigh 17–32 kg (37–71 lb) – Maybe add "Females are much smaller, with a shoulder height of …", to emphasize that the size differences are particularly large? While it is obvious from the numbers, those take time to process, and if you only skim the article, one easily misses this point.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alpine ibexes are strictly herbivorous, with the majority of their diet consisting of grasses season by season. – What do you mean with "season by season" here?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They move along the dam by walking and galloping. – Not sure what the information here is; they move along everywhere by walking and galloping, or not?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Female groups consist of 5–10 adult females – the second "females" is redundant here, as female groups can only contain females, or they wouldn't be female groups.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Female groups tend to be more stable than males. – "than male groups"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • bipedally – maybe just rephrase with "on their hind legs"?
That's the wording of the source. I have to paraphase. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be interesting to mention that horns grow fastest in their second year, as this is a difference to other Capra species.
I can't find that, but its not significant. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the Mammalian species article. "In contrast to other species of Capra, the highest rate of horn growth in C. ibex occurs in the 2nd year of life." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see the importance of this and it doesn't really fit with "grow at about 8 cm (3.1 in) per year for the first five-and-a-half years". LittleJerry (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The slowing of horn growth coincides with aging in males. – I think this is already stated in the previous sentence and is therefore redundant.
Aging is a specific thing. Its not just living for some years.
  • The age of an ibex can be determined by annual growth rings in the horns. – Maybe add that horns stop growing in winter, which is the reason why annual rings are formed.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they stop growing in winter. They develop in summer. But this stopping in winter is crucial, because when growing continuously, you won't see any rings. Same with trees. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enviromental conditions can affect courtship in the species: snow can limit the males' ability to follow and mate with females – maybe this can be shortened to just the snow part? Or is the snow only an example (if so, I would suggest "for example, snow can …").
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "predators" in lead and main text?
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure about the structure, considering the section "Mortality". First, not everything inside there is about mortality (or have the mentioned gastrointestinal parasites been identified as sources for mortality?). Second, survival rates are discussed outside this section; why?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be the case for populations in France and Austria. – Does not fit from a grammar point of view with the previous sentence, I think. Maybe "These gave rise to the populations in France and Austria" or similar?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1890s, ibexes were introduced to Slovenia, despite the lack of evidence of their presence there following the last glacial period.[11] In 1980, ibexes were translocated to Bulgaria. – Introduced or reintroduced in Bulgaria?
I don't know. Sources aren't clear. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from France and Italy, the species range countries allow limited hunting. – Is hunting really allowed in Germany? (To my information, it is not).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • due to low major histocompatibility complex diversity. – I think this could do well with a gloss for explanation.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ibexes were used by local people for traditional medicine, and a single carcass could be used to create multiple different remedies. – Can we have more detail here? What parts of the carcass are used for medicine?
No information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not even in the book (see below)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added information. LittleJerry (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Alpine ibex has been called the steinbock, a combination of the German Stein ("rock") and the Germanic Bock or Bod ("male goat"). – No, "Steinbock" is still the word for the species in German. "Bock" is a German word as well (derived from a Germanic root).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still incorrect I think. "Bock" is German, not Germanic. The Germanic would be *bukka according to [21]. "steinbock" is an English word directly derived from the German "Steinbock". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source says Germanic. LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is Old High German, not Germanic. Please check other sources, this source seems to be unreliable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section termed "cultural significance" has uses for medicine and is not only about culture. Maybe rename "Alpine ibex and humans" or similar? Or even better: Move the info on medicine to the appropriate place where you discuss the population collapse due to hunting.
Traditional uses count as culture. Plus the section needs more text. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit short, yes. Maybe one think to mention is that in some countries (eg., Germany, Neatherlands), there is a constellation called the steinbock (which is named Capricornus in English). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find a good source on that. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some more details about the initial conservation efforts in Gran Paradiso that could be added (As mentioned in the peer review, I think just one sentence on this is really not enough): [22]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all from my side. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit confused that you complain that you cannot find enough info on history and culture, but that there is an entire book on the topic (A monastery for the Ibex), which is only cited once. There surely should be more to find in that book? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the whole book and I don't have the money right now. Its more suited as a main source for Gran Paradiso National Park. LittleJerry (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, the section seems to be complete enough. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One reply above regarding the "Steinbock" etymology, rest looks good now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2024 (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 promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 9 January 2024 [23].

The boy Jones edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another of those rather odd characters from history with one of those interesting-footnote-to-history type stories. This is one about a teenager who kept breaking into Buckingham Palace until he annoyed the authorities so much they stuck him in the Royal Navy for a spell and ended up booting him off to Australia to keep him as far away from Queen Victoria as possible. Some fantastic assistance at PR from Tim O'Doherty and Anarchyte, to whom great thanks. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty edit

Support per my comments at PR. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim: I'm much obliged to you for the work you did there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:The_Boy_Wot_Visits_the_Palace_(Cropped).jpg: as per the UK tag, the image description should include details on the research done to attempt to identify the author. Ditto File:The_Boy_Jones_spying_on_Victoria_and_Albert.jpg, File:Cartoon_of_The_boy_Jones_in_The_Odd_Fellow_-_Saturday_24_April_1841,_page_1.jpg, File:The_Boy_Jones,_as_depicted_in_Punch,_July_1844.jpg, File:The_Boy_Jones,_as_depicted_in_Punch,_August_1844.jpg, File:A_Stranger_in_Her_Majesty's_Bedroom_penny_press.jpg, File:The_Boy_Wot_Visits_The_Palace.webp
  • File:Buckingham_Palace_engraved_by_J.Woods_after_Hablot_Browne_%26_R.Garland_publ_1837_edited.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks as always, Nikkimaria. These now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte edit

Support per my comments at the PR. Again, great work here. Anarchyte (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Anarchyte, I'm very grateful for your comments and thoughts for the PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Apologies for missing the peer review. A few minor quibbles:

  • Lead
  • "He was found hiding under a sofa by staff" – there is nothing wrong with the passive voice in the right place, but I wonder if the shorter, active would be crisper here: "Staff found him hiding under a sofa"?
  • "sentenced to three month's hard labour ... and sentenced to three months hard labour" – the singular possessive "month's" is wrong. I would write "three months' hard labour", but I think the construction also works without a possessive, as in the second example. Consistency either way would be best.
  • "To relocate Jones outside of Britain" – why "of"?
  • Break-ins, 1838–1841
  • "She was not in residence at the time, but was staying at her country residence, Windsor Castle" – infelicitous repetition of "residence" (and was Windsor in the countryside in 1838?)
  • "William Prendergast, Jones's solicitor" – how do we know he was William? It isn't in the cited source?
  • "but his unpunctuality led to him again losing his position" – gerundive usage of "losing" calls for "his" rather than "him"
  • November and December 1840
  • "there were too many people moving around, so he left" – in my, possibly old-fashioned, view "so" is not a conjunction in formal English.
  • "Neither the Queen or her baby were woken" – "was" rather than "were"
  • "how he entered, so he was taken to the palace" – "so", as above
  • "returned to the council to continue questioning" – he was being questioned rather than questioning
  • "Bridewell for three month's hard labour" – as above
  • Later life, 1841–1893
  • "convinced Tom Clancy" – rather an Americanism for a BrE article. In the King's English one convinces that or persuades to
  • "swapped his uniform jacket for a black cost" – typo for"coat"?
  • Britain, 1848–1853
  • "a man wearing sailors dress" – this could do with a possessive
  • Coverage in the media
  • "the novelist Charles Dickens recorded in his literary magazine All the Year Round that it was because of "Jones's extraordinary powers" – that what was because of them?

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. I much enjoyed the article. Tim riley talk 09:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim: all now sorted. Much obliged, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to support. The article is a pleasure to read, is well and widely sourced, balanced, nicely illustrated and seems comprehensive. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 12:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "He broke in again in 1840, nine days after Queen Victoria had given birth to Princess Victoria. He was found hiding under a sofa by staff" => "He broke in again in 1840, nine days after Queen Victoria had given birth to Princess Victoria, and was found hiding under a sofa by staff"
  • "Lewisham, in what was then Kent, but now south London" - this could be interpreted as meaning that Kent was completely renamed to south London. I suggest "Lewisham, at the time in Kent, but now in south London"
  • "Jones had some basic education" - phrased like this, it could refer to either Henry or Edward
  • "which led palace staff think he had" => "which led palace staff to think that he had"
  • "When asked here he came from" => "When asked where he came from"
  • "and after he ran out of money, he ate raw turnips" => "and, after he ran out of money, ate raw turnips"
    Either version is grammatically correct, but I prefer fewer rather than more commas. - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of them, who was dressed like a dressed like a midshipman," - repeated words there
  • Note f: "A guinea was a gold coin whose value was officially fixed at twenty-one shilling" => "A guinea was a gold coin whose value was officially fixed at twenty-one shillings" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks ChrisTheDude. All done, except the one piece of advice on comma use, where I've demurred. Thanks as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • How does the definition of stalker suit Jones? He does not seem to have been after any particular person, since as far as this article states, he never saw Victoria and was there at least once in her absence (I imagine if he knew about such things, the royal standard would have shown Victoria's presence). I see that one of the works about Jones calls him Her Majesty's Stalker in the title but is that enough to call him such in our pages?
  • "In August 1849 several burglaries and petty thefts had occurred in Lewisham, in what was then Kent, but now south London; a man wearing sailor's dress had been seen at the times the crimes were committed." Why "had occurred"? Isn't "occurred" sufficient?
  • Freemantle links to a Liverpool suburb. I think you want Fremantle.
  • "the colony of Australia" Australia was divided into five colonies by this point.
  • "the baby who is to-day Dowager Empress of Germany" perhaps mention that this was Princess Victoria, the queen's daughter.
  • That's in a block quote. Would linking within the quote work? - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, or a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Wehwalt - I'm much obliged for your thoughts here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Dmass edit

I thoroughly enjoyed this article; it covers a lot of ground but clips along very entertainingly. A couple of tiny observations only.

In 'November and December 1840' should it be 'Neither the Queen nor her baby was woken by the event'?
In 'Royal Navy, 1842-1848', first para last sentence, was there a comma before 'it is probable', rather than a semi-colon? And should it be 'with which Jan Bondeson...'
In 'Legacy' was the film not animated, rather than illustrated (I'm not sure what an illustrated film would be...)? Dmass (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dmass; all good points, and all duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC edit

Very little even for me to nit-pick here.

  • Would suggest giving the source of the Victoria and Albert cartoon in the caption; we do for others and it's good practice to remind readers that the provenance of such a source is important; it's not simply a neutral recording of events.
  • Suggest being explicit that Tothill Fields Bridewell was a prison, and not some fields.
  • He tried to find a job, but his notoriety preceded him and he was unemployed: "he was unemployed" seems odd here (unemployed is not really a participle, though the phrasing calls for one): either he remained unemployed or simply he failed.
  • One of them, who was dressed like a midshipman: suggest adding Royal Navy or of the Royal Navy somewhere around here.
  • He went home, put on a clean shirt and left again at between 10:00 and 11:00 am and did not return home: I would change and left again to , went out again: at the moment, it almost reads as if he left work twice.
  • The Times considered that "suspicion strongly points to the same parties who rendered themselves so notoriously conspicuous in his former abduction; and though the father of the boy is in such reduced circumstances as to be unable to take legal measures, it is probable means may be found to fathom this mysterious matter", something with which Jan Bondeson, Jones's biographer, agrees: this reads slightly oddly to me. The "it is probable" is a future prediction; it's a bit weird for Bondeson, many years later, to still agree that it will happen. I suspect that Bondeson was simply concurring with the Times' assessment that Jones was probably kidnapped by the (apparent) RN officers?
  • possibly a servant of the captain: is that captain still Hay?
  • He was pursued and captured by a search party and his rum ration stopped for the remainder of his time on Warspite.: should be was stopped, I think, as it's a deliberate action: we can't really carry the was through when the subject has changed.
  • in what was then Kent, but now south London: not quite grammatical: either but is now... or (now south London). Would recommend a capital on South in this context, and possibly a wikilink: it's a distinct geographical/cultural region, not simply the vaguely southern bit of London.
  • He broke into the Plymouth home of Major-General George Morton Eden: MOS:PEOPLETITLES generally advises against giving ranks like this unless really significant; we might say "G.M.E, a Major-General in the British Army", or simply elect to turn a blind eye.
  • According to the journalist Henry Lucy, he received: did Lucy or Jones receive the letter?
  • the baby who is to-day Dowager Empress of Germany: worth an efn to explain that this is Princess Victoria?
  • A memorial plaque was erected by the East Gippsland Historical Society in 2005 in recognition of Jones: repeating the name reads oddly to me here: in his memory? Or is there a particular reason?
  • The Comic Almanack published a poem about Jones after he put to see with the Royal Navy.: put to sea, I think: colon rather than full stop at the end, as we're effectively leading the reader into that poem?
  • Link "knocker" in that poem?
  • Give the date of the Penny Dreadful in the caption?

A very good article overall and most of the points above are completely matters of taste. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks UndercoverClassicist - all sorted (I think). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spot-check upon request. Something note related: I am not sure that we need to specify the exact 2021 equivalent in footnotes c and g; if we are trying to get the idea across that it was/wasn't a large sum, stating a rounded amount in prose might make it less likely to fall out of date. "That Boy Jones". BBC Genome. probably merits a date. Some books have OCLC and other ISBN numbers; why? The Times does not consistently have a byline. Otherwise, the sources seem to be consistently formatted. Reliability-wise, I wonder if Jan Bondeson's works are commonly cited and/or he's regarded an expert on Victoriana? Nothing that jumps out as bad in terms of sourcing, assuming that there are no questions about the newspapers cited - from what I know, British news media back then had a sordid reputation when it comes to factual accuracy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus - thanks for picking up on this. Breaking your points down to address them individually:
  • The figures in footnotes are in a template, so they will update automatically. They'll be up to date and allow the prose to flow without extraneous content.
  • Genome date: OK, added
  • OCLC / ISBN: I've followed what I think is normal practice here, which is to use ISBNs where available, and then use oclc where there is no ISBN
  • The Times never used to name their journalists (I'm not sure any of the major newspapers did back then), and the only time we've shown the journo is in a modern article.
  • He's been widely cited on this topic in press and at least one book, and more widely on other topics. His work also has multiple references and notes for sourcing of specific points, so I think he's OK
  • Most of the references are from The Times, which was the newspaper of record of the time (and still), so are fairly solid. None of the others are from the tabloid or penny press end of the market.
Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to me the notes show figures from 2021 and it's December 2023. That sounds like they don't do a very good job at keeping figures up-to-date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once the inflation rates for the year are updated, the figures are updated. There is always a gap of a couple of years for inflation calculations on this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz edit

Placeholder. Should be finished tomorrow. JennyOz (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schrocat, my comments, questions and suggestions follow...

lede

  • nine days after Queen Victoria had given birth to Princess Victoria - to her first child Princess Victoria?
    Not sure that is lede-worthy. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was arrested and questioned by the Privy Council - later questioned by (because Privy Council didn't arrest him)
    Went with subsequently - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Thames Police tried - not for article, just my edification, why did water police have jurisdiction?
    "jurisdiction" was an alien concept at the time, particularly when it is likely that there were political machinations in the background to get rid of him somehow. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To relocate Jones outside Britain - to remove Jones from Britain
    Yes, OK. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • he worked for a month before disappearing and signing up to the Royal Navy—again at the instigation of the Thames Police - That doesn't quite make sense? ie how did the TP get to him to sign on to RN if he had disappeared? They must have found him in between "disappearing and signing up".
    It was highly likely the Thames Police were behind the "disappearing", but none of the sources are able to say that as there are no records of it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a ship's boy on HMS Warspite and had further duty on HMS Inconstant and HMS Harlequin. no need to repeat HMS? Per WP:NCS Using ship names in articles "The prefix need not be given if it is obvious from context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat "HMS")." We know it's RN so could be 'He was a ship's boy on HMS Warspite and had further duty on Inconstant and Harlequin'
    Ah - I didn't know of that particular guideline - thank you! - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • burgling houses in Lewisham, at the time in Kent, but now south London - remove "at the time" and "but", and cap S on south
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and was again arrested for burglary - hadn't been for burglary before? - this time for burglary?
    It was for burglary in 1849 in Lewisham - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • again arrested for burglary, before he returned to Australia - spent 6 mths in prison before returning of own accord to Australia?
    Yep - could have been misconstrued it was transportation again, so done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has been used as the basis for fictional characters and, because of the connection to Queen Victoria, in several history books. - appears in/is mentioned in history books
    Yep - done - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biography Early life

  • note a: or step mother - one word or hyphen step-mother
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break-ins, 1838–1841 December 1838

  • caption Buckingham Palace in 1837, with Marble Arch as the front gate - no connection ie no need to mention marble arch?
    I think it's probably useful, given it's a significant London landmark in its own right and people will be confused as to why it's shown on the front of another significant London landmark a fair distance from where it now sits. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November and December 1840

  • who had been born nine days previously - 21 Nov to 1 Dec = 10 days? (if agree, same in lede)
    Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption: Jones spying on Victoria and Albert; from the Sunday Chronicle, April 1861 - swap to L-R order Albert and Victoria (and in alt)
    Added - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • blockquote: "Albert told me..." - there are no links for Albert in the article nor any mention that he was her husband? Maybe in the caption "Jones spying on Victoria and Albert; from the Sunday Chronicle, April 1861" could be 'and her husband Albert' with piped link?
    I've added two links (one in the caption and one in the quote) - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • note d: Earl of Clandon - Clarendon?
    Oops, done - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • During his questioning he said he would - Jones said he would
    Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 1841

  • Two weeks later - less than two weeks later
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • for a further three months detention with - add apostrophe
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later life, 1841–1893

  • His movements were monitored by police, who put him under surveillance - sorry but that reads: he was being watched because he was being watched?
    Deleted the last five words. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • note f - "A guinea was a gold coin whose value was officially fixed at twenty-one shillings." - hmm, the guinea as a coin no longer existed (after 1816) but the term guinea was still used to describe 21 shillings. Reword? eg A guinea was a colloquial term for 21 shillings.
    I'm not sure it was colloquial: it was still accepted as legal tender until 1971 (when decimalisation was introduced) and some lawyers used to charge in guineas up until the early 1980s (anything to squeeze an extra 5% out of their unfortunate clients)! Horse auctions (certainly in the UK) still use guineas at the £1.05 rate for trading. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early January 1842 Evans began work for Mr Elgar, - Jones began not Evans
    Oops - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • suspicious men watching him, One of them - swap comma to full stop
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • put on a clean shirt and went out again again at between - remove again
    Removed again, so to speak. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy, 1842–1848

  • has sailed on board the ____, for America - add note to explain missing name?
    Added - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britain, 1848–1853

  • While still at Newgate Prison - while waiting for departure at?
    Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While still at Newgate Prison he was recognised as Jones. He was moved to the prison hulks, - why? less chance escape? or nastier holding place because he'd lied about his name? or was that normal step between a prison and deportation?
    I think it was as a holding point while they waiting for the ships to come in, but the source doesn't make it clear and I can't find anything that makes this clear. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia, 1853–1893 or 1896

  • to the penal colony in Fremantle, Western Australia - maybe pipe Western Australia to Convict era of Western Australia#Convict era
    OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • but it is probable that he returned to Australia - this via Bairnsdale page said his brother got him to come to Australia. Not RS and not suggesting inclusion, just checking brother being in Aust isn't mentioned in Bondeson or other sources.
    It's in, but not as concrete as the unreliable source suggests (which is just another reason to show why the unreliable source is unreliable!) - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journalist Henry Lucy reports - contemporary journalist?
    Added - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • he fell asleep on the parapet a bridge over the Mitchell River. - parapet of a bridge
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He rolled off in his sleep, - no-one can know if he was asleep when he rolled (and it already has that he fell asleep). Just 'He rolled off, hit his head...'?
    OK, added. - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in the media

  • The poet Samuel Rogers had alluded to the Renaissance architect Inigo Jones when he nicknamed Jones "In-i-go Jones";
    Is the following part of the Samuel Rogers poem?
    One night, returnin home to bed,
    I walk'd through Pim-li-co,
    And, twigging of the Palass, sed,
    "I'm Jones and In-i-go."
    I saw it on Trove and on Gutenberg but Rogers not mentioned. It's in Ashton too but Gbooks isn't showing me page number nor the pages before and after. Is it the Rogers poem?
    I think it nicely helpfully explains the Inigo Jones allusion (esp that the architect is pronounced Inago and the poem is saying, in I go?
    Rogers didn't write the poem (as far as most of the searches I've made have shown), but he did come up with the nickname "In-i-go Jones" according to several sources. All we're supporting in the text is that he came up with the name. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles Hindley, the biographer of the printer James Catnach, observed that Jones was the subject of satirical pieces in the press, as well as several cartoons printed for street sale - Catnach has no relationship to Jones? Is there some other way to introduce Hindley? or was Hindley recalling some coverage in Catnach's chapbooks?
    Hindley was recalling Catnach's works, rather than us doing an OR claim of such. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • included works such as "Her Majesty's Chimney Sweep", "The Royal Sooter", "The Buckingham Palace Hero", "The Royal Flue Faker" - add 'and' before last example?
  • which also included cartoons of him. - cartoons of Jones
    Went with Jones at the start of the sentence instead. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1842 George Cruikshank's - cap I on in
    Oops, done - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • after he put to see with the Royal Navy - typo, put to sea
    Oops, done - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That image "A cheap news sheet published in 1871 about Boy Jones's exploits" - is 1871 the original date or is it part of a compilation published in 1871?
    Its original publication date. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • Factual coverage of Jones's life has been covered in - avoid 2 x cover? Perhaps "has been covered in" to 'appears in'
  • In 2002 a two-act play was staged that was written and directed by Sky Gilbert. - In 2002 a two-act play, written and directed by Sky Gilbert, was staged.
  • Robert Forrest-Webb also turned the story into a musical, - ambiguous? unless "also" is because other portrayals were musicals?
  • "The Boy That was Found in the Palace" v "The Boy that was found in the palace" - match caps?
    All these done - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and template

  • He needs some cats re criminality. Take your pick:
    Category:Convicts transported to Australia (or Convicts transported to Western Australia)
    Category:People convicted of stalking - no, not an actual crime back then for which he was convicted but good to mention here in case someone thinks to add it?
    Category:British people convicted of burglary
    Category:19th-century English criminals
    and maybe Category:Queen Victoria and/or Victoria template per Edward Oxford?
    All added. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yet another interesting piece of history, JennyOz (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JennyOz , thanks again for another details and excellent review. I hope I've done it justice! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent tweaks and explanations! Thanks, nice working with you again and very pleased to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 9 January 2024 [26].

Quarter sovereign edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the smallest coin in the sovereign range. It doesn't have as long a history as the others, but there's still something to be said about its history, both in the 19th century and more recently.Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima edit

Oh finally, another numismatics article! I'm happy I get to do a review for one of these. Good work so far on your coinage escapades on-wiki, I will do my best to look this over.

Images:

  • File:Quarter_sovereign_designs.jpg isn't a very good quality image; BNJ scans are notoriously low-resolution, especially noticeable on an image such as this. I would instead suggest using Template:Mim and the photographs of the two patterns available at the American Numismatic Society's website (here and here). They're high resolution and explicitly public domain; the ANS' online collections are great for finding decent photographs of rare coinage.
Swapped. I hadn't realized that ANS had released its images. I also have access to Heritage Auctions as a special permission for me and one other editor, let me know if you ever need anything from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use images of the modern Quarter Sovereign proof are good.

Prose:

  • Lede:
    • I would suggest linking sovereign in the lede.
Done.
    • I would also suggest mentioning the coin is gold in the lede, since this would not be initially apparent to a reader unfamiliar with British coinage.
Done.
    • "In 1853, Royal Mint had produced two patterns for a quarter sovereign for circulation use, one denominated as five shillings, but these coins never went into production, in part due to concerns about their small size and the likely wear in circulation." This sentence has a number of problems.
Done.
      • "In 1853, Royal Mint" - Missing "the" before Royal Mint here.
      • "quarter sovereign for circulation use" seems a bit clunky to me. I'd just say "for circulation", where it would presumably be used.
      • "quarter sovereign... one denominated as five shillings." So is it a quarter sovereign? British coinage is no stranger to different denominations with the same value, as another notable five-shilling coin would attest. The aforementioned ANA entry describes the latter as a five-shilling piece, not a quarter sovereign. (Hocking's royal mint catalogue does describe it as a quarter-sovereign pattern, however, so this might be a moot point.)
Since Dyer describes it both a quarter sovereign, I think we're safe here. And since the sovereign was supposed to be equal to the gold pound, with the shilling the silver subsidiary unit that had a limited legal tender, it seems more proper. I can think of several reasons for expressing it as five shillings, a) to "sell" it as a substitute for the silver coinage which was in short supply at the time, b) part of a trend for putting denominations on coins, with the florin only four years in the past, and c) maybe the inevitable quality control/wear issues would have resulted in it having a limited legal tender, and call for some disassociation with the other gold coinage, which had unlimited legal tender.
      • "in part"? Looking at the Dyer source, I don't see any other arguments against the quarter sovereign beyond their size and lack of durability, thus requiring greater expense.
Deleted.
      • Generally, a bit of a long and unwieldy sentence. I would just split it after "five shillings", and then throw out the "but".
Cut.
    • "In 2009, with gold no longer used in circulation," I feel this implies that the impetus for the quarter sovereign was gold coins no longer circulating by the late 2000s, as opposed to increased collector demand for bullion sets. I would clarify this.
I cut this and added a sentence about why these coins are being sold to begin with.
    • "The quarter sovereign has the same design as the larger coin, most often..." This one is a bit clunky. The first part of the sentence it implies it has one design, but the latter portion talks about how it is most often a specific design. Rephrasing as "shares the designs" might resolve this.
I've done that, but I find it hard to express a) the designs are uniform over the sovereign range at any given time, b) there are one-year designs and c) they always come back to Pistrucci's. Look it over and you may have some suggestion.
  • Victorian pattern coin
    • Aforementioned problem of one of the patterns not being denominated as a quarter sovereign rears its head again here, but that is of course elaborated on above.
    • "...enquired in the Commons of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, James Wilson..." Is there a "Commons of the Financial Secretary", or is he enquiring in the House of Commons *to* the Financial Secretary?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have that now.
  • 21st century bullion and collector's coin
    • Just describing it as a bullion coin distinguishes it from the Victorian patterns. (And being bullion does not preclude it being a collectors' coin)
I've generalized it with "those wishing to hold gold coins"
  • "In the first decade of the 21st century, the Royal Mint had been striking, for sale to collectors and those wishing to hold gold bullion, sovereigns, half sovereigns, double sovereigns, and five-pound pieces." I can tell what the sentence is trying to down, but it's awkwardly phrased. I think it would help to give quite a bit more background context; expand on when gold circulation ended, when Royal Mint bullion mintage began, and what the difference between the sovereign denominations vs other forms of gold bullion (the Britannia I'm assuming most commonly) is for the UK.
I've done that.
  • "From 2009 to 2012 the sovereign, in addition to being issued as a proof coin, was sold as a bullion piece, with authorised mintages of between 50,000 and 250,000, though the actual numbers sold are unreported". The sovereign? Or the quarter sovereign? I'm assuming both, since they share designs, but you should clear this up.
The quarter sovereign. The actual mintages are not yet published and will possibly be in future editions of the catalogue.
  • "In 2017, a version with the original, 1817 sovereign design was struck. This was for the 200th anniversary of the modern sovereign." Another awkward phrasing. Our readers don't need an additional sentence to figure out this was for the 200th anniversary! I'm sure you can work the adjective 'bicentennial' in so you don't need it. (Also, might be important to mention if this featured the 1817 monarch or the 2017 monarch!)
Rephrased.

General Thoughts: Were this a GAN, I'd approve it once the above changes were made. But FAC requires a comprehensive overview of the subject, and I struggle to interpret this as comprehensive coverage of the British bullion denomination. It doesn't clarify the different ways these are sold (in sets versus singles), it doesn't clarify the premiums that set it apart from other quarter ounce gold bullion. It is missing mention of the quarter sovereigns commissioned by the governments of some British subnational entities, most notably those of Gibraltar. The prose struggles with unnecessarily clunking phrasing; I would highly recommend looking over WP:REDEX and WP:POSA, as I have found them both tremendously helpful in improving that aspect of my prose. Oppose at the moment, but keep up the good work of numismatics editing! - Generalissima (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. I'm always delighted to have a review from someone familiar with numismatics. I will work through your points. Regarding the Gibraltar quarter sovereign, this article is only on the British coin. None of the FAs about the sovereign coinage, sovereign (British coin), half sovereign, double sovereign or five pounds (gold coin), is intended to or does mention sovereigns from Gibraltar, Isle of Man, etc any more than the article on two pound coin mentions the Falkland Islands one. The British coin in each case is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, which would not foreclose an article on, let us say, quarter sovereign (Gibraltar coin).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima, I think I've addressed your issues or responded to them (see above). Could you take a second look at the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above ping, I asked Generalissimo to revisit their review on 5 December, with edit. Still hope they will.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my dearest apologies! I had a busy stretch and totally forgot about this. Looking over the changes, I am inclined to change to Support. You fixed up the issues I had; so sorry about not getting back to you prior. Generalissima (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "In 1853, the Royal Mint had produced". Why "had"?
  • Any chance of an explanation of what "bullion pieces" are?
  • "Other reverse designs used included another". I think "included" should be 'include', but don't insist.
  • Hocking (1906): no place of publication?

Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've addressed those issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial support edit

Pending... ——Serial 15:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Nominal value" - what's nominal; not in article body
Clarified as face value.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight tension between silver coins being "higher-value" in one sentence but gold "more valuable" in the next?
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The report that Herschel presented with the pattern coins" - perhaps "Herschel's report on pattern coins", or even just "Herschel's report" since you've just mentioned it.
I don't see where I've mentioned the report. He presented the two coins, and we take time out to describe them, and a report saying it would be impractical to make them for commerce.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was there a sudden rise in the number of fakes in 1911 or 1922, 60 years later and ten years apart?
These are likely fakes to fool collectors, or fantasy pieces, but the source gives no further detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australia and South Africa" - neither of whom, of course, needed to import their gold, the highest cost to UK minting.
Yes, but more importantly, they didn't have the war debts that had to be settled in gold with other nations. So gold could continue to circulate on a limited basis, especially in South Africa.
  • Did they use the 1853 specs in 2008?
The amount of gold would have been the same. The diameter seems to have increased. The source for the image of the 1853 pattern coin says 13 mm while that for the 21st century piece says 13.5 mm. The Dyer source says that the 1853 was the same diameter as a Maundy twopence, which my reference books confirm as 13 mm, so I don't think it's an issue of rounding. I could speculate that in 1853 they used the Maundy twopence obverse die because it was available (possibly even left over from the 1848 striking of silver twopences for colonial use) and in 2008 they made it larger to better display the design, but I'd only be speculating.
  • It would be interesting to know how much they sold for since sio far all we know is that they have a nominal value of 25p. And indeed, how much they cost to make? (Some context as to cost, basically.)
Added. I don't know how much they cost to make. I don't see where the Royal Mint publishes such figures.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN222: Marsh, pp. 176.
Fixed.
Really interesting that one Wehwalt, thanks! Hope this small sliver is useful. ——Serial 15:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I too had a vague look for RM's costings, but also couldn't find anything—perhaps it's a trade secret. Anyway, that satisfies my few concerns (such as they were). I'll be pleased to support this article's promotion. ——Serial 19:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I've taken the liberty of bolding the word support, which I think doesn't show up in the count otherwise. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a trade secret. Or maybe people aren't that interested, like they are, say, for the cost of coining a penny.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: It also shows up when it's bolded in a section heading  :) I'd also like to comment on the oppose above. To me, this is misreading the breadth of the article and, concomitantly the expectations to it should be held. If this were an article, say, on gold sovereigns generally, etc., one would expect international (or at least pan-European) coverage. But this is explicitly about the British quarter gold sov. If someone wants to write one about the Gibraltean gold sov, they should saw away. In the meantime, it would be misleading for an article on the British quarter sovereign to discuss other mintings, indeed up to being a breach of WP:FA? #4. If the oppose stands following discussion, then I merely suggest that moving the page to British quarter sovereign (or to play around, Quarter sovereign (British minting) would, propitiously, render the question moot. ——Serial 21:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've unbolded. I have no objection to a move, Quarter sovereign (British coin) would be consistent with similar articles, I suppose, such as Sovereign (British coin).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

  • Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the above, while the comments by Generalissima are obviously in good faith, I'm not sure I agree with them on the one outstanding point. It's right that this article doesn't try and cover non-British quarter sovereigns, and it would be odd if it did. I see the other point—that of the issuance—is now addressed and included.
For my review, just one point to address, in Victorian pattern:
  • "the demand for gold was so heavy that there was no opportunity to meet the demand for silver": as this could be misconstrued that there was insufficient gold to buy the silver needed, maybe a slight tweak to "no opportunity to produce to produce sufficient silver coinage to meet demand"

That will not affect my support for this excellent piece. - SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've rephrased, using slightly different words. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review edit

Image licence/rationale seem OK to me. I am not sure that I understand why some images are copyrighted and others aren't, or what the criteria for putting one in the infobox is. Only one has an ALT text.

All images except those in the infobox have alt text, and those have a description of the design right underneath. One of the images in the infobox is fair use because since the coin only came in in 2009, all obverses used are not yet Crown Copyright expired. The design shown, first used in 1998 on other coins, will be in the public domain in 2049, and the others used to date will expire not later than 2074. The reverse has been used on British coinage since 1817 and is PD.

Source-wise, spot-checks upon request (when was a coinage FAC last spotchecked?) isn't there a parliamentary journal (Hansard?) that could be used for #3? Ditto for a government press release or whatever in #17. Does Coins of England and the United Kingdom, Decimal Issues have an author? Is there any discussion anywhere about how these coins and their designs were received or remarked upon? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Hansard. Royal Mint press releases on their site are only available from 2015. The book you mention does not have an author (other than Spink's). There is commentary on the Saint George and the Dragon design, but it really relates more to its use on the sovereign, so I've included a hatnote referring the reader wanting commentary on that there. Such a hatnote already exists in the half sovereign article. I think that's everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ((u|Jo-Jo Eumerus}}, just checking if both of these are now ok, in your opinion? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK, although for #17 a replacement source doesn't need to be online. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

Not sure how I've missed this review till now, and having perused the article carefully I'm afraid I can find nothing to quibble about. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria (and, as Wehwalt's coinage articles do, manages to turn a dry subject into a readable and pleasing article). Tim riley talk 14:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next one? edit

Any objection to my making another nomination at FAC as I await the coin dropping?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt. Sure, go ahead although it sounds positively insomnia inducing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2024 (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 promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 8 January 2024 [27].

Caitlin Clark edit

Nominator(s): Sportzeditz (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Caitlin Clark, the reigning national player of the year in women's college basketball, who led Iowa to its first national championship game last season while breaking several records. Hoping to bring a third college basketball bio to FA status after the promotion of Paige Bueckers and Angel Reese. This article is well-sourced and comprehensive, with high-quality images, and I have edited it for almost 2 years and expect to keep it updated. Sportzeditz (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Chris edit

  • Wikilink freshman, sophomore, junior, senior (in both lead and body), these are not terms used or understood outside the United States
  • Wikilink sixth grade, I personally (as a non-American) have no idea what age group this relates to
  • Wikilink Class 5A, no idea what this means
  • "Clark named first-team Class 5A All-State" => "Clark was named first-team Class 5A All-State"
  • "Iowa reached the Sweet 16" - what does this mean?
  • The names for each round are explained in the tournament page linked earlier. Sportzeditz (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "field goals" - thought that was an American football thing?
  • "Listed as day-to-day" - what does this mean?
  • "the ability to score in the paint" - what the heck does this mean?
  • Under business interests, can you reword so we don't have two consecutive sentences starting "On October 10"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support stumbled upon the article after Ms. Clark was all over the news, impressive work for an athlete that has yet to turn pro. igordebraga ≠ 17:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review edit

Was File:Flyover at the Crossover at Kinnick (8075451).jpg taken as part of the guardsman duties? Otherwise, ALT text, image placement and licencing seems OK to me. Source spot-check on request. What is Hawk Central? Gatorade is a rather unusual source for a basketball article; what makes it reliable here? #32 needs a bit more information. With respect to #44 and other such sources, it seems like sources with writers named have parenthetical dates before the title, sources without named writers after the title without a parenthese, which seems a little inconsistent. Why is The Washington Post with an ISSN? At the risk of setting off a landmine, should the op-ed by Karen Attiah (#100) be attributed in-text? It seems like she's pretty prominent and thus her opinion on the topic she's cited for worth noting, though. Why is #107 marked as closed access? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yes for the question about the image. Hawk Central is a website run by The Des Moines Register for news about Iowa Hawkeyes athletics. Gatorade is cited for information about Gatorade Player of the Year awards, which were established by Gatorade. I have changed #32 to a source with more information. Not sure what the best format for sources like #44 would be - for previous FAs, I have used the current format. Removed the ISSN for consistency. I did not attribute in-text because the incident was widely covered and commented on by many prominent writers or commentators. I have removed the closed access tag for #107. Sportzeditz (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, does this do the trick? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Nice article and more or less an FA as it stands. (You can take it from this that I'm leaning heavily towards supporting at the moment). There are no deal-breakers in my points below, although the three semi-technical points below (points, 1, 3 and 4) and the attribution on the opinions are the key ones.

  • "the number four player in her class": I'm sure this is common language in the US, but when this article appears on the front page there will be many not from the US (including me!) who are puzzled by what this means. Is there a way it could be reworked to make it understandable?
  • "She looked up to": in a sport notable for the number of tall people playing, this could be misconstrued (or at least taken for a joke!), " respected" or "admired" would work instead
  • "her first double-double": Same as the first point here – unintelligible for many. It would be best to give a few words to explain what a "double-double" is, either in the body or as a footnote. Without it, people are likely to click away from this article and possibly not return
  • "the first triple-double": ditto
  • For the two points above, the terms are linked to their own article, which explains them (this may be more appropriate than explaining within the article, as with other statistical terms). Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ll leave it for you to decide on the point, but a. it will not be understood for most non-US readers (of which there will be a hefty proportion), which means b. people will either click away to find out (and possibly not return) or just stop reading the article and not bother with the rest. Your call. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should technically just be her last name then, but I think “She surpassed Logic” would be a big mistake, so OK as it is then. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she repeated as Big Ten Player": Is "she repeated" good formal English in the US? (I ask from a position of ignorance as it wouldn't be in BrEng). I'll leave it to your judgement
  • "[123][124][125][126]" and "[133][134][135][136]": It may be worth WP:BUNDLING the cites here. (My rule of thumb is a maximum of three: it's your call whether you do or don't, but it is helpful for readers
  • Made changes so there are no more than three consecutive citations. Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Player profile section. There are a few opinions given in WP's voice that would be best rephrased to attribute them to an opinion holder ("has great size", "has exceptional range", "Clark is a skilled playmaker")
  • I mostly left this alone, as the phrases are stated as a fact in the sources, do not seem controversial and may be repetitive if attributed each time. Let me know if this is an issue. Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think this one is an issue, as it breaches policy. WP:VOICE has “Avoid stating opinions as facts”, which is what we’re doing here. Even if “the phrases are stated as a fact in the sources”, it’s not a fact, it’s an opinion and we need to treat it as such. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: I have addressed all points or replied above. Sportzeditz (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Addressed the remaining issues. Sportzeditz (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article. I've never heard of Ms Clark before this, but you've managed to paint a good and informative picture of her here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Sorry SN, senility. I got interrupted, came back to my laptop to post an article at FACIR, and picked the wrong window. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey no problem. I suppose there will be another at some point. ——Serial 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 7 January 2024 [28].

William Y. Slack edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A small-town lawyer from Chillicothe, Missouri, Slack served briefly in the Missouri House of Representatives and in the US Army in the Mexican War in the 1840s. With the outbreak of civil war in 1861, Slack sided with the pro-Confederate state militia and was appointed a general officer in the militia. He fought at Carthage in July 1861, took a bullet to the hip at Wilson's Creek in the next month, and transferred to formal Confederate service in the winter of 1861/1862. While leading a brigade at Pea Ridge in March 1862, he took another wound close to the site of the old Wilson's Creek one. This injury proved fatal and he died two weeks later. The Confederate government later promoted Slack to the rank of brigadier general in the Confederate service; they may not have known he was dead. Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

CommentsSupport by PM edit

Good stuff. I'll take a look at this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • just to improve the flow, I would go with "Mary J. Caldwell Slack.[1] In 1819,[2] the family moved to Columbia in the Missouri Territory to pursue agricultural opportunities there.[1]"
    • Done
  • what rank was Sterling Price when he commanded the 2nd Missouri Mounted Volunteers in the M-A war?
    • Added
  • "and they had two more children" he did, but did she already have kids? Otherwise drop the "more".
    • Dropped
  • is there a see also target about Missouri in the ACW that could be put at the top of the ACW section?
    • Added
  • suggest "which was commanded by Price, now a major general."
    • Done
  • I think you need to add something about the divisions being divisions in name only, and probably rendering them in the first instance as "divisions".
    • I've added a bit on this.
  • what rank was McCulloch
    • Added
  • suggest "Slack's infantry was positioned in the middle of the Confederate line"
    • Done
  • suggest The two forces combined in late July" to avoid repeating unite/united
    • Done
  • so, McCulloch was in overall command once they combined?
    • Yes, although McCulloch and Price fought each other like cats and dogs
  • suggest "On January 23, 1862,[29] after the Confederate Army of the West was formed, Slack was given command of the 2nd Missouri Brigade, a roughly 1,100-man organization that included both Confederate and MSG troops.[28]"
    • Done
  • suggest "but the Federal commander was able to redeploy his forces to meet the attack"
    • Done

That's all I could spot. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude edit

  • American Civil War is linked twice in the lead
  • As is Confederate States
  • As is Confederate Army
  • "McCulloch's post-battle report praised Slack, although he suffered a bad hip wound while leading an assault" - who did? McCulloch or Slack?
  • That's it, I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "After serving in the Missouri General Assembly from 1842 to 1843, he served as a captain". "serving ... served"
    • Rephrased
  • "who had supported slavery before the war, supported the Confederate cause." "supported ... supported".
    • Rephrased
  • "to oppose the Federals". Who or what are "the Federals"? (Sounds Mexican to me. Or is that "Pancho and Leftie"?)
  • "a surprise Federal Army". Similarly. The army of the Federated States of America I assume.
  • "his mother's name was Mary J. Caldwell Slack" → 'his mother was Mary J. Caldwell Slack'.
    • Done
  • "to pursue agricultural opportunities there." Delete "there".
    • Done
  • "Slack was voted captain of Company L." Might that read better as 'Slack was elected captain of Company L'?
    • Done
  • "The MSG was composed of nine divisions based on regions of the state, with each division commanded by a brigadier general." Is it known what the complement of an MSG division was?
    • I've added some more information about this - these aren't divisions in the standard sense. Range in strength was from ~400 to over 2,000; certainly not a division as would traditionally be thought of.
I suspected as much, all the more reason to explain a little what they were. Which is now fine. Apart from "The Ninth Division was never truly formed". "truly"? Are we referring to some Platonic essence of a perfect division?
Is "never effectively formed" any better?
Works for me.
  • "nine divisions based on regions of the state". Maybe 'nine divisions, each based on a region of the state'?
    • Done
  • "Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and it included Chillicothe." I think you are confusing different things here. The division did not include Chillicothe. Maybe 'Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and its recruitment area included Chillicothe' or similar?
    • The new information I've added on this should make this make a bit more sense now. The divisions of the MSG were purely geographic, so it is accurate to say that the division contained Chillicothe
Nope. A division comprises men and equipment. So " Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and it included Chillicothe" doesn't work. Maybe 'Slack's command was later designated the Fourth Division, and its recruitment area included Chillicothe'?
Done
  • "who was now a major general." Link "major general"?
    • added link
  • And "Colonel"?
    • Is linked earlier in the article now as a result of a query from PM
  • "who died in the battle". Perhaps 'who died as a result of the battle'?
    • Done
  • Does Bearss have a place of publication?
    • The bibliographic information the Bearss work provides in the copyright and title information is The Battle of Wilsons Creek by Edwin C. Bearss with battle maps by David Whitman published by George Washington Carver Birthplace District Association 1975 ARTCRAFT PRINTERS [logo identifying printer as a union shop] BOZEMAN, MONTANA. Bozeman is halfway across the country from the Carver Birthplace District of the Diamond, Missouri area so I suspect that is related to the printer's HQ, not the actual publisher's location
Bleh! Ok.

Just those quibbles. Good to see you back with another fine submission. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild and Peacemaker67: - so we have two cans of worms here now. The first is that some digging in another source revealed a somewhat awkward discrepancy regarding a unit from the 5th Congressional District early in Slack's MSG career. I've thrown the RS I can find that speak on this into a footnote in the article for now. If this is problematic, I can try to get over to Missouri State University in Springfield or the Wilson's Creek library in Republic and access Sterling Price's Lieutenants from their special collections, which is primarily a list of names, appointments, and dates of rank, sometime although it might well be next week before I can get over there. {{pb]} As to the other - The use of "Union" has seen some controversy lately. Both "Union" and "Federal" see use in the academic literature. I went with "Federal" here as I figured it was probably somewhat safer to use but I'd be fine with using either term. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Federals: I wasn't aware that Wikipedia took any notice of controversies. Has the consensus of modern HQ scholarly opinion changed since your last FAC nom then? If so, you are going to need to introduce the term properly at first mention in both the lead and the article as it will be very confusing for non-aficionados. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - no, I haven't seen a strong move one way to the other. "Federal" and "Union" have both been used in HQ scholarly sources for decades, with a bit of a preponderance for Union - the terminology tends to be used interchangably. The preponderance is still towards Union from what I can tell, so I've switched back over to Union. Replies to the other two concerns involving the division terminology are above as well. Hog Farm Talk 22:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong here, but doesn't using "Federal" and "Confederate" sort of equate the two, when the term "Union" stands for the faction that fought for American unity? It seems a bit weasely to me to use "Federal". Not sure if that is borne out in the literature or not, not being an ACW buff, but maybe something to consider. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 - the idea is actually more that "Federal" approaches it as a rebellion against the central US government with the Federals upholding the power of the central US government, which I guess does have appeal to both sides. Both Federal and Union have seen traction in the sources since the war, even during contemporary 1860s reporting. Ed Bearss, who was a leading respectable scholar, used Federal pretty much exclusively, as have several others. Often both are used interchangably. Many sources primarily stick with Union as well. From what I've seen, the pro-Confederate and neo-Confederate sources tend to use terms like "Yankees" and such. Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/ pass edit

In progress... ——Serial 17:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference formatting: no issues.
  • Source formatting: Choose between "Boston & New York" and "Boston/New York". Bearrs needs a location (the aptly-named Bozeman, Montana). Welsh/Hatcher's ISBN is inconsistent. Not unconnectedly, are you using Kennedy's book other than Hatcher's chapter? If not, the plain book ref is superfluous. Or is it the Intro? In which case, cite as a chapter.
    • I've gone with Boston/New York; this is how it is shown in the printed copy. As to Kennedy, there are three spots being cited from this book. One is a chapter by Hatcher, and another I found upon a second check to actually be a chapter by James M. McPherson, so I've updated that reference. The other is material written directly by Kennedy. Essentially, this book is a giant undertaking that details 384 Civil War battles, with the vast majority described in short capsules written by Kennedy, with "guest" writers contributing longer sections on the more important battles; typically the guest writers are subject matter experts on the battles, such as Hatcher for Wilson's Creek. As to Bearss - is the publishing location suppose to indicate where the publisher is located (in which case that's Diamond, Missouri, where the George Washington Carver Birthplace Association is) or is it to be where the book was printed (which, for reasons I cannot fathom, is apparently Bozeman). I don't think I understand what you are referring to with the Welch and Hatcher ISBNs. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Material: Is there anything in Safakis to be used? Just wondering, I'm sure if there was, you would have!
    • I've added two brief tidbits from this source, one just another view to the long footnote. I found a copy on Internet Archive; this source uses very brief capsule biographies and generally doesn't have much to say about the figures Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality: I've taken a random selection of books from Archive.org, JSTOR and GBooks and found nothing that wasn't used here already. The sources used are from reputable publishers, academic presses and field experts. It's a sufficiently niche topic that I'm comfortable assuming there's nothing in the scholarship that is not, but should be, utilised (there a couple of articles). Still, they are pretty niche and might be considered over-detail.
    • I don't think there's anything really worthwhile to add there. The 9 sources in the JSTOR query are Bridges 1951 (which is used as a source), five sources briefly referencing the Bridges article or using it as a source, and three brief mentions that don't contain anything of significance not already in the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source review is almost passed. Cheers! And happy hols to Hog Farm  :) ——Serial 17:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: - I've got replies and a couple queries above. I can provide short quotes from the print sources if you want to do any spot-checks. Bridges is on JSTOR, Sifakis on Internet Archive, and Prushankin on Wikipedia Library Project MUSE, and Burchett is from the local public library and needs to be returned soon. The rest I have print copies of. Hog Farm Talk 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if I was unclear: I meant I couldn't find any unused sources, not that you had to (twice!) justify the ones you do use  :) I've made a couple of tweaks, if that's OK, per the complete and utter minutiae (no point in getting bogged down in it) re. ISBNs etc. Your reasoning is sound re. Kennedy. Happy to pass the source review. Don't be late with that library book! Cheers, ——Serial 18:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review:

  • I checked the lede and infobox to ensure that all information was cited in the article, and found no concerns
  • "This deployment bought Price time to deploy" -> "This deployment gave Price time to deploy" Bought might be misinterpreted to concern money, gave might be a better descriptor.
    • Changed here and in two other spots in the article
  • "able to redeploy his forces to meet the attack; bringing on the Battle of Pea Ridge on March 7." I think the semi-colon should be a comma, because the section after the semi-colon is not a separate clause.
    • Done; I am so bad with comma usage that I admittedly just guess a lot whether a comma is correct or not.

Concerns are minor, so I am happy to support. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2024 (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 promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 7 January 2024 [29].

Tropical Storm Hernan (2020) edit

Nominator(s): JayTee⛈️ 22:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Tropical Storm Hernan, a small and short-lived tropical cyclone that originally was not expected to have significant impacts on land. Yet, it defied forecasts and caused immense flooding and significant damage across much of southwestern Mexico in late August 2020 as it passed closely offshore. This storm is a textbook example of how small tropical cyclones can still pack a powerful punch. JayTee⛈️ 22:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricane Noah edit

Lead
  • "40 miles per hour (65 km/h) simply make it 'low-end tropical storm' which conveys the same meaning without numbers.
  • "achieved peak intensity" achieved 'its' peak intensity
  • "6:00 UTC" 06:00
  • Link to maximum sustained winds somewhere in the lead.
  • "The low moved near the Baja California Peninsula" I don't like this wording... maybe 'the low neared the southern edge of...'?
  • 11 inches (280 mm) - Abbreviate please
  • "with accumulation peaking" - pluralize accumulation
Meteorological history
  • "6:00 UTC" 06:00
  • "340 miles (545 km)" Abbreviate
  • "However, the United States" I would say United States-based
  • Link wind shear in met
  • Link Ocean gyre
  • Link maximum sustained winds and atmospheric pressure in met
  • Convection duplicate link
Preparations and impact
  • Link tropical cyclone warnings and watches
  • "MXN$594.045 million pesos (US$26.9 million)" Sigfigs should be the same here
  • " including 115 minors" Why is this important?
  • "13 feet (4.0 m)" abbreviate
  • Link Parota
  • "A young man" This is vague. Young is in the eye of the beholder.
  • "Winds gusts" Wind singular
  • Link sea turtle
  • "Minor rainfall, gusty winds, and large waves spread across the coast of Baja California Sur even as Hernan weakened and dissipated just offshore." I dont think this detail is needed since that's normal and nothing resulted from it.
  • Manzanillo duplicate link
  • Tomatlán duplicate link
  • Nayarit duplicate link
  • It's also frowned upon to start sentences with numbers in numerical format so I would avoid doing so if possible.
Here are some comments to get you started. Noah, AATalk 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above comments have been addressed. JayTee⛈️ 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45 miles per hour - please abbreviate here
  • "1,674 homes and nine schools" Since there is a numerical form for homes, schools should also be in numerical.
  • "At least 630 houses and nine schools" Ditto
That should be it.
Noah, AATalk 02:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. JayTee⛈️ 16:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since my issues have been resolved. Noah, AATalk 01:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review edit

Will be doing this later but for now note (which I discovered during the text review):

  • Link to TCR is missing
  • Check NOAA sources and please make sure your text isn't too close to the source.
Addressed. JayTee⛈️ 21:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the wake of Hurricane Genevieve - Could you reword this since it is similar to the TCR text?
  • Discussion 1 link is messed up (appears to be NHC's fault). If you are sourcing discussion 1, change the link to discussion 2's link since they put the text for discussion 1 there.
  • For NHC refs, either include middle initials for all (also II in the case of John Beven) or none
  • FN7: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source? I couldn't find a staff page or editorial oversight.
Ended up removing as it didn't contribute to article much and was a stub of a source. JayTee⛈️ 23:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto FN31
I did some research and found out Lopez-Doriga was actually founded by a man of the same name and it appears to have a decent reputation in Mexico. Its founder is a respected TV show host that is disliked by the Mexican government for its criticism of it, but its in the cohorts of other respected news sources. JayTee⛈️ 23:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That only makes mention of Lopez-Doriga himself in passing and doesn't establish that the organization itself performs high-quality news reporting. Noah, AATalk 00:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't necessarily think the source or its founder (in lieu of a mission statement) is unreliable or not of at least decent quality. And it adds valuable information to the Guerrero section. JayTee⛈️ 05:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we have to establish reliability. We can't go on gut feeling. FAs have to be top-notch in everything which is why I was very stringent in going over the sources. Sometimes this would mean deleting information from an article because the source's reliability can't be accurately assessed. Noah, AATalk 14:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't establish the reputability of this source so I will be removing. JayTee⛈️ 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN10: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?
I wouldn't call it high-quality, but it has good impact info and passes a quick ScamAdvisor check. JayTee⛈️ 23:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be able to prove that it's reputable and high-quality. If you are certain it isn't high-quality than it probably should be removed. Noah, AATalk 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest I don't think it's a high-quality source. I'll remove it and see what information from it is already covered by other sources and can be salvaged. JayTee⛈️ 04:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link El Universal (Mexico City)
  • Link Uno TV
  • El Universal is a newspaper, not a work
  • Link to El Informador (México) on Spanish WP
  • El Informador (México) is a newspaper, not a work
  • Should be listed as El Informador instead of just Informador
  • Link to Meganoticias on Spanish WP
  • Link to Comisión Nacional del Agua on Spanish WP for Conagua
  • Link to Proceso (revista) on Spanish WP
  • Proceso is a newspaper
  • Link Milenio
  • Milenio is a newspaper
  • El Sol de Acapulco is a newspaper
  • FN34: What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?
Now goes by La 1, an old and reliable Spanish TV channel, will be fixing and linking. JayTee⛈️ 23:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN35: Author name missing
  • Be consistent in giving locations for news sources (either all or none)
Removed all since only a handful of sources provide them. JayTee⛈️ 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please replace quotations within titles with 'words in quotations here'
Do you mean the quotations in the ref names (i.e. "HTCR") or the quotations in the actual titles of the articles (i.e. tormenta tropical "Hernán")? JayTee⛈️ 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. Noah, AATalk 00:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. JayTee⛈️ 04:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add translated titles
1) How do I add them to the references? 2) Is there a certain website we can use to translate the titles? Google's translations are pretty subpar to say the least. JayTee⛈️ 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use the parameter trans-title=. If I am being honest, unless you know someone who can help with translating, the best bet is to use a combination of Google translate and common sense. There’s probably someone who can help with translating somewhere, but I am not familiar. Noah, AATalk 00:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. JayTee⛈️ 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found. Spot checks haven't yet been done. Noah, AATalk 21:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What spot checks are referring too? JayTee⛈️ 23:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to check about five references to make sure what you said in the article is supported by the source. Noah, AATalk 00:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Taken care of all other comments thus far. JayTee⛈️ 04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an El Universal and a Milenio that are still listed as work. FN3's link is still broken as well. Discussion 1 is actually located at [30] Noah, AATalk 14:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all. JayTee⛈️ 15:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hurricane Noah, is that a pass for the source review? Likewise for the spot check. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Noah, AATalk 16:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks edit

  • FN5: "The system was downgraded to a tropical depression at 12:00 UTC that day" This isn't supported by the discussion which is for 1500. Check others in the section to make sure it is supported by sourcing appropriately.
  • FN12: Statement is supported
  • FN20: "It was reported that at least 19,968 people were impacted and in need of support in the state following Hernan" This statement isn't supported
  • FN25: Statement is supported
  • FN31: Statement is supported
Let me know when you have fixed these. Noah, AATalk 14:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah All fixed. JayTee⛈️ 16:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't cite mid-sentence in the absence of a punctuation mark. You can have both citations at the end of a sentence. Otherwise, those are fixed. Since 2/5 revealed unsupported statements, I had to do a few more.
  • FN1: (Third citation): "Despite these unfavorable conditions, cloud tops south and west of Hernan's center cooled to between −117 and −123 °F (−83 and −86 °C) as its convection increased, allowing the cyclone to strengthen slightly." and "Continuous wind shear caused Hernan to weaken shortly thereafter, restricting convection to the southern and western portions of the storm's circulation." are not supported within the TCR. I'd ask you again to take a close at the met and what each source specifically supports. I'm convinced this really is the trouble area at this point since I didn't find anything else in the four additional spot checks I did. I will go over the entire met tomorrow night with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it is handled. Other than that, the other SR issues are resolved.
  • FN15 (Last citation): Statement supported
  • FN28: Statement supported
  • FN30: Statements supported; You do only need to cite at the end of the last sentence rather than citing it at the end of both consecutive sentences.
  • FN33: Statement supported

I did five additional spot checks.Noah, AATalk 02:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah Taken care of all. I added discussions 5 and 6 from the NHC advisory archive on Hernan to the met history as they support the claims above. JayTee⛈️ 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass SR. Noah, AATalk 01:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! JayTee⛈️ 02:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hurricanehink edit

I did a review of the article before FAC, and thought it was in pretty good shape. I'll leave the only comment I had from two years ago, which is the main reason I can't support at the time.

It could use a damage total, and clarification on the missing person. Having a news story about a missing person around the time of the storm doesn't mean the person actually died, or is still missing. That's the biggest thing missing IMO.

Support. So I'm glad the article now has the damage total. But as for the missing person, it's like one last thread to the narrative that isn't complete. For what it's worth, the Spanish Wikipedia article for the 2020 PHS season doesn't list any deaths. Neither does the WMO report. So I'm not a fan of the current wording saying "though their whereabouts were never discovered." The current sourcing doesn't back that up, and I'd rather the wording be accurate than make assumptions. Further, I don't see where ref 19 cites the information described. It's pretty minor, but I'd rather you make sure you get the wording right rather than just removing it. Even if you change the wording to something like, "there were initial reports of a missing person," then it's still accurate, without having to speculate. This was my only qualm with the article, otherwise I stand by that the article is is in good shape. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink I think the death is well-sourced and seeing as it mentioned in the NHC's TCR on the storm I strongly feel it should be included. The Spanish WP is mostly a copy-paste of this article and may have missed the death. I can re-word the article to more accurately reflect FN19 and I agree that the statement "there were initial reports of a missing person" should be added as there were no further reports of this beyond that article. Seeing these issues addressed would you feel comfortable supporting the article? JayTee⛈️ 19:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The TCR death is in Jalisco, which I'm not talking, I'm referring to the missing person in Guerrero. My beef is the original research putting in "though their whereabouts were never discovered." Hence why I suggested the wording of "there were initial reports of a missing person", since that person could well have been accounted for. See any big natural disaster where the death toll can fluctuate, particularly with missing people. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand better now. I re-worded the OR sentence. I believe the FN19 issue is addressed as well as it supports the information in the sentences that precede it in the Jalisco and Guerrero subsections. JayTee⛈️ 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • Note a comes after "ninth named storm". Do you really mean that one of the nine named storms was in fact unnamed?
  • "Hernan was hindered by a high wind shear environment". Per MOS:NOFORCELINK - "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links" - a brief in line explanation would be helpful.
  • "it dropped over 11 in (280 mm)". Inches in full at first mention.
  • "Recovery efforts were carried out by Mexican Armed Forces members and municipal governments". You mix the employees of organisations and just the organisations themselves in this sentence. Is there a reason?
  • References: article titles in English should all be in title case, regardless of how they appear in the original publication. Similarly, words in all caps ("FONDEN y FOEDEN") should be in lower case (apart from their initial letters).
I'm a little confused about this. Are just the English translations of the articles supposed to be in title case or both the Spanish and English titles? Also, FONDEN and FOEDEN are acronyms of government organizations- this would be the equivalent of changing NOAA to Noaa or NASA to Nasa. JayTee⛈️ 23:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just those in English, eg cites 13 and 20. "FONDEN y FOEDEN": oops, you're right, I'm wrong. Apologies.
  • "... developed three separate areas of low pressure. One of the lows developed on August 21 ..." Is it possible to avoid the use of "developed" twice in 12 words?
  • "initially struggling to organize its convective activity". "struggling" seems to imply volition, perhaps a different word or phrase?
  • "After developing a closed surface circulation". This seems to be a specialist phrase. Is it possible to express the event in a way which would make sense to a non-expert reader?
  • "about 340 mi (545 km) southwest of". Miles in full at first mention.
  • "the United States-based National Hurricane Center (NHC) operationally did not recognize the system as having". "operationally", either delete or explain more fully what is meant by it.
  • "the system was facing strong easterly wind shear". MOS:NOFORCELINK as mentioned above.
  • "while different agencies traveled by helicopter" → 'while workers from different agencies traveled by helicopter'.
  • "Mexico's Secretariat of the Navy, José Rafael Ojeda Durán". Durán held the position of Mexico's Secretary of the Navy, the Secretariat of the Navy is the name the ministry he managed.
  • What is a unit of machinery?
  • "damages from Hernan totaled MXN$594.05 million pesos (US$26.91 million) across affected areas from August 24-27". Delete "across affected areas", I think that can be assumed. "from" should be 'during'. "August 24-27", replace the hyphen with an en dash. (Or the word 'to'.)
  • See also: there are too many articles listed. The last four in particular seem only tangentially connected.
  • Why does "Damage Assessment Committee" have upper case initial letters?
It is capitalized in the source provided. JayTee⛈️ 23:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS takes precedence. See MOS:CAPS. I don't think it's a proper noun and so doubt that it should have initial caps on Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rainfall in Jalisco peaked at ..." Assuming that the quantities following are for a given time period, could it be stated.
  • "At least 630 houses and 9 schools experienced severe damage throughout the state." By "throughout", do you mean 'in'?
  • "5 federal highways" → 'five federal highways' per MOS:SPELL09.
  • "severely flooded streets. Severe flooding of streets". Could one of these be tweaked to avoid the near repetition.
  • "he fell from his roof checking damages from Hernan." Should "damages" be singular?
  • "the 7 aforementioned municipalities." 'seven'.
  • "Food pantries, mats, hygiene kits, and liters of water". Delete 'liters of'.
  • "The Mexican federal legislature requested that the Comisión Nacional del Agua (National Water Commission) carry out studies and take further preventative actions to address the lack of storm-resilient infrastructure in Jalisco to help protect residents of its coastal municipalities from future tropical cyclone impacts." This sentence is trying to do a lot of work. I suggest breaking it at some point.
  • "Waves of up to 13 ft (4.0 m)". Feet in full at first mention.
  • Given MOS:UNITS, why does the article not use metric measurements as its base units?
The US-based National Hurricane Center provides nearly all of the date on EPac storms, and our article follow suit and base measurements using the imperial system (this is reflected in other FA EPac storm articles, i.e. Hurricane Patricia, Hurricane Willa, and perhaps most importantly, the meteorologically-similar Tropical Storm Vicente (2018). JayTee⛈️ 23:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading that as meaning that the article does not have "strong ties to the United States" and so the units should be metric. What has happened in other Wikipedia articles is not relevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can flip all the metric and imperial conversions in the lead and Preps/impacts section. Should I do this for the Met history and infobox too? Asking because all of their sources come from the NHC. JayTee⛈️ 23:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds sensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A parota tree blocked off a road in the town of Tamala". Delete "off".
  • "Torrential rainfall fell across the area" → 'Torrential rain fell across the area'.
  • The source says (Google translate) 'that a large part of the ... area' ... 'suffered serious effects'. I feel that your paraphrase of this - that vast portions of both urban and rural areas around Manzanillo suffered serious damage unduly exaggerates the amount and seriousness of the damage.
  • "in conjunction with the Intertropical Convergence Zone". What does this mean, and why is it significant?
  • "or several days in late August, causing at least 12 in (300 mm) of rainfall". Is it possible to be more precise with regards to the period?
  • "after being dragged into an overflowing river." Dragged by who or what? (Perhaps use 'washed'?)
  • "In the state of Michoacán, where disruptions and flash flooding were reported as well, up to 600,000 sea turtle eggs in Ixtapilla Marine Turtle Sanctuary were swept away or destroyed by Hernan, including those of the threatened Olive Ridley turtle, making for a large environmental loss." I suggest breaking "where disruptions and flash flooding were reported as well" of as a separate sentence.
  • I don't see the phrase "intense punctual rains" in the source given. What are "punctual" rains anyway?
  • "The state of Sinaloa reported "intense punctual rains", and flooding, hail, minor mudslides, and debris were reported in southern coastal areas". Do we need "reported" twice in one sentence? Indeed, throughout the article do we need to keep saying that things were reported? Why not simply state that they happened?
  • "A mudslide occurred behind a populated neighborhood". I am not sure about "behind". Perhaps 'near'?

That's it for a first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I've addressed all concerns above. I flipped the conversions on everything to be metric first except the infobox as I can't quite workout how to do so. JayTee⛈️ 17:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by by Wehwalt edit

Gog the Mild asked me to look in, on my talk. Really, I'm only looking at prose.

  • Barometric pressure in the lead is still English measurements first.
  • "Passing just offshore the state of Jalisco," Shouldn't there be an "of" in there?
  • "a couple hours later" this seems both rather informal and also wouldn't there be an "of" in there?
  • "more well-defined" Maybe "better-defined"?
  • There's a fair number of parentheticals breaking the prose. Maybe the longer ones could be made into footnotes?
  • Apazulco could probably use a link. There are probably other relatively small municipalities that go unlinked for reasons I'm not clear about.
  • "Resources from both the federal government's Fondo Nacional de Desastres Naturales (National Fund for Natural Disasters) and Jalisco's Fondo Estatal de Desastres Naturales (State Fund for Natural Disasters) was given to the seven aforementioned municipalities. " I think it should be ... were given ..." The subject of the sentence is plural (resources).
  • "The Mexican federal legislature requested that the Comisión Nacional del Agua (National Water Commission) carry out studies and take further preventative actions to address the lack of storm-resilient infrastructure in Jalisco. The study was intended to help protect residents of its coastal municipalities from future tropical cyclone impacts.[25]" Possibly "storm-resilient" should be "storm-resistant". Isn't the final sentence rather obvious? Does it add anything?
  • "Sand and debris were stirred up throughout Manzanillo as Hernan passed offshore." How precisely are sand and debris stirred up?
  • " mostly due to the overflowing of rivers across Zihuatanejo, La Unión, Coahuayutla, San Jerónimo, Coyuca de Benítez and Petatlán, with over 100 houses experiencing damage in the latter city.[14]" "across" implies an area. These are non-contiguous cities so I don't understand the "across". You might say "Across New Jersey and Pennsylvania" but you wouldn't say "across Trenton and Pittsburgh", you'd more likely say "in". And "latter" should be "last".
  • "Secretariat Ojeda Durán" He's the Secretary of the Navy. Why "Secretariat"?
I think the prose is sometimes a bit spotty but nothing too terrible given that the subject matter doesn't lend itself to deathless prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt All issues have been addressed. JayTee⛈️ 18:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it another read in a day or so. Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and feedback. JayTee⛈️ 18:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 2 January 2024 [31].

Pierre Boulez edit

Nominator(s): Dmass (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Boulez was one of the most influential - and controversial - composers of the second half of the 20th century. He had a parallel career as a conductor, working with many of the great orchestras. The article has been through GA and PR, and I hope it might join the growing number of FAs on classical music. Comments on prose, content, balance, length and anything else will be welcomed. Dmass (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I reviewed the article extensively at GAN, was among the reviewers at PR, and have long been urging Dmass to bring it to FAC. At GAN I was concerned about the length of the text, but since then it has been judiciously trimmed and now has a word count on a par with, e.g., the FA on Benjamin Britten, than whom Boulez lived nearly three decades longer. Rereading the article once again for FAC I find it comprehensive, well proportioned, balanced, widely sourced and cited, commendably well illustrated (which can't have been easy), and a pleasure to read. I like Dmass's use of footnotes rather than in-line parentheses for English translations of French titles: this makes for a smoother read while making translations readily accessible. My fellow peer reviewers were Cg2p0B0u8m and SchroCat, and a pillar of our classical music articles is Aza24, and I hope they may like to look in here. Meanwhile, I add that I think the article meets all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 16:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Tim riley - and for your your invaluable suggestions at GAN and PR. Dmass (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian edit

As the proud (or, occasionally, masochistic?) owner of several of the man's works and recordings, I hope to find the time to recuse and review this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I look forward to your comments (and discovering which of his works fall into the 'sadistic' category!). Dmass (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's just say that if I ever tire of married life and want a quick divorce all I'd need do is play Abbado's 1988 Notations I-IV at anything approaching normal volume -- compared to that my wife finds The Rite of Spring almost tranquil... ;-)
Now to business... I've reviewed and copyedited the lead and the biography section and overall I think it reads very well, and appears comprehensive but not overly detailed. As an example I believe I had heard that some considered one of his state-supported projects (IRCAM I think) really delivered very little bang for its buck and you did seem to touch on this. Anyway I'll take a breather now and you can let me know if you want to discuss any of my tweaks/trims/links... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this! I'll work through them over the weekend. Dmass (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed work. I agree with most of your tweaks so far. There are a few I disagree with, though.
I think the line break in the header is better as it marks change of subject from conducting to institutional work.
As you wish, I won't sweat that one! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the 1925-1943 section, I'd like to keep 'in fact', the point being that Boulez described a sort of victory over his parents, but 'in fact' he remained quite dependent on his father for practical help (for a while at least).
Hmm, perhaps "In the event" or "As it happened"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for 'in the event' which catches the sense fine. Dmass (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will pick up later... Dmass (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence about Leibowitz, I prefer the original, partly because 'he found' is used again later in the same paragraph.
Ah yes, I usually do check if I'm inserting a term that might be used nearby -- my apologies. I did think my tweak of the 12-tone technique part worked quite well, perhaps we can find (pun unintended) something else for Leibowitz's doctrinaire approach? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried your suggestion, but the pronouns get terribly tangled up, so I've come up with a half-way house for the first sentence which I hope is agreeable. Dmass (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone further than you and trimmed the sentence at the end of 1959-1971 more.
Even better, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I don't think it's accurate to say that PB was 'largely' responsible for the Philharmonie, but he pushed for it for a long time. I think 'in no small measure' is more accurate, if a bit pompous on my part. Anyone think of an alternative? Dmass (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think "in no small measure" is a bit peacockish, and although I'm not certainly claiming perfection in my comprehension the fact that I didn't interpret it correctly might say something, so be good to find some other expression. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've substituted 'in part' for 'largely'. Dmass (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming with the compositions section, I found very little to copyedit but have some queries:
  • "the present moment is all there is" -- Can we clarify who said this? I imagine Boulez himself but since the sentence starts with "According to the music critic Alex Ross" I think it's worth spelling out.
    • Done (it was Ross).
  • but the project did not come to fruition. -- Can we source this, as we do the unrealised nature of other works?
    • In fact the existing reference covers the point, so I've just shifted it to the end of the sentence.
  • few believed such an ambitious undertaking could be realised so late in the day -- I assume "so late in the day" refers to Boulez's age at the time but I think we should just spell it out if so.
    • Done.
      • Tks for those. I'll aim to go over the rest of the article but at this stage, noting also the image and source reviews, I'm leaning support -- been a pleasure to read/review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ian, I appreciate your time. All the best Dmass (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing in the compositions section I seem to have missed earlier, re. transformation of Notations into orchestral works: "a project which occupied him to the end of his life" could use a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've added a citation. Dmass (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming with the conducting section, etc...
  • I tweaked a paragraph in Approach, see what you think.
    • That's the third order those three quotations have been in over the last month! To be honest, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference; the point is still made that he wasn't universally admired. Dmass (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. the Ring (Boulez's conducting was no less controversial, emphasising continuity, flexibility and transparency over mythic grandeur and weight.) -- it must also be one of the paciest, the recording occupying a mere 12 CDs as opposed to the 14 or 15 common at the time, I don't know if your source talks about speeds...
    • It doesn't - and nor do my other regular sources, so I did a quick Google and up popped a blogger, who had done the maths: 'The quickest Ring I have is Sawallisch’s at 13:07. Krauss clocks in at 13:23, Janowski at 13:25, Boulez at 13:45, Keilberth at 13:55, Barenboim at 14:09, and Schleppmeister Knappertsbusch at 14:38.' Of course, Krauss was in the early 1950s, so a quick Ring was not a new thing. According to the sources, it was the fact that Boulez insisted that the orchestra play quietly which really shocked them - even though Karajan in the 1960s had famously conducted a Ring in Salzburg which emphasised the chamber-music qualities in much of Wagner's orchestral writing.
  • The most notorious instance... -- since this is from Boulez's own writings, who describes it as the most notorious?
    • I'm afraid the answer's probably me! I've changed it to 'one of the most notorious', having found a rather wonderful Guardian article which pulls together 'some of his most notorious pronouncements', which I've added by way of a note.

That's it from me unless further changes occur as a result of other reviews... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again, Ian, for your time and your very helpful observations. Dmass (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks for your work on this -- with the image question resolved, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, Ian. Dmass (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Thanks so much for your time on this. I'll pick my way through your comments, although I may have some queries along the way, as this is not my strong suit... Dmass (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Dmass (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dmass (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pierre_Boulez_(1968).jpg: the licensing provided doesn't match the source
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I note that this is a cropped version of an image which also appears here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Boulez_1968.jpg Dmass (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image has a copyright tag indicating it is licensed as CC BY-SA. The source link provided indicates the license is CC0. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the record so that they match. Dmass (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Andrée_Vaurabourg.jpg: source link is dead, missing a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
I don't think I can resolve those issues, so it looks like it will have to go. I'm thinking of replacing it with an image of Olivier Messiaen: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Messiaen_1937_4.jpg - would that one be acceptable? Dmass (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking my oar in: as the Bibliothèque nationale de France records the Andrée Vaurabourg image as "domaine public" can we not read across from French to American copyright law the 70-years-after-death rule? Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. Tim riley talk 00:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the life+70 rule doesn't apply to the US for published works, so that image is also missing a US tag. For these and the other US status questions, I'd suggest referring to the Hirtle chart to determine appropriate tagging based on publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the Vaurabourg photo with a photo (taken by me in 2022) of the building in the Marais district in Paris which Boulez lived between 1945 and 1958. The street (rue Beautrellis) was completed in 1836. Dmass (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with the next one, this should include an explicit tag for the building. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dmass (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Theatre_Marigny_-_Salle_Popesco.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this should include a tag for the building.
I'm puzzled by this: the link you've provided suggests that France does have limited freedom of panorama. The Théâtre Marigny was built in 1835, so presumably there's no issue with this. Could you advise what kind of tag I should include? Dmass (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the age of this building PD-France should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean no further action is needed on this one? Dmass (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that PD-France applies, we can just add that tag and be done with this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dmass (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:IRCAM_at_Beaubourg_2009.jpg, File:Paris-Philharmonie1.jpg
As for IRCAM this is obviously a modern building, but my reading of the guidance is that it is only ‘for-profit reproductions’ which amount to infringements, which this is not. Is that wrong? Dmass (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes yes - our non-free content policy defines any work that disallows commercial reuse as non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted this image as the problem seems insuperable. I've yet to find a candidate to replace it in this section, but I've found one for the previous section, which seems to balance nicely. Dmass (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Roger_Woodward_and_Pierre_Boulez_rehearsing_with_the_BBC_Symphony_Orchestra_Bartok's_first_Piano_Concerto_in_1972.jpg: what is "NLA Collection"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The papers of Roger Woodward in the National Library of Australia. Dmass (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stephane_Mallarme.jpg: when and where was this first published?
The portrait by Nadar was published in 1900 according to the Bibliothèque nationale de France: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b531079562/f1.item. Dmass (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding that to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dmass (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Paul_Klee,_1922,_Senecio,_oil_on_gauze,_40.3_×_37.4_cm,_Kunstmuseum_Basel.jpg
Klee died in 1940, more than 70 years ago, which I understand makes his works out of copyright in the USA. Could you advise which extra tag to add? Dmass (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was published in 1924, according to the Kunstmuseum Basel, which owns it - https://sammlungonline.kunstmuseumbasel.ch/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultDetailView/result.inline.list.t1.collection_list.$TspTitleImageLink.link&sp=13&sp=Sartist&sp=SfilterDefinition&sp=0&sp=3&sp=1&sp=SdetailView&sp=52&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=T&sp=0&sp=SdetailList&sp=0&sp=F&sp=Scollection&sp=l1207#litKlapptext - There doesn't seem to be anywhere to add that information to the image description, but the work is expressly categorised on the Basel website as being 'Bilddaten gemeinfrei - Kunstmuseum Basel' Dmass (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Schiele_-_Bildnis_des_Komponisten_Arnold_Schönberg._1917.jpg needs a US tag and more specific source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the source, the Mahler Foundation's website shows the date of the work (1917) and the dates of the artist (1890-1918): https://mahlerfoundation.org/mahler/contemporaries/arnold-schoenberg/. Should I just add that link to the file data under source? Also, could you advise which US tag to use? Dmass (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is 1917 a creation or a publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1917 was a creation date. I haven't been able to identify a publication date, so I have replaced the Schiele image with one which is approved for publication by the copyright holder. Dmass (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added three new images: of René Char, Bruno Maderna and Jean Genet. Would you mind taking a look at them? Thanks again.
File:Capitaine_Alexandre_1943.jpg needs a US tag
Done.
File:B_Maderna_1963.jpg has a dead source link and needs info on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Dmass (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, can I just confirm images are fine now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One question: where was File:Capitaine_Alexandre_1943.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that the information on Wikimedia is completely wrong. It's not a photograph by an anonymous person, it's by the well-known photographer Roger Viollet, who died in the mid-1960s. I've deleted it from the Boulez page. Dmass (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

  • Support. I was a reviewer at the PR and thought this an excellent article then. It's been tightened and strengthened since and meets, to my mind, the prose requirements of the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)|ref=none[reply]
    Many thanks SchroCat, much appreciated. Thanks for your help at the PR. Dmass (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One late spot: in the "Middle-period works" section, the sentence "The works from this period are amongst his most frequently performed" is unsupported. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right! It happens to be true, but of course that doesn’t help. I’ll have a think and delete if I can’t support it. Dmass (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve cut it, there’s no single source to support it and it doesn’t add much. Dmass (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spot-check upon request and I am primarily looking at source reliability. I notice that years sometimes are in parentheses, sometimes without and sometimes they are lacking altogether. Likewise page numbers sometimes are hyphenated and sometimes "A and B". I can't find "Weber, Hildegard Opera Magazine."? https://archives.nyphil.org/index.php/artifact/89470457-2c68-47d5-8102-f2913401bc7e-0.1 and https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fww%2F9780199540884.013.U8205 should probably be behind a pipe, not sitting out there as a raw URL. Is it "Grawemeyer Award" or "Gravemeyer prize"? What makes theartsdesk.com a reliable source? I dunno if all the " Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named " errors are a FAC issue, but one might want to add "ref=none" to them. Definitively not a FAC issue, but a number of authors have pages on Wikipedia that could be linked to. It seems like most of the sources are (save for some British, French and US newspapers) musicologists and other bigwigs in the field, keeping in mind that this isn't my specialty area. It seems like the source section is mostly consistently formatted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time on this. I’ll definitely look through these points at the weekend (tied up with work away from home for the next few days). Dmass (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing firstly with years in citations, where only one work by an author is in the source list, no year is given (because it's in the source list); where there is more than one work, the year is given (always in brackets) to distinguish between the sources (the most obvious example being Boulez himself). I've checked all the references and I think it's now applied consistently. Dmass (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Dmass (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers in citations: where the pages are adjacent, they are hyphenated; where they are not, I've used 'and'. So for example, reference 45 reads 'Steinegger, 64–66; Hill and Simeone, 211 and 253.'Dmass (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Opera Magazine citation, I'm not sure what your concern is, as the link goes straight through to the article. Is it the format of the reference? Dmass (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the raw URL, I've removed the external link altogether as it doesn't add much.Dmass (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually the Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition, which is one of several Grawemeyer awards. I've amended accordingly. Dmass (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
artsdesk.com provides probably the most comprehensive online coverage of arts events in the UK at the moment. It's where a lot of professional critics found a home when newspapers cut their arts coverage several years ago. In my experience the quality is at least as high as in the national newspapers, and often significantly higher. Dmass (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your last point (about the 'Harv warnings') has me stumped, as I don't know what this refers to. Is anyone else able to reply to/assist with this?
SC, you are a wiz on this sort of thing: can you help? Tim riley talk 19:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, will look. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted on all but a couple, which flag up errors if the field is used. (Dmass, it's likely you didn't see any errors at all - there's a script some editors (including me) add to show where they've messed up a reference. One of the downsides is that is shows a warning unless the sfn templates are being used. Long story short: you haven't made any errors, but I've fixed the visuals for those of us who have the script installed). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks so much! Dmass (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I've dealt with your points satisfactorily. Thank you again for your time, it's greatly appreciated. Dmass (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, seems like reliability-wise this passes. The harv ref issue isn't really a FAC thing, upon second thought. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto edit

I read this today and thoroughly enjoyable it was too. I have no nitpicks and consider this to meet the FA criteria, fully. CassiantoTalk 16:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time to read it Cassianto and for your kind comments. Dmass (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda edit

I finally have a bit of extra time. I remember a few live performances conducted by Boulez. Lead last, as usual. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, Gerda Arendt, I'll work through these later today. Dmass (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood

  • link Catholic, perhaps?
    • Done
  • I suggest to say - instead of "Boris Godunov and Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg" - "Mussorgski's Boris Godunov and Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg". It's not "Aida and Tosca", which more readers may associate with composers immediately.
    • Done
  • I'm not sure that "well-known" adds to the soprano.
    • Cut
  • "son of the pianist Vladimir" looks strange to me with just the given name, even if I understand the wish to avoid the repetition of the surname.
    • I can see that, amended to full name

I read now up to Compositions, and am too tired for details. A few general things: in the beginning, composers are mostly introduced by just surname, later by full name, such as John Cage. Cage and Stockhausen are - I believe - known by surname alone.

  • I see your point, but I think with this it's a question of judgment. I know in some contexts there's a rule that if they're dead, they are only referred to by surname, which is fine if it's Bach or Wagner, but for the general reader Cage and Stockhausen are not such well-known figures. This is a long way round of saying that I have thought about it each time, and consistency has sometimes given way to helpfulness (or an attempt at it, anyway).

Please check links: some things seem to be never linked, others more than once, at least his ensemble not on the first mentioning but the second.

  • Will do, although it looks like the Ensemble intercontemporain is linked both in the header and at its first mention in the main body.

I made a few changes - feel free to revert if you don't agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. A couple of observations only.
    • I've removed the Yvette Grimaud link altogether as there's no English language page (thanks for spotting that the link was to the French page)
      • I'd restore the interlanguage link, - it's an invitation to create it in English (and I may actually do it - next year). When I had first contact with FAC, red links were a no-no, but at least the interlanguage links became acceptable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd rather leave it as it is until someone creates an article; I always think the red links make the article look unfinished. Dmass (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted to the English name for the Darmstadt course, while keeping the correct link you've given.
      • Up to you, but I believe that when we have an article under a foreign title, it's for a reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for your time on this, it's much appreciated. Dmass (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for saying that. I read all your replies, and accept all. A general remark about images: upright images should usually be upright. I understand to make an exception for the few where Boulez is pictured and would be very small that way, but the house in the Marais doesn't need to be so prominent ;) - I'll read a bit further now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the photos need some TLC but I don't have the technical know-how to do it. Tim riley, photos in your articles always look very smart. I don't suppose you'd have time to tweak mine (matron)? Dmass (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually didn't mean to crop it, - just make it smaller, which I'll do now. I think the Marais building may speak less about Boulez that the Centre Pompidou (just revisited) or the hall he influenced that was later named after him (Mahler's Second last year) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Oh I think a picture of where he lived for 13 years (you can just see the two attic rooms) says quite a lot about how modestly he lived as he was building up his career. Of course, the Marais is more fashionable now than it was then... Dmass (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          understood, - and seen later that a great image of the hall is there --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Total serialism

  • "That revolution" - a reader coming by the headers will not know what that refers to. We can't expect readers to absorb it all sequentially.
    • I'm not with you on this one: they only have to look up one line to see the context (and also I'm very attached to that segue...) Dmass (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the works section and liked it very much, - lovely quotes, development very clear.

  • Thank you for that!

I moved a pic (Genet) for the posture of the subject, and noticed that the "alt" parameter just refers to the caption. That seems no help for someone blind who would like to get some idea of what is pictured, in this case: what the person looks like. I had not checked others.

  • Yes, I forgot to do that one, but the others have all been looked at. Dmass (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another general point: some links are repeated in the works section, which is fine by me, but others not, - intentionally so? - I'll travel for the rest of the week, - will see what I can still do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, there was a change to MOS in June to the effect that it was okay to relink once per section after the lead, not just once in the main body. So in this case -- and especially given the size of the sections -- linking the same thing under bio and under compositions is reasonable (though not obligatory -- as ever, links are there if we judge they will help the reader). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conducting

  • I linked some of the authors in that section, only to see that two of them had their links before. If you don't want a second link to the biographers, perhaps just write last name, to indicate that they appeared before?
  • After "Not everyone agreed about the greatness of that gift.", I expected to read disagreement, but Klemperer seems not one of them.
    • I've reversed the order of the Klemperer and Keller quotations, which I think solves the problem. Dmass (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you and I know that Jessye Norman is a soprano, it may come as a surprise to others.
    • tweaked
  • The sentence about her and collaborations sits a bit strangely between the voices about his conducting. It might be better in the "life" section?
    • No I think it belongs here: I'm referring to his collaboration with them as a conductor.

Opera

  • "His chosen repertoire was small and included no Italian opera." I'm not sure what that sentence adds to the following. It also didn't include Spanish opera, for example. I prefer the following positive sentence, about Wagner and 20th century only.
    • Actually he did conduct Spanish opera/music theatre (de Falla); my point is that it's pretty unusual for a conductor interested in opera not to touch the Italian repertoire at all, which is the largest and (as you pointed out earlier) probably the best-known.
  • Image caption: I'd prefer to name the singer that you see, Gwyneth Jones, to the conductor's, and Götterdämmerung to a repetition of Ring.
    • I think better as it is, as it links with the reference in the text to the Ring and to this particular production. Not all readers will know that Götterdämmerung is part of the Ring. And if we name Jones, shouldn't we name Hubner as Hagen?
  • Bastille: the term "director" usually means the one for the action on stage, - I don't know a solution.
    • Good spot, in fact he was appointed president. I've re-worked it.
  • "In the event" - which follows - seems not to mean that event. Is it a phrase I don't know?
    • It's just another way of saying 'in fact'. I think it's fine.Dmass (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder how often I misunderstand things because I read English too literally ;) - all taken. I hope to get to reading further today. I doubt a bit that any reader who is not aware of Götterdämmerung being part of the Ring will get this far into the article. I used the image to express my state of mind (a woman who can't believe what she has to see), so thank you for showing it! At present the expression would rather be like Sonia Prina's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got to the header Recording, now off to the (Italian) opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again for your time. Dmass (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

  • I linked several pieces. I understand that record labels might also be linked but am less interested in those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing ...

  • I linked writers, one per ill, and Harvard.
  • Darmstadt and Basel are mentioned before his teaching time there. Darmstadt had been linked before, but not Musik-Akademie der Stadt Basel. I wonder if teaching might come before writing even if not in chronological order. Otherwise "Basel" would need a link. You decide, also if the German or English name, - both are clumsy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I'll go for the English name, I think. Dmass (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for today, read to the end. More when back home. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead In general, I like the lead, the following is for only to be considered; several items a related to weight because some seems too much, some too little.

  • - I am not sure that his father's profession is note-worthy, same for the two lesser-known teachers.
    • I disagree, it serves the purpose of establishing that PB was from a middle-class family; the mention of his other teachers corrects the misapprehension (which I think is quite common) that Messiaen was his only teacher.
  • - I believe we have too many orchestra names.
    • Agreed, it's a bit 'listy'. I've cut the LSO and the EIC (and expanded on the latter below, as you suggest).
  • + In their list, I'd single out the Ensemble i. he founded.
    • I've taken a different approach and been more explicit about the EIC later in the lead.
  • + I'd like more about repertoire, such as his restriction to Wagner and 20th-century opera, which sets him apart from conductors who may have conducted a similar set of orchestras.
    • I think the penultimate paragraph is quite explicit about his repertoire.
  • + I'd use the more precise link to Jahrhundertring (piped) instead of sending readers to Wagner and the Ring, expecting that most readers getting that far into his intro will kind of know who Wagner was, and that he created the Ring (and if not, they are just one more click away.
    • Done
  • + "His recorded legacy is extensive." - again, some more examples of music he cared about would delight me.
    • Again, I think that's already in the penultimate paragraph.
  • + I'd place the organisations he founded into some kind of chronology, with an explanation, instead of an unqualified list of mostly French names.
    • Agreed, I've re-worked it in an attempt to make it more informative.
  • This lead has not one sentence about him as a person, and while he was silent about private life (and we should probably do the same), there is this rich "Character" section, to meet him as a person even when only reading the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of the second paragraph is very much about his personality.

Thank you again, Gerda, for your time on this, it's much appreciated. Dmass (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am pleased, especially with the expansion of the organisations! About character: I believe that the sentence you mean is still about his professional life and action (uncompromising, polemic). What I liked to read (in the body) was the rapport with Stockhausen, dining with the Stravinskys, rug concerts, and that he took interest in individual orchestra players' private news. I also think a sentence such as "about his private life he remained tightly guarded" would serve the lead well.
  • On a more basic note: you may want to check where linking to the same subject several times is wanted and where perhaps accidental (Joan Peyser 3*). The Basel academy is still linked on the second occasion.
  • One more basic thing is the use of {{lang}} for foreign terms, with all that French. It helps readers who rely on screenreaders. The template causes automatic italics; when they are not wanted use {{langr}} instead. It was discussed here to improve a FAC article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My preference is not to add anything more to the lead about Boulez's character. I think it's better dealt with in the body of the article, where it's possible to be more nuanced.
    I went through the article a week or so ago, checking for over-linking. I must have missed Joan Peyser's three links; I've removed one of them.
    I wasn't familiar with the use of the language template for foreign terms. I quite see the importance of it. I'm still working through the guidance, trying to figure out what should and should not be tagged. Unless it's essential for FAC, I'd rather deal with this gradually. Dmass (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All accepted, thank you, including for being open to matters of accessibility.
    Support.
    A routine question in recent FACs for composers was how the author felt about an infobox. I remember that I asked you before, and you said rather not. However, some things changed since, - consider the position of the community for Mozart and Wagner. The FACs were Artemy Vedel, Osbert Parsley and Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support, Gerda. As for an infobox, I'm still of the same opinion: I can see that inboxes can be useful in many contexts, but I don't think it would add value to this particular page. Dmass (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't see how a (concise and well curated) infobox would add value, but you didn't see the value of template lang either, until now. Perhaps compare Mozart, and the viewpoints of others on it, and if you have little time, just the arguments of Voceditenore, beginning "Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed artcle". I don't want to clutter this FAC with the topic, - we could talk somewhere else. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 edit

Sorry for the delay, I'll leave some comments in the coming days – Aza24 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aza24, are you still planning on doing a review for this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking now. Aza24 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family prospered" is rather vague – maybe "The family prospered financially" or something?
    • I think it's clear that they prospered financially from the reference to their moving to a bigger house - not sure it needs to be spelt out any further...
  • "when the Vichy government fell," – a clarifier of World War being the context might be nice. The statement feels a bit out of no where otherwise
    • I've added a clarifier.
  • premier prix should be linked to First Prize (music diploma), right?
    • Right.
  • "although for practical reasons the last category fell away in subsequent seasons" – I'm not exactly sure what this is referring to. Difficulty of obtaining such scores, difficulty in performing/learning properly, low popularity, etc.
    • Done.
  • The paragraph "Key events in..." seems not directly related to Boulez specifically. And considering the article is just boarding on being too long, it may be worth moving it into a note or trimming entirely.
    • Boulez programmed (and sometimes commissioned) these works, as well as conducting nearly all of them; I think they give a brief sense of the Domaine's achievements.
  • A brief sentence on what exactly the Rituel in memoriam Bruno Maderna was would be helpful (instrumentation, format etc.). Otherwise the line merely acknowledges its existence/importance and doesn't offer much actual information
    • Added.
  • I would link the full title of IRCAM, not the abbreviation. Readers might miss the link otherwise
    • Agreed.
  • "the creation of new works" – "the commissioning", maybe? Makes it sound like the group was writing new music
    • I've simplified it.
  • In general, I think there is more you can do with images
      • I wish I could. I've had a pretty high turnover of images which have been ruled out for copyright reasons. I will certainly keep looking.
    • An image or something to break up the "1925–1943: Childhood and school days" text would be really nice, but I see there are few obvious options. Perhaps there is a quote about Boulez's childhood which can be used in a quotebox? Not a pertinent matter
    • An image like File:Experimenteel concert in Concertgebouw onder leiding van dirigent Pierre Boulez, Bestanddeelnr 917-3248.jpg if very high quality and certainly worth using
      • There is already an image on the page from this (I agree, very high quality) series, taken in the Concertgebouw in 1963. I think it would be odd to have another, especially as it's more an image of the orchestra (Boulez would barely be identifiable once it's reduced to size).
    • The 1977 could also do with an image (to break up the walls of text) what about this one?
      • Sorry to be negative but I think this is rather a poor image; also it wouldn't work in the 1977 section as Sur Incises was written in the late 90s.
  • Got through the biography, will read through the music section soon. From a quick glance and from what I remember of earlier reads a few months ago, the Character and personal life may be still too large (for instance, the "keen walker" paragraph feels like trivia and the final Magus Ross quote comes out of nowhere), and the Legacy too short (Taruskin wrote about it a bit iirc). Also, I was surprised to see Babbit not mentioned, but then I don't know where he would be mentioned.Aza24 (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the specific points you mention here: I don't think the reference to walking is trivia; it was Boulez's main leisure activity throughout his life and and one of the reasons he chose to live in Baden Baden; I'm sorry you're not keen on the the Ross quote, I thought it was a really apt summary of the material in the preceding paragraphs.
    • As for Babbitt, I agree it's odd but I've gone back to the biographies and they don't seem to have had a great deal to do with each other: they met several times and Boulez conducted two of his pieces in New York in the early 70s.

Many thanks for your time and for your comments. Dmass (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmass, have you finished addressing Aza24's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had but, Aza24, do let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks, Dmass (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good overall. However, I still think the legacy section could use some work. There's hardly any information on the legacy of his compositions specificially. In addition, the Recording seems far too detailed, but I suppose that's not really a bad problem to have.
Aza24, it could be considered "going into unnecessary detail". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some cuts to the Recording section (and elsewhere) which I hope brings things into better balance. Dmass (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do see what you mean about the lack of something about his influence as a composer. Unfortunately, it's not straightforward. I could attempt a summary myself (along the lines: there were dozens of imitators of his strict serial music in the 1960s, almost none of whose music is now played; there are some important contemporary composers who would acknowledge his influence, such as George Benjamin; but there are probably more who reacted strongly against him, such as the American minimalists) but, of course, my own summary is of no use. At the moment I'm struggling to find a source (or two) which would capture the position concisely; there's a danger of it turning into a mini-essay, which would ramp up the word count again. I will certainly keep my eye out for something though. Dmass (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments edit

  • "Cité de la musique". Should that be 'Cité de la Musique'?
  • [Inserting oar]: no it bloody well shouldn't: see this for the torments of an Anglo-Saxon trying to cope with vagaries of French capitalisation. Tim riley talk 13:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you get the sense that you've touched a nerve, Gog the Mild?
    • ...and having made my flippant comment, I actually read the discussion Tim riley linked to, which is really interesting - well it is if you're interested in French capitalisation, which I appreciate is niche... Dmass (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mounted the exhibition Pierre Boulez, Œuvre: fragment." Should there be a red link in there? And elsewhere in similar cases?
    • I'm not keen on red links (I wrote above that I think they make the article look unfinished), but I'm getting the feeling that I may be alone in my dislike. If anyone cares to add one, so be it. Dmass (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guldbrandsen", is there a page range? And for Hopkins. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for spotting this, I've cut Guldbrandsen altogether as the same point is covered in many of the main sources, including the Peyser biography, which I've now used. Dmass (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's a page range for the Hopkins/Griffiths entry in Grove online. It's an online encyclopaedia entry (I've been working from a hard copy, which I printed out ages ago; it doesn't have any pagination). Dmass (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for driving by! Dmass (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk
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/Featured_log/January_2024&oldid=1201481423"