Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2021

< 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2021 [1].

UEFA Euro 2020 Final edit

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC); The Rambling Man[reply]

This article is about the final of Euro 2020, the football tournament which took place a few months ago (even though it's 2021!). As someone from England, this was a tough one to write about - it was first major final that the team have reached in my lifetime, and with England holding the lead into the second half it looked for while like it might be our year. It wasn't to be though, the curse of the penalty shootout struck again! Italy were a great team though, and played really well throughout the tournament, so that's the way it goes. As ever, all feedback welcome and I'll be happy to return the favour with a review for anyone else who needs one. Just let me know!  — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass edit

Would be listing every image in the article, and adding my concerns (if any)

Alt text seems fine.
Most of the images are default sized, except the info-box image, which probably needs to be fixed.
All images seem relevant here.

Great, Pass for image review. The only issue to far too minor to prevent it for passing the review. Would appreciate your comments for this nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh thanks, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "beating final debutants England" - this reads a bit oddly, like they were the last team ever to debut. Maybe change to "first-time finalists"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in terms of European Championship titles, it put Italy level with France" - on how many titles?
    Done. (Although we did already say it was their second title further up).  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "UEFA announced the tournament would be held" => "UEFA announced that the tournament would be held"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup since the White Horse Final of 1923 (excluding 2001 to 2006, when the stadium was being rebuilt)" - I think "Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup from the White Horse Final of 1923 until it closed in 2000" might be more elegant
    Well that's not quite the same thing, as we're also saying that the FA cup final has been at Wembley since 2007. I have reworded a bit anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They two sides" => "The two sides"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "behind the 35-match streak of Brazil (1993–1996) and Spain (2007–2009)" => "behind the 35-match streaks of Brazil (1993–1996) and Spain (2007–2009)" (assuming the Spain one was also 35)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only other final they have reached" => "the only other final they had reached" (then it won't need changing if they reach another)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ciro Immobile and Lorenzo Insigne scored two further attempts" - slightly odd wording, simply saying "two further goals" would be better I think
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to use Immobile's full name again in the next sentence
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2020 final was Kuipers' ninth international" - should that say "The 2020 final was Kuipers' ninth international final" (or some better way to word it to avoid the repetition of final)? The current wording makes it sound like it was literally only the ninth international he refereed.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "replacing the 4–2–3–1 formation [...] to..." - either "replacing with" or "changing to", but not "replacing to"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including one who lost a tooth and another suffered a broken hand" => "including one who lost a tooth and another who suffered a broken hand"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a low shot on the half-volley" - link half-volley to somewhere appropriate?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link substitution?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link corner?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bringing on the attacking player Bukayo Saka in place of Trippier" - need a comma after this to close the clause
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England free kick in injury time reached Stones" => "An England free kick in injury time reached Stones"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Football Association interim chairman Peter McCormick OBE" - either "The Football Association's interim chairman Peter McCormick OBE" or "The interim chairman of the Football Association Peter McCormick OBE"
    Done. (I've chopped the OBE too).  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The majority of English players immediately removed the runners-up medals from their necks." => "The majority of English players removed the runners-up medals from their necks immediately after receiving them." - at present it reads like Eder brought the trophy on and the England players at that point took off medals we hadn't been told they were given
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Čeferin also handed the trophy to Italian captain Chiellini" - why "also"? What else did he do?
    I have moved this point earlier in the paragraph and combined it with the medals.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a parade in Rome the day after the final on 12 July, attended by thousands, the team travelled from the Villa Borghese gardens to the Quirinal Palace." - comma after thousands should probably be a semi-colon
    I've split it into three sentences.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England players Saka, Sancho and Rashford, were subjected" - no reason for that comma
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rashford mural has its own article, which could be linked
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson also hoped the Britain and Ireland's proposed bid" => "Johnson also hoped that Britain and Ireland's proposed bid"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "digital mural"?
    I don't know what it is technically, but that's the term most sources seem to be using. Can you think of a better way to phrase? Not seeing an appropriate link either.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two tiny paragraphs under "UEFA investigation"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't articles on major international finals normally have a section on the reaction/comments from the press in the relevant countries?
    I've added a pargraph on this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got - nice read overall (other than the bad memories, obviously)! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude I think, between us, we've got to all your comments, thanks! Do let us know if there's anything else. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Looking now....I made these tweaks - looks fine on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Edwininlondon edit

I have made a few minor edits while reading through, ones I thought were not controversial, but feel free to revert if I was wrong. My comments so far:

  • only for their last three --> that is two "only for" constructions in consecutive sentences
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect global audience numbers in the lead
    Added (and to the body too, since it wasn't there)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would try to add some press analyses of the game in the lead
  • London Borough of Brent --> too much detail, just London suffices I think
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit odd to have the article not start with the Background section
    I've moved it to the top. I've also added a boilerplate paragraph which is also found at UEFA Euro 2016, describing the competition and its format.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption: I would add London
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in which Germany defeated the Czech Republic 2–1 after extra time via the golden goal rule --> we are really deviating here from the topic. At the very least the golden goal rule bit is superfluous
    I've chopped the whole scoreline.
  • Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup since the White Horse Final of 1923, with the exception of those between 2001 and 2006, when the old stadium had closed and the new stadium was being built --> off topic
    Reduced.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special conditions, including ... --> the verb is quite far away from the subject. Just a matter of style but I'd say: Special conditions applied to the supporters from Italy, including ..
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • once in 1966, as hosts --> that was already mentioned, so I'd drop at least ",as hosts" (and then tweak the next sentence)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the final taking place in London, Italy were the "home team" for administrative purposes. --> this is in the wrong position I think: it breaks the flow of past achievements. There also probably should not be a paragraph break here
    Moved, but whether or not to break the para is somewhat horses for courses, because others object to large paragraphs. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • they beat Yugoslavia in 1968 after a replay --> why bring this up again? Just a few lines before it syas "taly won the European Championship in 1968"
    Chopped the whole sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • having previously been eliminated in the semi-finals on two occasions, in 1968 (by Yugoslavia) and in 1996 (by Germany) as hosts --> again feels unnecessarily repetitive, having been described in the 1st paragraph
    Gone.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • first at a major tournament since winning the 1966 FIFA World Cup as hosts --> "as hosts" feels again repetitive
    Already done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • against Greece in 2004 and Portugal in 2016 --> repetition of the years seems unnecessary and with Portugal mentioned twice it gets a bit tricky to follow. Would it not be simpler to say something along the lines of "England also became the third nation of the 21st century to play in a European Championship final as hosts after Portugal in 2004 and France in 2016. Both previous hosts lost their respective finals, Portugal against Greece and France against Portugal"
    Yep, sure. A lot of this guff was in the article before I came to work on it TBH, and I wouldn't have included it myself so happy to prune!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from Italy's aforementioned --> I'm not so sure about that aforementioned: many other things have also been mentioned before, so why use it here?
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something to consider: In the 20th century, three host countries made it to the final and all won (Italy in 1968, ...)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italy sought to win a major tournament for the first time in 15 years, their last major triumph being victory in the 2006 FIFA World Cup Final at the Olympiastadion in Berlin on penalties against France --> too much detail for my liking, straying off topic, plus it was already mentioned in 1st paragraph
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This tournament success --> A bit curious ... is the success referring to winning the final?
    I've removed this too. It's pointless trivia.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • major tournament --> duplication of tournament in same sentence
    Gone.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three of their four competitive meetings at major tournaments resulted in Italy wins in the group stage of UEFA Euro 1980 --> should there not be some punctuation after wins?
    I have inserted a colon.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • record of ten wins out of ten --> other countries have done this as well, or is it a record for Italy itself?
    I don't think this was meant to be a "record" as in a superlative, more that it's just a "record" of their performance. I've reworded for clarity.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italy then beat Wales --> repetitive construction after "Italy then beat Switzerland"
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italy dominated their quarter-final --> according to whom?
    Actually, they didn't. So re-worded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • equalised for Spain to level --> isn't that a bit double up?
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in Group D --> also repetition
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • qualification rivals Czech Republic --> perhaps overuse of rivals here: they just happened to compete for top spot in qualifying, but not really rivals in the Scotland sense.
    Removed that detail.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a difficult 1–0 win over Croatia --> according to whom?
    Removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Germany at Wembley in the second round --> elsewhere this is called the round of 16
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • to see England qualify for a first European Championship final and a first final of any major tournament since 1966 --> already mentioned
    Trimmed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elizabeth II, UK prime minister Boris Johnson --> why mention Mr Johnson's job but not Elizabeth's?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wishing them good luck in the final --> what about the Italians? We need something for neutrality
    If you can find anything we've missed, please let us know. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prematch: I'm missing a subsection describing the experts' expectations, the coaches' views, etc. And even the dreaded bookmakers had probably something to say

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Domestically, he officiated the KNVB Cup final in 2013, 2016, 2018 and 2021, as well as the Johan Cruyff Shield in 2009 and 2012. --> straying off topic here I think
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (one win, one draw and two losses) --> why mention this? If I were Kuijpers I would not be happy be with this as this suggests that I influence who wins or not
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • who suffered an Achilles injury in Italy's quarter-final win over Belgium --> was already mentioned so no need for this
    I've trimmed it a bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • to see whether he could participate --> and, could he?
    No. I've reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I miss the mention of the Italy coach here in the Team selection section
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wing-backs --> link? (plus I thought that wing backs were a 5-3-2 thing, not a 3-4-3 thing, but I must admit I can't keep up with all these numbers)
    Linked. As for the 5-3-2. yeah that's what I thought too, not that I'm any sort of expert on this. The source does seem to confirm that it's both 3-4-3 and that there were wing-backs, however].
  • Two hours before the final, footage --> shouldn't that be "Footage from two hours before the final showed "
    Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • without paying for a ticket --> maybe I'm a bit over picky here but this suggests to me that normally people pay on the spot for a ticket. Perhaps "without having paid" or simply "without a ticket"?
    Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huge crowds --> not being a native speaker I'm not sure so just checking, but isn't huge a word one would find in the tabloids whereas Large would be more appropriate in an encyclopedia?
    Yes, correct. Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Football Association said it would conduct a full review --> has the rview been completed and published?
    Nope. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • started at 19:45 --> instead of adding local time (19:00 UTC) in the Match section, it is better to do that here, at the first use of time
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The national anthems of each -->not really part of the Closing ceremony
    Not sure where else it belongs, so I've expanded the scope of the section with an "and anthems" added.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both sides took the knee before --> Should this not be expanded on and given its own subsection, given the controversy about this prior to the final?
    What controversy was that? According to the Guardian report, both sides took the knee and it passed without incident. Seems a bit WP:UNDUE to make a big thing of it.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable spectators --> seems a bit light on Italians, which may have been the case of course
    Indeed. Too many Italians flying into London during COVID was bad optics. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The match kicked-off --> I'm not so sure about that hyphen
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • rainy conditions,[88] in front of 67,173 spectators,[88] --> although helpful for the person who will do a source review, it is a bit intrusive for the average reader: nicer to put the refs at the end I'd say
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luke Shaw image: is there not one of him in an England kit?
    I don't think so, I can't find one anywhere. I have swapped the image for a much closer crop (without Man Utd badges visible) and more recent (though less good-quality) pic - the original was from 2015 and he doesn't really look the same any more!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a cross into the penalty area, but his cross --> any way to avoid the duplication of cross?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the attacking third --> this may be getting a bit too cryptic for the average reader
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • into the England box --> box might be a bit too colloquial. Penalty area is what you use elsewhere
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italy kicked first in the penalty shoot-out --> was there another toss for this? who won and what did they choose?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • stuttered run-up --> link perhaps?
    I don't think there's a link to that. I've removed it, since it probably isn't necessary and is a bit of a POV comment perhaps.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sudden death --> link
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post match: what did the coaches say? Perhaps a few players' views as well
    Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnson also hoped that the Britain and Ireland's proposed bid to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup had not been derailed by the scenes of crowd trouble at the final --> this should probably live in the UEFA Investigation section
    I think it's probably okay where it is as it's just his opinion and follows on from the previous sentence. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadcasting and viewership --> anything on who the analysts were in Italy (just to avoid any UK bias)?
    I can't find anything on analysts for RAI or Sky in Italy, but at least we have the commentators in there. It's not really a bias, just an issue of availability of information. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • around 73.7% --> interesting mix of rough estimate ("around") and accuracy (decimal point)
    Well, it's horses for courses, could be "around 73%" or "around 70%" and those are just fine, so no reason why "around 73.7%" isn't fine, but I've just removed "around". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the market share --> is that of all people in the country? or all watching TV that night?
    Watching TV. Italy has a population of much more than around 22 million. If it had meant 73.7% of the Italian population watched the match, it would have said that, as it would have been simply unbelievable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what about global or European wide audience numbers? That really should be mentioned for this type of event
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon could you take another look and see what is outstanding please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. I Support on prose. Nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Grapple X edit

Full disclosure: my father is Italian, this match was perfect, and Chiellini is a genius. Revision reviewed

Shocking! Italy were a really good team, though, no doubt about it...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italian-language sources like La Gazzetta dello Sport could do with using the language= parameter, and trans-title= when the title has been translated into English. For example ref 122 uses the language field and retains the original title; ref 123 doesn't use it and has translated the original title.
    I've put the original title in the |title= parameter for all of them, and indicated that they are in Italian. They don't all have translated titles, though, I don't speak Italian myself!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having only one translated when there are a few in Italian isn't ideal; if you'd like I'll add a translation to all of them or we could lose the one we do have, either approach is fine but I wouldn't be in favour of a mix. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ
    @Grapple X: yes, feel free to add them. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 90 states it was "Archived 12 July 2021 at the Wayback Machine", same with ref 93. This seems nonstandard with the other archival links; given that all of the archiving uses the Wayback Machine (archive.org) this is an odd thing to point out only twice.
    I've removed those references to the Wayback Machine. It was just a different template.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a date for ref 73? I don't have Times access but it's unusual to see a newspaper not date their items.
  • An ISSN for the Times but not elsewhere?
    I've swapped out that Times source altogether, as it seems the entire article changed frequently on the day of publication, with neither the live nor archived version matching what the text said. So I've reworded a bit with a new source.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I can see at present. Sources seem reliable and high-quality, instances of citing a tweet are used only to verify a direct quote which is fine per WP:TWEET. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grapple X: I think I've looked at all the above points. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good, just one point above. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've added those titles using english title casing but you can change that to sentence casing if you wish (which is what it would be in Italian). Let me know if you have a preference but otherwise I would consider this passed on sources. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X edit

Going to look at a content review in addition to sourcing.

  • "Originally scheduled for 12 July 2020, the match had been postponed along with the rest of the tournament due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe." This isn't mentioned in the article body—in fact the "Background" section has no mention of the postponement. I know this isn't the article for the tournament proper but a mention would be beneficial especially as we have the situation where the 2020 Final is being played in July 2021.
  • "lost to France in 2000 via a golden goal" Not all of us lived through the years of tyranny involved with the golden goal, suggest wikilinking it for clarity
  • "Three of their four competitive meetings at major tournaments resulted in Italy wins". Could simplify this to "Italy won three of their four competitive meetings at major tournaments"
  • Luke Shaw image is pretty terrible, let's be honest. Might be able to get a better crop out of File:Luke Shaw, Manchester United v Newcastle United, 11 September 2021 (44) (cropped).jpg, the resolution might not be any better but since he's looking forward and not down it would at least seem less like a Crimewatch still.
  • "Chiellini later claimed that he had "cursed" Saka before his penalty miss, by shouting "Kiricocho" as the England player struck the ball"—Without explanation, this is some fairly inside-baseball stuff; the source explains what "Kiricocho" means/represents and we should really follow suit, even just briefly. Something like "Chiellini later claimed that he had "cursed" Saka before his penalty miss, by shouting "Kiricocho"—a common superstitious term among footballers—as the England player struck the ball" or better words to that effect.
  • There's mention that RAI are the state broadcaster for Italy, for context it might be worth adding the same for the BBC.
  • All I have for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grapple X: many thanks for the review. I think I've looked at all your points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that looks good to me--the added depth re: postponement especially, article now functions as a standalone much better. Happy to support in light of the improvements. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: we're two days from the mystery "unwritten" three-week threshold here and have all the pre-requisites. Can you let us know if there's anything more we need to do to ensure a timely promotion please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not any rule, written or otherwise, regarding three weeks or three supports. Other than three supports being the minimum usually required for it to be considered that a consensus to promote has been reached after any length of time. It is unusual for a nomination with only three reviews to be promoted after only three weeks, but as I will not be promoting any nominations by WikiCup contestants until next month I haven't been through this in detail and it is possible that it is one of those unusual exceptions. The standard answer to the FAQ "What can I do to get my nomination speedily promoted/" is "Get further detailed scrutiny of it by further reviewers". This applies pretty much however many reviews/supports it already has.

On a separate but related point, note that for my current nom Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747) I asked for further reviews on the WikiCup talk page even though it already had three supports and has now been open for more than three weeks. (You were kind enough to provide one of them, for which thank you.) I did this because I considered there was no chance of it being prompted before the end of the month with only three supports.

I hope that this helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does Gog, of course. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: so this one now has four content supports and the usual source and image reviews thanks to Grapple's recent support. @Ian Rose, is there any chance this might be promotable before the end of the WikiCup on Sunday? Do we need to do anything further in order to make that happen? I'm aware it's a fairly recent nomination, but if you don't ask you don't get! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi TRM, Amakuru, forgive me if I missed something but I couldn't see the timings for the subs and cards in the match report cited... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ian Rose: thanks for the query. The timings are given in the Guardian minute-by-minute report, so I've just added that as an explicit extra source above the two team lists. Hopefully that satisfies your concern. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, maybe I'm suffering temporary blindness but I can only see the timings for the subs, not the cards (understand that I'm not incredibly fussed about seeing times for the cards, only that if we present timings that they be properly cited)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ian Rose: ah, it's not mentioned in the panel on the left, but all of the cards are mentioned in the minute-by-minute updates, I checked them this morning. For example, for Nicola Barella's yellow card on 47 minutes, the source has an update on page 4 saying: "47 min: Kane powers down the left and is clipped on the heel by Barella, who becomes the first name in the referee’s notebook tonight.". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah-ha... Not sure the uninitiated would immediately equate "first name in the referee’s notebook" with a yellow card -- I suppose they'd report a red card as "given his marching orders..."? Anyway I'll pay it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      True enough, it's certainly a rather obscure jargony phrase! The Guardian minute-by-minutes are always a bit more of a colloquial and chatty tone than a regular report would be, although I'd hazard that anyone reasonably familiar with football would be able to connect those two statements together... as for red card, yes "given his marching orders" would cover it or even "ordered to have an early bath"  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2021 (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) 31 October 2021 [2].

1987–88 Gillingham F.C. season edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After two successful nominations and one that's nearly over the line, here's my fourth nomination of a season from the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham, and this one was certainly a rollercoaster ride. The team started off the season like a house on fire, scoring 8 and 10 on consecutive Saturdays, the latter the highest score in the Football League for nearly 25 years. I was at both games and it was madness (in a good way, of course!). I distinctly remember that Match magazine published an article with the brilliant headline "Gillingham are killing 'em!". After that, though, things went downhill quite rapidly, and popular manager Keith Peacock was sacked just after Christmas, a decision which fans of my generation are still mad about more than 30 years later. As ever, I look forward to getting feedback, which will be acted on as soon as humanly possible! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass no issues found (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • " play-offs for promotion" link both.
  • "from promotion to the Second" overlinked.
  • "this was the reverse of the second-choice shirts" seems wrong way round, wouldn't the away strip be the reverse of the home strip?
  • "the highest number of goals " the most goals
  • "scored four of the goals, the first time a Gillingham player had scored as many goals" maybe just "scored four, ..."? Otherwise a bit repetitive.
  • "left the team second" left Gillingham (and then rephrase the subsequent clause to avoid repeat).
  • "in 7th position" seventh.
  • "14th season with ... of the season" repetitive.
  • "8th" eighth.
  • "over Chesterfield.[51]" overlinked.
  • " from Millwall, made" overlinked.
  • "placed Walsall, and " overlinked.
  • "the Second Division. Stoke won the" maybe run on instead of saying "Stoke won..." like "the Second Division, losing the ... leg and the .. leg..."
  • Luff made a league appearance so is "notable".
    • Linked, although at that point I discovered that I had actually created his article as a redirect to this one back in March. I highly doubt he will ever have an article based on his ten minutes of pro football more than 30 years ago, but if someone wants to convert the redir to an article they can.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19, what is page ifc? Inside front cover?

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - thanks for your review, all addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there wasn't much to fuss about here, so with the above changes, happy to support. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: - do you think I should change the "ifc" in that ref to be in caps? I had thought that even though the IFC isn't numbered, I could potentially "count back" from the first page which is actually numbered, but that gets me to 0 :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I guessed what it meant, I'm not sure you can have "p. inside front cover", bit odd too! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Amakuru edit

Background and preseason
  • "out of action" - according to the dictionary this is an idiom, so should probably be avoided per MOS:IDIOM
  • "forward Tony Cascarino" - try to reword to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE if that's possible
  • "midfielder George Shipley and defender Gary West" - same thing
  • "£40,000 to sign Shipley and £50,000 to sign" - repetition of "to sign"
  • "supporters were looking forward to Gillingham playing at" - seems a bit journalese.
  • "would not play at Wembley for the first time until 1999" - suggest "did not make their first appearance at Wembley until 1999". Also maybe link the 1999 event which saw them play there.
August–December
  • "a second consecutive league match in which the team failed to score a goal" - I feel like I'd like to know what the result was in this game
  • "second in the table ... the team dropped to 12th" - as comparable figures, these should probably be either second/twelfth or 2nd/12th, per MOS:NUM
  • "and would not play again" - "and did not play again"
  • "Former assistant manager Taylor was appointed" - presumably he was still the assistant manager at the time of his appointment? If so, I think it would be better to omit the "former" as this makes it sound like there was a hiatus during which he was not in the post.
January–May
  • "1 January" - as a new year, I might consider adding "1988" to this date
  • "club record fee" - perhaps a hyphen between club and record?
  • "league leaders Notts County" - a hyphen here too?
Aftermath
  • "Taylor remained manager of Gillingham for the 1988–89 season" - suggest maybe "the start of the 1988–89 season", to be clear that the didn't remain in the post for the whole season.
  • "I'm proud of my time with the club, though". - reverse the " and the . at the end, since it's a multi-sentence quote and should finish with a full stop.

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually wait, there's Lead too. Coming up:
Lead
  • You link here to "voted back into the league" but I didn't see a similar link in the body
  • "but been defeated" - "but had been defeated"

OK, that really is it now!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - all done bar one. I've personally never seen "league leaders" (as a noun) written with a hyphen. "League-leading" (as an adjective) yes, but not "league leaders"......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fair enough. I was thinking maybe as an adjective it would be hyphenated, but no biggy. Nice work overall, and happy to support. As an aside, if you have any spare time to do a review yourself, WP:Featured article candidates/2014 FIFA World Cup Final/archive1 is awaiting a bit more feedback. Do let me know if you have any other work you'd like me to look at as well. Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Looks fine on comprehensiveness and prose. No clangers jumped out at me. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

@Nikkimaria: - resolved :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: - can I confirm I am now OK to open another nom? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: - courtesy repinging for Chris's request here, as I think due to the typo and then correction, the ping may not have worked - if you don't sign it at the time you make the ping it sometimes fails.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Amakuru -- go ahead, Chris. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2021 (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) 31 October 2021 [3].

Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747) edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A typical naval battle from the age of sail. It was of some importance at the time, but seems to have been largely escaped detailed scholarly scrutiny. Which means that the article is short, but that I believe that it contains pretty much all there is to be said about the battle. Fresh from GAN I believe that this meets the FAC criteria, but stand ready to repel boarders. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added.
  • Don't use fixed px size
Fixed.
  • File:Henri_Francois_Des_Herbiers_de_l_Etenduere.jpeg needs a US tag
Fixed.
  • File:Gravure_francaise_sur_combat_naval_1747_(cropped).jpeg needs a US tag and more details on the original source - it appears the credit line is for the reproduction?
Is the statement on the original "Published ... 1781" not sufficient? (Bottom left.)
  • File:Trois_vaisseaux_francais_captures_a_la_bataille_du_cap_finisterre_oct_1747.jpg: where was this first published?
Is the statement on the original "{Published ... 1751" not sufficient? (Bottom right corner.)

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, all addressed, but a couple of queries I would value your opinion on. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For both of those statements... to be honest even after you've pointed them out, I can't read them! Can you quote them in full? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Trois vaisseaux francais captures a la bataille du cap finisterre oct 1747.jpg" reads "Published according to Act of Parliament [June 1 of] 1751". {Square brackets indicates that the resolution is poor enough that I am partially guessing as to the text.]
"File:Gravure francaise sur combat naval 1747 L Etanduere.jpeg": to be frank, it is at the limit of what I can make out. I can strain and see what I want to, but the bits I can be sure about are "[unclear word] per [unclear word] 1 1751". But note that the agency which sells prints of exhibits on behalf of the French national museums attributes it to 1751 - [4].
Hi Nikkimaria. I can make out one, but am struggling with the other - not helped by my rusty French. (My usual translator is on holiday.) Is what I have above sufficient, or will I have to delete one or both? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just go by what the museums say here? For the first image, the Royal Greenwich Museum says that it was made January 29th 1751.[5] For the second image, the Réunion des Musées Nationaux-Grand Palais dates it to 1781.[6] It also claims the image resolution is 4471 x 7024px, which if it could be opened at that resolution should mean the text would be legible. The bottom right text of that image says 'Gravé par Hubert'. Perhaps Hubert-François Gravelot? François Hubert. The style is very much like some his works that can be seen here. I can suggest that the bottom left tells us who made the design ['Dessine'], but I cannot, as yet, make out who that might be beyond 'Gra...t'. As I write this, Eureka. Look at this one, Dessine par Graincourt ; Gravé par Hubert' and the date is 1780, a year earlier. That is Antoine Graincourt. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just an added note that I've mistaken Gravelot for another François Hubert.[7] My bad. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tagging in use relies on publication date rather than creation date - if a site gives only "date" it's hard to tell whether it was or was not published at that time. If the image itself says it was published at that time then it's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Gravure francaise sur combat naval 1747 (cropped).jpeg" regretfully removed, which resolves the outstanding issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Splendid stuff. Crisp, clear and highly readable.

Thank you Tim. I do find these smaller topics a refreshing change of pace.

A few minor prose quibbles:

  • Lead
  • "Rear-admiral Edward Hawke" – in our WP article, and more importantly in the OED – there is no hyphen in "rear admiral" – same for later hyphenated rears.
I doubt it not. But in 1747 it was. Hawke would have been scandalised to have been referred to as a "rear admiral" and would have had the miscreant swabbing decks. If they were lucky. Obviously this is reflected in the sources. It is the normal convention (I believe) to refer to people by the ranks and titles they held at the time, parentasising explanations as necessary. Although 'rear-admiral (rear admiral)' seemed unnecessary!
I see "Rear Admiral Ogle" and "Rear Admiral Haddock" in the government journal The London Gazette 29 March–1 April 1740, but in the same paper's report of the battle (26 October 1747) the commanding officer is "Rear-Admiral Hawke". Applying your precept, with which I agree, you need to capitalise both bits of "Rear-Admiral" if using the contemporary title. I've had a swift rummage in the archives and all the London papers from around that date capitalise both bits, and the majority use the hyphen. – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, caught! I cannot explain why I have used the contemporary hyphen, also used in modern sources, but not the second upper case initial, also used in the modern sources. Strange how our habitual usages trip us up. Thank you for being alert. Done. (I note that I have done this in one of the cations! I am officially an idiot.)
Speaking as a fellow idiot, I should say there are a lot of us about, but we do some good nonetheless. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The War of the Austrian Succession (1740 – 1748)" – unspaced en-dashes rather than spaced?
Arrrgh!
  • "anticipating they would likely be lost" – if this article is meant to be in BrE, the Americanism "would likely" ought to be amended to "would probably"
I keep doing that!
  • "provide significant supplies" – significant? what did they signify?
Does the OED not have a meaning of "Having a noticeable or major effect"? (Source: Wiktionary) [Not done. Further discussion invited.]
Plain Words on significant: this is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?' In 'A significant number of Government supporters abstained', 'There was no significant loss of power when the engine was tested with lower-octane fuel', this question can clearly be answered; but the writers of the following had no such significance in mind:
  • Even after this ... reduction the size of our labour force in (a particular factory) will remain significantly larger than it was a year ago. (Appreciably)
  • A significantly higher level of expenditure must be expected on libraries etc. (Considerably)
  • After the low proportion of commitments in respect of new dwellings during the fourth quarter there was a significant upturn in January. (Marked)
In the last example the upturn (or increase) might, it is true, have been significant; but the context shows that it was not, and no one is going to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who writes of a low proportion of commitments in respect of new dwellings. – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if necessary gains in Europe could be exchanged" – I'd be inclined to put a comma before "gains"
Done.
  • "The British tried to …taking advantage of its naval superiority" – plural-v-singular clash
Oops.
  • Prelude
  • "Hawke was tasked …Hawke was given detailed orders" – perhaps just "he" the second time?
Done.
  • Battle
  • "The French were sighted by the British squadron eight days after sailing, off Cape Finisterre, early on the morning of 14 October" – ambiguous: perhaps something on the lines of "Eight days after sailing, the French were sighted by the British squadron off Cape Finisterre early on the morning of 14 October."
Done.
  • "which had sailed … which they were rated" – perhaps a "that" for one of the two?
I have deleted the second "which".
  • "each of them had their mobility restricted" – singular-v-plural clash. Perhaps "had its mobility…"?
I would have used 'her', but I have decided to avoid the howls of outrage.
  • "due to damage to their rigging" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
Interesting. Selecting a volume at random finds the venerable Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption using the term 51 times in this sense in just the third volume of his magisterial history of the Hundred Years' War. But only 28 in the fourth. May I suggest that in this, possibly unique, case your source may be a tad behind common usage?
Jonathan Sumption, with his charming views on the value of the life of a woman with cancer and his dismissal of our anti-Covid measures as "collective hysteria and governmental folly", is not a man I'd be inclined to emulate. The current (2015) edition of Fowler acknowledges that in the 21st century this use of "due to" is widely seen, but reminds readers of Fowler's comment that it is the practice of the illiterate. The Guardian's style guide gives the traditional view that it should only be used when it is the complement of the verb 'to be', and could be replaced by 'caused by'; "otherwise, use 'owing to' or 'because of'." – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not like you to tackle the man rather than the ball Tim. (You can probably imagine my views on Sumption's opinions in general, but I have almost always found his expression of them clear, logical and insightful.) It was the first hefty e-volume to hand written by a respected (or perhaps not) academic historian.. Regardless, while I tend to taking Fowler as strongly indicative rather than definitive, if the Grudian Style Guide is with it then I surrender. "due to" replaced and I shall endevour, probably with incomplete success, to avoid it in future.
Hmm, while not wholly convinced, you raise more than enough doubts for me to substitute it in this case and to make a mental note to be more cautious with it in future.
Probably a losing battle, I fear, against the American take-over of the Queen's English, but one fights the good fight. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath
  • "were not self sufficient" – the OED hyphenates self-sufficient
Hyphenated.
  • "France recovered her colonial possessions which had been captured by the British in return for withdrawing" – I think you need to fence the subordinate clause off with a comma before "which" and another before "in".
It seems to me that one is only required after "British, which I have inserted. But I stand ready to corrected.
  • Afterthought – if the colonial possessions we're talking about were not all France's colonies, I think perhaps "that" (commaless) rather than "which" is needed – restrictive-v-non-restricted.
Do you mean not all in the sense of some being Spain's, or not being the totality of France's?
The sentence means either that the British had captured all France's colonial possessions but gave them all back in return for the withdrawal, or that the British had captured some of France's colonial possessions but gave them back in return for the withdrawal. It is the difference between a non-restrictive and a restrictive clause:
  • France recovered her colonial possessions, which had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing.
  • France recovered her colonial possessions that had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing.
But for clarity it might in any case be better to rejig the sentence:
  • In return for withdrawing, France recovered her colonial possessions, which had been captured by the British.
  • In return for withdrawing, France recovered her colonial possessions that had been captured by the British.

(There are some ardent opponents of the passive voice who would insist that "which/that had been captured by the British" should be "which/that the British had captured, but it isn't a point on which I feel strongly.) – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may - ok, it most certainly is - due to (oops!) my pig ignorance of the finer nuances of English grammar but those look synonymistic (sic) to me. So I have gone with "In return for withdrawing, France recovered those colonial possessions that had been captured by the British" feeling that the important distinction you wish to be drawn may be better grasped by a reader with this. If I have merely further mangled the prose, please don't hesitate to say.
You have it spot-on now, in my view. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in again once you've had the chance to ponder the above. – Tim riley talk 18:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim, I believe that I have mentioned before that I feel better once you have gone through any of my articles. All of you comments addressed, a few even with less than full agreement! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with you is nearly always fruitless, but it is so educational I feel unmotivated to stop. Thank you. And I should employ you as a research assistant! Fancy a collaboration? I have had my eye on Battle of Quiberon Bay for a couple of years now. The French language version is excellent, while ours is not. (The "Battle" section is entirely based on a 1907 source, except for some 1867 intrusions.) To a large extent this FAC and Battle of Lagos, which you also reviewed, are practice runs for Quiberon Bay.
Any hoo, your further points now addressed. I await continuing broadsides. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No further broadsides. As a proud holder of the Queen's Award for Cowardice, I do not write articles on military or naval history, but I am very happy to add my support for the elevation of this excellent article to FA, and I look forward to seeing it enliven our front page. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support edit

  • "while Its colonies were left to fend for themselves" - Lowercase its
Done.
  • Can it be briefly said in a sentence or two what the War of the Austrian Succession was fought over?
I had thought that the name of the war may be sufficient, but now unpacked a little further.
  • I think it would be helpful to indicate where exactly Cape Finisterre was
This turned out to be surprisingly difficult. See what you think of the revised first sentence of the "Battle " section.
I think that works. (I would have personally guessed that Cape Finisterre was the location, without that clarification). 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "252 merchantmen and others" - I'm assuming #251 was the Indiaman and #252 was Castor. But Castor is only directly mentioned in the listing of ships at the end. Should she be mentioned in the prose as well, as the 252nd ship?
Good point. You assume correctly. (Separately listing one Indiaman and a single frigate, neither of which were engaged, in the infobox seemed a bit much.) Done.
  • Sources and images look fine
I am assuming that this doesn't constitue a full source review? Or does it?
No, but I will do one. Hog Farm Talk 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, as usual. Hog Farm Talk 05:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly for the review, the insightful comments and the kind words. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • Sources all appear to be reliable
  • Anderson needs the location
Added.
  • page 320 here says that the battle was fought well to the north of the cape itself, is that useful?
The battle was fought here, while Cape Finisterre is here. So, yes, well to the south. But the battle isn't named after that Cape Finisterre, it was named after the sea region Finisterre, a vaguely defined area to the west of the French department Finistère, the western part of Brittany. I could give you lots more OR if you want, but the sources don't go any further.
BTW, two naval orientated RSs give a different account of why Hawke was first off Spain and then intercepted the French much further north.
  • Not finding any major sources that aren't represented.
Did you find many sources at all?
Not really. I found the item linked above, a single paragraph in a different work by Black, and some primary source papers by Hawke. Nothing that would really be useful here. Hog Farm Talk 22:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 20:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Hog Farm, you are having a busy day on Wikipedia. See above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mr rnddude edit

  • Any particular reason for Fougueux to be the only ship of the line not to be either blue or red linked?
My sloppiness. Now red linked/
  • "In return for withdrawing, France recovered those colonial possessions that had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing from her gains in the Austrian Netherlands (modern Belgium)" - Repetition in italics, I'd drop the first instance and remove the comma.
Done.
  • "... when the French King would prove reluctant ..." - Nitpick, but you could just use simple past tense here.
True. Done.
  • "Herbiers did succeed in his objective of protecting the convoy, of the 250 merchantmen, only seven were captured" - Pretty sure this is a comma splice
Second comma removed.
  • "The balance continued to the West Indies, but, warned of their approach, the British Leeward Islands Squadron under Commodore George Pocock was able to intercept many of them in late 1747 and early 1748" - Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what the meaning of this sentence is. What does it mean for the balance to continue to the West Indies and whom are the British intercepting? I assume 'balance of the war', but does that mean that the West Indies was having more impact than the campaign in mainland Europe?
"of the convoy" added to clarify what the subject of "the balance" was. (As the previous sentence was "Herbiers did succeed in his objective of protecting the convoy, of the 250 merchantmen only 7 were captured." I had assumed it clear that "the balance " referred to the other 243 ships.)
  • "... varied from 74 to 50 ..." vs "... variously rated for 56 to 80 guns ..." - Why the switch from high-low to low-high?
Ah. Good spot. Standarised.
  • "... which made it difficult for the French navy to provide substantial quantities of supplies or to militarily support to French colonies" - Either 'or to militarily support French colonies' or, more preferably, 'or military support to French colonies'.
Oops. Sorted.
Cheers for that. I am off line for few days. I’ll get to it as soon as I’m back. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mr rnddude. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one additional comment on second read-through. The lede and article body state 250 merchant ships/merchantmen, while the IB states '252 merchantmen and others'. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that must be Content and Castor. Perhaps, for clarity, '250 merchantmen and 2 others'. Because I read it to mean 252 merchantmen and others rather than as 252 merchantmen and others. If the emphasis makes clear what I'm saying. Also, since the 2 others are part of the escort fleet, should they not be with the 8 ships of the line, i.e. 8 ships of the line and 2 others. Rather than as part of the merchant ships. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. I was trying to be concise for the infobox, but clearly at the expense of clarity. Now spelt out.
Thanks again Mr rnddude, good additional point. Addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to support as all comments I had have been addressed. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

Ian Rose, @FAC coordinators: three supports - two of them non-MilHist - source and image reviews and ten days since nomination. Can I launch another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, @FAC coordinators: Two weeks in now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wasn't deliberately ignoring although, yes, two weeks in works better -- sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • (or 14 October 1747 in the Julian calendar then in use in Great Britain) - this could probably be in the note attached to the sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • British fleet - could we expand the link to both words? Seems EASTEREGGy to me to link British, as that could be many articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, done.
  • Basque Roads - could we mention this is in France? I know we say "French convoy", but that doesn't mean they travelled from France. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
Not especially. It is a normal English word which seems to succinctly describe what happened. Would you prefer a rephrase?
  • withdrawing from her gains in the Austrian Netherlands - I'm not sure what this means. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded to "withdrawing from her territorial gains in the Austrian Netherlands (modern Belgium)." Does that help?
Prose
  • Not a prose thing, but the article title is annoying me a bit. Why is it "Second Battle", not "second battle", and why has it also got a date disambiguation? the other battles are all just "Battle of Cape Finisterre" with the year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I never pay any attention to titles. I suspect the date is because there are battles of Cape Finisterre in 1747, 1761 and 1805. But none of them are second battles. I will change it to "Second battle of Cape Finisterre" as soon as this FAC closes.
I don't see it and it is not usual, although not unknown, so it is now.
Cus TRM wanted a contemporaneous link and I couldn't be bothered to argue WP:OVERLINK with them. Happy to delete them or change to Spain etc, which seems an insult to a reader's intelligence to me, or whatever is preferred. But The Rambling Man would need to agree.
It's a navy which happens to belong to France. As in Gog's article.
  • The captions are just stating who is in the portrait. Can we offer some more information, or at least mention it is a painting, when it was painted, or who did the painting? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why?[!] I don't attribute each sentence of prose in line. That's what cites are for. Why should I do the equivalent for images. If a reader wants more detail they can click on the image. I could go with "Image of a painting of Rear-Admiral Edward Hawke", but a) it reads badly to me b) it seems pointless, a reader can see that c) it comes across as painfully pedantic.
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee, thanks for looking this over. Your comments to date are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski Reminder, thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Lee Vilenski and thanks for squeezing this in when things are so busy. Responses to your latest comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: ? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. I would prefer better captions, though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lee. Happy to discuss "better" captions. Once the WikiCup is over and we both have a bit more time perhaps we could debate this on the article's talk page? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • I would add (O.S.) to "14 October 1747" in the infobox.
Quite right. Done and linked.
  • For location in the infobox, could we be a tiny bit more explicit, i.e. Off Cape Finisterre, near France/Spain?
I had wondered about that, but gone for the more summary style. Expanded.
  • "A British fleet of" fleet should be in the pipe. Or else British should be linked to Kingdom of Great Britain.
Done.
  • Likewise convoy in "French convoy". Or link French to "Kingdom of France" instead.
Gone for the former.
  • "convoy of 250 merchant ships" infobox suggests 252 "merchantmen", so shouldn't we keep nomenclature and numbers consistent here?
Ah. Thank you for that. I forgot to subtract two from the total when I specified the two non-merchantmen! Fixed.
  • "fourteen ships of the line commanded" ship of the line should be linked here, not second time round in the lead.
Done.
  • "250 merchant ships, only seven " isn't MOSNUM keen on all numerals or or words for comparable values in close proximity?
It does, it does. Changed.
  • "had strategic effects, isolating" not sure "had strategic effects" is helpful or adds anything here, could just delete that and make "isolating" into "isolated"...
Fair point. I suppose I need to either expand or cut. I have gone with your suggestion.
  • I'm no expert, but by the map on the article, Austrian Netherlands appears to be more than just "modern Belgium".
Well, it is in places, and doesn't include some of modern Belgium elsewhere. And that's without getting into the whole Holy Roman Empire sovereignty issue. I can source the assertion in the article, but have changed to "approximately modern Belgium and Luxemburg".
  • "France, Spain and Prussia fighting Britain, Austria and the Dutch Republic" if these (especially Prussia and Dutch Republic) have contemporaneous articles, I would link them, especially as you then link Bavaria (only).
Done, in so far as their are such articles.
  • "the British navy" link this.
Done.
  • "French navy" ditto.
Done.
  • "In spring 1747 a " aren't seasons discouraged?
A regular query. IMO it is acceptable under MOS:SEASON for this sort of usage, but changed so as to duck the issue.
  • "commanded by Jacques-Pierre de la Jonquière" other such individuals have their ranks noted (in the lead at least).
Added.
  • "commanded by George Anson." ditto.
Added.
  • "subordinate, Admiral Peter" you've linked rear and vice but not vanilla admiral, any reason?
Assuming that it would be generally understood and cognizant of MOS:OL.
  • I would link scurvy, it's not exactly a commonplace complaint these days.
Point. Done.
  • "So recently promoted..." maybe it's an artefact of a dodgy education, but I was told to avoid starting sentences with "So..."
I can't be held responsible for your dodgy education. My understanding is that this applies when "so" is used as a conjuntion, but not when used as an adverb, as here. Of course, my education was probably even dodgier.
  • "sailed from Plymouth on" could link as many readers would not even believe that Plymouth (the original) was in southwest England.
The mind boggles. We should never have given them independence! Done.
  • What is "aggressive ... signalling"?
Good question. I am trying to boil about a chapter and a half in the standard history into half a sentence. Unpacked a little, see what you think.
  • "Admiralty" link.
Done.
  • You use unusually thrice which is quite a POV statement. In each case, who said it was "unusual"?
I dislike doing too much in line attribution, so all removed.
  • "Eight days after sailing" which side?
Good point. It also reads clumsily, so rephrased.
  • "westernmost department of" why italic? Our own article doesn't use italics.
They do when using foreign words which aren't proper nouns. See MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
  • "varied from 50 to 74, only one being rated for more than 66 guns.[20]" you say this is "on the smaller side", but what was typical for a ship of the line? Can you footnote what we'd expect?
Not really. I can follow the sources by saying that they were a bit lightly gunned for capital ships of the time, but saying what was typical would be OR. (Or, at best, synthesis.)
  • "Indiaman Content, the frigate Castor" Content is notable but Castor not? What's the difference?
I thought I had changed that. Castor now red linked.
  • "permit ... permitting" repetitive, maybe switch one for "allow(ing)"?
Done.
  • "By being able ... British were able..." repetitive prose.
Second usage rephrased.
  • "each of them had its mobility restricted because of damage to their rigging" could you say "each one's mobility was restricted after damage to their rigging"?
I could. I have.
  • "under Commodore George" link for Commodore (for consistent rank linking).
Done.
  • "able to intercept many of them " any more specific details on these interceptions?
Sadly not. Which is a shame. But several thousand merchant ships were captured by each side during the war, many several times, so they get little mention.
  • "went to the negotiating table " bit journalese.
Rephrased.
  • "the Low Countries " link.
Done.
  • "the French King proved" why not name him explicitly??
Added.
  • "French Canada" link?
Done.
  • "[note 4]:[20][22]" ugh, put [note 4] after the colon, I think our readers can handle that.
Done.
  • "(flag, John Moore)" what does flag mean here?
Changed to "flagship" and linked.

That's all I have on a quick run through. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks TRM, that was just what the article needed. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure Commodore is linked first time,
It wasn't, it is now.
a query over French navy, this article doesn't capitalise it, but it redirects to the article which does.
I don't capitalise British navy either. I can't help how other articles capitalise things. I am relying on the MOS's "The central point is that Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources."
I imagine there's a simple explanation for why you're opting to redirect?
MOS:NOPIPE.
Well, no, if you were to use Royal Navy, you wouldn't write Royal navy. That would be simply wrong. But as French Navy isn't really even the real name, it's fine. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Further points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (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) 31 October 2021 [8].

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum edit

Nominator(s): Eewilson (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the vascular plant species Symphyotrichum lateriflorum in the family Asteraceae. Symphyotrichum is a genus of about 96 asters native to the Americas. Most in the Northern Hemisphere bloom August–October, some as late as November. There are very few GA articles from this family, and this is the first for this genus. It has received only positive responses on its content and photographs during 2021, and I think it would be a great addition to the FA list and, if possible, one to appear during this Fall season (although obviously only if possible). I will work closely with any reviewers to make this article top notch. Eewilson (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Given that the range includes non-US countries, why have a range map that is US-only? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, and I will create a new one to include Canada and Mexico. Eewilson (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Native distribution map has been updated. Eewilson (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great. If possible can the map be made slightly larger? And if that's not possible within the template, can we add "(click to enlarge)" in the caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did both. See what you think. I did get rid of the second species image from the taxobox to accommodate the extra size. If we need it or a similar one, it can be put somewhere else on the page. Eewilson (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Looking now....

@Casliber: made some comments, indented bullet level. —Eewilson (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd abbreviate all measurements. currently most aren't but you start abbreviating halfway down the description section...
    • Modified and made sure I only spelled out on first use of each unit (per MOS:UNITNAMES)
  • ...with alternate leaves = "alternate" can be linked to phyllotaxis.
    • done
  • avoid 1-2 sentence paras if you can
    • I'll check
  • don't bold in body of article - names for the plant there can be plain or in quotation marks
    • You mean in the Etymology section?
Yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, see if that works. I just made them plain text. —Eewilson (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is often tricky in biology articles - see, the standard mark-up would be to use italics for words-as-words (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_type) - however that poses a problem when a page is peppered with italic scientific names - same issue arises with foreign words and bird calls. So alternatives are no mark-up or quotation marks (though with plants that then creates problems if you have a bunch of cultivars written..sigh...some discretion and pragmatism hels here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow - the level of detail. I'd remove sentences that specify the L.=Linnaeus myself....
    • Gee, thanks? I'll look at the L. stuff
    • Do you mean remove all of this, part of this, or what? Just making sure I know what you're thinking. "The letter L followed by a period (or dot), written L., is the standard botanical author abbreviation for Carl Linnaeus. Likewise, Á.Löve and D.Löve are the abbreviations for Icelandic botanist Áskell Löve and Swedish botanist Doris Löve, respectively. Linnaeus' abbreviation is placed in parentheses because his authorship was retained when Áskell and Doris Löve cited Solidago lateriflora L. as the basionym when they renamed the species."
Yes, those sentences are what I mean Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so that's gone. —Eewilson (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In two minds about cultivars (being bolded) - need to think on this. More later
    • Yeah, I bolded them because they are to sort of be like sections only with bullet-points, for readability.
  • I'm confused about variety horizontale - if Aster pendulus is the earliest combination why is it not var. pendulum...?
Good question and one I didn't ask. Let me see if there's something I missed to explain why or perhaps I worded something incorrectly. —Eewilson (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This will require some digging. I am not sure if I missed something or somebody else (a past botanist) missed something. I may have to check the Code to see if it fit as an exception. Because the varieties are no longer accepted by POWO, the synonymy is linked up strictly with the species now. However, COL does have historical records, and I may be able to find something there. —Eewilson (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Alright, so it wasn't until 1889 that Nathaniel Lord Britton combined Solidago lateriflora L., Aster diffusus Aiton, and Aster miser Aiton into one species named Aster lateriflorus (L.) Britton, with Solidago lateriflora L. as the basionym, because it was the earliest. Nobody had recognized that what was called Solidago lateriflora was really an aster until Britton did. So anything that happened with this species, including the descriptions of varieties, was done on one of the other names (including Aster divergens, not listed here but is in the article). You can see the chronology of the definitions in the Wikispecies entry which I filled out fully when doing research for this article. So, the bottom line with the species and varieties is that Solidago lateriflora was sort of the unnoticed step-child until 1889. Now, all of them are synonyms of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. Was there cleanup that should have been or should be done with the names? I don't know. Maybe it has because it is now all in POWO. If there still were not ambiguity in this species, with the existing question of "are there varieties or aren't there," then this article would be simpler. So I'm not sure what to do here. I can't write an idea of what probably happened. Maybe I could write something like this after the information regarding Britton in 1889:
Until this time, these species were treated separately, as were any varieties associated with them.
What do you think? —Eewilson (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to drink some more coffee..and re-look then :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was this: Aster lateriflorus var. pendulus E.S.Burgess. I'm updating the synonym list based on POWO 2021. I may have a bit of work to do in taxonomy. I'll get back with you. You can keep on suggesting if you want, or just wait. Eewilson (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Main thing is to avoid OR - we can only reflect on material in existence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Agreed. At this point, I have cleaned up stubby paragraphs. Clarified some text in taxonomy. Added a quote from Karl McKay Wiegand to the beginning of an existing sentence in taxonomy, new text in bold: "In a 1928 study of Aster lateriflorus and close relatives, while pondering the "endless confusion in the naming of specimens" of this species, American botanist Karl McKay Wiegand noted how environmental differences likely affected leaf and flower head characteristics, causing botanists to name specimens of this plant as different varieties or species when they may not have been." Also, I updated the synonyms from POWO to make sure the list in the species box is comprehensive and current. Likely a few other things today. So I'm all done without further input. Where does it stand, do you think? —Eewilson (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blargh - looks good on comprehensiveness (any outstanding issues are extremely obscure/minor) and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thank you! —Eewilson (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's next? edit

Because this is my first FAC, and because it doesn't appear as structured as GA review, I now wonder what is next? Does anyone else look at it? Anything I can do to push it along? Who else, if anyone, should I ping? I ask only because this species is in full bloom at this time, and if it were possible to get it on the front page before the end of October, it would be a great time to do that. —Eewilson (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each FAC needs a minimum of 3 reviewers, so the best thing anyone can do is review at least 3 others and maybe someone might come and review yours. People will come eventually (PS: not supposed to be a quid pro quo thing as such though). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Already working on (or did) one. Once I finish the GA review I'm into, I'll work on more. Thanks so much for your review, Cas! —Eewilson (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM edit

Way out of my comfort zone but some general comments which might improve things:

  • "the family Asteraceae native to" is a sea of blue.
    • Done.
  • Although the lead has four paras, it still feels that they could be fleshed out a little.
    • Done, I think. Suggestions welcomed.
  • "lanceolate, rarely" that's overlinked.
    • Done.
  • "was described by Linnaeus" overlinked.
    • Done.
  • "879.[22]: 879  Latin" is that Latin needed? If so, add a full stop after.
    • I had a full stop and someone came in and removed it. Restored. "Latin" may not be needed, but I don't know that it's a big deal. I can remove it if you insist.
  • "Club.[43][11]: 174  He" etc etc, I usually expect to see citations in numerical order.
    • Fixed in all locations for your viewing pleasure.
  • "He actually said" does "actually" really add anything here?
    • That's what was wrong with that sentence! Removed.
  • "botanist René Louiche Desfontaines described" overlinked.
    • Done.
  • "second part of the scientific name" overlinked.
    • I moved the link to the first mention, which does not count the infobox.
  • "botanist William Aiton in" same.
    • Done.
  • "and Prince Edward Island. In" same.
    • Done.
  • "the European Union's", Italy etc, no need to link major geographical or organisational entities.
    • Done. Removed links for continents, countries, and the EU.
  • "documented the Meskwaki use" overlinked.
    • Done.
  • " the Potawatomi pûkwänä'sîkûn" likewise.
    • Done.
  • "with Symphyotrichum novae-angliae to " same.
    • Done. Crazy that nobody has noticed all of these until now, including me.
  • Miller, Chelsea Physic Garden, RHS and Award of Garden Merit all overlinked.
    • Well, dang. Done.
  • And put (RHS) the first time you mention that society.
    • Done.
  • Cultivars, this may be controversial, but this looks like it is ideally suited for a table rather than this lengthy list of pretty much proseline.
    • Well, I began it as a table last year then decided on a bulleted list. I'll change it if consensus here insists. To be honest, I could go either way (but really don't want to do that work right now before FA). If you all think it would make the article better, I'm all for it. Another option, if there are enough cultivars, would be a List article. It is nothing like the number of Symphyotrichum novae-angliae cultivars, but it could work.

Hopefully some of that is useful. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you! I'll see what I can do. —Eewilson (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means ping me if anything is unclear or if you need any help with any of the issues I've raised. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Okay, suggested changes made and comments above. —Eewilson (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Hi! I wanted to touch base to see if you have anything else on this or if you are ready to state your claim. —Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • TRM ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy that most of my changes have been implemented satisfactorily. I still think the cultivars should be "tablefied", or sent out to a list article but if I'm the only person with that in mind, there's perhaps no consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I see your point re tablication. But it looks FAC standard as it is and I can see the argument for leaving it. So, yeah, let's see what other reviewers make of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man and Gog the Mild. You all are killing me. :) Eewilson (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on the table idea from the nominator. I started looking into this. I think putting it in a table could be a good idea if it were a separate list article. See User:Eewilson/List of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum cultivars. I think it would be best to leave it as is (prose-y) if it remains in the article. If it is later pulled out into a separate list article, then we could do a Main link to a list. But I'm not sure (or excited) about changing it for FA. That's my 2 cents. I mean, I won't say "no" but I may silently cry, and nobody wants that. Eewilson (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are no hard and fast rules - I recall leaving cultivars in a sort of prose/listy form much like in this version Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man and Gog the Mild, as Casliber links it, that's where it remains now, which then is fine for FA? Eewilson (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WOO HOO! thank you! Eewilson (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "are rarely tinted pink or lavender" - source?
    • This is in the Florets subsection: "ray florets grow in one series and are usually white, rarely pinkish or purplish." The source citation is there.
      • Does the source say purple, or does it say lavender? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the ray florets, it actually says "white, rarely pinkish or purplish." Do you think I should use the exact text? Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think "lavender" is more specific than "purple", so if the source just says purple we should just say purple. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as misspellings Aster laterifolius and Symphyotrichum laterifolium" - source?
    • Hmmm. I may need to take that out because previously removed sources that got removed during GA review contained those misspellings.
  • Don't mix {{citation}}-family templates with {{cite}}-family templates
  • Be consistent in when publication location is included
    • Can you elaborate on this one? Not sure I understand what you mean
      • Okay, a few just don't have locations. Citations 4, 6, 17, and 91 use the Template:eFloras which formats in its own way. I made sure everything else had a location when available and removed the Wikilinks from the locations per the documentation in the Cite templates that says the location parameter is "usually not Wikilinked." Eewilson (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Be consistent in how these are formatted, and see MOS:POSTABBR. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't even notice that. It's the (stupid) eFloras template (which I do not like and do not like being constrained). I'm in a bit of a quandary here. If I don't use it, someone will later likely come along and change it because I think we (via the PLANTS project) are encouraged to use certain templates. I could be wrong on this. @Casliber: If there is a citation template for a source (e.g., Template:eFloras as we are discussing here), do we have to use it, and am I correct in that someone will likely come along and change it in the article if it's not used? Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was able to set via = eFloras to get rid of all the unnecessary garbage there. Maybe that will do? Eewilson (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Compare the formatting of the location in FN23 versus 71, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • AHH! Okay, the thing is that all of this "The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries; and, Australian National Botanic Gardens" is the combined publishers. The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew are actually called "Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew". So, in FN23, I removed the location Kew out (just today, I think), but I should really put it back in and not fill in the location field according to what the cite template instructions say. With FN71, I'm not sure what to do. It is three locations, three organizations combined to publish IPNI (International Plant Name Index, which I took out of the author and website and now just have www.ipni.org which makes me wonder if that's enough). Looking for your guidance on these. Kinda tearing my hair out, but once we figure it out, then I have 95 other plant articles in this genus that can be formatted the correct way. Eewilson (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there no secondary sources available for the information cited to Britannica?
    • Probably. It's possible I didn't have it then. I'll check.
  • Why include both domain and website name in one parameter?
I must have thought that was required, but maybe not. Which would be better? Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Simplified website parameters to have only the domain. Eewilson (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't being done consistently, and be consistent in how these are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I did. Is this the eFloras again? Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them include www (eg FN72), while others don't (eg FN79) - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through them. Some may have a www in their name and some may not. Eewilson (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why include both website and publisher when they are nearly identical?
Too thorough? :) Will fix. Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why repeat publisher in the author parameter?
If the website asks for it to be cited that way, then if the author is the same as the publisher, should I leave the publisher out? If the website asks for both to be included, should I include both? Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example from one website. NatureServe Explorer asks for citations formated with NatureServe as the author, publisher, and NatureServe Explorer as the website. Eewilson (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC) "NatureServe. YYYY. NatureServe Explorer [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available https://explorer.natureserve.org/. (Accessed: Month DD, YYYY)."[reply]
As long as we provide sufficient information to identify the source, we don't need to follow the format in the source's suggested citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that. I'll adjust them. Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Catalogue of Life citations (Hassler) are multi-level, hence, complicated.
  • I shortened those long and crazy old titles of books.

—Eewilson (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the citations would benefit from some simplification.
    • It's likely. I'll see what I can do.

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks. I'll take a look at all of this. Eewilson (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Made changes. See above. Awaiting more source review if you have it. Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Simplified more. I think the only outstanding issue is the eFloras one. I will do what you say on that. Please review, and I'm open to any of your suggestions. I'd like to ask, because I am a pretty literal person, could you give me the actual citation numbers for the rest of your input? Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was able to set via = eFloras to get rid of all the unnecessary garbage there. Maybe that will do? Eewilson (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Updates.

  • Changed "lavender" to "purple".
  • Removed location if already mentioned in publisher parameter.
  • Spelled out GBIF, IPNI, and ITIS (this will be easy to see in the Diff).
  • I chose to go with the www prefix because more worked with it than without. Added www prefix for all website parameters where it would work if the user typed it in that way. There are some for which www isn't appropriate (e.g., explorer.natureserve.com; gobotany.nativeplanttrust.org; data.canadensys.net). I checked every single one of the domain names in the website parameters and made sure they work as they are now.
  • Changed "powo.science.kew.org" to the more current "www.plantsoftheworldonline.org" in the url and website parameters.
  • Wikilinked a few publishers that needed it since I removed the unneeded authors.
  • See § Big messed up publisher for my comments about the big messed up publisher value in FNs 2, 44, 45, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61, 71, 82, and 85. These are all for the International Plant Names Index (IPNI).
  • What should I do about the mess in FNs 33 and 35?

Eewilson (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think what you've done for FN2 etc as far as publisher is fine, just take out the "and, " bit. I'm still not clear on why we need to have IPNI listed as the author as well as the work for these, and that goes for a number of others sources as well. For 33/35, could you explain your thinking on why they're set up the way they are at the moment? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies
    • FN2 etc: I cleaned up the IPNI publishers. Do you think I should Wikilink those? Seems like that would be consistent. It would be "Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries; Australian National Botanic Gardens".
    • FN2 etc: With the IPNI author, after I removed the name and just kept the URL for those, and had removed it from the author field as well, I realized IPNI was no longer spelled out. Does that matter? Let me know.
    • FN74: With the citation for "AGM Plants December 2020 RHS - Ornamental", it needs to have the date and honestly, I don't like what happens with dates when there is no author (they move, but likely they are supposed to). So on that one, I put Royal Horticultural Society as the author instead of the publisher (before, I had it in both, plus the website! as you know). I could just deal with it and move it to publisher to be consistent. Your call.
      • No it does not need to have the date! the date is in the title of the work. Gah. Removed author and date params from FN74. Eewilson (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FNs 3, 23, 83: Plants of the World Online - now that I changed the website to www.plantsoftheworldonline.org, POWO is spelled out, so I could remove those as author if you agree.
    • FN36: USDA, NRCS (2014) does not need the author but does need the year (which would move). Your call.
      • What's your concern with the date? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is no author and there is a date, doesn't the date move to a different location? It doesn't matter. Just making sure that's what is supposed to happen. I'll make the change and we'll see. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN137: Author TUINSeizoen [Garden Season] - wanted to spell out in English as well.
    • FNs 18, 20, 29: Question about the University of Waterloo citations. "www.uwaterloo.ca. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo" is a lot of Waterloo. Not everyone would know that UWaterloo is in Ontario. How do you think I should format this?
      • I refer you to my question above: Why include both website and publisher when they are nearly identical? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dangit! I can't get the tendency I have toward redundancy out of my head. Maybe the website and then the location as Ontario would do it. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN93: Chicago Botanic Garden (2021) - we don't really need the date on this one, so I can remove the author.
    • FNs 33 and 35: The two Hassler, M. citations via Catalogue of Life. I tried to format it like the website had requested. Bottom line is the data is from Hassler, M. through COL which has all of those editors. Perhaps using "via" isn't the way to go. I could try to do it differently using the editor field, etc., to still have the same information.
      • Okay, I reformatted 33 and 35. They are still long because of all the editors but make more sense and seem to better represent the situation. Eewilson (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make these latest changes immediately. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, all done. Please let me know if there is anything else. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7: there is a date at the source; is that not the date of the record? (This applies also to other refs from this site).
    • So on these herbarium specimen records, there are many dates: the date the specimen was collected, the date (or dates) it was identified as a certain species by botanist(s) (aka, "determined"), the date it was photographed, the date it was put online, and the date I accessed the online record. There could be another, but I've never seen those recorded, and that would be the date the specimen was preserved/mounted. The date you see on the record for FN7, for example, is verbatim "15 Aug. 1960". That is the date it was collected. You can also view the image which shows that date on the label as well as the text "Det. B.Boivin Feb. 1961". The date is was determined by botanist "B.Boivin". The date I need for my citation, since I am citing the New York Botanical Garden, is the date NYBG put it online, and that isn't available. Some herbaria put it on their records, and some don't. Hence, "n.d." Now, if you think I should just leave the date field out altogether, I could do that, but it could entice someone later to add one of the available dates, which would be wrong. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN33: where is the second part of the title coming from? Why is it formatted differently from FN35?
    • Formatted differently because I didn't pay attention. It comes from the sample bibliographic citation at the bottom of the page for the 2017 reference (FN33) and the bottom of the page "Source dataset" value for the 2020 reference (FN35). They are the same text: "World Plants: Synonymic Checklists of the Vascular Plants of the World". It is the database that fed this data to Catalogue of Life. It should not be italicized, so I will change that formatting for FN35, but I believe it should still be in the part of the citations associated with the link as it is what is "In" the Catalogue of Life and, in that case, similarly to a book chapter or a journal article, it should be inside the quotes as a part of the record we are accessing. I put it at the end of the link title so that the species name would be first. However, the 2009 and 2012 citations have it before the species. I will decide which is better and adjust accordingly. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what cases are you using "n.d.", versus just not filling in the parameter? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I am inconsistent with this, including the herbarium specimens from BRIT which I put as "2020" but should be "n.d." I'll double check and change them to that. It's likely I just did these at a different time and forgot what was what. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN18 has no date added or modified whereas most of the pages cited from uwaterloo.ca Astereae website do. Hence, "n.d." there as well. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citations from which I removed the authors, I usually removed the dates if I thought they didn't really matter. However, it's probable that I should have kept some of them. The NatureServe citations for example. They update their data once a month, usually between the 1st and the 4th. If the accessed date is, say, 15 June 2021, then that is the June dataset. But if it was 1 June 2021, it may still be the May dataset. I should have kept those dates. I'll probably just update them as well as any {{As of}} values that apply. I need to go through all of the citations to make sure I didn't remove dates that should have remained. If there is a date, I will put the date. If there is not a date, I will put "n.d." Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nikkimaria Drats. I forgot to comment earlier that I made changes. See what you think. Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify this last point: your intention is that all refs that don't include a date should use n.d.? Or if not, how are you deciding? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be honest, I'm not sure what I should do. What would be the best thing to do if there is no date? For any reference? Like I said about the herbarium specimens, they have multiple dates, but none of them are the appropriate one. Web pages sometimes have copyright dates, but those aren't necessarily the date the page was written or published or last updated. Books and journals are much easier, and I don't question those. Is there a guideline about that somewhere? Eewilson (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found the instructions. It's in Template:Cite web#Date (and it seems to be the same instructional text in all the Cite templates I checked, at least all of the ones I'm using, so Template:Cite <anything>#Date). Says if there is no date, use n.d.. So, to answer Nikkimaria's question about whether it's my intention for all refs that don't include a date should have n.d., I guess the answer is yes, it is my intention. I'll check again to make sure none are left out. I believe it's inherited from APA and Chicago styles. It is particularly important when using shortened footnotes (sfn) which I would have implemented in this article had I been sfn-savvy when I began it. I decided not to make that change for nearly 150 citations by the time it was at GA. Eewilson (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Volcanoguy edit

I don't know much about plants but after looking through the article I will support as I didn't find any obvious problems. It is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable. The lead is welcoming to those who don't know much about this plant species. It also has an appropriate structure and all information is backed by inline citations using reliable sources. Good work Eewilson! Volcanoguy 08:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy Thank you! Eewilson (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need more review? edit

@FAC coordinators: Are we good to go or do we need another review? Eewilson (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage I would be looking for another substantive review resulting in a support to nail down a consensus to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need to be a Plants person? Casliber & Dracophyllum, should I ask on the Plants Project talk page? Do you know of some reviewers you could send this way? Eewilson (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if @Femkemilene would be able to? Dracophyllum 19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Femke edit

Not sure I've got enough time to do a full review, but let's start. It seems like it's only nit-picking left. Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede Clearly written to be easier than the rest of the article.

  • whose late-summer and fall appearing flowers are visited by small pollinators and nectar-seeking insects such as sweat bees, miner bees, and hoverflies. Difficult sentence. Maybe "It is a conservationally secure species. Its flowers appear in late summer and fall, and are visited by small pollinators and nectar-seeking insects such as sweat bees, miner bees, and hoverflies.". Femke (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • For example, whereas a mature or returning plant, or one late in the season, may have one or more stiff stems that reach close to maximum height with several arching branches and multiple clusters of flowers, or inflorescences, an early or first-year plant may have one short and somewhat floppy stem with several large leaves and end abruptly with one flower head in the center Split into two or three sentences. Femke (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, maybe. Split into two but could be simplified? Suggestions welcomed. Eewilson (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diploid, tetraploid, hexaploid, and octaploid cytotypes with respective chromosome counts of 16, 32, 48, and 64 have been reported.[13]: 836  -> Maybe stupid question, but is that like during cell division, or are there actually plants with 64 chromosomes? Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So in this species, x = 8, with x being the base number, 8 chromosomes, and typicaly you can count on most species being at least diploid, or having two sets in total, two sets of those 8 (one from each parent) is 16 chromosomes. In plants which have tested at 32 or 64, it means that there were 4 sets (8 times 4) or 6 or 8 sets, or whatever your number is. In humans, we have 46 in total, or 23 pairs. One set from male and one from female parent. In the case of the polyploidy with plants like this one, I'm fuzzy on how and when it happens, but you can end up with more than two sets. (The Wikipedia articles on those subjects need work.) In this genera, polyploidy is common which makes determining some species' evolution difficult. Sometimes it only can be surmised based on morphology rather than DNA testing. The latter can help only in a broad sense in some cases. Out of scope of this article, obviously, but asters are complicated. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe you can say that plants have been found with X chromosomes, rather than using the jargon cytotypes? Femke (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They average 4–5 mm (3⁄20–1⁄5 in) long". -> in length. I don't think the grammar works. Femke (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited directly. Femke (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always wondered if these tiny measurements of inches are actually used in the US. I was under the impression that mm start being used from a certain threshold. If they aren't really used, consider scrapping them to make your text shorter, and therefore easier to read. Up to you. Femke (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you say I can remove all measurement conversions at the mm level? Because they are not useful and I would LOVE to remove them. I mean, if something is that small, we'd probably say "less than a fourth of an inch" or "less than an eighth of an inch" and forget precision. So, if I can remove the mm to Imperial conversions, you've made my day. Eewilson (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The MOS gives a few exceptions where conversion is optional rather than obligatory (MOS:CONVERSIONS):
        • "But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so."
        • If it's excessive (which I think you could argue here), you can also leave it out. The first mention of mm could then have a note explaining the conversion factor. Femke (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's definitely excessive, and at one time I didn't have them for the mm at all, but put them back in during GA review. I didn't think they were useful for the small measurements then, and still don't. So I have begun with leaves. If you are there, you can go look at that to see if it will work. Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Leaves. Eewilson (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, they are all done except in the section Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Cultivars, which has a few mm measurements of the widths of flower heads because they came from the Royal Horticultural Society website which is in the UK. I thought the conversions for the cultivar flower heads should stay before, and still do, because this section is less about the botany and more about the gardening... what do you think? I can change them, no sweat. Let me know. Eewilson (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those convert pretty well except for 'Daisy Bush' which is a troublesome one at 20 mm wide. Sigh. Eewilson (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            For consistency, I would delete those conversions too. Femke (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            Done. Eewilson (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hair is usually in vertical lines, particularly on the inflorescence branches . I don't know if this means they are grouped in a line, or they are themselves straight. Femke (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It means they grow in lines vertically along the stem and branches.... I could change it to something closer to that? Eewilson (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I changed it to this, but I'm not sure it's much better. See what you think. "The hair usually grows in vertical lines, particularly on the inflorescence branches." Eewilson (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • American-asters -> You sure there should be a hyphen there?
    • It's in the source from gobotany (I wouldn't do it, but the source did). Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a bit of a Google, and couldn't find another source using a hyphen. I assume it's just a typo, so let's not repeat that here :). Femke (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a typo for that website and the Symphyotrichum species, but it's possible they made it up with the hyphen. I'll see if I can find a better source that uses it without a hyphen. Eewilson (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, so I removed it from the "sometimes called American-asters" part for the genus, but kept it as one of the common names for the species ("calico American-aster") with citation to Native Plant Trust (gobotany) Eewilson (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • two-and-a-half years -> pretty sure there should not be hyphens there.
  • infraspecies? Maybe start the paragraph with a short sentence on what an infraspecies is.
    • I'll look into it. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about these two intro sentences: An infraspecies is a taxon below the species rank. It can be a subspecies, variety, or form, and a species can have multiple infraspecies.? I need to find a citation, but that's my proposed addition. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, more like this: An infraspecies is a taxon below the species rank. It can be a subspecies, variety, subvariety, form, or subform, and a species can have multiple infraspecies. Eewilson (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Works. Femke (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I changed it and added a source. I added a quote in the source using ellipses and tried to follow MOS:ELLIPSIS. Could you double check? FN31. Eewilson (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word aster was used to describe a star-like flower as early as 1542 in German physician and botanist Leonhart Fuchs' book De historia stirpium commentarii insignes. -> Difficult to parse. "The word aster was used to describe a star-like flower as early as 1542 in De historia stirpium commentarii insignes, a book by the German physician and botanist Leonhart Fuchs'". Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Ecology

  • "Symphyotrichum lateriflorum is considered a weed species in Canada and the United States, but, say Canadian botanists Jerry G. Chmielewski and John C. Semple, "probably the least weedy of the weedy aster species in Canada."" Had to read this sentence three times before it made sense. Can it be split? Maybe into: ""Symphyotrichum lateriflorum is considered a weed species in Canada and the United States. It is not considered a noxious weed in either country. Canadian botanists Jerry G. Chmielewski and John C. Semple called it "probably the least weedy of the weedy aster species in Canada."" Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • haha - makes perfect sense to me, but yeah, you're right. I'll fix. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • pre-settlement natural community?
    • It's a thing in the Americas, particularly used in ecological-speak circles referring to North America, or the US - the way a plant and animal community was before Europeans came in and wiped it all away. There are some ecosystems left called "pre-settlement natural communities" - basically same as the next bullet point... Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • remnant natural areas? I'd prefer explanation rather than a wikilink.
    • I'll see what I can do for this one and the previous one. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, try this and if you have even better ideas, let me know:
"S. lateriflorum has coefficients of conservatism (C-value) in the Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) that range from 1 to 10 depending on evaluation region. The lower the C-value, the higher tolerance the species has for disturbance. In the case of a low C-value, there is lesser likelihood that the plant is growing in an undisturbed or remnant habitat with native flora and fauna. For example, in the Atlantic coastal pine barrens of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, S. lateriflorum has been given a C-value of 1, meaning its presence in locations of that ecoregion provides little or no confidence of a remnant habitat. In contrast, in the Dakotas, S. lateriflorum has a C-value of 10, meaning its populations there are not weedy and are restricted to only remnant habitats which have a very low tolerance to environmental degradation."
—Eewilson (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An adaptive mechanism of S. lateriflorum is its flower heads "go to sleep" at night. -> "As an adaptive mechanism, its flower heads "go to sleep" at night"
  • It has been surmised that this is to protect and preserve the pollen within -> "This may help protect and preserve the pollen within"?
  • Overall, reproduction is jargon-heavy. Possible to make it easier?
    • hmm... I'll see. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Femkemilene: Could you take a look at the two paragraphs at Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Florets? It is where the sexual reproduction terms are introduced, also with some jargon but with Wikilinks. That and the Reproduction section are consistent in term usage (or should be). While we don't have to educate the reader about plant reproduction in this article, I was still hoping to hit on how it works in this plant (which is how it works for the entire genus). I am not sure there are layperson's terms for pistil, style, stigma, stamen, anther, and filiments, and explaining each part may be out of scope or tangential. How can I resolve this conundrum? Suggestions welcomed. Eewilson (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cleaned up jargon from 2nd paragraph of Reproduction. I think it may be better. Still looking at others. Eewilson (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you think a microscopic image of stigma and style would help? I could also add a better description. Something like this, which comes from the article Gynoecium.

Or better yet, I could derive some content from this (minus the floral diagrams), which comes from the Asteraceae article.

Eewilson (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • 2nd paragraph is now high-quality text!
        • I'm struggling with The disk floret's stigma remains closed while pollen remains on the style, but after it has been collected and carried off, the style begins to split, opening so that the disk floret ovary becomes accessible to receive pollen from another plant.. You use the word remain twice. I find this sentence very difficult to parse. I think it's a relatively simple concept you try to convey here. Femke (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • When you can't avoid jargon, you can always simplify sentence structure, so that people only have to rack their brains for one thing at a time.
        • Another thing nice for lay readers, but not too distracting for more expert readers is to contrast the reproduction with a normal, if such a normal exists. What is unique about this genus?
        • Pictures always help, but feel free to do what you think is best. The first one may be too close-up to give lay readers a feeling for what it is. Femke (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pollinators & Pests are easy to understand :). Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm fading for now. Need a nap, and I'll get back to it a bit later. I have some diagrams we can try. I'll remove the rest of the conversions from mm later. Not sure about removing the diploid, etc. Have to sleep on that. I'm trying to think of a reason to keep and a reason to remove and I got nothing. Nothing but fried. Later... Eewilson (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting removing the word diploid. It's too cool a fact to remove it. It just needs a tid bit of simplification. Have a good nap. Close to supporting. Femke (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should have said, "Good luck with the nap." No luck. I misread – you were suggesting I change the word cytotypes to something simpler? That makes sense. I'm not even sure if I fully know what it means. :) Eewilson (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally got some sleep. I'll try to implement the rest of the things tonight with the hopes it will be ready for you to give it a good look Sunday, or when you can. Eewilson (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Femkemilene: In all its glory, available once again for your reading pleasure, the article. The latest changes might be my most exceptional plain and easily understood Wikipedia writing to date. There is a new diagram in Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Fruit with a See also there to the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Reproduction section which has rewritten text and two more new diagrams. Here is the link for the diffs to guide you. All suggestions always welcomed, or if not, you will never know.
    Still a bit confused on the change you want in the DNA section. Please elaborate on what you mean so I know for sure.
    —Eewilson (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliantly done! It was a pleasure working with you. I've directly changed a few bits in the text, see whether you like it. Femke (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Your tweaks look great. I put the x=8 bit in parentheses after saying "base number of eight chromosomes" like this: "Symphyotrichum lateriflorum has a base number of eight chromosomes (x = 8)." I think it works. You really did a great job at this review, and I will be a better writer because of it. Eewilson (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Was having a convo with Peter coxhead on the talk page for Infraspecific name (see Talk:Infraspecific name#Needs work to actually define "infraspecies"). When adding the sentence regarding the meaning of infraspecies, I discovered (or rediscovered) that it redirected to Infraspecific name. Not quite the same thing. So I posed the comment and he answered. His comments made me decide to go straight with Varieties and just put the explanation of Infraspecies in an efn at the one time we come to that word in var. hirsuticaule. Just a little last minute change... Eewilson (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done now? edit

@FAC coordinators: this article has had some superb reviewers! Anyone else needed or are we finished? :) Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has so many images. Maybe remove those that aren't necessary? 61.205.249.123 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow this has managed not to collect a first-timer's source to text spot check. I shall add it to requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I figured it just slipped through and that you'd catch it. I'm just waiting :) Eewilson (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks — Pass edit

Version reviewed — this

  • Ref#1 — OK for first two uses. For the statement "NatureServe lists Symphyotrichum lateriflorum as Secure (G5) worldwide and Critically Imperiled (S1) in Kansas and Nebraska." — I see NatureServe listing it S1 in Kansas, but not in Nebraska. Am I missing anything? (link)
    • It was augmented by ref #39, but for clarity I moved ref #1 for the global part and used #39 (var. lateriflorum) for the states. Eewilson (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#3 — OK for all 9 uses, including the map. (link)
  • Ref#9 — OK, as the image matches. (link; direct link)
  • Ref#15 — OK for all 4 uses.
    • OK for page no. 29 (link)
    • OK for page no. 30, but for the statement "As the ray floret is blooming, the stigma at the top of the style splits into two lobes to allow pollen to access the ovary", I'll suggest adding page no. 31 in the range, both the pages have the content. (link for 30; link for 31)
  • Ref#19 — OK (link)
  • Ref#27 — OK (link)
  • Ref#40 — OK (link)
  • Ref#44 — OK (link)
  • Ref#52 — I don't understand Latin, but the term "costâ subtùs hirsutissimâ" seem to be in the book on that page number, so I'll AGF on foreign language. (link)
  • Ref#58 — OK (link)
  • Ref#67 — I don't understand Latin, nor do I understand French sorry!, but the term "Aster horizontalis" and "ramuli horizontales", both seem to be on that page number, so I'll AGF on foreign language. (link)
  • Ref#73 — OK (link)
  • Ref#85 — OK (link)
  • Ref#98 — OK (link)
  • Ref#101 — OK (link)
  • Ref#103 — OK (link)
  • Ref#111 — OK (link)
  • Ref#116 — OK (link)
  • Ref#121 — OK (link)
  • Ref#137 — OK (link)

@Eewilson – Overall, spot-checks looks great. Just clarification needed on a few points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh I think I got them. Thank you! Eewilson (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for spot-checks. Any review here would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2021 (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) 31 October 2021 [9].

2002 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last World Snooker Championship final of the most successful player at the event Stephen Hendry. Hendry, who won the event seven times in the 1990s met Peter Ebdon and went to a deciding frame! Ebdon won the event to win his only world championship. Hendry made 16 century breaks during the event, a record amount for a single player at a single event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru edit

Overview
  • Maybe mention that the world championship is an annual event
  • Also mention that it's organised by the WPBSA, and it's a bit unclear what "official" means here
  • "25th consecutive time" - maybe "consecutive year" instead?
  • "amateur qualifying tournament" - what is meant by amateur in this context? The opening sentence says it's a "professional" tournament, so seems slightly contradictory.
    • Amateur means they have amateur status, which generally means they don't compete on the World Snooker Tour. Only one person has ever actually come through the qualification rounds to play in the main competition (James Cahill in 2019). It's similar to the The Open Championship, which is a professional event, but has some of the top amateurs in qualification/invitational spots. It's generally a very small amount of amateur players who actually make the real qualification rounds (eight players in this year, it's usually 16), and then they have to go through many rounds of actual qualification. The sport does have a history of professional events also having players who don't have that status, either by wildcard rounds, or because someone pulled out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Manhattan Club, Harrogate and" - need a comma after Harrogate; also just checking if it should be the Manhattan Club?
  • "played as best-of-19-frames. The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 13 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 17 in the semi-finals" - slightly confusing mix of nomenclatures here; it might be obvious, but I'd suggest either switch them all to be be consistently "best of" or "first to", or clarify that best-of-19 also means first to 10 or whatever.
  • "Stage one" / "Stage two" - what are these? Previously we talked of a "qualification stage" and a "main draw", so perhaps they're the same things, but I couldn't be certain of that
First round
  • Minor point, but we already said earlier that the rounds here were best-of-19; I guess it could be useful to reiterate, but worth thinking about
    • Yeah, I've been both ways on this one. The way I see it, is that as the amounts change, it's worth reiterating at the start of each section what the scores are going to be. We also get the chance then to comment how many sessions are being played, as it's not just 19 frames in a row. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and lead 6–3 at the end of their first session" - I think this should be "led"?
  • "and lead 6–3 at the end of their first session, and won the last frame with a break of 111 as he won 10–4" - too many ands in this sentence, and also the double "won" sounds slightly repetitive
  • "Maximum break" was first mentioned in the "Prize fund" section above, so seems like it should be linked there rather than here
  • "failing to pot the final pink ball" - slightly confused here, as the final ball should be a black. Also, during a maximum break there would only ever be one pink potted.
    • Technically, yes. Although it is more than possible to pot two pink balls and still finish with a maximum break. I have removed final though Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in-a-row" - I don't think this needs hyphenating. There are a few of these throughout the article.
  • "This and the match between Hunter" - "This" sounds like it means the cue-snapping incident, so perhaps say "This match" or similar
Second round
  • "and won just one frame in the second session and was defeated 3–13" - double "and" again
  • "In the eight frame, the final frame" - repetition of "frame"
  • "This was particularly unexpected given White's reputation for good sportsmanship" - sounds like more of an opinion than an objective fact to be given in Wikipedia's voice. If someone has said this, maybe attribute it to them.
  • "Hamilton had been defeated by Williams in the final of the China Open earlier in the season, said that the previous match" - doesn't quite scan. Either needs to be "Hamilton, who had...", or an "and" after "season".
Quarter-finals
  • This section feels quite short, with the match summaries looking briefer than other rounds, for example the O'Sullivan–Lee and Ebdon–Hamilton games. Maybe expand a bit.
    • Fair enough, I'll see what's out there. If I remember rightly, there's not much online, but I shall take a deep dive. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a very exciting piece about O'Sullivan breaking the table, I'm yet to find anything interesting about the Ebdon match (and, some might say, all Ebdon matches ;)). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who had only conceded three frames in his previous two matches trailed" - comma after matches
  • "Matthew Stevens made the highest break of the championship" - don't need "Matthew"; also was this the highest to that point, or did it remain the highest?
Semi-finals
  • "O'Sullivan made comments due to a dispute from a previous event" - feels like this needs slightly more detail
    • I've expanded per source. I don't know when this actually happened though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ended up winning 17–13" - sounds slightly informal; maybe "went on to win 17–13" or similar
Final
  • "Ebdon (seeded seventh) and Stephen Hendry (fifth) also competed in the 1996 final. Hendry had defeated Ebdon 18–12 to gain his sixth world title in 1996" - a bit long-winded and repetitious; maybe something like "Ebdon (seeded seventh) and Stephen Hendry (fifth) had also competed in the 1996 final, with Hendry defeating Ebdon 18–12 to gain his sixth world title".
  • Sean Ingle - link
  • "Many commentators had been expecting Hendry to take his eighth world title" - this feels a bit redundant at this point; perhaps just combine the commentators' expectation with the point above about the eight million viewers anticipating the eighth world title.
  • "His defeat effectively signalled the start of his decline as a major force in the game of snooker" - sounds a bit like an opinion; suggest either attributing it to someone, or rewording to be more of an objective observation
    • Yeah, I'd love to attribute this to someone, but the source doesn't specifically say this, so I've removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifying
  • "The final qualifying round was held at Newport on 16 and 17 March 2002" - the "Format" section earlier mentioned rounds at the Manhattan Club and the TIC, but did not mention anything about Newport. Needs a link somewhere too, not least because there is more than one Newport.
  • "the open World Championship" - what does "open" mean in this context? Also perhaps give a date of when the "open era" began if that's relevant
    • I think someone is making the suggestion that this event is open to both men and women, rather than the women's world championship. I have removed as irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • just one outstanding piece about expanding the quarters, I'll take a look at your FAC in a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lee Vilenski: thanks, and let me know when you've had a chance to look at the quarter-final point. All looking good apart from that, cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

Three weeks in and only one general support. Unless this nomination picks up further interest over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro edit

Now I'm not knowledgeable on this subject whatsoever, but I'd thought I'd provide a few comments so it's not archived.

  • Noticing quite a few sources aren't archived and some (such as ref 48) are missing publication dates. I'd make sure all are archived and have authors/dates/etc. if applicable
    • I'll go through them all at length in a bit. I have covered ref 48.
  • Ref 42: the Guardian should be The Guardian
  • Is there any more info on the Crucible Almanac? Not seeing an isbn, publisher, or location. It also might be better to do the sfn template here
    • It's only used four times, so it's not that bad. It's a self-published source, but well above the level at WP:SPS. It's written by Chris Downer who's a snooker historian. We only use it for match results and statistics. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are what I find so far. Hope I helped! – zmbro (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose edit

(Note for transparency - I've contributed to this article in the past.)

  • "The championships were sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy." - Is is the lead, but not in the body of the article.
  • Looks like there is one duplicate link (Newport).
  • I amended "issue" to "date" in Snooker Scene refs.

Overview

  • "The World Snooker Championship is a professional tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker" - how about "The World Snooker Championship is the official world championship of the game of professional snooker"?
  • " organised by the WPBSA" - I'd say "organised by World Snooker" (and use the same wikilink). Source has "World Snooker Limited", referring to an entity that is mainly owned by Matchroom Sport with the WPBSA holding a 26% stake. WPBSA is the governing body, so might be fine to keep that in the infobox, possibly needing a source.
  • "the sport was popular in the British Isles. However, in the modern era" - I believe this has passed inspection in other snooker FACs, but today it's making me ask "when was it popular in the British Isles, is it still?" In some articles I think this historical background is omitted, which is one option, with another being to tweak it.
  • "in Sheffield, England" appears twice in close proximity.
  • "There were a total of 120" - I think could just be "There were 120" or "A total of 120"
  • "Manhattan Club, Harrogate, the Telford International Centre and in Newport, Wales." The Newport venue was Newport Centre (Wales) according to Snooker Scene ("Final Qualifying Round Draw", March 2002, page 35)

Century breaks

  • "This was just the second time that the highest break of the tournament was 145, after Doug Mountjoy's in 1981." - I'm not sure that this is worth including.

Lead

  • "18–17 in the final" - consider something like "by 18 frames to 17 in the final"
    • I am not a fan of this much, I think everyone understands that they won 18 to 17, whatever the figures mean. We can go into details in the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The highest of the tournament was made by Stevens, who made" - maybe add "break" after "highest" - substitute something else for one instance of made, e.g. "compiled"
  • "a record for any individual tournament" - specify whether for any player and whether still current.

Format

  • "Mark Williams seeded 2" - should this be "Mark Williams seeded second"? (I think MOS likes us to avoid numebrrs like 2 appearing as numerals)

Prize fund

  • The £1,615,770 excludes the qualifying and main competition maximum break prizes. So I think the lead is right that "£1,615,770 was awarded". But the total available prize fund was £1,615,770 + £147,000 + £5,000. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a mention that this figure doesn't include the bonus money. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First Round

  • "played as the best-of-19 frames matches, played over" - repetition of "played"
  • "had smashed the pack of reds open" - anything else from sources that could be added to mention that this is unusual in snooker?
  • "snapped his cue stick" - maybe "snapped his own cue stick" to be very clear that it wasn't his opponent's one?
  • "and the contest between Hunter and Hann" maybe add something like "which was being played at the same time" - assuming there was ony the one streaking incident.

Second round

  • "session to spare" has a cuegloss entry.
  • "second session match again" - presumably "the second session of his match against"

Semi-finals

  • "the Daily Telegraph" - either capital T, or take "the" out of the wikilink.

Final

Thanks, don't think I have much more. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • should be "the Guardian" to be consistent with "the Daily Telegraph".
  • Some refs have gone out of order in the section about the final ([55][40][56])
  • Ref 36 is missing the author.
  • Should the one "note" be in a separate Notes section rather than under references?
  • Ref. 11 is incomplete ("Snooker: World championship finds new sponsors". 19 January 2006.)

Source Review edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Lead says 26th consecutive year at Crucible, text says 25th - which is correct?
  • "The championships were sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy. " - source?
  • In general, check for consistency between lead and text, and that everything in the lead is supported in the text
  • Be consistent in how you format BBC refs
  • What makes Global Snooker Centre a high-quality reliable source? global-snooker?
    • They are both the same, (although they were rebranded thus the different names). They were run by Global Cue Sports Ltd, which had an editorial roll; although I can't find much online about them. There isn't too much in there that isn't covered by other sources, so can remove if there's need. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any info on specific editorial policies? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • nothing specific I could find. They were easy to replace, so I have done so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN12: don't include website name in title. Ditto FN13, check throughout
  • Don't need retrieval date if no URL is included, and don't put it in |via=
  • FN42 is missing author
  • (London) isn't part of the title of The Times - if it's to be included it should be a separate parameter, and if it is included here should be consistent (eg The Guardian doesn't include it)
  • FN98: Snooker Archive is the website name, don't need domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing some inconsistencies around newspaper citations - compare for example FN11, FN54, and FN55. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "The championships were sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy." (in two places) - this seems to be the only use of "championships" (plural). Suggest it be in the singular to match other uses
  • "organised by the World Snooker" - is the correct usage really the World Snooker? It reads rather oddly to me......
    • Yeah, it did say "the WPBSA", per Benny, this was changed. It is indeed not "the World Snooker". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accused White of making a push shot" - what's a "push shot"? Is there an appropriate link?
  • "This match and the contest between Hunter and Hann was" - subject is plural, so it should be "were"
  • In the second round section, it's a bit of a mishmash as to whether you restate the forename of players who were mentioned in the previous round. Per MOS:SURNAME, I would suggest that all such players should just be referred to by their surname after the first mention (same applies to later sections)
  • "In the eight and final frame" => eighth, not eight
  • "Hamilton, who had been defeated by Williams in the final of the China Open earlier in the season, despite being ahead by three frames." - this is not a complete sentence
  • "Williams commented that despite being ranked number one in the world, his...." - needs a comma before "that" to start the clause that the later comma closes
  • Cue stick is linked in the quarter-finals section but this is not the first mention - move the link to the first mention
  • "O'Sullivan experienced the crucible curse" - need a capital on Crucible as it refers to the venue, not just to the general concept of a crucible
  • "Stevens, however moved within one frame of victory at 16–14" - needs a comma after however as well as before
  • "The final held between Peter Ebdon and Stephen Hendry was played as a best-of-35 frames match over four sessions on 5 and 6 May. Ebdon (seeded seventh) and Stephen Hendry (fifth) had also competed....." - reuse of forenames is especially inconsistent here.......
  • Refs on the last sentence of the final section are not in correct numerical order
  • "having also have done so in 1994" - wording goes a bit weird there.......
  • "Then with just four reds remaining on the table,[59] Hendry potted" - needs a comma before "with" to open the clause which the later comma closes
  • "The Guardian's Sean Ingle described the final as "one of the sporting highlights of the year."[56] He ultimately blamed his defeat...." - who did the blaming in question? If it was Ingle, then you need to change that bit to "He ultimately blamed Hendry's defeat" Or was it Hendry? In that case you'd need to change it to "Hendry ultimately blamed his defeat"
  • "This was Hendry's last appearance in a World Championship final, and reached his last ranking final four years later" => "This was Hendry's last appearance in a World Championship final, and he reached his last ranking final four years later"
  • Bit surprised to read through the whole article and then find details of the qualifying rounds at the end. Surely these should come before the account of the tournament proper?
    • I do if we have a decent account. I can move it up if you'd like, but it's quite a short section covering who qualified. The qualifiers back then were much less prominant than they are now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink WIllie Thorne in the prose of the qualifying section, as you have done with the likes of Knowles and Fisher
  • On a similar note, players with articles are not wikilinked in the prose for the qualifying rounds
  • "lost in the seventh round of amateur qulifying" - typo on "qualifiying"
  • Should the "Amateur qualifying" sub-heading be changed to "Amateur pre-qualifying" to match the usage in the prose......?
  • "saw John Parrott qualify for the Crucible stage for the 19the consecutive year" - typo on 19th
  • That's what I got.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still seeing some players in the prose of the qualifying section who could be linked but are not e.g. in the round 3-6 section, Steve Davis is linked but Ryan Day and Shaun Murphy are not......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies. Murphy isn't linked because he was already mentioned in the prose and linked there. I missed Day, who is now linked Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made a few minor changes in that section and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: - hi! Is there anything more I need for this nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee, looks pretty much there, will probably check over in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2021 (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) 29 October 2021 [10].

Sound and Vision edit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...the David Bowie song "Sound and Vision", a very oddly structured song that is also one of his finest. It came off the divisive Low, and surprised RCA Records by being a surprise hit in the UK (peaking at number three). Since its GA promotion back in May, I've continued expanding it, using other FAs such as New Romantics (song) as a basis. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns you might have. :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Images are either hosted on commons with appropriate licensing or have appropriate fair use rationale. Looks good here. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • I am uncertain about using a quote in the lead as done in this part, Regarded as the closest to a "conventional pop song" on Low, as I am uncertain if a clearer attribution would be needed to clarify who regarded the song this way.
  • It's regarded this way by his biographers. Would it be better to attribute this? The genre for this one is a little weird as I haven't been able to find someone classifying it under a definitive genre. People have classified Low as a whole as art rock, but that doesn't really suffice here. In my opinion, the song is 100% art pop, but again, I can't put that for obvious reasons. There are a few attributions for disco in the article currently but as it stands I just have "pop" in the infobox. – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would attribute it as it is unclear who is regarding the song in this way and I had to go down in the article itself to see where this quote was coming from. Genre is always a sticky point for a song articles, but your explanation makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Earlier I was also able to find a source describing it as a "traditional rock song" with Krautrock and electronic elements so I added that; Also allows rock to be added to the infobox. Still very general but it helps. – zmbro (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks good to me. I want to read through the article one more time tomorrow to make sure I have not over-looked anything, but I will likely support this FAC at that point. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, "Like its parent album, David Bowie and Tony Visconti co-produced "Sound and Vision"", I would include the album name in the prose (i.e. Low) for clarity, and I do not think the album is linked in the body of the article (although I may have missed it).
  • Yeah you're right, done.
  • Yeah, the same thing occurred for me – I aligned it with the text where she's introduced. I moved it up slightly; how's it look? – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks good to me. Thank you for fixing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link RCA Records in this part, "When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Record", as I believe this is the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article and the record company is currently not linked in the article.
  • Done.
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: "At the time of release, one reviewer felt that none of the tracks were "single material", while another felt "Sound and Vision" was the "obvious" choice." Do we know who either of these reviewers are, and if so, would it be beneficial to include that information in the prose?
  • You bet, done.
  • In this part, "and the instrumental "A New Career in a New Town" as the B-side", I would link B-side just in case some readers are unfamiliar with this concept.
  • Done. I've had a habit of overlinking in the past so I guess I underlinked here, haha.
  • I have been there before so I completely understand that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the quote in this part, "as the "pinnacle" of the album, is necessary", and I think it can be paraphrased without losing any meaning.
  • Yeah you're right. Changed.
  • This is a very nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. There are two different link, 1978 Isolar II tour and 1978 Isolar II Tour, for the same tour, and I would be consistent with one approach or the other.
  • Good catch, fixed.
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: "This performance was included on Rarestonebowie (1995) and was given its first authorised release on Welcome to the Blackout (Live London '78) (2018)." I am guessing from the context of the sentence that the Rarestonebowie release was unauthorised. Is that assumption correct? Would it be possible to clarify this a little more for unfamiliar readers like myself?
  • Yes that was a compilation that was issued by Bowie's former music publisher MainMan without Bowie's consultation. I'll look into clarifying this tonight (I'm sure Pegg has answers). – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I couldn't find the answer I was looking for so I reworded the sentence to fit the info I do have. Hope that helps. – zmbro (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for looking for this. I know how frustrating it can be not to find the answer you were looking for. If you ever do run across this, you can of course feel free to add this information into the article. The rewording makes sense to me and actually makes it pretty clear that Rarestonebowie was more of a publisher thing than a Bowie thing. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this sentence: "Meanwhile, Hopkin's backing vocal was echoed in the American rock band Doves' 2002 single "There Goes the Fear"." I am uncertain about the "Meanwhile" transition, and I think a better word choice can be used.
  • How's 'additionally'? – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a better word choice for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the citations, I would move the NME link up to Citation 44 as that is the first NME citation.
  • Done
  • Done

Great work with the article. My comments are relatively nitpick-y and should hopefully not take too much time to address. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC based on the prose. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. I hope you are having an enjoyable weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Thanks very much for the comments! Queries are above. – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. I have left responses for everything above. I still think the quote in the lead should have some sort of attribution to make it clear that this quote is coming from David Bowie biographers, ideally in a way that is not too clunky. I just find that having a quote without any attribution or context can cause unnecessary confusion for readers who may just be looking at the lead before going into the actual article itself. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far, and best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and is showing little sign of a consensus to support gathering. Unless it attracts further attention over the next three or four I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Realmaxxver edit

Making some comments soon. Here are some initial comments on the lead. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going to ping the FAC nominator; @Zmbro:. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realmaxxver Done. Btw you don't have to ping me every time I'm seeing the messages. – zmbro (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Co-produced by Bowie and Tony Visconti, the song was recorded at the Château d'Hérouville in Hérouville in September 1976, continuing at Hansa Studios in West Berlin from October to November." − ""Co-produced by Bowie and Tony Visconti, the song was recorded at the Château d'Hérouville in Hérouville in September 1976, then at the Hansa Studios in West Berlin from October to November.""
  • Done
  • " It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime; Bowie's vocals don't appear for over a minute and a half into the song." − "" It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime, while Bowie's vocals don't appear until over a minute and a half into the song.""
  • Done

Writing and recording

  • "Used when recording Iggy Pop's The Idiot earlier that year,[4] Bowie heavily favoured this "three-phase" process, which he would use for the rest of his career.[5]" → ""Used during the recording of Iggy Pop's The Idiot earlier that year,[4] Bowie heavily favoured this "three-phase" process, which he would use for the rest of his career.[5]""
  • "According to biographer Chris O'Leary, the song began as a simple descending-by-fifths G major progression, which Bowie gave to the band, further suggesting melodies, a baseline and drum ideas." switch the position of the two words in "further suggesting"

Composition

  • "Like the majority of the tracks on Low's first side,[12]" → ""Like the majority of the tracks on the first side of Low,[12]""
  • Done
  • "Bowie's biographers consider "Sound and Vision" the closest to a conventional pop song on Low.[15][16]" you can combine these two sources with the {{sfnm}} template.
  • I see absolutely no purpose in doing that. These pages are already used throughout and besides, there are quite a few instances of there being two back-to-back in this section alone but what makes combining them here so special? – zmbro (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • "When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Records, it shocked the label.[26] Originally slated for release in November 1976, the label delayed the album's release until January 1977, fearing poor commercial performance.[27][28]" → ""When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Records, the label was shocked.[26] Low was originally slated for release in November 1976, the label delayed the album's release until January 1977, fearing poor commercial performance.[27][28]""
  • Changed to "the label were shocked" per Brit English. I also think the next sentence is fine the way it is. – zmbro (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is it necessary to include that Low was his 11th studio album here? Realmaxxver (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, so it doesn't appear as OR in the lead. – zmbro (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 12" promotional single was also released in the US in 1977. It featured a seven-minute remix of "Sound and Vision" segueing into Iggy Pop's "Sister Midnight".[33]" → ""A 12" promotional single was also released in the US in 1977, which featured a seven-minute remix of "Sound and Vision" segueing into Iggy Pop's "Sister Midnight".[33]""
  • Done
  • "and only managed to peak at number 69 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the US,[42] where it signaled Bowie's commercial downturn until "Let's Dance" in 1983.[33]" → ""and only managed to peak at number 69 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the US,[42] which signaled Bowie's commercial downturn until "Let's Dance" in 1983.[33]""
  • I think it's fine here as we're talking about the US specifically. Also, we don't want two sentences back-to-back using "..., which..." – zmbro (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The single's success in the UK confused RCA executives; it allowed Bowie to persuade them to release Iggy Pop's The Idiot, which they did in March 1977.[43]" → ""The single's success in the UK confused RCA executives, and allowed Bowie to persuade them to release Iggy Pop's The Idiot, which they did in March 1977.[43""
  • Done
Critical reception
  • "In a review for Low on release, Lott described "Sound and Vision" as the centrepiece of the album." → ""On release, Lott reviewed Low and described "Sound and Vision" as the centrepiece of the album.""
  • Done
Live version and subsequent releases
  • "Bowie also performed the song during the Sound+Vision (1990), Heathen (2002), and A Reality (2003) tours.[33] It was also performed on A&E's Live by Request on 15 June 2002.[2]" → ""Bowie also performed the song during the Sound+Vision (1990), Heathen (2002), and A Reality (2003) tours,[33] and was also performed on A&E's Live by Request on 15 June 2002.[2]""
  • Done

Zmbro, finished my review. I Support this article for promotion. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have a FAC on William Utermohlen, so I would like any potential comments from you, or anyone else. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tkbrett edit

I did the GA review for this article, so I held off to let other people add comments first. With the threat of it being archived though, I will sit right down, waiting for the gift of another great zmbro article. Tkbrett (✉) 11:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "finished the backing track in a few takes." Can we get any more specific or is "a few" the term O'Leary uses?
  • That's what he uses, unfortunately.
  • "Hopkin was visiting the Château with her children when she was asked to contribute." Passive voicing, which can be fixed if we know who asked her to contribute. Do we know if it was Bowie, Visconti or Eno? Her 2011 quotation makes it sound like it was Eno, in which case we could write it as: "Hopkin was visiting the Château with her children when Eno asked her to contribute."
  • Pegg actually doesn't specify, just saying "she was asked", but using her quote for reference we can say it was Eno so I fixed that.
  • "Biographer Nicholas Pegg and author Peter Doggett make comparisons to Bowie's 1971 song "Quicksand", with the latter writing" replace "latter" with "Doggett".
  • Done
  • "Meanwhile, Perone finds that the song is a "hybrid of soul and pop", continuing the "lyrical and musical romanticism" of Young Americans (1975)." The reader may not know that Young Americans is a previous Bowie album unless they click the link, so be sure to introduce it.
  • Fixed
  • The song also made it to number 15 on the LyricFind U.S. chart (whatever that is) in 2016 (source). That's the only other one I could find.
  • I don't even know what that is. I've not seen that mentioned on any song article nor anywhere else on this site. It seems to be more or less a lyric site, and that source shows quite a few Bowie songs "charting" in January 2016 after he died, so should we even include it? I think not. – zmbro (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's fine by me. I haven't been able to find anything regarding it, with no mention at WP:CHARTS. WikiProject Songs uses the word "prominent" to describe charts, and this one ain't prominent.

For other readers, note that this is not a drive-by review, as I was the GA reviewer, so I don't have much to add here. Great work again, zmbro! You've been fine tuning and improving this article a lot even since its GA review. Tkbrett (✉) 19:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the kind words Tkbrett. All queries are fixed but I was had a concern about the last one. – zmbro (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed above. Happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 19:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • RCA Records later chose it as the first single from the album - this seems kinda confusing to me - we need to explain what RCA is first. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • Both done (in lead and body)
  • The song began as a simple G major chord progression, which Bowie gave to the backing musicians, writing and recording his vocals later on. - does "simple" have a specific meaning in this context? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's how the source words it. I'm under the assumption it means basic/not complicated. – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sound and Vision" is oddly structured - according to biographers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, although saying "according to" would be pretty derivative since the sentence starts with "Regarded by biographers..." – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little confused on what you mean here. – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pegg states it directly, but it's also based on sales numbers. – zmbro (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • It's a process where you record new tracks and place them over previously recorded tracks. Added a link. – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it can be properly attributed. Do you think it's not needed? – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that particularly, but why do we care what an author said about it?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.
  • Properly attributed it.
  • simple descending-by-fifths G major - could we avoid the two links to each other here? - also, "simple"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved the "G major" link down. Other thing explained above. – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drummer Dennis Davis thought it sounded "like a Crusaders tune - and the Crusaders are? - also, do we need a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the source doesn't specify (that I know of), I believe he was referring to The Crusaders (jazz fusion group), as Davis came from an R&B and jazz background. Should I add a link? – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • When asked by Bowie about what it did, Visconti replied, "it fucks with the fabric of time." - seems like trivia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. I believe it adds context as to why they chose to use it.
  • How so? It doesn't do anything to the fabric of time. Couldn't we just comment that Visconti was very positive about using it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "mostly"
  • Does it? I think that since she actually said something about it, it's good to have a quote from her. – zmbro (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of jargon terms in this article that aren't explained or linked. I've mentioned a couple already but "two-note descent", "main guitar line", "chord progression". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski Reworded and clarified a few things. – zmbro (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • O'Leary finds that throughout its runtime, the song assembles itself - huh? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to give a better idea. – zmbro (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A type of keyboard instrument. Clarified.
  • There are just so many quotes in this article, can we summarise them instead? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. How's the paraphrasing look so far? – zmbro (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They offer introspection: Bowie draws the blinds, has the world shut away, and is sitting in an empty room, "waiting for the gift of sound and vision." - this isn't a sentence, and I have no idea what is trying to be said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded it to try an better describe what's actually going on. – zmbro (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like we are also using Wikipedia's voice to say what the tones and lyrics are like. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's as far as the end of composition. I'd really like the quotes to be looked at before I go any further. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Where is the genre designation in the infobox coming from? I see other genres mentioned by reviewers
  • I've found his biographers consistently mention "pop" while Perone flat-out says "rock". The only other one I could see adding would be disco as that's sourced by two people, but other genres mentioned qualify as elements and not actual genres, which shouldn't go in the infobox. – zmbro (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explaining how this designation was arrived at - similar to what you've posted here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
  • Corrected
  • Blockquotes shouldn't use quotation marks
  • Fixed
  • "Like the majority of the tracks on the first side of Low,[12] "Sound and Vision" is classified by AllMusic's Dave Thompson as a "song fragment"." The attribution is a bit misleading here since the first portion is cited to someone other than Thompson - suggest reframing.
  • Would removing the attribution work? Based on how I'm reading it, it seems like it would. – zmbro (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either that or reworking in some other way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed attribution. – zmbro (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36: website name shouldn't be in title parameter
  • That's due to the chart template so I can't do anything about that.
  • You can: you can change the template, or you can change whether you use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • FN41: source gives a different date and formatting is incorrect
  • Fixed
  • FN48 is missing authors. Ditto FN46, check for others
  • 48 lists 10 different writers; normally they'd list the writer of each blurb but they don't here so what's the solution? Nikkimaria – zmbro (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can include all of them, and if desired used the display parameters to set how many are shown. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you list "Staff" as author or not - compare for example FNs 55 and 47
  • Resolved
  • FN78-79: "none" is not needed
  • Fixed

Also, not a sourcing problem, but I noticed some issues throughout with clarity of phrasing. For example, "It nevertheless signaled Bowie's commercial downturn in the US until 1983, where it peaked at number 69" - I understand from later in the article that you mean this song peaked at 69 in the US, but here that is not clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That better? – zmbro (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That example yes - suggest re-reading throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Gave it another read through and I think it looks way better. What do you think? – zmbro (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Placeholder by Ian edit

Recusing coord duties to review in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for the ping, Gog...
Oddly enough, this song's never done anything for me, no matter how many times I listened -- as far as Low's vocal tracks go, give me "Breaking Glass" any day...! Still, that's nothing to do with the article quality, which I think is largely sufficient for FA. Following a copyedit I'm fine with prose, comprehensiveness, and tone, but will hold off support until Nikki's source review is complete. On the subject of sourcing, I wish I had ready access to my copy of Carr and Murray's Bowie: The Illustrated Record, wherein I think the authors remarked on the irony of the BBC choosing such a thematically dark song for promo purposes, but that needn't hold up promotion. Good work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose Looks like Nikkimaria has no more queries. – zmbro (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could be -- Nikki can I just confirm? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No more queries on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Nikki, GTG then I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Graham Beards edit

On the whole, this is a well-written and engaging article, well done.

  • The song is famous for its use of sixth intervals on the lead guitar part, which run throughout the song (notes B+G, C+A and so on). Do we have a source so we can include this?
  • Not that I know of. The only source I have that would say it is O'Leary and he doesn't. I'm also not a guitarist so I wouldn't know. – zmbro (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graham Beards I'll definitely give this a watch! As a drummer myself I more typically pay attention to that xP – zmbro (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at WP:PLUSING, which explains the problem of fused participles. I saw three examples and I fixed one. The others are: "It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime" and "with Doggett writing". Is there a more graceful way to caste these phrases? Perhaps, "Beginning as an instrumental, elements are added...", and " and Doggett wrote". No dig deal since the meaning, at least to me is clear, but worth considering as an improvement.Graham Beards (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graham Beards Thanks for the tips! Changed to "Beginning as an instrumental, elements are added..." and "Doggett writes:" (new sentence). – zmbro (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (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) 28 October 2021 [11].

Turtle edit

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) and Chiswick Chap 19:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

This article has improved since the last time it was nominated. It has gone though a peer review and the problems from last time should be taken care of. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Realmaxxver edit

Making some comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "There are 360 recent (after 1500 AD) species of turtles and include tortoises and terrapins. They are widely distributed across the world's continents and oceans." the "(After 1500 AD)" seems a bit redundant; change to "There are 360 recent species of turtles that include tortoises and terrapins; which are widely distributed across the world's continents and oceans."
Some recent species have gone extinct as you will see in the conservation section. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtles are the only vertebrates with a complete shell. It is formed mainly of bone;" to "Turtles are the only vertebrates with a complete shell. It consists mainly of bone;"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtles are ectotherms—commonly called cold-blooded—meaning that their internal temperature varies according to the ambient environment." the note about ectotherms being referred to as cold-blooded can be put in between parenthesis, like "Turtles are ectotherms (commonly called cold-blooded), meaning that their internal temperature varies according to the ambient environment."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtles are generally opportunistic omnivores and feed mainly on plant material and sedentary animals." "feed mainly" should be swapped, like "Turtles are generally opportunistic omnivores and mainly feed on plant material and sedentary animals."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtle habitats around the world are being destroyed. As a result of these pressures, many species are threatened with extinction." the two sentences can be merged; "Turtle habitats around the world are being destroyed; and as a result of these pressures, many species are threatened with extinction."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naming and Etymology

  • "The name of the order, Testudines /tɛˈstjuːdɪniːz/, is based on the Latin word for tortoise, testudo.[4] It was coined by German naturalist August Batsch in 1788.[1]" change to "The name of the order, Testudines (pronounced as /tɛˈstjuːdɪniːz/), is based on the Latin word for tortoise, testudo;[4] and it was coined by German naturalist August Batsch in 1788.[1]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk)

Anatomy

Size

  • "The largest living species of turtle, and fourth largest reptile, is the leatherback turtle which can reach over 2.7 m (8 ft 10 in) in length and weigh over 500 kg (1,100 lb).[9]" this can be reworded to "The largest living species of turtle is the leatherback turtle which can reach over 2.7 m (8 ft 10 in) in length and weigh over 500 kg (1,100 lb). The leatherback turtle is also the fourth largest reptile.[9]"
I think the current wording sounds better. LittleJerry (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shell

  • Move the top picture to the right and the bottom picture to the right; the placement of the first picture makes the 'Main template look a little awkward.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is primarily made of bone, and consists of two parts, the carapace which usually contains 50–60 bones and covers the back of the animal while the plastron has 7–11 bones and covers the belly." change to "It is primarily made of bone, and consists of two parts; the carapace which usually contains 50–60 bones and covers the back of the animal, while the plastron only has 7–11 bones and covers the belly."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are connected by lateral extensions of the plastron. The carapace is fused with the...." "...while the plastron has 7–11 bones and covers the belly. They are connected by lateral extensions of the plastron." split the paragraph into two paragraphs inbetween these sentences.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The development is signaled locally by fibroblast growth factors including FGF10.[15]" → "The development of the shell is signaled locally by fibroblast growth factors that include FGF10.[15]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The outer surface of the shell is covered in epidermal scales known as scutes which are made of keratin, the same substance that makes up human hair and fingernails." link to human hair
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where "fingernails" should link to though. Realmaxxver (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtle scutes usually interlock like mosaic tiles, though in some species, like the hawksbill sea turtle, the scutes on the carapace can overlap.[18]" change "though" to "but"
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The leatherback turtle has hardly any bones in its shell, which instead consists of thick connective tissue covered in leathery skin.[20]" → "The leatherback turtle hardly has any bones in its shell; instead it consists of thick connective tissue covered in leathery skin.[20]"
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first use of Ref 18 is a bit redundant per WP:REPCITE

Head and neck

  • "...allowing for greater muscle mass and stronger bites.[23] Turtles that are carnivorous or durophagous..." split the first paragraph into two paragraphs inbetween these sentences
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The necks of turtles are highly flexible, possibly to compensate for their rigid shells. Some species, like sea turtles, have short necks while others, such as snake-necked turtles, have very long ones." link to sea turtles
linked in shell section. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limbs and locomotion

Linked it shell. LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtles are slow-moving on land, because of their heavy shells; a desert tortoise moves at only 0.22–0.48 km/h (0.14–0.30 mph)." → "Because of their heavy shells, turtles are slow-moving on land. For example, a desert tortoise moves at only 0.22–0.48 km/h (0.14–0.30 mph). "
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The limbs of turtles are adapted for various means of locomotion and habits; most have five toes." → "The limbs of turtles are adapted for various means of locomotion and habits; as most turtles have five toes."
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aquatic turtles have more flexible legs and longer toes with webbing, getting them thrust in the water." replace "getting" with "giving"; "Aquatic turtles have more flexible legs and longer toes with webbing, giving them more thrust in the water."
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sea turtles and the pig-nosed turtle are the most specialized for aquatic locomotion." → "The sea and pig-nosed turtles are the most specialized for aquatic locomotion."
Don't like that phrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sea turtles such as Chelonia mydas rotate the front limb flippers like a bird's wings so as generate a propulsive force on both the upstroke and on the downstroke." add "the" before Chelonia mydas; "Sea turtles such as the Chelonia mydas rotate the front limb flippers like a bird's wings as to generate a propulsive force on both the upstroke and on the downstroke."
Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sences

  • "There is possibly a fourth type of cone that detects ultraviolet; hatchling sea turtles respond experimentally to ultraviolet light" → "There is possibly a fourth type of cone that detects ultraviolet; as hatchling sea turtles respond experimentally to ultraviolet light"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sea turtles orient themselves on land by night, using visual features detected in dim light; they use their eyes in all conditions from clear surface water to muddy coasts and the darkness of the deep ocean, and with their heads above water." make this sentence into two; "Sea turtles orient themselves on land by night, using visual features detected in dim light. They use their eyes in all conditions from clear surface water to muddy coasts and the darkness of the deep ocean, and with their heads above water."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtles have no ear openings; the eardrum is surrounded by a bony otic capsule," → "Turtles have no ear openings; instead the eardrum is surrounded by a bony otic capsule,"
Changed in a different way. LittleJerry (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have higher hearing thresholds compared to other reptiles, reaching up to 500 Hertz in air, while underwater they are more attuned to lower frequencies.[35]" → "They have higher hearing thresholds compared to other reptiles, reaching up to 500 Hertz in air, but while underwater they are more attuned to lower frequencies.[35]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Experiments on green sea turtles showed they could learn to respond to a selection of different odorant chemicals (such as triethylamine and cinnamaldehyde) detected by olfaction in the nose." → " Experiments on green sea turtles showed they could learn to respond to a selection of different odorant chemicals such as triethylamine and cinnamaldehyde, which were detected by olfaction in the nose."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing

  • "They have multiple lateral and medial chambers, the numbers of which vary between taxa, and one terminal chamber.[44]" "the numbers of which vary between taxa" could be put in parenthesis
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the liver is attached to the right lung by the ventral mesopneumonium, and the stomach is directly attached to the left lung," replace "ventral mesopneumonium" with "ventral root"; add a semicolon after mesopneumonium; "the liver is attachted to the right lung by the ventral root; and the stomach is directly attached to the left lung,"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Immersion periods vary between a minute and an hour depending on the species." → "Depending on the species, immersion periods can vary from a minute to an hour.[46]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation

  • "The turtle cardiopulmonary system has both structural and physiological adaptations that distinguish it from other vertebrates." → "The turtle's cardiopulmonary system has both structural and physiological adaptations that distinguish it from other vertebrates."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtles are capable of longer periods of anaerobic respiration than many other vertebrates." → "Turtles are capable of periods of anaerobic respiration longer than many other vertebrates"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Osmoregulation

  • "In sea turtles, the bladder is singular while in most freshwater turtles, it is bi-lobed.[50]" → "In sea turtles, the bladder is singular; but in most freshwater turtles, it is bi-lobed.[50]"
I don't that that phasing. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "When on land, sea turtles may appear to be "crying".[53]" → "Because of this, sea turtles may appear to be "crying" when on land.[53]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thermoregulation

  • "Turtles, like other reptiles, have a limited ability to regulate their body temperature; this varies between species, and with body size" → "Turtles, like other reptiles, have a limited ability to regulate their body temperature; this ability varies between species, and with body size"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On Grand Terre Island, food is scarce inland, but shade is scarce near the coast," → "On Grand Terre Island, food is scarce inland, but shade is also scarce near the coast,"
Shade isn't scarce inland as your wording would imply. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest, the leatherback, can swim in the waters off Nova Scotia which may be as cool as 8 °C (46 °F); their body temperature has been measured at up to 12 °C (54 °F) warmer than the surrounding water." → "The largest turtle, the leatherback, can swim in the waters off Nova Scotia which may be as cold as 8 °C (46 °F); while their body temperature has been measured at up to 12 °C (54 °F), warmer than the surrounding water."
I don't think the second half is correct. Chiswick Chap?

Behavior Diet

  • "Generally lacking speed and agility, most turtles feed either on plant material or on sedentary animals like mollusks," → "Generally lacking speed and agility, most turtles either feed on plant material, or on sedentary animals like mollusks,"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some species, such as the African helmeted turtle and snapping turtles, eat fish, amphibians, reptiles (including other turtles), birds and mammals; they may take them by ambush but also scavenge.[55]" "Some species, such as the African helmeted turtle and snapping turtles, eat fish, amphibians, reptiles (including other turtles), birds and mammals. They may take them by ambush but also scavenge.[55]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The diet of an individual within a species may change with age, sex, and season, and may differ between populations." "The diet of an individual within a species may vary between age, sex, and season, and may also differ between populations."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communication

  • "The oblong turtle is particularly vocal; producing sounds described as clacks, clicks, squawks, hoots, various kinds of chirps, wails, hooos, grunts, growls, blow bursts, howls and drum rolls.[63] → "The oblong turtle has a particularly large vocal range; producing sounds described as ranging from clacks, clicks, squawks, hoots, various kinds of chirps, wails, hooos, grunts, growls, blow bursts, howls and drum rolls.[63]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Migration

  • "Turtles are the only reptiles that migrate long distances, up to thousands of kilometers in marine species; some non-marine turtles such as species of Geochelone (terrestrial), Chelydra (freshwater), and Malaclemys (estuarine) migrate seasonally over much shorter distances," → "Turtles are the only reptiles that migrate long distances. In marine species, they can travel up to thousands of kilometers, while in some non-marine turtles such as the species of Geochelone (terrestrial), Chelydra (freshwater), and Malaclemys (estuarine) migrate seasonally over much shorter distances,"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another possible cue is the orientation of the earth's magnetic field at the natal beach;" Is it supposed to be "cue" or "technique"?
Cue. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Defense

  • "Other tactics include threat displays and, in the case of Bell's hinge-back tortoise, playing dead." I suggest changing this to "Other tactics include threat displays and, in the case of Bell's hinge-back tortoise, turtles can play dead." per WP:SEAOFBLUE
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence

  • "In the laboratory, turtles (Pseudemys nelsoni) can learn novel tasks and have demonstrated a long-term memory of at least 7.5 months.[73]" "Pseudemys nelsoni" links to Florida red-bellied cooter; so change to "In the laboratory, the Florida red-bellied cooter could learn novel tasks and has demonstrated a long-term memory of at least 7.5 months.[73]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction

  • "In green sea turtles, females generally outnumber males, and as a result, most males copulate with multiple partners throughout their lifespan.[77]" → "In green sea turtles, females generally outnumber males; and as a result, most males copulate with multiple partners throughout their life.[77]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtship

  • "Courtship varies between species, and with habitat; it is often elaborate in aquatic species, both marine and freshwater, but minimal in the semi-aquatic mud turtles and snapping turtles." this single sentence should be two; "Courtship varies between species, and with habitat. It is often elaborate in aquatic species, both marine and freshwater, but minimal in the semi-aquatic mud turtles and snapping turtles."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eggs

  • "The number of eggs laid varies from 10 to over 100 depending on the species." → "Depending on the species, the number of eggs laid can vary from 10 to over 100."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is experimental evidence that the embryos of Mauremys reevesii can move around inside their eggs to select the optimal temperature for development, thus influencing their sexual destiny.[90]" replace "Mauremys reevesii" with chinese pond turtle.
The article title is the scientific name. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some species remain in the nest for longer, be it for overwintering or to wait for rain to soften the soil for them to dig out.[12]" → "Some species remain in the nest for longer, possibly from overwintering or to wait for rain to soften the soil for them to dig out.[12]"
I don't see the need for "possibly". LittleJerry (talk)

Lifespan

  • "a Galápagos tortoise collected by Charles Darwin in 1835 died in 2006, living for at least 176 years though most wild turtles do not reach that age." add a semicolon after "living for at least 176 years" → "a Galápagos tortoise collected by Charles Darwin in 1835 died in 2006, living for at least 176 years; although most wild turtles do not reach that age."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...allowing researchers to estimate how long they have lived;[93] they age very slowly.[94]" → "...allowing researchers to estimate how long they have lived;[93] they also age very slowly.[94]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Fossil history

  • "In 1914, Jan Versluys proposed that bony plates in the dermis, osteoderms, fused to the ribs beneath them," → "In 1914, Jan Versluys proposed that bony plates in the dermis and osteoderms, fused to the ribs beneath them,"
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The oldest known members of the Pleurodira lineage are the Platychelyidae, known from the Late Jurassic." → "The oldest known members of the Pleurodira lineage are the Platychelyidae, from the Late Jurassic."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The oldest known softshelled turtles and sea turtles appear during the Early Cretaceous.[99][100]" → "The oldest known softshelled turtles and sea turtles appeared during the Early Cretaceous.[99][100]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External phylogeny

  • "It was later suggested that the anapsid-like turtle skull may be due to reversion rather than to anapsid descent.[104]" "skull" should be plural
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Internal phylogeny

  • "Diversity increased steadily in their analysis, speciation occurring at a greater rate than extinction," → "Diversity increased steadily in their analysis, with speciation occurring at a greater rate than extinction,"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between the two suborders

  • "Turtles in the two groups differ in the way the neck is retracted for protection." → "The two groups differ in the way the neck is retracted for protection."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution

  • "The world regions richest in (non-marine) turtle species are the Amazon basin," → "The world regions richest in non-marine turtle species are the Amazon basin,"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation

  • "about 83% of Asia's (non-marine) turtle species are considered threatened.[133]" → "about 83% of Asia's non-marine turtle species are considered threatened.[133]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In Australia, Queensland's shark culling program, which uses shark nets and drum lines, has since 1962 killed over 5,000 turtles as bycatch;" " In Australia, Queensland's shark culling program, which uses shark nets and drum lines, has killed over 5,000 turtles as bycatch since 1962;"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Human uses

In culture

  • "In Hindu mythology, the World Turtle, named Kurma or Kacchapa, supports four elephants on his back. They in turn carry the weight of the whole world on their backs.[152][153]" → "In Hindu mythology, the World Turtle, named Kurma or Kacchapa, supports four elephants on his back, where they in turn carry the weight of the whole world on their backs.[152][153]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other cultures too used turtle shells to make music:" → "Other cultures have also used turtle shells to make music."
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1896, the French playwright Léon Gandillot wrote a comedy in three acts named La Tortue and was "a Parisian sensation"[169] in its run in France, and came to the Manhattan Theatre, Broadway, New York in 1898 as The Turtle.[170]" → "In 1896, the French playwright Léon Gandillot wrote a comedy in three acts named La Tortue and was "a Parisian sensation"[169] in its run in France, and also came to the Manhattan Theatre, Broadway, New York in 1898 as The Turtle.[170]"
Don't see the need for "also". LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As pets

  • "The popularly of pet turtles increased in the 1950s, and the US become the largest supplier, particularly of farm-bred red-eared sliders, in the international pet trade." change "become" to "became"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As food and other uses

  • "Trade of tortoiseshell was internationally banned in 1977 by CITES.[183]" → "The trading of tortoiseshell was internationally banned in 1977 by CITES.[183]"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have got. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Realmaxxver, is that a support? LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LittleJerry Yes. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realmaxxver, then you should declare "support" in bold for the administrators can see. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LittleJerry Okay. Support. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • I'll have a look soon. There seems to be a good deal of unnecessary duplinks at first glance. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. In the meantime, I see our main turtle expert Faendalimas is already helping out on the talk page, but I'll try to ping Sun Creator too, who did two previously successful turtle FACs. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk? LittleJerry (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Common name, cardiopulmonary system, pubis, ,Nova Scotia, and ultraviolet light could be linked.
Linked. cardiopulmonary doesn't have its own article. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why give scientific names for species in the infobox caption and nowhere else?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he smallest living turtle is the speckled padloper tortoise of South Africa, measuring no more than 10 cm (3.9 in) in length." Weight?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "carapacial (carapace) ridge" Not sure the parenthesis is needed, the name is kind of self evident.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "additionally have "intergular" scutes" State where these are.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no openings for muscle attachment (temporal fenestra)" Since you say openings, you should say "fenestrae", which is plural.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that are insectivorous, piscivorous or omnivorous" Link these terms.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Living turtles lack teeth but have keratin sheaths lining the edges of the jaws." You should mention these form a beak.
Source doesn't call it that. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of scholarly sources[12] call it that, you can't rely on the terminology of a single source. Furthermore, you already use the term beak twice in the article, so it's internally inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aquatic turtles have more flexible legs" Not sure, but it would seem like "aquatic" would apply to sea turtles also? How about "amphibious turtles"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is possibly a fourth type of cone that detects ultraviolet, as hatchling sea turtles respond experimentally to ultraviolet light, but it is unknown if they can distinguish this from longer wavelengths. A freshwater turtle, the red-eared slider, has an exceptional seven types of cone cell." Anything on what these abilities could be used for?
Night vision? Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source gives no suggestions for specific uses beyond implying vaguely that (some) turtles have good color vision. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtles share the linked circulatory and pulmonary systems of vertebrates, where the heart pumps deoxygenated blood through the lungs, and then pumps the returned oxygenated blood through the body's tissues. The turtle's cardiopulmonary system has both structural and physiological adaptations that distinguish it from other vertebrates." Odd to randomly change to singular, especially since we are talking aout many types of turtle collectively.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They make use of the shell to buffer the increasing acidity of the body fluids that this causes." How?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diagram of origins of turtle body plan" of the turtle body plan?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some non-marine turtles, such as the species of Geochelone (terrestrial), Chelydra (freshwater), and Malaclemys (estuarine), migrate seasonally over much shorter distances" Incongruent sentence.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Case studies exist of play behaviour in some turtle species" Odd, indirect of putting it. Why not something simpler like "play behavior has been reported/documented in case studies" or similar?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In at least the above, "behaviour" is UK spelling, though most of the article seems to be US spelling, check for consistency throughout.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and as a result, most males copulate with multiple partners throughout their lifespan" But don't all turtles, since none form pairs?
Pair bonds refer to social monogamy. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article states they do not form pair-bonds, therefore all turtles would "copulate with multiple partners throughout their lifespan", though this is stated as if only some do? FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtle can live very long lives." Turtles.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Galápagos tortoise collected by Charles Darwin in 1835 died in 2006, living for at least 176 years" Is this the record, or have there been older ones? Could be specified.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In other species, sex is determined genetically." But what does this mean?
linked. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there variation in egg colour, or are they all white?
doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "using a sharp projection on their upper beak." State this is the egg tooth, common to all reptiles. Also note you do use the term beak here.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link pareiasaur at second instead of first mention.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit odd that "Fossil history" jumps around in tense, would make more sense to stick to past tense for sentences like "The development of a shell reaches completion with the Late Triassic Proganochelys".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtle shells may have originally been adapted for digging and a fossorial lifestyle." Begs elaboration. What does a shell have to do with this lifestyle?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could state specifically if the pareiasaur link is now considered unlikely, hard to make out from the text
doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "External phylogeny" This title will be very hard to understand for most readers, I even had to read it a few times to get what you were going at. You could also say something like "higher classification" or similar, also a bit esoteric, but much less so.
  • Likewise "Internal phylogeny" could be "internal relationships" or "relationships within the group" or similar.
Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tyler Lyson and colleagues (2012) recovered turtles as the sister group of lepidosaurs instead.[110] A 2012 molecular analysis" Why give authorship for one analysis and not the others?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was estimated to be 255 million years ago" Could state in what geological period this was.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "is estimated to have occurred around 210 million years ago" Could give geological period.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert Thompson and colleagues comment that" Give date as for other studies.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link cladogram.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could probably help the reader to replace anatomical terms (anterior, posterior, etc.) for direction with common terms.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is formed with the pterygoid bones, but in Cryptodira the pulley is formed with the otic capsule." You could state roughly where on the skull these areas are.
Done. Otic capsule is already mention above with the ear. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The northern limits for terrestrial species" Where is this limit?
You can see it on the map. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But important info should not be relegated to images only, the distribution section should at least state whereabout the limits are, as this gives an indication of what they can tolerate. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The largest land turtle ever (Megalochelys) could also be mentioned under size.
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It gives an indication of their upper limit on land, which has very different pressures on a body than when being able to float in water. Furthermore, some studies indicate it even rivalled Archelon in size:[13] FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in that article about weight. I'd rather keep the size section simple and not digg into that mess. LittleJerry (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Vishnu in the article body, and avatar n the image caption.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "named the with the shell of a tortoise" The what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could make sense to group the text about modern turtles in literature together, it reads a bit odd now that you talk about turtles in mythology, then mention a few recent books, then back to mythology again, only to end on modern books and media.
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Lewis Carroll's 1865 Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" Link name and book in-text, also Mock Turtle.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are 360 recent (after 1500 AD) species of turtles, including tortoises and terrapins" This context in the intro makes sense to list the number of species in, but the article body you only mention the number under conservation. Could be mentioned in the part of the text about their taxonmic diveristy/evolution.
The lead does not have to follow the order of the body exactly. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and they are widely distributed across the world's continents and oceans" You could state they have a northern and southern limit.
That's obvious for every animal. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really for entire animal groups, some have members practically everywhere. What I'm asking for is some kind of indication of latitude. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turtles are the only vertebrates with a complete shell." Only seems to be stated explicitly in the intro.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all turtle species have eight neck vertebrates" Vertebrae.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the text looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femke edit

Great work on the article after the last nomination. I won't be able to do a source review, but hope to give some minor points.

  • Turtles were historically considered part of a group of reptiles known as Anapsida but more recent studies place them with other modern reptiles and birds in Diapsida, usually closer to Archosauria (crocodilians and birds) than Lepidosauria (tuataras, lizards and snakes). Per WP:EXPLAINLEAD, words like Anapsida, diapsida should not appear in the lede and definitely not in the first paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It still contains Pleurodira, even though a common name exist. The audience for this article is as broad as they come. These Latin words are quite deterring. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Common names are given. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But why not only give common names in the lede? I feel strongly about keeping Wikipedia accessible to those without university education, and cutting back on difficult words and sentence length is essential for that. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Become they are not the proper names. I think the average reader can handle some scientific names. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia. LittleJerry (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you overestimate the average reader. I would estimate that 20% of the readers of this article are younger than 15, and while they don't have to be able to understand the body, we should not deter them in the first paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed then. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Species that live in warm temperate climates may go through embryonic diapause.[91] add ", controlling their incubation period" or something to provide some context to the jargon. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle with this sentence "Various species of both freshwater and sea turtles emit numerous types of calls, often short and low frequency, from the time they are in the egg to when they are adults". I'm not quite sure of its purpose. I think low frequency should be hyphenated. If turtles can vocalise in the egg,that would be cool and deserves its own sentence. The word both seems superfluous. The word numerous is a bit vague. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alts are not always super informative. I think more description is needed of the sagittal section one. Answer the questions : what do people with screen readers miss? This would be that the pelvis is near vertical and the vertebrae follow the carapace. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed some. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene can you do an image review? LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I know nothing about copyright. I will likely support on prose soon. Will have another read tomorrow I hope. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene, here is a list of file copyright tags that can be used on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development of the shell: seen in the egg at stage 16/17, the carapace is developing. In section, the ribs are growing sideways not downwards, into the carapacial ridge, seen here as a bud, to support the carapace.[15] I find this caption difficult to understand. What is stage 16/17? The words seen break up explanation. Is a section a synonym for cross section? Maybe change to: development of the shell in the egg at early/late stage. The carapace is developing. In the cross-section on the right: ribs are growing sideways rather than downward into the carapacial ridge (bud) to support the carapace. Femke (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence is still cut into 5 choppy parts. Femke (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Among sea turtles, the loggerhead has been shown experimentally to respond both by behavior and by evoked electrical signals to low sounds, with maximal sensitivity between 100 and 400 Hz. I don't understand. How do turtles evoke electrical signals? Again, unnecessary use of both (see WP:REDEX). Sentence might be further condensed by saying: The sea turtle loggerhead. Femke (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • The turtle bladder consists of tissues of transitional epitheliums which allow for it to expand while some muscle fibers facilitate contraction. Is this unique / special for turtles? If not, consider leaving out to get rid of jargon "transitional epitheliums". Why the word "some"? What does it have to do with osmoregulation? If you keep it, make clear why this is relevant. Femke (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They use their eyes in all conditions from clear surface water to muddy coasts and the darkness of the deep ocean, and with their heads above water. Surely, we can shorting this. What about "They use their eyesight above and below water, from clear water to muddy coasts and the darkness of the deep ocean". Or "They can use their eyes in clear surface water, muddy coasts, the darkness of the deep ocean, and also above water." Femke (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have higher hearing thresholds compared to other reptiles. I believe "higher than" or "high compared to" are grammatically correct. Femke (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respiration for many amniotes is achieved by the contraction and relaxation of specific muscle groups (i.e. intercostals, abdominal muscles, and/or a diaphragm) attached to an internal rib-cage that can expand or contract the body wall thus assisting airflow in and out of the lungs. Sentence requires multiple reads before clear because it's too long. What about "Many amniotes breathe by contracting and relaxing specific muscle groups (i.e. intercostals, abdominal muscles, and/or a diaphragm) attached to a rib cage that can expand and contract the body wall, letting air flow in and out of the lungs." Rib cage is not an adjective, so doesn't need hyphen; active tense is easier to understand than passive. Thus is a bit old-fashioned, and unnecessary. Femke (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article text has 73 semicolons. While I accept my position on semicolons is not representative (never use them in non-academic texts), I find this excessive. Semicolons rob readers of their breathing pauses. To quote some Kurt Vonnegut, Don't use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you’ve been to college. Currently, a a lot of sentences that are not super closely related are connected with semicolons. Full stops are perfectly fine. Could you cut the use by, say, half or more? Femke (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viscera -> organs (throughout)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pleurodira and the lot need to be explained in the body
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the numbers of which -> their numbers. Femke (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their association with antiquity and old age have contributed to their endearing where they in turn carry the weight of the whole world on their backs. I don't understand the this sentence. What does old age have to do with turtles carrying the world. Femke (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how that was changed. Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: http://www.readabilityofwikipedia.com gives the article a 'reading score' of 49, which is college-level. I hope by the end of this review, we'll be firmly into the 15-17 yo category (50-60), rather than "college-level". There are still a few awkwardly long sentences that can be split, and easier synonyms to be found. A case could be made that this article should follow the standard of having a readability score above 60, which is a rule of thumb for web-based content. Femke (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some species have developed specialized diets such as the Mekong snail-eating turtle, the hawksbill, which specializes on sponges, and the leatherback, which feeds on jellyfish. What does "the hawksbill" mean? It's already a complicated sentence, so if it's a synonym, probably best to leave it out. What about "Some species have developed specialized diets: the Mekong snail-eating turtle eats sponges and the leatherback feeds on jellyfish.". Femke (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkbill sea turtle which is linked above. The hawkbill eats sponges. the Mekong snail-eating turtle obviously eats snails. LittleJerry (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! That makes sense. It's a bit confusing to switch sentence structure between the species. Femke (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the Mekong snail-eating turtle last. LittleJerry (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In marine species, they can travel up to thousands of kilometers, while in some non-marine turtles such as the species of Geochelone (terrestrial), Chelydra (freshwater), and Malaclemys (estuarine) migrate seasonally over much shorter distances, up to around 27 km (17 mi), to reach favored egg-laying sites. Split sentence. Femke (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both young and mature sea turtles undertake far longer migrations -> You've already said that marine species travel much further in the previous sentence. Young and mature becomes clear in the next sentence. Can be omitted. Femke (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mechanism by which sea turtles navigate to their breeding beaches remains unknown -> "How sea turtles navigate to their breeding beaches remains unknown"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For each of these species, the populations in different places have their own mitochondrial DNA genetic signatures which persist over the years, showing that the populations are distinct, so that homing must be occurring reliably.[67] -> split sentence. Femke (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 360 recent (after 1500 AD). Not quite clear. I think the lede should say 'living and recently extinct', while the body should dedicate a separate sentence to (after 1500 AD). Femke (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The one in the body is still there. Femke (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turtles are ectotherms or "cold-blooded". The or and the quotes imply those two terms are synonyms, but they are both wikilinked. Either remove one wikilink, or remove the quotes+add either. Femke (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: my energy levels are fluctuating quite a lot. May not be able to complete review. Femke (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • aquatic locomotion -> moving through water?
Phrase not found in article? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to swimming. LittleJerry (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • have column-like legs with elephant-like feet withand short toes
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turtles that are carnivorous or durophagous (eating hard-shelled animals), such as Mesoclemmys nasuta, have the most powerful bites, in its case 432 N. Can this be split in two? "Turtles that are carnivorous or durophagous (eating hard-shelled animals) have the most powerful bites. For example, the durophagous(?) Mesoclemmys nasuta has a bite of 432 N.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some turtle species have developed proportionally large and thick heads, allowing for greater muscle mass and stronger bites -> I think the word proportionally confuses here and can be left out. Femke (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ambient environment -> their direct environment
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a sedentary animal? One that sits and cannot move? (The link in the lede goes to sedentary lifestyle, so that's no help. But in the lede jargon shouldn't be explained by links anyway).
Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turtles have been hunted for their meat, for use in traditional medicine, and for their carapaces -> simplify carapaces to shells?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about grammar, but should "Turtles shells" in second paragraph lede not be "Turtle shells" or Turtles' shells?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In North America, it may denote the order as a whole, while in Britain, the name may be exclusive to sea turtles as opposed to freshwater "terrapins" and heavy-footed, land-dwelling tortoises -> split long sentence
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in more contemporary times -> simplify (more recently, currently/now + present tense). Femke (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for simplifying the article. It's very interesting now that I understand it. Femke (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass edit

Would be listing every image in the article, and adding my concerns (if any)

They look fine to me. LittleJerry (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced link. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything now seems fine to me. Passing the image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Will attempt one. Hopefully I can access enough of the sources to feel comfortable with spot-checks. Hog Farm Talk 22:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (2017). Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (PDF). Chelonian Research Monographs. 7 (8th ed.). pp. 1–292. " - Is it possible to narrow down the page range/numbers here? 292 pages is a very long range
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Willis, Katie L (2016). "Underwater hearing in turtles". Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 875: 1229–35" - If this is a page range, go ahead and expand it out to 1229-1235
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Rieppel, Olivier (March 13, 2017). Turtles as hopeful monsters: origins and evolution. Bloomington, Indiana. p. 195. " - Needs the publisher
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all look reliable enough; formatting is generally good except for the items noted above. Spot checks to come later. Hog Farm Talk 00:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Turtle/archive2#Spot checks, looks fine. Hog Farm Talk 03:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Hi LittleJerry, re your email query, ideally we would be looking for another substantive review to nail down a consensus to promote. If one isn't forthcoming by sometime between the fourth and fifth weeks since nomination a coordinator will do what they get paid the big bucks for and make a judgement call as to whether to close as is or to leave it a little longer. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X edit

Been reading through this one over the course of the morning and I have a few points.

  • Happy with the prose overall; this might not be the most ringing endorsement as it's my own weakest point, but I find this article reads well to a lay reader with little background in science.
Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Harvesting wild turtles are legal in some American states"—harvesting [...] is?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Galápagos tortoise collected by Charles Darwin in 1835 died in 2006"—we have an article for this animal at Harriet (tortoise), might be worth including. If the Franklin source doesn't name her then there are a few in that article which can supplement it.
Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to layout, there are a few short paragraphs given their own sub-headings which is generally to be avoided (MOS:PARA). Some of these are probably okay to be left but it might be worth looking at whether some can be combined under a broader heading; for example the "Communication" and "Intelligence" are both fairly brief, but feel close enough that they could exist as two separate paragraphs under an "Intelligence and communication" (or vice versa) heading.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images have been vetted well for use but in terms of layout I think we could neaten things up a little, especially as, at least on this monitor, there are a few instances where one spills into another heading. For example the neck retraction diagram sits a little awkwardly under the joint image template showing two related photographs, it displays wider and sits almost entirely in another section for me--the multiple image template would support merging the three together as a row of two and a row of one, which would alleviate some of this and tighten things up a little; the perrow= field would facilitate this. Similarly, in the "Human uses" heading we have two galleries displaying images at a remove from their related text, which is fine, but in between these is a single thumbnail image as well, and I wonder if it would be more at home under the second gallery row. These are only subtle changes and should be regarded only as suggestions.
Good idea. Fixed the neck retraction to fit neatly in the, er, body cavity, and grouped the human uses images as suggested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I have for now but I'm leaning towards supporting this one, let me know what you make of the above. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, all useful suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the changes made I am happy to support this at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Looks pretty comprehensive, I even checked that you'd included Chelys galactica. Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the material of hair and fingernails — I'd prefer hair, horns and claws rather than a specifically human trait
Done.
  • the scapula, and the coracoid — Why the comma?
Removed.
  • turtle hardly has any bones in its shell — turtle has hardly any bones in its shell
Done.
  • they have a full-color vision. — remove "a"
Fixed.
  • The heart — perhaps three-chambered heart
Done.
  • bury itself under the floor — perhaps sea bed or sea floor, floor alone sounds constructional to me
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Therapyisgood edit

  • Nothing on ectoparasites or endoparasites? From a quick Google search I found [14] and [15]. Although looking at the article I can't see a good spot to fit it in. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's for articles on species. The papers you are citing are way too specific for this general article. Not every taxon article is suitable for discussion on parasites or predators. LittleJerry (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments edit

  • Cite 1: add the publisher. Add the series.
Done.
  • Cite 3: add access date.
Done.
  • Cite 17: Why is Gaffney considered a journal article rather than a book? Why no identifier? (OCLC=263164288)
Fixed.
  • Cite 19: p/pp error.
Fixed.
  • What rule are you using to include or not the publisher locations of works?
Removed locations.
  • Cite 135: add the OCLC.
Done.
  • Cite 166: add the OCLC. (1049742993)
Done.
  • The titles of works should be in title case. See MOS:5LETTER.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2021 (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) 28 October 2021 [16].

The Trundle edit

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an archaeological site in Sussex that contains an Iron Age hillfort and a Neolithic causewayed enclosure. Causewayed enclosures were new to archaeology in the 1920s and it was one of the first to be found and excavated, and also one of the first archaeological sites to be identified by aerial photographs, now a standard procedure. This is the third causewayed enclosure site I've brought to FAC; the others, for comparison, are Knap Hill and Whitehawk Camp. Thanks are due to Dudley Miles, who provided a thorough talk page review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Some images are missing alt text
    Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Open_Street_Map_Chichester_District.png: is there a link to the OSM source, and is the uploader the sole contributor at that source?
    No idea -- this image predates my involvement with the article. The uploader hasn't been active in eight years. I've removed the map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Trundle_aerial_photo_1925.jpg: what does the source say about the provenance of this image?
    Crown copyright. See here for a page image; it's the first page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:St_Roc's_Hill_1723_from_William_Stukeley's_Itinerarium_Curiosum.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:St_Roche's_Hill_Sussex_by_T_King_from_William_Hayley_Mason_Goodwood_1839.jpg
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Trundle_annotated_1928_and_1930_dig.jpg: can the caption be expanded to provide more detail on what the different abbreviations refer to? Ditto File:The_Trundle_east_gate_1930_excavations_annotated.jpg.
    The first one does try to do that; is there anything you think it's missing? For the east gate, the abbreviations are discussed in the text. I could add "see text for an explanation of the abbreviations" if that would address the issue; I guess I assumed that a reader would look to the text for explanations. I don't think it would be worth trying to put all the information in the caption -- it would be long enough to look quite ungainly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TD and CI are mentioned, but what are they? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added an explanation of CI through CIV to the caption. I don't see a TD -- do you mean TT? TT is described in the caption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support from Richard Nevell edit

I'm very exited to see this article at FAC; Mike's edits have been cropping up on my watchlist and it's been great to see the article improve so much. I hope to find time read the article properly, but on the subject of the sourcing the article looks to be using the best available sources. I do have one (trivial) question at this stage. Is there a particular reason Eliot Cecil Curwen's name is written as E. C. Curwen in the body of the article whereas other archaeologists and historians are given their full names rather than initials (eg: Hadrian Allcroft, Owen Bedwin, Stuart Piggott)? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I gather his father’s name was also Eliot, and I would guess that’s why he was nearly always “E.C. Curwen” when publishing articles. I figured it was better to give his name as he would give it professionally. I think, but I’m not certain, that he was known as Cecil, not Eliot, so I would want to make it “E. Cecil Curwin” if we do change it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't help matters that Eliot and Eliot Cecil both conducted fieldwork together and wrote about it! E. C. Curwen's papers in the Sussex Archaeological Collections on the work at the Trundle credit him as E. Cecil Curwen. In case this article is changed in this article that might be the way to do it, as you suggested, but I can't say I'm fussed either way, I was just curious! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that; I thought he was E.C. in the SAC articles. I’m not near my books at the moment but will check this evening and will make the change then. I’ll like to stub an article on E.C.; I believe there’s an obit of him in one of the archaeology journals but have not laid my hands on it yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done; thanks for the heads up on that! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard, just checking to see if you had any plans to come back to review this -- it would be great to get a review from someone with a professional background in archaeology. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally found the time the article deserves. The article made a good first impression, and it certainly stands up to scrutiny. It addresses the topic very well, giving a good level of detail about the site and providing context. The Trundle has a complex history and it is very well handled. I like the way the evolving interpretations of the site and later revisions are handled throughout. This approach works very well. The use of illustrations is excellent, with the aerial photographs and marked up images. The DTM image was added midway through based on openly licensed data. I don't know if that was the result of Mike' efforts or just very good timing from the uploader, but it definitely enhances the article.

Below I have made some suggestions for adjusting the content. The comments are arranged by section, and most are a slight change in emphasis. There are a couple of sources (Reynolds 2009 and Hamilton & Manley 2001) which might be worth checking for relevant information. I can't access the useful bits of the Reynolds book, and I've only skimmed Hamilton & Manley but it does mention the Trundle a few times.

Lead

  • Move date the date the fort was in use into the first paragraph?
    Currently the dates for both the hillfort ("about 500 BC to 100 BC") and the causewayed enclosure ("probably constructed no earlier than the mid-fourth millennium BC") are in the second paragraph of the lead; the dates in the lead are intended to give the reader the rough time period we're talking about. Are you thinking that something similar to help readers with "Iron Age" would be good? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much, it only stands out because there's a date range for the causewayed enclosure in the first paragraph but not the hillfort. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Had a go at this. I was hesitant to put too much in the lead that was background information as opposed to information directly relating to the Trundle itself, but I think this works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the hillfort is still a substantial earthwork": would it be useful to mention briefly that that banks would have been topped by timber palisades and there would have been structures inside? I’m happy to leave it to your discretion how much detail to include in the lead.
    I left this sort of thing out because the hillfort itself has had very little investigation. I don't recall one of my sources saying it would have had palisades, but I don't have a good general reference for the Iron Age to hand -- I've got a copy of Cunliffe's Iron Age Communities on order, but it's been delayed. Do you have a source I could use for anything like this? I would have to add it in the body too, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, I'd leave out mention of a palisade. As you say, there hasn't been enough investigation at the hillfort to demonstrate that, and checking Hillforts: Britain, Ireland and the Nearer Continent (2019) a palisade was one of a range of options when enclosing a hillfort. It does appear to be common, but I over-generalised. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The generalisation is also found in a Historic England document ("Ramparts sometimes had timber frames and were originally topped with timber palisades") but I think it still makes sense to leave that out, or if it is mentioned it could be in the body of the article and phrased in general terms, rather than the lead. The discovery of house platforms by the 1995 survey might still be worth alluding to in the lead. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indicate what is meant by "These early digs established a date of about 500 BC to 100 BC for the hillfort", specifically whether this is the foundation of the site or the period of its use.
    I made it "established a construction date"; does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly does. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d be tempted to add a sentence in the lead noting that the site was occasionally used as a meeting place in the post-medieval period, but without going into detail. It wouldn’t be necessary, for example to list the militia and masonic meetings.
    Good idea; added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms" I don’t think it will be obvious to the reader why they would be interpreted as military sites. Perhaps a slight change of emphasis to something along the lines of “Early interpretations suggested a military role, though the sites were difficult to explain”? I’m sure there’s a better way of phrasing it, but I assume what’s meant is that archaeologists of the time assumed they were military sites, but were puzzled as to how they worked.
    See next response. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The rewording certainly helps, but my thinking is more along the lines of historiography. Why is the starting point assessing the site in military terms? That might be a difficult one to find discussions for. From my admittedly limited knowledge of the history of archaeology, a quite a few people involved in early excavations had a military background which influenced their thinking. If there isn't something which addresses the historiography of causewayed enclosures, then it's not a point that can be made in the article, but I thought I'd suggest it in case something is possible. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see -- yes, would be interesting but I don't recall seeing anything like that in the early sources. The question is first raised by Maud Cunnington in regard to Knap Hill; she presumably had no military background but on the other hand would have read works by people like Augustus Pitt Rivers. I'll keep an eye out but I have nothing to hand. That would also be an interesting area to cover in the overall causewayed enclosure article, which I'd like to get to one day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms" "They were constructed in a short time": does this mean individual causewayed enclosures were built quickly, or that the phenomenon itself happened within a relatively short time frame? The latterformer seems to be what is meant, but a slight change of wording could make it clearer.
    I've tried a rewording that I hope addresses both these points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I just realised I copied the wrong bit! I've added the bit of text I meant to refer to above. I tied myself in a know with this one. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hillforts began to appear in Britain early in the Iron Age." That certainly when they became more common, but the earliest examples date from the Late Bronze Age. See Hamilton, Sue; Manley, John (2001). "Hillforts, monumentality and place: a chronological and topographic review of first millennium BC hillforts of south-east England". European Journal of Archaeology. 4 (1): 7–42. doi:10.1179/eja.2001.4.1.7. ISSN 1461-9571.
    I'd like to update the statement in the article but I don't have access to that source. Can I make it "Hillforts began to appear in Britain late in the Bronze Age, in the late second millennium BC" and cite that paper? What page range should I cite if so? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sending that paper; I've now updated the wording in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Site and interpretation

  • Excellent use of the aerial photo. I think it would be useful to expand the caption to indicate to the reader which bit is the hillfort and which is the causewayed enclosure. It’s clear from the accompanying paragraphs, but since this draws the eye it would be worthwhile making it easy to understand independently.
    Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ditches enclose an area of about 5.66 ha" This might be a push, but do you have any way to give context? Does this make this one of the bigger hillforts in Sussex (or a given region) or is it about average?
    I recall some discussion of area but I think it was only for the biggest sites. I'll have to defer this and look through my references; I'll get back to you on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oswald's The Creation of Monuments has a section on the area of causewayed enclosures (pp. 72-75.). They divide them into small, medium and large, but it's a fairly tentative division, and unfortunately the Trundle lies right on the boundary between medium (up to 5.5 ha) and large (6 ha and over) so I would hesitate to unequivocally assign it to "medium sized". I can send you copies of the pages if you'd like to see the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be curious to see the discussion if you have time to send the pages over (there's certainly no rush). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've emailed them -- let me know if you see something there that we could use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquarian and archaeological investigations

  • I think it would be worth adding that the Duke of Richmond owned the land and gave permission to E.C. Curwen to dig. (Curwen 1929, 35). I think it’s also interesting that one labourer was hired to do the work and they also worked with Curwen on his excavations at the Caburn. Whether that’s worth including is another matter, but I’d be tempted.
    I've now mentioned the Duke. I agree it would be nice to mention the labourer but I don't see how to do it; I wonder if there are historiographic articles on the social relations of the early archaeologists, so many of whom were gentlemen amateurs. I did notice a while ago that Curwen frequently used Robert Gurd to draw his plans and sketch the pottery, and was able to stub an article on him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m a little disappointed that the sources don’t discuss the significance of the deliberate infilling of ditches, but we have to work with the limitations of the source!
    I give Curwen's opinion that it was the Iron Age builders who did that, in order to flatten the ground within the hillfort -- or do you mean further discussion beyond that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was very much thinking with my hat on as someone who studies destruction and the motivations, eg: to reuse the area for agriculture/while building the hillfort; ritual 'closing' of the site, etc. Just a general interest on my part, not something actionable! Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing Pit 2 and its purpose ("both pits formed an integral part of the scheme of defence of the two entrances") a recent paper in The Archaeological Journal (Pope, Rachel; Mason, Richard; Hamilton, Derek; Rule, Eddie; Swogger, John (2020-07-02). "Hillfort gate-mechanisms: a contextual, architectural reassessment of Eddisbury, Hembury, and Cadbury hillforts". Archaeological Journal. 177 (2): 339–407. doi:10.1080/00665983.2019.1711301. ISSN 0066-5983.) provides an important counterpoint, essentially shifting the interpretation from defence to agriculture.
    I see they argue that Hembury's entranceways were designed for animal funnelling, but as far as I can see the only relevant reference to the Trundle is on p. 381, where they suggest that the "great gate" at the Trundle may have needed an iron pivot. I've added a mention of that (in the section on Curwen's second dig, since that's where he talks about the odd nature of the huge postholes). Re agricultural use, I added something to the background section, since there's no explicit discussion of this in the individual excavation reports and Pope doesn't include the Trundle in the discussion of entrances designed to funnel animals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which researchers/institutions were involved in the Gathering Time project?
    Not sure what you're asking for here -- the three authors are listed in the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With earlier work, the names of those involved was prominent in the text (Curwen, Bedwin & Aldsworth, Oswald etc) but with Gathering Time the absence was a notable contrast. My thinking is that it would be good to add them in so that the people involved are given similar prominence, or if there are too many key figures (three is probably the upper limit) give the institutions involved. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; I've now credited them in the body of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the body is likely to have been that of a criminal executed nearby, between 1000 AD and 1825 AD" I recommend making it clear that this is Aldsworth’s suggestion. I can’t see what it says in the snippet, but the burial seems to be mentioned in Reynold’s book (Reynolds, Andrew (2009). Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-954455-4.), so there may be other views about the age.
    I've clarified that this is Aldsworth's suggestion. I don't have Reynolds; do you think I need to look at that? Searching for "Trundle" in GBooks only finds that one mention, in the form of a citation, near the end of the book, which makes me doubt there was any discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Google snippet view does make it tricky. My hunch is that the Trundle is in the bibliography because Reynolds suggests the burial is early medieval, and that perhaps the OCR missed it earlier in the book or is incomplete. I've seem works where chunks are missing from the preview. But, based on the available info I'd say don't go out of your way to track it down as it's likely to be only a fleeting mention if at all. Maybe one to keep an eye on for the future, but certainly not a serious omission (if it even rises to one at all). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d like to see the earthwork survey have its own section, rather than grouped under ‘other’, explaining the context (who/which organisations were involved, why it was carried out) and the main conclusions. The most important aspect seems to be the discovery of "Scattered around the interior, traces of some fifteen possible house platforms" (Oswald 1995, 14). That should be mentioned, regardless of whether there's a separate section as houses and implied domestic activity aren't mentioned elsewhere.
    I've added a mention of the house platforms -- that was a serious omission, I agree. Re splitting the earthwork survey: are you referring to the geophysical surveys? Or something else referenced in Oswald's 1995 review? The "other" section is already pretty short so I used it as a grab bag for everything not significant enough for its own section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking that the 1995 work could be separated, leaving the rest (including the geophysical surveys) in the 'other' section. The new section could have a couple of sentences of extra detail, mentioning: it was part of a bigger project recording Neolithic sites; though its primary aim was to record the causewayed enclosure, the survey also included the hillfort as an integral part of the site; the identification of the house platforms as an important finding.

    On reflection, I think that could probably be distilled into another sentence, and rather than having two very short sections, it makes sense to keep it as one more substantial section. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit, and also realized I had not mentioned Oswald's note of three possible Roman building platforms, so I put that in the site section too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation and presentation

  • Isn’t it part of the South Downs National Park?
  • It might be worth noting that public access is possible and there are several walking routes leading to the site.
    Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, good job with this article, it's a very good handling of the topic. While there are more than a handful of points above, I consider them minor and I look forward to supporting the article. A fair few of the points are phrased as suggestions, so please do feel free to take or leave them. Over to you, and I hope the feedback helps. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful review! I've replied to some points above and will pick this up again tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, I think I've now replied to every point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Richard -- added a couple more replies above on the remaining points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's everything taken care of as far as I'm concerned. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • As Mike says, I have previously reviewed this first rate article. I have a few minor comments on re-reading it.
  • The word "site" seems to be repeated rather often, including six times in the short second paragraph.
    It's a hard word to avoid! I've had a go at rewording that paragraph and one other where it was frequently used; is that better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In a few cases enclosures that had already been built continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." I am not sure you need "that had already been built".
    Agreed; reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "parliament". This is usually capitalised when referring to a particular parliament. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Placeholder - need to sleep now but will look tomorrow (in several hours) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A descriptor for E. Cecil Curwen? Ditto William Crawley, William Hayley Mason and O. G. S. Crawford.
    Added for Curwen and Crawford. Cawley's a politician and the text says he was speaking in Parliament, so I was hoping we could leave this to the reader to deduce. Mason was the librarian of the nearby Goodwood estate, according to the frontispiece of his book, but I don't think it adds anything to say who he was. Or I could put it in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
valid points Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a foxhole?
    A hole dug for defensive military purposes. I've linked to our article on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pity we don't have a drone shot of the place...
    It is indeed! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually unless I am missing something, I don't get a sense of what is immediately around the site - is it in fields, a suburb or what?
    The sources I have don't describe the surroundings beyond saying that the racecourse is next to it. If you're curious, search Google Maps for "Goodwood Racecourse" and then look a little to the west and you'll see the distinctive shape of the ramparts. I don't think I can add much to the article without a source, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM edit

G'day Mike, great article. A few comments:

Lead
Body
  • perhaps "an iron age hillfort"→"an Iron Age hillfort" and link Iron Age? Not sure what your approach is to linking in the lead and again at first mention in the body
    Done; I generally try to do exactly that, but am not always consistent about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is some tension between the description of causeway enclosures as being built "from shortly before 3700 BC until about 3300 BC" (is this just in the British Isles) and "from before 4000 BC in northern France, to shortly before 3000 BC in northern Germany, Denmark, and Poland. The enclosures in southern Britain continued to be built for at least 200 years (after when?), and in a few cases they continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." perhaps it could be more clearly explained what period they were built in the southern British Isles?
    I'll have to look at this later this week -- I'm away from most of my sources at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reorganized this a bit and I hope it's now clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • if Iron Age in linked at the beginning of the Body, then the link at the beginning of the third para of the Background should probably be dropped
    That one links specifically to the British Iron Age so I think it's worth keeping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps "least four circular or partly concentric circular ditches"
    I'm not sure about this -- "partly" is intended to refer to shape of the ditches, since a spiral isn't really a circle, and since the shapes are not fully known. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps "Concentric with this is a second ditch that lies a short distance outside the innermost ditch"
    Done, with some associated rewording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This part of the site" which part? The "further early earthworks"?
    The entire causewayed enclosure, at least in its original incarnation. Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Gibbeting
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were built during the World War II"
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • should neolithic have an initial capital? There are several instances of this.
    All should now be fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider moving the link to sherd to Glossary of archaeology#potsherd and link at first mention
    Much better link; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For crouched burial suggest linking Burial#Body positioning
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link phallus?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Rescue archaeology to rescue excavation
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was at one time a gibbet on the Trundle; it appears on an OS map in 1813, but had been removed by 1825." is partially redundant, I would describe the gibbet fully when first introduced, then just mention the gibbet in connection to the grave at this point
    Well spotted; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources (not a source review)
  • a few sources could do with an ISSN or OCLC identifier to assist with verification
    Added the OCLCs to the books without ISBNs. I haven't added ISSNs to journals before; is there an online search that will find them, like worldcat for OCLC numbers? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat should provide the ISSNs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There are a couple of sources with no ISSN still; these are archaeological reports issued at irregular intervals and I don't think any identifier exists for them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries as far as I am concerned. The source reviewer may wish to follow up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. All but one responded to above; I'll ping you when that one is done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67: last point now replied to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff Mike. Supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as ever. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • What's the difference between FN1 and FN27?
    Now merged (one pre-dated my involvement with the article and I didn't notice they were identical). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "research records" part should be split into a work title parameter rather than as part of |title=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the parameter you have in mind? I looked through all the cite web params and didn't see anything that would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could do |work=. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had tried to find that and was surprised to see that there is no "work=" param in the VE interface. I just tried again and realized after checking the {{cite web}} documentation that the parameter is called "website"; presumably "work" is an alias that would need to be tagged in some way to appear in VE. Anyway, done; and I deleted the publisher parameter (as suggested by its documentation) because it was redundant with the work param filled out. Pinging WhatamIdoing: am I right in thinking that searching for "work" in VE's cite web edit dialog ought to find the website parameter? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're in the "Add more information" section, then yes: any parameter/alias defined in TemplateData on the template's /doc page should be searchable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Turns out I already had "Name of the website" included but empty, so searching for "work", which I hadn't known was an alias, found nothing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN74 is missing author, and why include location here but not FN73?
    Author added; I took location out as I understand it's not needed for newspapers but can re-add for both if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No location is fine, but the same query now applies to retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So it does. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing full source details for Cunnington
    Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn30: does this source have chapters or any other means of identifying a location? (And what do we know about this publisher?)
    It has chapters in Google Books but unfortunately the search that finds the relevant text gives no information about the page it's found on. This is one of those annoying Gbooks that has no pagination. The original publisher was Robert Scott in 1920. I have been assuming that the modern edition is just a photographic reprint as is usually the case for this sort of thing, so it's the reliability of the original publisher that's the issue. I found this page which implies they published travel writing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest expanding the citation to make it clear that this is a reprint. Does a GBooks link go directly to the page of interest? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried putting "1920 edition, reprinted" in the "edition" field, but that comes out as "1920 edition, reprinted (ed.)", which isn't really right. I took out the cite template and formatted it manually; if you know of a way to do something like that in the cite book template please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like "Reprint of 1920" produces a reasonable output for that parameter? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does; done. Thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Healy or Healey?
    Healy; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piggott has an incorrect publisher name (I'm guessing this error came from Worldcat?)
    The OCLC record linked to says "Cambridge: University Press". The book itself says "Cambridge/At the University Press/1954" on the title page, and "Published by the syndics of the Cambridge University Press" at the top of the verso, with "Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge" at the bottom. I thought about making this "Cambridge University Press", but of the three declarations only one says that, so I decided to go with "University Press". Were you likewise thinking it should say "Cambridge University Press"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, changed to "Cambridge University Press". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wedgwood: publisher doesn't match information at that OCLC.
    Not sure what to do about this, except perhaps to remove the OCLC. The edition I have was "especially created in 1997 for Book-of-the-Month Club by arrangement with Deborah Owen Ltd". I couldn't find an exact match so I picked the one that I knew was a book club reprint as the best guess. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How sure are we that a different reprint will have eg the same pagination? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not. I've removed the OCLC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For these last two I'll have to wait till later this week when I'm back with my books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki: Now replied to everything above, though with at least one question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on Criterion 1a. I have been following this FAC since it's nomination. I am sorry I have nothing to add but praise.Graham Beards (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:50, 23 October 2021 (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 October 2021 [17].

Sustainable energy edit

Nominator(s): Clayoquot and Femkemilene Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past 2.5 years, this article has been completely rewritten from high-quality sources. I believe it’s now global in scope, reflects the most current accepted knowledge on the topic with balanced coverage of its many aspects, and gives the general reader an understandable overview of a complex topic. In the past six months, this article has been given Good Article status, copyediting, and a round of in-depth Peer Review, and we've incorporated very valuable feedback from these processes. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this; we look forward to your comments. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 21:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I will leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "Definitions of sustainable energy typically include environmental aspects such as greenhouse gas emissions, and social and economic aspects such as energy poverty" - The comma before "and" is unnecessary. Unless this is a serial list with an Oxford comma and more than 2 terms (which this does not appear to be), if the clause that follows isn't a standalone sentence, you can usually do without a comma before "and". Additionally, do you mean "There are many definitions of sustainable energy, most of which include..."
    You're right. Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Switching from coal to natural gas has environmental benefits" - Has environmental benefits in the short term, I assume.
    It arguably has environmental benefits in the long term as well, as coal emits a lot more CO2 per unit of energy generated. Should the lead say something about this? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clayoquot, yes, I think it would be good to mention that briefly. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added "including lower greenhouse gas emissions". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The global energy system, which is 85% based on fossil fuels" - This is worded awkwardly. Something like "The global energy system derives 85% of its output from fossil fuels" or "Eighty-five percent of the global energy system is based on fossil fuels" may work better.
    Great suggestion. Reworded. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Paris Agreement" - This may be well known now, but I would put a date to this, like the "2015 Paris Agreement", since this may get a bit out of context later.
    Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To make deep cuts in emissions" - "Cuts" sounds informal, I'd just say "decreases".
    Changed to "reductions", which is more usual for the literature. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Well-designed government policies that promote energy system transformation can lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality simultaneously, and in many cases can also increase energy security." - Similar to my first point, the comma that precedes "and" is unnecessary. I'd check for this throughout the article.
    Done this one. Will start looking for the rest. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, I think - I took on a comma-scrutinizing trip through the article.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions and background:

  • "1987 report, Our Common Future." - This comma may be omitted.
    Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sustainable development as development" - The repetition of "development" in such close succession is awkward, so I would suggest rephrasing this as something like "It defined sustainable development as meeting 'the needs ...'"
    Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing I noticed is an inconsistency in the usage of an Oxford comma. "environmental, economic, and social dimensions" uses it; "access to affordable and reliable energy for all people, workers' rights and land rights" does not. I would standardize this through the article.
    Most of them were Oxford, so tried to make consistent. Likely that I missed at least one. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched for the word "and" throughout the article and found a few more places to add Oxford commas. I think this item is done now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The international Paris Agreement on climate change" - Would mentioning the year of the agreement be effective here, too?
    Done, not quite sure. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World Health Organization (WHO) recommended limits" - This should be "World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended limits", because "recommended" is a suffix to "WHO"; i.e. the WHO recommended the limits, so there should be a dash.
    Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which causes in an estimated" - "which causes an estimated"?
    Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Image caption) "A woman in rural Rajasthan,India collects firewood. The use of wood and other polluting fuels for cooking causes millions of deaths each year from indoor and outdoor air pollution." - There should be a space after the comma after "Rajasthan" and a corresponding comma after "India". But more to the point, the image pushes down the next graphic, the map of people with access to energy. I would recommend relocating the image (or just removing it if the image isn't essential).
    Corrected caption, not yet puzzled with image placement. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the other figure, as I found it difficult to understand without zooming in. Too much of the text / graph could only be understood on the full-screen image. Femke (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Energy conservation:

  • "Paris Agreement" is already linked above; I think it can be unlinked per MOS:DUPLINK.
    Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "use less materials" - This should be "use less material" (where "material" is a generic uncountable noun) or "use fewer materials".
    Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "development of energy-efficient infrastructure to encourage changes in transport modes" - Toward the aforementioned public transport, walking, and cycling?
    Yes. Would you like to see this added? If modes is jargon, happy to of course, but prefer to keep sentence length lowish. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Modes" is fine, but I think the clarification would also help. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "United Nations targets for 2030 include a doubling of the rate of improvement in energy efficiency" - I think this should be rephrased slightly because it currently is an awkward phrasing. Do you mean something like "The United Nations aims to double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030"?
    Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however improvements have slowed in recent years" - Any specific decades?
    Done. Femke (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Efficiency improvements often lead to a rebound effect in which consumers use the money they save to buy more energy-intensive goods and services.[43] Recent technical efficiency improvements in transport and buildings have been largely offset by trends in consumer behaviour, such as purchasing larger vehicles and homes." - To me, the second sentence seems like a continuation of the first sentence. So would this be "As a result, recent technical efficiency improvements..."?
    I've combined the sentences with "for example". FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Epicgenius:, did you want to have a look over the rest of the article still? No hurries of course :). Femke (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'll conduct the rest of the review now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable energy sources:

  • "far less greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels." - I'm not sure if this should be "far fewer...emissions" or if "emissions" is uncountable here, so I'm not going to explicitly recommend changing it, but I'd recommend taking a look.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "providing access by 2030.[49] United Nations targets for 2030" - "Providing access by 2030" refers to the targets, correct?
Not as far as I know although the main authors may correct me - tweaked to hopefully clarify Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The panels are mounted on top of buildings, or installed in utility-scale solar parks." - The comma is unnecessary as this isn't a serial list, and the last part of the sentence does not stand alone as a clause.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Solar panels require energy for their production, equivalent to under two years of their own generation" - Not really an issue, just a general question, but does this mean it takes fewer than two years for a solar panel to produce as much energy as was used for its production?
    I've changed to your wording. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a general question, are there specific countries that specifically stand out for their use of solar, wind, and hydro? If so, are they worth mentioning?
    Historically, Japan/Germany for solar, and Denmark for wind and Brazil for hydro. For hydro there is enough geographic concentration that it's worth mentioning. Sun and wind are less remarkable. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turbine blades are not fully recyclable and research into methods of manufacturing easier-to-recycle blades is ongoing" - This sentence would benefit from a comma between "recyclable" and "and".
    Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Power is produced from the steam created from underground reservoirs" - Should this be "created in" or "created by" underground reservoirs?
    In. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It can either be burned to produce heat and to generate electricity or converted to modern biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol" - I think this sentence structure could be revised to one of two options: "It can either be burned ... or be converted", or "It can be either burned ... or converted".
    Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the United States, corn-based ethanol has replaced around 10% of motor gasoline, which requires a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest" - Does the ethanol or the motor gasoline require a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest? If the former, then the phrase "which requires a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest" should be moved to just after "corn-based ethanol".
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deployment of BECCS at scales described in some climate change mitigation pathways would require converting large amounts of cropland" - I assume said pathways describe large-scale deployment.
Depends what you mean by "large" - personally I cannot see that happening anyway because surely the aviation industry would outbid them for cropland to make biofuel for long-haul flights. So I would like to remove the sentence entirely but I defer to the main editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Switching from coal to natural gas reduces emissions in the short term, however in the long term it does not provide a path to net-zero emissions." - I would suggest "Switching from coal to natural gas reduces emissions in the short term, but it does not provide a path to net-zero emissions in the long term." for consistency in sentence structure.
I would like to remove this sentence as some reliable sources describe it as a "bridge fuel" for example https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/16/the-first-big-energy-shock-of-the-green-era But I defer to the main editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Energy system transformation

  • "Some energy-intensive technologies and processes are difficult to electrify" - Is this related to the second point of the preceding bulleted list? I assume this is regarding converting energy sources to electricity rather than using an energy source directly.
Amended. If still unclear please ping me Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Building overcapacity for wind and solar generation can help to ensure" - "can help ensure" may be more concise but I don't know if this is different in other varieties of English.
Done - fine with us Saudi Arabians of wind Chidgk1 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of energy share consumed as electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020" - A doubling from 2020?
seems correct and clear to me already - if you think unclear please could you explain further Chidgk1 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think the em-dash (as used in this section) would be unspaced, while an en-dash would be spaced, per MOS:DASH.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some air conditioning units are still made to use refrigerants that are greenhouse gases; as some countries have not ratified the Kigali Amendment to only use climate-friendly refrigerants" - The semicolon should be a comma since the second part of the sentence wouldn't be a standalone clause.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is LPG? I don't think the acronym is too widely known compared to others.
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there figures for how much buildings use energy in comparison to the whole? (Overall I couldn't really find too much to nitpick about this section.)
Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Government policies

  • "or new buildings are heated by electricity instead of gas" - This should be "or that new buildings..."
Ha as British English has been specified for the article I trump you - er I mean I out-biden you Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can carbon pricing be briefly described in a few words?
Unfortunately I cannot think of a way of describing it using a number of words between 2 and many Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've given an example, and made another sentence simpler. Femke (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies, to ensure that industries subject to internal carbon prices remain competitive." - The comma here probably is not necessary.
I think it is necessary for screenreaders to pause very briefly Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the fossil fuel industry, 6 million jobs would be lost" - Would any other industries be hurt by a transition?
Good question - I was surprised to read that in Turkey where I live economists say some jobs would be lost in low-skilled industries such as textiles due to workers moving to higher skilled industries such as our solar module and wind turbine factories - but I am afraid I don't have any info on global effects on other industries Chidgk1 (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a bit vague on where those jobs are lost, but mentions mining and fossil industry. Reading the underlying report, it's clear that this number includes other sectors. I've amended the text. Femke (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finance

  • "which are not attractive to the private sector" - I guess this implies financing is provided by both governments and the private sector, but government funding is more prevalent in low-income countries?
Yes the source says " International public financial flows are critical to reach these investment levels and to leverage the necessary amounts of private capital, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has dramatically increased investors’ risk perception and shifted

public funding priorities in developing countries." but just copying that would be a bit long. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of an extra $100 billion per year " - Immediately after the signing of the agreement, or by some certain date? This is a pledge from all signatory countries, I guess.
As far as I know there is no timescale - but I have clarified re countries Chidgk1 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article looks good. Most of my nitpicks are grammatical and not content-based. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius I hope Femke and I have answered to your satisfaction. I am not watching this article but please ping me if any of my changes (or non-changes) are not sufficient. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't see any significant issues with the article. There are a few minor things that were more rhetorical than in need of actual repair - for example, my "A doubling from 2020?" comment was more of a confirmation than an actual query. But they shouldn't impact the FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JJE edit

Is it imperative to have citations in the lead? I am not sure whether the sources like swissinfo, New York Times, www.canada.ca and Vox are good enough for a FA. Images seem well placed. Is ourwordindata a good source for File:Elec-fossil-nuclear-renewables.svg, File:Global primary energy consumption, OWID.svg, File:Energy use per person 2019 - OWID.svg and File:People-without-electricity-country-2016.svg? I remember reliability concerns in the context of their COVID-19 coverage. Some of them are also old. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo, it's good to see you here. Femke, do you have any thoughts on how we're using OWID? I'll start looking into the other sourcing issues. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo do you have links to any past discussions about OWID where concerns were raised? I searched the Talk archives of WikiProject Medicine and could only find positive things being said about OWID's maps.[18] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really familiar with OWID before working on this article, but became slowly convinced its a HQRS based on its exclusive use of HQ sources itself, its transparency/explanation of data use and the fact it won a few awards for scientific reporting. Also curious to indicators to the contrary. For each of those images, we have the most recently available. FemkeMilene (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I was mentally confusing worldometers with OWID, so nevermind what I said about OWID. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed or replaced the Vox, Swissinfo, and Canada.ca refs. Canada.ca is the official website of the government of Canada so in general it's a solid source, but the source I replaced it with is somewhat stronger and more neutral for this particular claim. As for the New York Times, my impression from WP:RS and WP:Identifying reliable sources (science) is that it's a high-quality source for news and current issues but not for "science". Jo-Jo can you elaborate on your concern about the NYT, e.g. are there particular claims sourced to the NYT that should be sourced to a non-news source? Also, do you have the same concerns about using the BBC as a source? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"news and current issues but not for "science"." that's exactly the concern I have. It's one thing to use a source like that to establish that something has been noticed (I use NYT on Uturuncu for this reason) but it's a different matter if you are using it as a source for a fact.

However, I am not sure how widely shared my concerns are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're one of the very few brave souls who's volunteered to review this article, so I'm interested in your concerns whether or not they're widely shared ;) The article's current use of the NYT is for the following statements:
  1. In Malaysia and Indonesia, clearing forests to produce palm oil for biodiesel has led to serious social and environmental effects, as these forests are critical carbon sinks and habitats for endangered species.
  2. Developing natural gas infrastructure risks carbon lock-in and stranded assets, where new fossil infrastructure either commits to decades of carbon emissions, or has to be written off before it makes a profit.
  3. Nearly all of the world's current supply of hydrogen is created from fossil fuels.
  4. Heat pumps provide both winter heat and summer air conditioning through a single appliance.
  5. Energy-specific programs and regulations have historically been the mainstays of efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
  6. Carbon pricing has encountered strong political pushback in some jurisdictions, whereas energy-specific policies tend to be politically safer.
  7. Some governments are exploring the use of carbon border adjustments, which place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies, to ensure that their industries remain competitive.
These are all factual claims, but they're in different disciplines. I'd say #1 is a science claim so I agree that one should be replaced with a scholarly reference. The rest are claims about technology, economics, and policy issues, which the NYT is generally very good at. Looking at claims #2 through #7, do you think all of them would benefit from different sourcing? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd prefer if most of that were sourced to things like textbooks and academic sources since many of these statements are really academic ones not journalistic things. But one issue with FAC is when reviewers start demanding that articles comply with personal preferences that aren't based on the actual FA criteria. So I am a little uncertain on how much to push this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a case can also be made that #2 would benefit from a scientific citation, but I feel #3-#7 are fine. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for better sourcing for # 1 and 2, and also 3, 5, and 6 as I can probably do these quickly. My thinking on when to use academic vs. journalistic sources is a bit different from how Jo-Jo approached sourcing in Uturuncu: There are times when it's hard to find academic sourcing for a basic fact because the academic literature assumes the reader knows it already; #4 is a good example of this. #7 is another kind of statement for which I think news sources are valuable because they have the most up-to-date information. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added new refs for #1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Let's get ourselves together again at some point to have a broader discussion around how to define "high quality" sourcing. While it's fresh in my mind, background information like #5 can be very difficult to source in the academic literature. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is now reference-free. Femke (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments. Citation format looks consistent. Is there any kind of history behind the sustainable energy concept? Political opposition and debate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitions section covers the history and evolution of the concept. In terms of political opposition, the Nuclear energy section and the Government policies section describe some controversial aspects of sustainable energy. There are differences between academics on how to define "sustainable energy" but I didn't find evidence that these differences have been political in nature. Is there something in particular that you'd like to see more detail on? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wanted to make sure that the lack of discussion of these aspects was deliberate & well-justified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any more comments @Jo-Jo Eumerus:? And would you maybe be willing to turn this into a source review? Femke (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but between moving houses and User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Ojos del Salado I am a little indisposed at the moment. I'll try to get a source review done here, but it may take days. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I'll try to make this now on the basis of this version. Are these sources well reputed enough to be quoted in Wikipedia voice? They look like they might be advocacy sources - reliable but not necessarily for a broad judgment. Why does #21 and #137 have a quote? Sometimes publishers are italicized and sometimes they aren't. Ditto for links. I don't see any other citation that prints out the website like #168. Some references link the organization(s) and others don't. Beyond this it seems like the source usage here fits the FA requirements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IEA and IRENA are considered the two authorities on energy matters. Both have a bit of a bias: the IEA has a history of underestimating renewables, whereas IRENA is sometimes said to be too optimistic of renewables (but has also underestimated solar historically). They are both intergovernmental organisations. IEA is a part of the OECD, whereas IRENA has a more global membership. As high-quality sources, they tend to agree. Where they disagree (mostly about future projections), we've either used indirect voice or used a different high-quality source.
The quotes in 21 and 137 are scars of an old edit war. I think they can be deleted. @Clayoquot:?
Nikkimaria has just taught me below how to use publisher/work properly, so bear with us while we're correcting that. Femke (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fine with deleting the quotes. Good description of the biases of the IEA and IRENA. One of the reasons we relied on the IEA so heavily is that it's historically been perceived as an economic organization rather than an environmental organization. The New York Times recently said, "The influential agency is not an environmental group but an international organization that advises world capitals on energy policy. Formed after the oil crises of the 1970s, the agency’s reports and forecasts are frequently cited by energy companies and investors as a basis for long-term planning."[19] So when the IEA says that the energy system can be made more sustainable, we wouldn't expect the reader to roll their eyes and think, "Of course the IEA would say that". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quotes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe we've fixed the consistency issues with the formatting of citations, and all the issues you raised have been addressed now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems like this passes the source review. Note I didn't do a spot check and I don't know enough about the topic to say whether any major source was missed, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

  • achieving this goal will require that emissions be reduced as soon as possible and reach net-zero by mid-century.[16] – is this still up-to-date?
    Yes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Together with solar thermal, geothermal energy met 2.2% of worldwide demand for heating in buildings in 2019.[78] – That unfortunately doesn't tell us what the share of geothermal energy is without including solar thermal?
    Because it's such a small share of global demand, it's difficult to find a good statistic. Spent about an hour searching. I've replaced it with a Our World in Data source about geothermal energy (heat+power). This source puts it at 0.9% together with tidal and wave. Given that tidal and wave are insignificant, it's probably 0.9% on its own. I've said less than 1% in the body. Femke (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second-generation biofuels which are produced from non-food plants – only non-food plants, or waste as well?
Good catch. The source says waste is also used. I added it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My biggest concern so far is the nuclear power controversy section, which I don't think meets WP:NPOV:
  • The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy,[121] although for each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources.[122] – This reads like "science" vs "public", which I don't think is true (science itself is split about the topic). And the "perceived risk" sounds a bit as if the public would be ignorant and if the risk would not exist.
  • nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources – this is stated here as fact, but is certainly not an universally accepted opinion. It obviously depends on how "safe" is defined and measured, and then, there is a risk factor that is very difficult to quantify (e.g., natural disasters, potential terrorist attacks on power plants), especially when accessing the risk for future generations.
  • Public opposition often makes nuclear plants politically difficult to implement. – For which parts of the world is this valid? Even in Europe, there is considerable political opposition as well. Can we really blame the "public" here?
  • You give a lot of room to the EU expert groups, maybe reduce that to one shorter sentence. There is a similar debate if gas should get the "green" label in the EU, which is not mentioned in the article at all, for example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all good points. We should describe the aspects of safety that are in any claims about safety, and I think we can summarize the conclusions of the JRC with more nuance than the single word "sustainable". I'll revisit the sources and propose some new wording in the next few days.
W.r.t public opposition, the source says this is an issue "in democratic societies" as opposed to authoritarian governments. I think the current wording already implies that the statement is about countries where public opposition matters. The point this sentence is trying to make is that from a policy maker's perspective, nuclear involves both technical and social challenges/obstacles, regardless of whether the social concerns are justified. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In trying to rewrite the JRC findings before and especially other expert groups, I found few mainstream sources covering it. I think a short sentence max is better. I had hoped that the EU would have made a decision on this by now. Femke (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of safely: estimates of mortality from nuclear differ by an order of magnitude between the industry's estimate and Greenpeace's estimate, but all fall squarely below fossil. The problem here may be that people underestimate how deadly fossil fuels are, making this sentence seem more controversial than it is. We can more explicitly put this in the past tense (has been). I agree with Clayoquot that explicitly mentioning mortality rather than the vaguer word safety can be a solution? Femke (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that sounds reasonable. It needs to be clear that, what is described, is the mortality per unit of energy in the past, and doesn't include potential future disasters that are difficult to predict. But when talking about safety of nuclear power, I think the latter is the main concern of those who oppose it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does this sound to replace the first two bullets above: "For each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy has caused far fewer accidental and pollution-related deaths than fossil fuels, and the historic mortality rate of nuclear is comparable to renewable sources."?
  • I think "Experts from the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the scientific expert arm of the EU, stated in April 2021 that nuclear power is sustainable.[122] Two other groups of experts—SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks) and the Euratom Article 31 expert group on radiation protection—largely confirmed JRC findings in July 2021" should be deleted. I don't see much point in including the opinions of named expert committees because expert opinions vary on the nuclear issue. It's become apparent over the past few months that the JRC's findings don't even represent an EU-wide consensus.[20] As Jens pointed out we don't, and shouldn't, name supporters for other controversial energy strategies such as fossil fuel switching, hydrogen production from fossil sources with carbon capture, and the burning of wood pellets as fuel.
  • Your comment "the latter is the main concern of those who oppose it" inspired me to do some digging on the unpredictable disasters (e.g. terrorism) and on the reasons for public opposition. A 2010 OECD report (p.27) found that terrorism and waste disposal were the biggest reasons for opposition (note that this report was pre-Fukushima). A 2017 U.S. study that asked people to give reasons for opposition in their own words found that "Dangerous, unsafe, accident, leaks" was the biggest reason, which is a much more general concept than accidents. In light of these two sources, it's probably undue weight to say that "The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy" so I think we should remove that.
  • I drafted how the above three changes would look [here].
  • If we remove the two sentences about the JRC above, we should add something else positive. What do you all think of adding a sentence saying that multiple analyses have found that nuclear power is crucial for reaching climate targets, sourced to this new UNECE report (p. 1) and the IEA Net Zero report (p. 14)? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That all reads very good! Regarding your last point, you already have this: Climate change mitigation pathways consistent with ambitious goals typically see an increase in power supply from nuclear.[10] – This seems to be almost the same content, so maybe the new addition should be combined with/connected to this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The IPCC SR15 still managed to create a 1.5 scenario without nuclear iirc, so the word crucial may contradict that. More importantly, that would make the wording stronger than for solar "Various projections of future energy use identify solar PV as one of the main sources of energy generation in a sustainable mix.". However, solar plays a bigger role than nuclear in all those scenarios. We already have a sentence about nuclear's role in reaching net zero. Don't think we need to add another. Femke (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great point about solar and wind having robust consensus for a much larger upscaling. I didn't know that the IPCC created scenarios for 1.5 degrees - can you point me to the section number for that?. I thought they limited themselves to analyzing the scenarios that had been created by others, and in this analysis they recognize that some scenarios no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century.
Here is a different idea for adding a positive statement: How about "After shutting down nuclear plants in the 2010s, Germany and Japan both increased coal-fired electricity production to make up for the loss of capacity." Sources: NBER, Wired, and Financial Times.? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this isn't simplifying it too much though. Just because there is a correlation doesn't necessarily mean there is causality. In Germany, the share of gas in power production decreased during the same time from 12.1% to 10.5%, even though gas was supposed to replace nuclear (together with the renewables). The problem was the European Union Emissions Trading System: The prices for CO2 emissions became extremely cheap in the 2010s, thus favouring coal (see graph in linked Wiki article). Source for this (although a German one): [21]. Regarding Japan, the article you linked is behind a paywall, this is far from ideal. Do you have another source for it? In any case: Do we need an additional positive note about nuclear at all? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Germany, see also this graph for context: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg It's in German again, but black and brown are coal, purple is gas, red is nuclear. It also shows that since 2013, coal and nuclear are decreasing in Germany at the same time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jens that we don't need another positive note about nuclear. Almost the entire second paragraph is already positive. The third paragraph is quite temperate in how negatives are described.
The German case is indeed quiet complex. For instance, their anti-nuclear movement was important in the solar revolution.[22]. Femke (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll implement the other changes I proposed, and won't add a new positive at this time. Fingers crossed that these changes won't destabilize the consensus for this section. Thank you both for a very interesting discussion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that the images illustrate what is described in the text:
  • The image "Construction of salt tanks to store thermal energy": I don't see this discussed in the text at all. And thermal energy from what source? I don't find this very helpful without more explanation.
  • I've replaced it with a battery storage facility. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a high-quality picture of a battery home storage pack, which may be even clearer. Femke (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The outdoor section of a heat pump" image: heat pumps are discussed further down but not where this image appears. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed both the caption and the text to make the connection clear. The other logical location, buildings, already has too many images. Femke (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There now is a formatting issue (stray wikitext) in the "Environmental issues" section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Solved. Femke (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent article overall, thanks for working on this immensely important topic. As soon as the nuclear power section is improved on, I should be ready to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Trainsandotherthings edit

  • "The combustion of coal releases gases which form into ground-level ozone and acid rain, especially if the coal is not cleaned before combustion." This comes immediately after a sentence talking about fossil fuels and biomass in general. It might be good to reword this to emphasize that it is not just coal which is the problem (though it is the worst offender).
Reworded to cover more sources of the precursor chemicals to acid rain. BTW I also removed the part about ground-level ozone as it's only one of the types of air pollutant that are dangerous to health (another major one is particulate matter). Femkemilene might want to do further adjusting here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section on energy conservation, I recommend elaborating a bit more on what energy intensity really means. If statistics are available, I'd suggest their inclusion. Without any units, the concept seems too abstract to me. What does it mean to double the rate of energy efficiency improvement, and are statistics available for that?
Great ideas, done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing the section titled "Energy sources" to "Sustainable energy sources" for clarity.
Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Costs of solar photovoltaic cells have dropped rapidly, driving strong growth in worldwide capacity." If possible, quantify this for the reader. I know that the costs have quite greatly dropped, but quantifying would make this easier to understand, in my opinion.
I am sure there must be lots of quantification in more specific articles - if done here too it might just become a burden for future editors to keep up to date Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph on concentrated solar power feels out of place in its current location. I would move it ahead of the paragraph above about solar panel disposal.
Risk of doing that would be that readers might think that concentrated solar power uses panels, whereas any panels are just co-located PV Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The noise and flickering light created by the turbines can be annoying and constrain construction near densely populated areas." I would reword this to "can be considered annoying by humans". As written, it feels inappropriate to make such an objective statement in Wikipedia's voice.
Reworded as "can cause annoyance", which is how the sources often phrase it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would swap the order of the last two paragraphs in the hydropower section.
Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the geothermal section, I would include a brief explanation of how the heat used comes from the Earth's mantle. I would also mention how geothermal can cause issues with the nearby water table.
As the geothermal section is already almost as long as the solar section I think adding water table info would be too much detail. Also the current "deep underground" is less technical than "mantle" and I suspect some of the heat comes from radioactivity in the crust. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the geothermal section, can you elaborate on what "median life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions" means? It is unclear to me, and I imagine it would be more unclear to an uninformed reader.
Reworded. It means adding up all the emissions of all aspects of what it takes to locate and extract geothermal energy, but I think this is implicit. Let me know if you think it should be said explicitly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting article. Unfortunately I couldn't squeeze this in without giving undue weight to landfill gas, which is a small aspect of bioenergy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two tidal barrage systems in France and in South Korea make up 90% of total production." I recommend a clarification that this means 90% of total marine energy production globally, not just in those two countries specifically.
    Reworded. Femke (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more comments on the rest of the article in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break edit
  • "Switching from coal to natural gas has advantages in terms of sustainability." I would change this to "Switching from coal or oil to natural gas..."
    Typically, oil is used in transport, while coal and gas are used in power generation. This would unnecessary lengthen the sentence. Femke (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For a given unit of energy produced, the life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of natural gas are around 40 times the emissions of wind or nuclear energy but are much less than coal." If possible, I would provide a number to compare natural gas to coal, to give a better sense of scale.
    Just one sentence further :). Femke (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, I suppose what I meant is to give a number for the emissions of coal, per unit burned (ex. The burning of coal produces XYZ kilograms of CO2 per BTU or KWH). It may not be necessary though. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even as a researcher in the field, I don't have an intuition for these numbers. I don't think they will convey information to our readers. Femke (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Building gas-fired power plants and gas pipelines is promoted as a way to phase out coal- and wood-burning pollution and increase energy supply in some African countries with fast-growing populations and economies, but this practice is controversial." Promoted by who, exactly? And who says it is controversial? I don't doubt the accuracy, but a reader may want to know who these views belong to.
Rewrote this sentence to be global rather than Africa-centric and to convey facts rather than opinions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuel and biomass power plants can be significantly reduced through carbon capture and storage (CCS)." Consider a wikilink for carbon capture and storage.
    Has been wikilinked before. Femke (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Fossil fuel switching and mitigation section, the last paragraph goes back and forth between cost and efficiency for CCS. It might be better to talk about one of them in the first half of the paragraph, and the other in the second half.
Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and nuclear power plants can create fissile material that could be used for nuclear weapon proliferation." I would either delete the word "can", or reword this to say something along the lines of "nuclear power plants can be used to create fissile material...".
Deleted "can". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy, although for each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources. Public opposition often makes nuclear plants politically difficult to implement." These two sentences are in a paragraph that deals with the debate over sustainability over nuclear energy. As these two sentences are about safety and public opinion, which is a different issue, I recommend moving them out of this paragraph and into their own new paragraph. This could also go with the last paragraph of the section, which mentions progress in nuclear development has been limited recently.
I shortened this paragraph considerably to address other comments in this FAC. Please let us know if you have further suggestions for reorganization. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The emissions reductions necessary to keep global warming below 2 °C will require a system-wide transformation of the way energy is produced, distributed, stored, and consumed." Change will to would, as unfortunately there's no real evidence the world has agreed to make the necessary changes.
My memory (which may be biased) is that "will" is more consistent with the sources. The world agreed on a 2 °C (or less); "would" would carry a bit of an implication that we're still making up our minds on the target rather than procrastinating on execution. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some energy-intensive technologies and processes are difficult to electrify, including aviation, shipping, and steelmaking." I recommend adding a brief explanation as to why these areas are difficult to electrify.
Great idea. Added in the Transport and Industry sections. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Full decarbonization of the global energy system is expected to take several decades and can mostly be achieved by deploying existing technology." Change technology to technologies, plural.
Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The International Energy Agency states that further innovation in the energy sector, such as in battery technologies and carbon-neutral fuels, is needed to reach net-zero emissions by 2050." This would be a good place to mention the current issues with batteries, and what changes in technology are needed to make them work as a part of sustainable energy.
Working on this one. The issues with grid batteries are somewhat different from the issues with vehicle batteries. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added issues to the Energy storage and the Transport sections. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transition to a zero-carbon energy system would bring strong co-benefits for human health:" Nothing specifically wrong here, but make sure the article is consistent in tense. This is a hypothetical (would) but in other places "will" is used instead, implying a certainty. Double check that will is only used when appropriate.
Changed to "will" Chidgk1 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historically, several countries have made rapid economic gains through coal usage, particularly in Asia." I feel that this is unfairly singling out Asia, when the same can be said for Europe and North America.
Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pumped hydro storage and power-to-gas (converting electricity to gas and back) with capacity for multi-month usage has been implemented in some locations." Can you list any examples of implementation here, particularly installations that can be wikilinked to?
    I think linking to individual installations would be undue. We don't do that for others either. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the easiest and fastest ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to phase out coal-fired power plants and increase renewable electricity generation." Consider rewording to "phase out coal-fired power plants in favor of increased renewable energy generation" to emphasize that both steps must be combined.
    Not quite. Going from coal to nuclear is also a really good option for GHG reductions. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of energy consumed as electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020." This can be reworded as "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of the percentage of energy consumption used for electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020."
    Rewritten. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The predominant method is steam methane reforming in which hydrogen is produced from a chemical reaction between steam and methane, the main component of natural gas." Add a comma after reforming.
    Done. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Disadvantages of hydrogen as an energy carrier include high costs of storage and distribution due to hydrogen's explosivity, its large bulk compared to other fuels, and its tendency to make pipes brittle." I would replace "bulk" with "volume".
    Done. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The transport section under energy usage technologies could use some expansion. Some points to mention here:
  • Note that rail transportation for freight is more fuel efficient than by truck, and therefore more sustainable
  • Developments in making freight transport sustainable, such as battery electric locomotives, electric trucks, and alternative fuels
  • The significant greenhouse gas emissions from ships as a consequence of bunker fuel
  • Less use of aviation for transportation
  • Mention what percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from transport, I believe it is a significant percentage
I added some info but think some of what you mention would be too much detail for this article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need to take a quick break, and then I will keep going through the article and make further suggestions. Great work on the article, I know I'm making a lot of comments but I am really nitpicking here, and I fully expect you will not adopt some of them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even more arbitrary break edit
  • In the buildings and cookiPng suggestion, I recommend linking to Geothermal heating. Geothermal energy is mentioned already, but without a wikilink.
    Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heat pumps provide both winter heat and summer air conditioning through a single appliance." I would remove the words winter and summer to get to the basic point you are trying to make here: heat pumps can do both heating and air conditioning.
    Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The IEA estimates heat pumps could provide over 90% of space and water heating requirements globally." This is not 100%, so that would imply there are situations they will not work. If so, can a mention of situations where they are not feasible be made here?
Looking at the source I don't think it says they are not feasible in other situations, but implies that there might be a few cases where they are less carbon efficient than gas boilers - even if we knew what those cases might be (very difficult to put larger radiators in a historic palace as have to move each brick in turn perhaps, blocks of flats which already have gas-fired communal heating maybe) I think they should be in the heat pump article and are too much detail to go here. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cooling of buildings can be made more efficient through passive building design, planning that minimises the urban heat island effect, and district cooling systems that cool multiple buildings with piped cold water." As written, the reader might be led to think that passive building design = planning that minimizes the urban heat island effect, when they are two different things. A rewording is in order here, along with a brief explanation of what passive building design means (I read the article and I'm still confused personally).
Changed the link to go up to the comma and to another article. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Air conditioning requires large amounts of electricity and is not always affordable to poorer households." Change "to" to "for".
    Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cooking with these fuels is generally unsustainable because they release harmful smoke and because harvesting wood can lead to forest degradation." Add a comma here after unsustainable, and another after smoke.
    Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The universal adoption of clean cooking facilities, which are already ubiquitous in rich countries, would dramatically improve health and have minimal effects on climate." As written, this seems to imply that clean cooking facilities would not help with sustainable energy, which I don't think is the intended message. I would reword to say something like "and have minimal negative effects on climate."
    Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The more energy-intensive activities in industry have the lowest shares of renewable energy as they face limitations in generating heat at temperatures over 200 °C (390 °F)." For consistency, either change "more" to "most", or change "lowest" to "lower".
    Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The production of plastic, cement, and fertilisers also requires significant amounts of energy, with limited possibilities available to decarbonise." Check subject-verb agreement here.
    Production ... requires, seems correct. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In government policies, add a date for the quote in the box.
    Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Environmental regulations have been used for over fifty years to promote more sustainable use of energy." For the sake of the article standing the test of time, I recommend changing this to instead say something like" Environmental regulation have been used since the 1970s..."
    Done. Femke (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Urban planning to discourage sprawl can reduce energy use in local transport and buildings while enhancing quality of life." Reword this to something like "Urban planning which discourages sprawl" or "Urban planning policies which discourage sprawl"
    Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Government-sponsored research, procurement, and incentive policies have historically been critical to the development and maturation of clean energy technologies such as solar PV and lithium batteries." I suggest refraining from using the PV acronym here, as it may confuse readers into thinking there are three examples here instead of two.
    Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carbon taxes provide a source of revenue that can be used to lower other taxes" I'd add that this revenue would go to governments specifically.
    Not done. Already in definition of tax. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some governments are exploring the use of carbon border adjustments," Can you name any examples here?
    Done. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies" I would make tariff a wikilink.
    Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Countries may support renewables to create jobs." This sentence could be reworded, something like "Countries may also support renewables as a means of creating jobs."
    Not done. Average sentence length already a bit high. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The International Labour Organization estimates that efforts to limit global warming to 2 °C..." I suggest noting that the ILO is a UN body.
Not sure the extra words are worth it but if you or anyone else think better it could become "The International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency, estimates ...Chidgk1 (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It predicts that 24 million new jobs would be created in areas such as renewable electricity generation, improving energy-efficiency in buildings, and the transition to electric vehicles, while 6 million jobs in the fossil fuel industry would be lost." Is there a timescale for this, say "over the next 10 years"? It seems unlikely this would happen immediately.
    Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Underfunding is particularly acute in the least developed countries." It would be worthwhile to mention that this is not necessarily an intentional choice, but may instead be a consequence of low development and low centralization, which means these countries simply are unable to afford sufficient investment in sustainable energy. Also notable is that the least developed countries are some of the most vulnerable, especially low lying island nations in the Pacific.
    The source doesn't really specify, except that it's not attractive to the private sector. I added "which are not attractive to the private sector". Femke (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of additional funds for poorer countries of $100 billion per year for climate change mitigation and adaptation," Reword this along the lines of "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of $100 billion per year from developed nations for poorer countries to support climate change mitigation and adaptation."
    Rewritten. Femke (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Direct global fossil fuel subsidies were $319 billion in 2017, and $5.2 trillion when indirect costs such as air pollution are priced in." This is a bit confusing as written. I suggest rewriting this to something like "Direct global fossil fuel subsidies were $319 billion in 2017, but equivalent to $5.2 trillion when including the indirect costs of consequences such as air pollution."
    Rewritten. Femke (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ending these could lead to a 28% reduction in global carbon emissions and a 46% reduction in air pollution deaths." Add "global" before "air pollution deaths."
    Not done, already implied
  • "Funding for clean energy has been largely unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and pandemic-related economic stimulus packages offer possibilities for a green recovery." The two parts of this sentence disagree with each other. Change "and" to "but."
    The word "but" implies to me that funding would have been expected to rise. As the source talks about the opposite (expected to drop with the rest of the economy), I think the word 'and' is correct. Femke (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That concludes my comments. I'm happy to further discuss any of my comments here, I'll keep this page watchlisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When all of the things I've mentioned have been addressed, I am strongly inclined to support this FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings I just picked off the one or 2 remaining things - I am not watching this article but ping me if any of my changes (or non-changes) are not to your liking. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I've commented about has been addressed one way or the other. As such, consider me in support of this FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The definition in the first sentence is very close to being a direct quote - I would suggest making it one
Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nuclear power is a low-carbon source and has a safety record comparable to wind and solar". I see discussion of fatality rates in the body, but "safety record" is a broader claim - is there a source for this?
Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its sustainability has been debated because of concerns about ... accidents" is similarly not directly supported, although the article appears to be rebutting this concern
Added supporting statement in the body. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the global energy system is responsible for 76% of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change" - the body qualifies this statistic as "human-caused" emissions
Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "causes an estimated 7 million deaths each year". Where is this estimate from? I see numbers in the body, but they don't add up to this
Added to body. I agree the WHO's indoor and outdoor numbers (4.2 million + 3.8 million) don't equal the WHO's total of 7 million, but we can't solve that problem :( Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Buildings in the Solar Settlement at Schlierberg, Germany, produce more energy than they consume. They incorporate rooftop solar panels and are built for maximum energy efficiency." - source?
Good catch. Now reffed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Utility cycling infrastructure, such as this bike lane in Vancouver, encourages sustainable transport." - source?
Another good catch. I've reffed it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you select which sources to include in the Definitions section? Why OpenLearn?
This was a difficult section to find sources for. At least three of us have indpendently done Google Scholar searches that led to a paper called "Theoretical Aspects of Sustainable Energy", which is a great paper except for the fact that the publisher is predatory. We couldn't cite it because of the predatory publisher, but it led me to the Hammond source which devotes most of a chapter to the issue of how various academics have gone about defining it. So I read that and summarized it. I don't think we really had a selection process - we found so few high-quality sources that we used what we found, if I recall.
I can't remember how we came across the OpenLearn source. It's not university-level, but I don't see any red flags raised in the archives at WP:RSN and the publisher seems legitimate so I don't think it's unreliable. There isn't anything in there that isn't in other sources, but it's the only source on definitions that is free and intended for a general audience so if you don't object I think it's a good one to keep. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's generally unreliable; my question is more, why does it belong in this context. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now that the Openlearn ref went to an overview page. I've changed the ref to point to the specific page on definitions. Does the inclusion of this page make sense? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN5: the URL provided should be left to the full source rather than the chapter citation
Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRI is a publisher not a work. Ditto WHO, check throughout.
    Done specifics, but I don't understand the difference between work and publisher well. I know for NYTimes you should only fill out work, and leave out publisher as it's basically the same.. Femke (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if the two fields are the same/similar we don't need both. "The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited", per our documentation. Another way of approaching it is to look at our article on the entity, when one exists - if it's not italicized there, chances are it shouldn't be italicized here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to include domains in the website parameter, be consistent in how these are formatted
Done. Many "website" names were publisher names. I moved them to the publisher parameter. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't repeat publisher in the author parameter
    I was wondering about that. We did this because this is consistent with the report's "how to cite". They seem to imply they are both the institutional author and the publisher. Happy to remove it, but wanted to double-check. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's generally fine to adapt "how to cite" guidance to our local practices, especially since formatting of "how to cite" will vary between sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Sources section, if some items don't have an author parameter, how do we sort items alphabetically by author? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pick an alphabetization approach and stick with it. You could choose to alphabetize by title or by publisher, inline with the works with named authors or at the end - it doesn't really matter which as long as it's consistent and clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Femke, any thoughts on what convention we should use? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to investigate how medical FAs with similar sources do this. Not sorting by author is a bit confusing.. It's not unheard of to use institutional author and publisher both even if they're the same, for instance in APA Style. Femke (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I found an example of this in Major depressive disorder (the NiCE citation), but that article is being revamped. I looked at a few other articles, but most seem to have easy human authors.
    If we have to change this, we could sort by author, and if absent, publisher, so that the sorting stays the same. Femke (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: When author and publisher are the same, e.g. for the WHO citations, would it be acceptable to fill in the author parameter and leave publisher empty instead of vice-versa? That way every citation will begin with an author name and sorting will look natural. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if they can be considered corporate authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you use wikilinks in citations on first appearance, every time, or not at all
Do you expect consistency in linking authors, publishers, or both? The first two of these options, if applied to authors and/or publishers, would mean having a lot of redlinks in the References section. Looking at recent TFAs, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji links some author names but not others. Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 links some publisher names but not others. Is there a MOS page that calls for consistency in using wikilinks within citations? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to include redlinks. There is some guidance on what to link in the template documentation for the citation templates, but my query is more tuned to the "consistent citation style" requirement of WP:WIAFA. At the moment we have cases where a particular entity is wikilinked sometimes and other times not, with no clear reasoning behind those decisions. (If there is such reasoning that I'm missing, please share!). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I went through the Sources section and delinked IPCC and UNFCCC, which were linked for no apparent reason. I think that was all of them but would appreciate a fresh set of eyes if anyone still has one. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I missed a bunch. Going through things more systematically now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All publishers are now linked Femke (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include publication location
Would anyone object if I remove all publication locations? Or do we need to include a location for every citation? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is an optional parameter, so if you would prefer to exclude that is not a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Quick check with Femkemilene - would you object to me removing all of them? I don't have a preference. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove them. I tried to give them if the source gave them, but omitting all seems less prone to errors. Femke (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN31: SDG Tracker appears to be the work name rather than part of the title
    Done. Femke (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN33: the Science Hub is the work, the Commission is the publisher. Check throughout for more issues of this kind.
    Done specific example. I don't quite understand how this works. For this IEA source, would the work be "SDG7: Data and Projections"? and the title "Access to electricity"? Femke (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. In that particular case, "Access to electricity" is essentially a chapter of SDG7: Data and Projections. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've got everything now. Femke (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36 is missing authors
    Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when/whether you abbreviate organizations versus spelling them out - for example IEA
Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you use {{cite report}} for reports, or whether you just cite them as web sources
We generally used {{cite report}} when the report was a PDF file that was long enough to need page numbers in the citation. When there was a web page that summarized the report and the claim was supported by the web page, we used {{cite web}}. In some cases the report is paywalled so there is benefit to the reader when we point them to the free summary. I'm not sure how we could make these consistent except by converting {{cite web}} templates to {{cite report}}, which would in some cases makes things harder for the reader. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found one place where we linked to the web summary, but cited the report. I've replaced that link now to point directly to the PDF. Femke (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN204 is broken
    Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN152 is missing retrieval date.
    Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop here and oppose simply due to the volume of cleanup needed around citations; once that's been done I'm happy to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria Thank you for your patience and attention to detail. I've learned a lot about citations in this review. I believe all the issues you raised have been addressed now. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review v2 - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • How are yoru deciding in what cases to include retrieval date? For example FN7 has it and FN173 does not
    I'll take this one tonight. I use a retrieval rate if either the url or the content is at risk of changing. That means a lot of these papers dont need one as the doi is fixed. Some may still need one if we got a separate file that we link to, unequal to doi. Femke (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed loads of them. Femke (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still some stragglers here, eg FN170. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a search for doi= as well as all refs that used a cite report template or cite book template, and removed access dates from them. I need to go to bed but I haven't been able to double-check everything, so I'll check things again tomorrow. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure all refs that have a DOI, are reports that are very unlikely to change, or are books are now access-date free. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN20: don't see "overview" in the title at the source
    @Clayoquot:, could you have a look at the text-source integrity there? The source no longer says 91%. Not sure if we've archived a wrong version there, or if another source was used. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't remember what happened either. I found a number that's probably newer, from 2019, and updated the sentence and source. Thanks for catching that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still some inconsistencies in author/publisher use - eg in FN28 IEA is both, whereas FN42 only publisher
Yikes. I did a search for last= and author= and found and fixed a few more instances of institutional authors in both parameters. I'll check this again later today before marking this issue as done. Femke FYI our convention seems to have evolved such that IEA is used in the publisher parameter for inline references, and in the author parameter in the Sources section.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did another search for last= and author= throughout, and publisher= in the Sources section. I believe I got them all. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. Energy Information Administration or US Energy Information Administration?
    Changed to the official 'U.S. Energy Information Administration'. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the work wikilinked in FN107 and not FN105? Check throughout
Done. I checked all work= , website= , and publisher= parameters and found a few more. Fixed all. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is work wikilinked in FN85 and not FN7 or FN101? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the journal parameter. I think that's the last alias we've used. Femke (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN174 redirects to the site homepage
    Put a new link in, verified the text again. No archive available yet, but if I understand it correctly, one should automatically become available. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN185: edition statement should be separate from title. (Don't trust Google Books metadata, it's prone to errors)
    Done. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN192: don't see that author at source?
    It's hidden under the "authors and contributions" link. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, in that case we've got other citations missing authors - eg FN108. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've double checked all IEA web sources and Carbon Brief (they also have the tendency to hide authors). I think FN108 was the only one missing still. Femke (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN199: source?
    Removed. The source was the IPCC report later cited, but quote was unnecessary. Femke (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN231: ILO News is not an author
    Removed. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Szarka: is that publisher alphabetization per the source?
    I don't understand the question. Femke (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Changed "MacMillan" to "Macmillan". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smil 2017a: we don't need to identify what the publisher is an imprint of, but if you're doing so, should do so consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed (no idea what an imprint is tbf). Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I think v2 issues have all been addressed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:08, 23 October 2021 (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) 26 October 2021 [23].

2014 FIFA World Cup Final edit

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 edition of the FIFA World Cup, the most prestigious tournament in football, as well as one of the most-watched sporting events in the world. The 2014 tournament featured a few surprises, most notably Germany's 7–1 demolition of the hosts Brazil in the semi-final, which is covered in this article's "Route to the final" section. The final itself was between two old hands, Germany vs Argentina, with five wins between them and meeting in their third final. As ever, any and all comments welcome and I'm happy to return the favour with reviews on other FACs. Just let me know!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "who qualified through the qualification" maybe not so great repetition-wise.
    Changed to "emerged from".  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found himself" perhaps not so encyclopedic.
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which Germny broke" typo.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can imagine "collected ... on his chest" being queried...
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one ref in the infobox could be moved to the main body if the temp/humidity etc was mentioned there.
    Done. I've also done the same trick re the weather 6.5 km away as at 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final, given that we don't seem to have an reliable "sunny" / "fair" / "cloudy" source from the stadium.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "edition of the FIFA World Cup" maybe pipe FIFA out of here so we don't have three FIFAs in one sentence.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 32nd and final spot" only just thought, realistically it was the 1st slot wasn't it?
    OK, I've reordered it to mention Brazil first.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Maracanã Stadium.[13][14] The stadium" repeat of stadium?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "third special ball" special?
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomas Müller took the" no need to repeat Thomas.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after a headbutt on" after he headbutted....
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their first since 1990 and their first since" repetitive.
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Lionel Messi'had been" something odd here.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But it was..." not sure if we're supposed to start sentences with But...
    I think I was told in a previous FAC that it's OK these days. I've reworded to include a "however" anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a 3–2 win and the group win" win win repeat.
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "closing ceremony" link, general or specific?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "32 of the dancers wearing dresses decorated in the colours of the 32 participating" 32 of the dancers wearing dresses in the colours of each of the participating...
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "studs-first tackle" does the world know what a "studs-first tackle" is?
    I've removed "studs-first", the prose can probably stand without it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followed by a break upfield by" overlinked.
    You made the same point at the GAN, and I thought it was OK in this instance, because the two links point to different terms in the glossary.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance we can find a source describing the kit of the teams?
    I have switched to the BBC source for the "Report" link. I've also spent some time today fiddling around with the formation SVG so that it conforms with the 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 setups indicated by the BBC.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: FA co-ords like to see where the positions of the players are referenced.... Might be as simple as the BBC "team lineup" page, but forewarned is forearmed...
    I have switched to the BBC source for the "Report" link.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if we need to do a quick look around for foreign coverage of the final for the post-match section? I know we have reactions of the players/managers, but per our experiences on the Euro finals, we should look to include German and Argentine (as a minimum) press reactions, and better still, other worldwide reactions?
    I've added some comments about German and Argentine press. NOt sure about any others, although I did find a nugget about a Chinese photographer winning a prize for a post-match snap of Messi eyeing the trophy.
  • "Guinness World Records state" italics.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it for now, mostly trivial stuff I should have picked up before (but hey, GAN isn't FAC), however the media reaction thing which we saw being an issue at the 1968 Euro final is something we need to consider here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I've looked at all your points now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns addressed, both at the GAN and here so I'm happy to support this now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • the Americas. - you link here, but our article is just at Americas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • becoming the third successive World Cup holders to be eliminated in the group phase. - maybe worth mentioning who defeated them there? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the two teams that beat them to the lead. ALthough in fact, these are not the same two teams that qualified for the next round; I have given the full detail on this down in the Background section.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Perhaps mention a little more about the groups, "groups of four with teams playing each other once", I'd like to see some info, either saying "round-robin", or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • spots through qualifying rounds - pipes to redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • +Teamgeist Berlin (2006) and the Jo'bulani - our articles don't have these spellings. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the MOS:TM + sign from the Teamgeist. As for Jo'bulani, I think that's correct... our article at Adidas Jabulani mentions that name as the ball used for the final, in its "Colouring" section.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images are a little disappointing, do we not have a suitable image of Mario Götze or Nicola Rizzoli? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's loads of commons images com:Category:Final of the 2014 FIFA World Cup which could be incorporated IMO. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added images to First half, Second half and Extra time. That doesn't really leave room for a pic of the ref, but we do now have two angles of Gotze scoring his goal.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Chengdong Economic Daily the same as Economic Daily? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure to be honest, it seems quite difficult to find information on what it is. I've realised that it should have been the Chengdu Economic Daily, I copied that wrong. It's quite possible it is linked to the National Business Daily, which is apparently published by a Chengdu Daily Newspaper Group. That would suggest it's separate from the main Economic Daily, but again can we be certain? I've corrected the error anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statistics table needs a header. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • You have a reference to the Daily Mirror, is this suitable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:DAILYMIRROR, this is not explicitly blacklisted, as there was "no consensus" in RS discussions. My take is that for a quick comment about the Argentine press putting pictures of Messi on their front cover it's probably safe enough, but let me know if you think it's no good.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support on this one, I've left some comments above, but nothing really preventing a support. I'd like to see some more images, especially with the amount open on commons. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: I have had a look at all your points I think. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "Gonzalo Higuaín had a chance to score for Argentina in the first half, when he was one-on-one....." - you either don't need that comma or else you need one after Neuer to end the clause. I'm inclined towards the former
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stadium underwent an extensive rebuild prior the 2014 World Cup" - the word "to" is missing
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portugal's Pepe was shown a red card in five minutes later" - the word "in" should not be there
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Germany's last group game was against the US" => "Germany's last group game was against the U.S."
    Actually, per MOS:USA, one can write it either with or without dots at one's discretion. And "US" would actually be mandated if we were also talking of the UK or the USSR in the same sentence. But actually, I've decided the abbreviation isn't really necessary anyway so I've expanded it out to "United States".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the match played on 30 June at the at the Estádio Beira-Rio in Porto Alegre" - bit of a stutter in that sentence
    Good grief!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was no goals during normal time" => "There were no goals during normal time"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argentina played the Netherlands in the semi-final, in a game on 9 July" => "Argentina played the Netherlands in the semi-final on 9 July"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next three kicks, by Messi, Arjen Robben and Ezequiel Garay were" - needs a comma after Garay to close the clause started by the one after "kicks"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included singers Carlinhos Brown, Wyclef Jean, Alexandre Pires, Ivete Sangalo and guitarist Carlos Santana" => "included singers Carlinhos Brown, Wyclef Jean, Alexandre Pires and Ivete Sangalo and guitarist Carlos Santana"
    Done, although I've amended the second "and" to be an "as well as" so it doesn't sound repetitive
  • " Vladimir Putin – whose country hosted the next World Cup," - clause starts with a dash and ends with a comma, the two should match
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Higuain is spelt wrong early in the second half
    Done (and diacritics added elsewhere where they were missing).  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the post-match section there's a random apostrophe after Der Spiegel
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got - nice work. An enjoyable read and brought back good memories of watching the 7-1 game in the corporate hospitality suite at the Emirates Stadium (true story :-)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. I watched that on the telly and my brain had literally exploded, literally, pieces everywhere, before half-time. Corporate hospitality is the way forward....!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, me too. I had a mate who couldn't watch the game, and I was updating him with the score over WhatsApp. When I started saying 2-0, 3-0, 4-0, 5-0 he basically thought I was winding him up.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I think I've looked at all your points now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source review - pass edit

Will conduct. 14:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Is Daily Mirror really a high-quality RS?
  • No major formatting issues noted

Spot checks:

  • " Their second game was against Iran at the Estádio Mineirão in Belo Horizonte on 21 June. Barney Ronay of The Guardian described Iran as producing a "stirring performance against an Argentina team of all the attacking talents", and the match remained goalless until the 90th minute" - checks out
  • "The two sides had met each other six times previously in the World Cup," - checks out
  • "Messi was awarded the Golden Ball, FIFA's award for whom they considered the tournament's best player, while Neuer was given the Golden Glove for best goalkeeper" -
  • "Germany were forced to make a late change to their line-up when Khedira sustained a calf injury during the warm-up prior to the match" - checks out.

So my only real question is if Daily Mirror is high-quality enough for FA usage. Hog Farm Talk 04:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Lee also raised this issue above, and I did say at the time that per WP:DAILYMIRROR this is not formally deprecated (as the Mail or the Sun would be), and the statement is fairly uncontroversial. Since it's come up twice now though, I've hunted around to switch it out and I've managed to now cite directly to all the individual papers that feature Messi on the front page. So hopefully that's OK for you. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: all looked at, including a tweak and reply to your upright point above.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good, I'm happy with the changes. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Igordebraga edit

@FAC coordinators: - just checking on the status of this nomination. It's been open for almost a month now, and has four supports plus the usual source and image checks. Is there anything that's holding up its promotion? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, nothing stands out, I think just sit tight while a coord walks through it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2021 (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) 24 October 2021 [24].

Grant's Canal edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 05:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In mid-1862, the Union decided that the city of Vicksburg could not be taken with the forces on hand, so they decided to bypass Vicksburg with a canal (in the process breaking local law which forbade messing with the river's path). Disease and low water levels doomed that attempt. In early 1863, another attempt on Vicksburg had fizzled out and the canal idea was tried again. This time, there was too much water and everything flooded, in addition to another round of disease. After the war, the Mississippi perversely cut a similar path on its own, although the government has since reverted the river back. This article passed GAN in January and WP:MILHIST a-class review earlier this month. Hog Farm Talk 05:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up the Vicksburg defenses map
    • Done
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • I've replaced this with |upright=1.4
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done
  • File:The_head_of_the_canal,_opposite_Vicksburg,_Miss.,_now_being_cut_by_Command_of_Gen._Grant_(cropped).jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added an Internet Archive link to confirm that this was indeed published in March 1863. I've also added (which is supported by the link added for the date) that this comes from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Harry edit

This is an interesting article. I like transport and military engineering but hadn't heard of this.

  • Do we need such precision as (2.01 km) or 1.33 miles (2.14 km) with a depth of 13 feet (4.0 m) [...] as short as 0.75 miles (1.21 km) in a non-scientific article? You can set the concert template to round as desired.
    • I've set this to round to one significant figure; is this better? The more exact mile figures are meant to be approximations of fractions in the sources Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • one Union doctor to state that the swamps contained "as much death to the square inch as would be possible for the laboratory of nature to compound". If the doctor's opinion is significant enough to mention here, you should name him. Also, you need a ref straight after a quote.
    • I've removed the quote, as on second thought I'm not sure that it's significant enough to call out directly. (the source simply attributes it to "a regimental surgeon"). Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the impression that the canal didn't ultimately have much effect on anything but was an interesting side project, though the article doesn't seem to quite seem to spell this out. Is there a source that can be used to support such a statement? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HJ Mitchell: - Looking for something. It's a consensus of RS to call this a failure, but none seem to take the direct step of saying that this accomplished nothing (which is true). I've added a quote from Sherman to kinda underscore that nothing came of it. Sources generally move straight on from discussing this one to the next one, without much retrospective, except for Bastian, who views it as something that almost worked. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

I supported this article at A-class, and affirm that I believe that it meets the Featured Article criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from David Fuchs edit

Forthcoming, marking here so I remember to circle back :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Overall I think this is a solid article and a decent shot from FA quality. Especially being from Virginia my Civil War history in regards to the Western Theater is weak, so I quite enjoyed this little vignette of civil engineering failure from Vicksburg :) General thoughts:[reply]

  • I think File:Grants Canal detail.jpg makes a much better lead image than File:The head of the canal, opposite Vicksburg, Miss., now being cut by Command of Gen. Grant (cropped).jpg, given that it explains the lead text geography much better.
  • My major stumbling block on the prose throughout is what I think is overuse of passive voice, e.g. the following example: Another attempt on the city was made in June. This time Williams brought a 3,200-man force. Williams's infantrymen, Farragut's navy ships, and a group of ships armed with mortars commanded by Commodore David Dixon Porter left the city of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 20. Five days later, the Vicksburg area was reached. I don't really see the reason for the passive constructions given what's being said, so "Williams attempted to capture the city in June with 3,200 men" or "They reached the Vicksburg area five days later" would be simpler.
    • I've adjusted "they reached the Vicksburg area five days later". I've gone with something a little different for the Williams one, to prevent giving the impression that Williams actually directly attacked Vicksburg
    • "and that the enough infantrymen would not be released "—the "needed" infantrymen? Required? "Enough" doesn't seem the right word here.
      • How about "the needed number of"?
    • "However, Williams actually only intended" this "however" doesn't really scan as the previous sentence disrupts the flow from the talk about emancipation. I would move the "treated them harshly" bit after this sentence about completing the canal for their freedom, instead.
      • Done
    • "A river current would cut through the sand, but not the clay, it was thought, " you've already got an 'it was thought' in the sentence before so this sounds clunky.
      • Rephrased
    • It's unexplained in the text, and I'm left wondering why the river's height was decreasing—was this just a usual summer occurrence?
      • It was expected to rise in June, which I've added
    • "The steamboat Catahoula was sent to the area in January 1863 under the command of a Lieutenant Wilson to scout the remains of the canal cut." Not entirely clear whether this is a Union or Confederate steamboat/soldier (I presume Union, but the last named party are the Confederates.)
      • Clarified
    • "Grant sent a message to Halleck on March 4 stating that the canal was only days from completion, and the second dredging boat arrived the next day.[50] The dam holding the upstream end of the canal failed on March 7, inundating the canal.[37]" this paragraph meanders, and I don't think it does an adequate job demonstrating how big or small a setback the failure of the levee was; if it was small, it should probably be shortened, and if it was bigger it should have greater emphasis.
      • I've added a bit, and tried to tie together the various items better. Is this an improvement? Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Grant wrote on March 22 that he doubted that the canal would be useful, and noted that Confederate artillery had been positioned to fire down the exit end of the canal.[53] Two days later, the dredges were withdrawn. Grant's canal had been a failure.[54] On March 27, Halleck was informed that the project had ended.[55]" It's weird that we get news that the dredges were withdrawn (which presumably would happen concurrent with or after the project was ended, and it's weird that it doesn't actually tell us if it was Grant's decision or not (again, unclear passive constructions.)
      • I've tried to clarify that by this point, the dredges were the main arm of the project, which is why their withdrawal was significant. Sources aren't clear as to who specifically authorized the dredges to withdraw, but it was because their civilian crews objected to coming under fire, and I've added that. Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After Vicksburg surrendered, the Confederate garrison of Port Hudson, Louisiana, followed suit, giving the Union full control of the Mississippi River.[60] In April 1876, the Mississippi River changed course"—it's weird to me the article doesn't detail how important the fall of Vicksburg was to the course of the war or mention when the war ended before jumping ahead more than ten years.
      • I have expanded upon this
    • "Historian Shelby Foote included the canal in a list of seven failed attempts before Grant successfully took Vicksburg." This sentence reads weirdly to me, like it's just a left-over trivia factoid from a listicle. The relevance to me seems to be demonstrating how the canal was just one approach Grant took (relateing to the Bearss mention in the previous sentence) so I feel like that should be emphasized, perhaps by merging the sentences together or otherwise making them flow better.
      • I've tried to phrase these two together in a more coherent way, is it an improvement?
  • References: on the whole, quality reliable sources seem to be used and generally don't neglect much of the subject.
    • In a cursory search of my library databases and Gscholar/books, I did notice Campaigns for Vicksburg, 1862-63, The: Leadership Lessons (Kevin Dougherty, 2011), which I note from the snippet previews I can generate seems to have some useful content to better frame some of the action described in the article; it mentions Grant's initial reticence about the course of action, and also does a bit of a better job in terms of framing the action (it suggests that the levee breach was catastrophic setback.) It also has a bit more on the other canal projects beyond the Duckport canal, which seem like they would be useful to summarize in the "Aftermath" section. Given that some elements I spot there don't seem to be reflected in the usage from the other sources, it feels like this might be an important inclusion for comprehensiveness.
      • I was able to access an e-book copy through the university I graduated from and have added some material from it
    • As a random aside looking through contemporary papers saved in Proquest, it seems like everyone assumed Grant's canal would be a success (The Richmond Daily Dispatch was estimating in early February it'd be done in three to four weeks.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @David Fuchs: - I think I've made attempts at all the requested changes. Are they all to your satisfaction, or is further work needed? Hog Farm Talk 23:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Hog, I've gone through and done a line edit pass—do check and make sure I didn't change any meaning. My remaining point is with this passage: "After Farragut's determination, a canal known as Williams's Canal that was being built across De Soto Point gained new importance [...]" The following paragraphs give an indication of why De Soto Point was chosen for the canal, but the prose goes from the government prohibiting anything from altering the course of the river, to the Union attempt to make a canal there. I'm left wondering what this "William's Canal" actually is (was there a plan to put a canal there that was shot down by the mandate from Mississippi?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @David Fuchs: - I've removed the bit about the law and it is liable to be confusing and is somewhat irrelevant, as the Union could just ignore Confederate state laws. I've tried to clarify what Williams's Canal was; is this better? Hog Farm Talk 21:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did some additional rewording to try and make it flow a bit better. I believe my concerns have been addressed so am supporting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-

Source review - pass edit

Recusing to review.

  • Shouldn't Bastian 1974 be before Bastian 1995?
    • Reordered

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: - Thanks for the review! I couldn't find much more in the way of additional sourcing, either. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: - As this one is coming along smoothly (passed image and source reviews and three supports), may I have a dispensation for a second one? Hog Farm Talk 17:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review:

  • "Winfield Scott, Commanding General of the United States Army developed the" Comma after Army
    • Added
  • "a move that proved to be politically unpopular." -> a move that was politically unpopular?
    • Added
  • "Nevertheless, both Farragut and the commander of the ironclads, Flag Officer Charles Davis," Delete "Nevertheless, both"
    • Done
  • "In 1853, engineer Charles Ellet Jr. had determined that the Mississippi" Delete had
    • Removed
  • "and supplies of quinine ran out." -> and supplies of quinine to treat malaria ran out. This allows the reader to understand what quinine is without clicking on the link.
    • Done, linking malaria in the process
  • "Yet another digging project" Delete yet, starting to get into editorialising in Wikivoice that these are a lot of projects, and the word is unnecessary.
    • Done
  • I checked the lede to ensure everything was in the article and found no concerns.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: Thanks for the review! All of these should be addressed now. Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2021 (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) 23 October 2021 [25].

Prison education edit

Nominator(s): Damien Linnane (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about education within the prison system. I first nominated this article back in 2018, and have address the issues raised at that FAC, notably the lack of coverage in the History section towards Africa and South America. However, as I noted at the first FAC, gaps remain in that section, as the history of prison education in countries is rarely written about. For example, I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia; in it the author explicitly said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. Coverage in developing nations in particular is often non-existent. What's in that section is a summary of all the sources myself and other editors could find. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

File:Educator Ange Leech at Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison March 2019 credit Tom Joyner.jpg is the only fishy photo. The uploader has many photos deleted. This one is small and lacks OTRS or EXIF data, leading me to doubt that he is the creator of it. Also, I am concerned about the heavy use of quoteboxes in the article. Inevitably they end up emphasizing some viewpoints above others by giving them extra space and setting them off. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: He isn't the creator of it. As per both the title and the summary at the file, the photo was taken by journalist Tom Joyner. User:The Little Platoon, who uploaded the file, told me he received written permission from Tom Joyner to upload the photos under a creative commons licence. What do we need to do to have the image accepted?
Also three of the four quoteboxes are given for things that I could not find opposing views for. The first quotebox in the Asian history is the opinion of the Chinese government that crime is often caused by a lack of education; I did not find any material that opposed this view in Asia. The second quote box is from a prisoner emphasizing why it is difficult to study in prison; I did not find a single prisoner stating it is too easy to study in prison. The third quote box is the opinion of the United Nations; I think that is notable and no organisation that large has spoken out against prison education. The only quotebox for which opposing views really exists is the final one, as there are indeed also politicians opposed to prison education. In this case the quote's purpose is to explain in greater detail the referenced quote in the prose regarding media induced fears. Considering due weight with respect to the amount of literature supporting the argument for prison education rather than opposing it, I think this single quote is appropriate. I do note the article does close with a quote from a politician opposing prison education for balance though. I don't understand what you mean by 'setting them off'. Can you explain more about why each of the four quotes is a problem? Damien Linnane (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually if you are uploading images not in the public domain that someone else has created, one of two things are required: 1) OTRS permission or 2) an external website where the images are marked as being available under a free license. See c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team.
I believe that quoteboxes often give rise to an undue weight problem, and frankly I don't see how these quotes add much to the encyclopedia value of the article to begin with. Either they should be covered in the article text (preferably paraphrased to avoid overlong quotations) or they just aren't relevant. I am far from the only editor who believes that the quotebox template should be generally avoided in article space—it says so in the template documentation. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of trying to get OTRS permission. I'm happy for the image to remain removed until it is obtained.
Regarding the quotes I guess we just have a difference of opinion regarding style and what adds value to an article. I can appreciate four quotes might be a bit much though. Having read back over these quotes I think the United Nations one adds the least value to the article. I'm removing it now. Thanks for the image review btw. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

Addressed comments
  • For this part, Sweden is considered to be a pioneer in the field., could you attribute in the prose who considers Sweden to be a pioneer?
    I think I originally derived that sentence from my summary of the book Nordic Prison Education: A Lifelong Learning Perspective, which is referenced at the end of the following sentence, though doesn't explicitly use that term. I've since found and added an inline citation to an academic article that explicitly calls them a "pioneer" in the field though. Neither the journal nor the author have articles on Wikipedia, so I don't really see much point in naming them in the prose essentially it will just be a name nobody has heard of. Let me know if you think it needs to be better clarified to the reader somehow though.
    That does make sense to me. Since this sentence has a citation, readers could look at that for further information. I see your point that putting this information into the prose could lead to some awkwardness so I think you are correct here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of sounding incredibly foolish, could you link chaplain in this part, In the United States, prisoners were given religious instruction by chaplains, as I am honestly unfamiliar with this concept? Also, do you think a link for religious instruction would be beneficial?
    Done.
  • I am slightly confused by this part, farming skills at the countries agricultural prisons. Shouldn't it be the country's agricultural prisons instead?
    Fixed.
  • This may be silly or unnecessary, but for this part, Other types of vocational training, such as certain forms of woodwork, would it be worthwhile to add a link for woodworking for readers who may want to learn more about this practice?
    Woodworking is actually mentioned earlier in the history section, so I've now linked it at its first mention there.
    Thank you for linking this on the first instance. Apologies for missing the first instance. It does remind me of how American schools used to have shop classes, but when I got to high school, it was not a thing anymore due to safety issues (and I am assuming other reasons as well). I think this is why I found the woodworking mentions to be interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, introduced a bill entitled the Kids Before Cons Act, should the bill be in italics? I cannot remember the last time I saw a bill title so I am uncertain about how it should be represented.
    Looking at other articles that mention bills, they don't seem to be italicised.
    I would remove the italics. From my understanding, the bill title is just presented as Kids Before Cons Act without any other stylizations. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Meant to do this earlier. It's done now though. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this sentence: A prison educational program created by Bard College has a recidivism rate of 4% for people who only attended the course and 2.5% for those who completed it. Would it be possible to include a link to the Bard Prison Initiative article?
    Sure, that's a much better link. Thanks for suggesting it.
  • For this part, A prison education program in Ukraine, I do not think Ukraine should be linked as it is a pretty major country that I would imagine most readers would be familiar with, and I do not think countries are generally linked in the article.
    Agreed. Removed.

Here are my comments so far. I hope they are helpful. I will read through the article again once everything has been addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47. Thanks so much for your comments. I've made replies to everything. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I could help. I will read through the article again later in the week. I have my birthday tomorrow so I will be off Wikipedia then, but I will return to this before the end of the week. I do not think I will find anything else (prose-wise as that is the focus of my review), but I want to make sure to thoroughly look through the article to help with your FAC as much as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with my review. The prose looks good to me. I just have a quick question below:
Was there any coverage on how COVID-19 affected prison education? COVID has severely impacted education in general (and there is even a separate Wikipedia article about it), so I would imagine there would be discussions on the challenges that prison education programs have and are currently facing because of the pandemic.
  • @Aoba47: You know I never thought to look at that, but mentioning how the pandemic impacted prison education was a great suggestion, so thanks. I've just added a paragraph on the pandemic to the Challenges section. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for adding this to the article. I honestly only thought about this today while I was reading about how COVID is affecting the school system in my area (and just for some context with that, I live in Florida). You have done a very good job with finding citations for this and integrating this information into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the article looks good to me. I am not expert in this matter. Once my above question has been answered, I will support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 edit

  • " The first major education program aimed at rehabilitating prisoners was launched in 1876. Zebulon Brockway, the superintendent of Elmira Reformatory in New York, is credited as being the first to implement such a program." saying "the first...the first" in such quick succession feels kind of redundant. Can this be rephrased-- perhaps the sentences combined?
    Reworded.
  • "from 70 to four" MOS:NUMNOTES
    Fixed.
  • " in South America in comparison to the Western world" I wonder if you could pick a better phrase than "western world" because I don't think it's universally agreed upon most of SA isn't 'western'-- cf. File:Western World Latin America torn countries.png
    Changed to "Europe and North America".
  • The Dominican Republic is a North American nation (?)
    I think you meant to point out that I accidentally put it in the South American category. My mistake. I've since decided to create a separate section for the Caribbean.
  • Do you have the sourcing to generally add sentences like "other nations on this continent do not widely offer prison education"? I think that might be useful to increasing a feel of comprehensiveness
    Are you referring to the fact that, as per the nomination intro, there are gaps in the literature in the history section? Unfortuantely I didn't find any other sources that explicitly said other countries on a continent didn't offer prison education.
  • No mention of india? https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S2055-364120210000037005/full/html, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-26360-001
    I've added a paragraph on the country. Thanks for finding the sources! The one that was the most helpful was only written recently, after I wrote this article.
  • I'm not convinced that the listing of seemingly random surveys in a few countries is really necessary-- couldn't those citation simply back up the first sentence "People in prison systems worldwide are consistently less educated than the general population. " and have that be enough?
    Yeah that's a good point. It may seem random, but that's the statistics for every country that I could find. The paragraph just grew slowly over time as I found new countries to add. I've decided to relocate this information to the 'Reasons' sub-section as a single sentence.

Working through... The prose is in general in very good shape, I'll probably have mostly minor comments. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments Eddie891, I really appreciate it. I'll ping you again when I finish with the India sources, though feel free to make more comments in the meantime. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: I've read the sources on India and have built a new paragraph accordingly. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" seven out of ten inmates in the US will have re-offended and half will be back in prison" Can you rephrase this so it doesn't appear to be making predictions as to what prisoners will definitely do in the future (that has already passed)
Done.
I wonder if sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6743246/ has any more up-to-date recidivism rates?
Looking at that table there's only one updated figure for the countries I've already cited, but it's only by one year and they count the rate using a different method so I'd prefer to keep the figure I currently have. It is excellent to get all the latest available figures in one place though. I'm considering replacing the current format where I give the rates from individual countries with a single-sentence summary based on table three at that source, along the lines of 'As of 2020, the latest available data for re-offending across 15 countries after two years was X%, with the highest figure being Denmark at 63% (2013) and the lowest being Norway with 20% (2005)'. What do you think of that?
@Eddie891: I've overhauled the recidivism sub-section. I think it's much better now. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like that better, too, thanks Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
while in custody had only a 27.2% chance of re-offending" I'm not sure that this is how you want to use 'chance'-- it's not like re-offending is something that randomly happens to people.
Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps the costs in 'cost' should be emphasized to be averages? I doubt each prisoner is the same expense, if that makes sense...
Done.
do you have a year for the washington state institute study?
Added.
Is the 2013 forbes article by Glenn C. Altschuler and David J. Skorton? Given they both have links, it might be more powerful to attribute their quote to them, if that's the case
Hey great find! Thanks. I've done this now.
"it is compulsory for inmates in South Africa to complete at least Grade 9 of schooling" to me, this almost sounds like the inmates cannot be released uuntil they have completed that much schooling-- is that the case?
Based on my research I would assume not, though maybe in South Africa things are completely different. The source doesn't explicitly say, though sources I've read on other countries don't delay an inmates release if they happen to fail their compulsory education classes.

I think that's just about it on prose from me... Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Eddie891, I've replied to all your points. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses, I'm satisfied to support on prose. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07 edit

I was going to review this a week or so ago, but didn't want to step on Eddie's toes, as they seemed to be raising the same issues I would've brought up. Having re-read the article at this point, I see no further issues to raise. The prose is clear and engaging, and the sourcing seems immaculate to me (almost entirely academic sources). Happy to support. Kudos on all the hard work Damien. Hope this works out for you. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Amakuru - Pass edit

General
  • Is there a reason why some book sources are given inline, while others are cited to a bibliography?
    I think I cited books in the bibliography if I used them more than once, so as to be able to use the SFN template to specify the page number, which I thought looked cleaner than pasting the entire source again but with a different page number. Let me know if you want all of them moved to the bibliography section regardless of whether they are only cited once. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some archived websites have retrieval dates, e.g. 24, 163 while others do not, e.g. 19, 21, 22. Make consistent.
  • 20: This seems to cite the Social Science Research Network as a publisher, whereas it should I think be cited to the University of Massachusetts Law Review journal, volume 11
  • 21: Citing to "Board, The Editorial" is a bit odd, as this is not a human forename and surname. Suggest either "The Editorial Board", or even omit altogether as it's not particularly informative and can be treated like any other article which lacks a specific author.
  • 19 & 22: The source has them as "Erica L." and "David J." but the middle initial is not given here; initially I assumed you were omitting them all, but then 35 has an "Alison J."; so some checking is needed for consistency
    I fixed the ones you mentioned. I'll go through later and search for others. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23: UNESCO is a publisher rather than a work, so probably shouldn't be italicised
  • 28: Has author names that can be included: Gabriel Zinny and Diego Gorgal
  • 29 & 30: Labelling this as "DiTella" is somewhat confusing, given that the authors in the listed source are "Alzúa, María Laura; Rodriguez, Catherine; Villa, Edgar". I'd prefer to give those authors in the short cite rather than the editor, unless there's a good reason. (Also note that DiTella should have a space in it).
  • 30: Is there a reason why the adjacent pages are separated with a , rather than a – ?
    Nope, just an oversight. Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31: dead link
  • 39 - it says "Source AAP" at the bottom, so you might want to include an agency = [[Australian Associated Press]] parameter
  • 40 - effectively a deadlink; flip to use the archived version
  • 42 - link redirects
  • 46 - has a JSTOR available [26]
  • 57 - the date on the source is 29 September not 27 September
  • 62 - "Experiences from Central Asia, South America, North Africa and Europe" is given in italics as if it's a work/website, but in fact it's just a sub-title. Suggest DVV International as the publisher
  • 63 - [27] gives page numbers of 525-532
  • 72 - needs a publisher of some sort, e.g. Australian Government Productivity Commission
  • 74 - seven different pages given, to cover two sentences. Seems a bit too broad, is there a reason for this?
    Yes. The information on different countries is given in different chapters. So pages 36-37 cover education for prisoners on remand in Denmark, while pages 52-53 cover the same topic for Finland, etc. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 75 - what does the "4769608639" at the end refer to?
    Honestly I don't remember. Removed. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 77 - dead link
  • 70 & 79 - same source
  • 81 - it looks like ASCILITE is the publisher, while "Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education" or something is the work
  • 82 - authors Amy Antonio and Helen Farley
  • 84 - "nternational Journal of Asian Social Science" - missing an I
  • 86 - dead link

Pausing there for now; will continue with this later, and then add spot checks and other checks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru. Thanks so much for the amount of effort you've put into this. To be honest I'm a bit embarrassed about the number of flaws. Anyway, I've either addressed everything above, or made a reply. Rather than clogging up the page by replying 'Done' to every item above I'm just replying to the questions and things that might not be resolved yet. Also I removed source [79] to address your concern, so keep in mind that sources you listed above after that are now one number out of the order you gave them. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: no worries, to be honest most of these are extremely nitpicking minor issues anyway... I initially wasn't even expecting to see anything because they all looked quite well done at first glance! Anyway, thanks for the replies and I'll plough on with the rest. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(New numbers follow, as of this version).

  • 90 - Ministry of Justice probably doesn't need italics
  • 95 - has a JSTOR available
  • 96 - could give a publisher, which is either Triple J or Australian Broadcasting Corporation
  • 98 - as far as I can tell this has a journal (Frontiers in Communication), a volume=6 and a DOI and ISSN number
  • 100 - a DOI is available
  • 101 - the link provided does not land you at the top of the page, but instead at reference 13 for some reason
  • 103 - although the title says 2009, I think the actual publication date is 2010
  • 104 - the page number says 2010, but the document only has 33 pages. Assume this is a typo with a year inserted instead of a page number.
  • 109 - I'd imagine American Enterprise Institute is a publisher rather than a work, so not italics
  • 110 - I'm not a major fan of wide page ranges, even in journal articles, but it seems this is an exception to others in using a single page number rather than the range of the whole article (4–17)
    I don't understand what the problem is. Presumably, all the information cited here is on one page, whereas in others, a topic might be covered in detail over several. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Damien Linnane: I'm alluding to the topic that was discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_51#Do_cites_to_journal_articles_need_specific_page_numbers_for_each_fact?. As you probably know, journal articles typically come with a page range, which denotes the pages of the parent journal on which the article in question resides. Furthermore, this page range often forms an integral part of the citation for that article. The problem then, is that many editors like to use the pages=nn parameter of {{cite journal}} to show that article page range. However, it is also IMHO of even greater importance, on Wikipedia at least, for specific facts to point to specific pages where the exact information conveyed is to be found. So do we use the pages parameter for for the first use, or for the second? Ideally there would be a separate parameter for each. Anyway, what I was alluding to above is that in ref 110 I believe you have pinpointed a specific page, while in other cases you've put the page range of the whole journal article. On reflection I'd say don't change anything, however, because asking for a broader range would be cutting off my nose to spite my face, given that I don't agree with that line! Anyway, I'll be back for the spot checks later this evening hopefully. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 112 - don't really need to say "-Unesco" in the title, that's not what the top of the document says anyway
  • 113 - The Atlantic could be linked, although this is the second occurrence so perhaps you have chosen not to. Make sure you're consistent one way or the other with that, anyway.
  • 114 - dead link
  • 118 - minor point, but most versions I'm seeing don't have a space before (er)
  • 126 - could link to the more specific BBC News, and I also don't think this is an italics one
  • 26 - (sorry, jumping back) - ditto BBC News, also this one is marked as dead when it's actually still live
  • 132 - Correctional Service of Canada probably shouldn't be italicised
  • 133 - ditto
  • 135 - author is Lorna Knowles. And is ABC News a publisher?
  • 138 & 139 - Washington State Institute for Public Policy italics? (also note that you linked this both times, so see my note at ref 113 above)
  • 141 - dead link; and UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research, Department of Policy italics; and we have a page on this institution at UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
  • 143 - no link to The Nation? Also, wrong year; should be 2015 not 2013
  • 145 - check italics again
  • 150 - BBC News not italic
  • 151 - dead link
  • 158 - perhaps Ministry of Justice rather than gov.uk? Not sure actually.
  • 160 - issue=1
  • 162 - 07/12/2017 most likely means December 7, as this is a European publication. In US format it would be July 12, but either way it can't be December 12!
  • 163 & 164 - needs a publisher, as without the link it would be hard to decipher what this is. Productivity Commission or something.
  • 166 - this one does say Productivity Commission (in italics which it probably shouldn't be), but now doesn't mention Report on Government Services
  • 169 - dead link
  • 170 - ditto
  • 172 - italics

(from the bibliography)

  • Alzua - most book titles are in italics but this one isn't; any reason?
    The book title is in italics. It's the chapter title that isn't. I suppose what looks out of place is that I've external linked the chapter title, not the book title. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bowdon - you seem to have missed out author Russell G. Carpenter
  • International Prison Commission - the title page lists Samuel J. Barrows in some sort of role here; perhaps an editor, given that the individual chapters all have authors
  • Mariner, James; Cavallaro, Michael - not sure where these names come from, but the link says the authors are Mariner, Joanne and Cavallaro, James
  • Norval, Morris - are you sure this shouldn't be "Morris, Norval"? Also, you've missed out David J. Rothman
    Turns out Rothman is the sole author and also one of the two editors (alongside Morris). I've removed editors entirely and just placed Rothman as the author. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nordic Council of Ministers - I don't think "Business & Economic" really belongs here; that's the "subject" that Google Books has assigned to this, rather than a publisher name
  • Ramsland and Sampson - all other books here have a Google Books link, but not these two. Any reason?
    Just an oversight I guess. Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, that's about it! I'll come back tomorrow hopefully with a few spot checks, and double check that all the sources are reliable. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Amakuru. As per last time I've only replied to questions and things that may not be fixed yet. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah shoot, this one had slipped my mind. I'll finish it off tomorrow. Sorry!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks

(now looking at this version)

  • 2 - mostly checks out, although the book says that the education was only mandatory for those under 35, a detail not mentioned in the article.
  • 3 - checks out.
  • 10 - checks out.
  • 11 - checks out.
  • 28 - checks out.
  • 31 - checks out (for all points).
  • 48 - checks out.
  • 169 - checks out.
  • 172 - checks out.

Given all the above, I'm satisfied that the sourcing is accurate, the fixes you've done look good, and I'm not seeing any dubious or unreliable sources. Happy to pass. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review, I really appreciate it. I've updated the article to mention the under 35 issue. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GMG edit

  • I shouldn't be considered a neutral reviewer, since I was pretty heavily involved in the last FAC, and I've written a fair share of the article. I'd only say that I'm still fairly satisfied that many of the content issues raised previously are an artifact of having a very broad topic, and not of an article being insufficiently comprehensive in the format of an encyclopedia, rather than a book. GMGtalk 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Noswall59 edit

I commend the good work that has gone into this, but I'm concerned about comprehensiveness. The history section is patchy. The subsection on Europe includes relatively detailed discussions of the Nordic countries, the UK and the Soviet Union but nothing on the Germany, Benelux, Austria, Eastern Europe and the Balkans; there is also nothing on the Mediterranean states like Spain, Italy and Greece. The North American, Caribbean and Latin American material seem fine to me either because they cover everywhere (North America) or talk in general terms with some illustrative examples or exceptions. Oceania mentions nothing about the various Pacific island states and Asia focuses on China, Japan and India but nowhere else.

I recognise, of course, that we can't just have histories of every country in this article, but it seems odd to focus in depth on a few in one continent but make no mention of the rest or any general comments, as in the sections on Europe and Asia. There's also very little in this article on illiteracy specifically, but that has often been a major part of prison education programmes and there's a lot of scholarship on it. Again, we don't need to cover everything here; Illiteracy in prison populations could be its own article, as could Education programmes for illiterate prisoners (or something like that). But I think some mention other than just a couple of country-specific statistics is probably called for. I will say that I am very busy offline right now, so I don't think I will carry out a full review of this article; these are just meant to be points on comprehensiveness. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Noswall59: Thanks for your comments. The article recently had a lot of country specific information on literacy rates (see the first paragraph of the 'Literacy rates and available programs' section in this version here [28]), though I was actually asked to replace this with a single sentence saying prisoners were less literate in general in order to address the concerns of another reviewer. I agree with that reviewer that the current summary is much better.
I've always had the same overarching problem with the history section. While there is information available on the current state of prison education in many countries (though far from all of them), very few sources exist on the history of prison education. As I mentioned in the lead of this nomination, I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia, and the author explicitly said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. If only one source exists on prison education in a developed and wealthy nation like Australia, it's easy to imagine why there won't be sources on the history of prison education on the much smaller developing Pacific island nations near it. Speaking from years of research in the field, smaller developing nations are unlikely to have prison education at all, let alone a history on the subject worth writing about. Of course, I don't think I'd have too much trouble finding more coverage for at least somewhere in Europe. I simply stopped writing that section once it reached a size that was already larger than most of the other continents. I was concerned about issues of due weight and focus on the Western world, conscious of the fact the article is already at such as large size, and it's a difficult subject to to summarise because as you note, I cannot add information on every country. But if I found some more coverage in Europe and Asia, would that address any resistance you had to the article being promoted? Damien Linnane (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Damien Linnane. Thanks for your response. Firstly, on due weight, I completely understand your concerns. My issue was that it seemed odd to have a few countries singled out in Europe especially; if you could find a source which offers a more general picture across Europe or part of Europe, or even just signpost the development in some other major countries, like Spain, Italy, Germany, then that would make a big difference to reducing the patchy feel. I wonder whether former Soviet Bloc countries had similar historical experiences of prison education - if so, that might make it easy to generalise there. It really doesn't need much, a few sentences really. As for illiteracy, you're absolutely right to have reduced the country-specific stats, but I more meant it's implications for pedagogy. In fact, I notice that there isn't a section about pedagogy (as in, theories and research on best-practices, e.g.), perhaps that's worth looking into? —Noswall59 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: I've expanded on the history of Italy, Spain and Russia. Let me know what you think so far, and if you think it still needs more. I'll try and find the time to look into pedagogy tomorrow. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Noswall59: I've added a paragraph on pedagogy to the beginning of the 'Challenges' section. Let me know if you have any ongoing concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely an improvement. I actually don't have a working knowledge of the topic, so it's difficult to judge whether there are particular approaches or theories which deserve a mention – there are a number of books on the topic. Nevertheless, it probably needs its own article, where such discussion ought to take place; perhaps a red link would is in order. If you feel confident that you've summarised the general contours of the literature, then that's probably enough. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments. I do feel like those were good improvements. Turns out pedagogy is mostly the same as outside prison, with the caveat of prison restrictions getting in the way, but that's still interesting to read about. Anyway thanks for your input. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noswall59, are you content with the changes made? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild yes, with the caveat that I’m no expert. –Noswall59 (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Coord query edit

@FAC coordinators: Image and source reviews pass, three supports, and two additional commentators who appear to not have any outstanding concerns. Are we good to go or do we need another review? Damien Linnane (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • References: What system are you using to render the titles of works in title case or not?
@Gog the Mild: Typically I just mirror whatever format the title of the reference itself uses, but to be honest I didn't really think about it much. I've never been asked that on Wikipedia before, even at FAC. Would you like me to pick a format and make everything consistent, regardless of what format the title of the actual source is? 12:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really?! Does no one read criterion 2c "consistently formatted inline citations"? Yes please; if you could adjust them all to a consistent format that would be good. I would suggest putting them all into title case, but it is your call. (Grandma and eggs bit: In edit mode do a cntl-F search for "title=" and run through the 149 results.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Done. Incidentally I always thought consistency just meant consistent template and date formatting, but I'll include case from now on as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno what was in the mind of the drafter, but I think you see my point. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ref 80 was literally the last reference I added to address the last reviewers concern, after the source check was done. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 81 is malformed. Possibly you need to decide which single year it was published in. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2021 (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) 23 October 2021 [29].

2013 FA Cup Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, arguably the most notable FA Cup final the 21st century. Manchester City had begun their meteoric rise to the outfit were currently accustomed seeing picking up silverware on multiple occasions every single season, while Wigan were exiting the Premier League after a poor season. And I won't spoil the punchline, but I bet you can guess what happened in this match... As ever, thanks to anyone who has constructive comments to add and for any time spent taking a look, I'll address all such issues as soon as I possibly can. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

  • Image review removed one image for sandwiching, the rest of them look OK for licensing. (t · c) buidhe 12:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Not a full review, but I looked through the article (and enjoyed it), and have one comment to pass along. The paragraph in the "Post-match" section starting "Sporting Life described the win as..." is a bit repetitive in structure. It's this sort of thing that prompted me to write WP:RECEPTION, and I wonder if the same approach could be taken here. Could we restructure this to put similar comments together, in order to vary the rhythm and sentence structure? E.g. something like this for the first sentence (and I've elided the names of the writers since I think unless the writers themselves are important journalists it's the source that the reader cares about):

Sporting Life described the win as the "biggest FA Cup final shock" since Wimbledon's defeat of Liverpool in the 1988 final. Other commentators went further, with Fox Sports, BBC Sport and FourFourTwo all saying it was one of the biggest shocks in competition's history, and bookmaker William Hill agreeing.

That's a bit abbreviated, perhaps, and I'm fine with adding back in whatever you think is important; the main thing is that multiple major commentators said it was a huge upset and that's what we should tell the reader. Is FourFourTwo important enough to even name? (I've been gone from the UK for decades so I really don't know.) If you've read enough newspaper articles to support this could we expand the introductory comment to "most commentators" described it as one of the biggest shocks..."? That would be ideal. I had a look on newspapers.com; I don't have the Publishers' Extra subscription so I can't access the recent papers but it was pretty clear from the snippets that it was described in those terms in multiple US papers too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for your comment. You are almost certainly spot on that it's a bit "blah said bleh" etc, so I'll work it up a little based on your suggestion. Cheers for taking a look. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, I've taken a stab at reducing the X said Y, Z remarked A, etc etc. Let me know if it's more in keeping with your thinking. Of course, happy to take onboard further suggestions (or even happier for you to tweak it yourself!) Thanks again for the comment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better to me. I will try to find time to reread the whole article with a critical eye and see if I can support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike thanks, very kind of you, I appreciate your time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, I wondered if you had any time to take a look? It's been thoroughly reviewed now by a raft of different editors, but I'd always appreciate another viewpoint? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I’ll be doing a complete review — it does look like you have a full set of reviewers already, so I hope you’re all set. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru edit

Background
  • The only issue I can think of is that it might be neater to have a link to 2012–13 FA Cup in the background section, rather than not mentioning the year's competition until Route to the final
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route to the final - Man City
  • "in the third round where they were drawn" -> "in the third round, in which they were drawn"
  • "Costel Pantilimon then denied Fernando Forestieri a goal-scoring opportunity for Watford" - slightly confusing wording. "Denied him an opportunity" sounds like might have had an opportunity but never got to have it. Whereas presumably in fact he did have an opportunity, just that the goal being denied by Pantilimon.
  • "Manchester City academy player Rony Lopes" - Consider linking to Manchester City F.C. EDS and Academy
  • "Tevez's pass to him allowed him to take the ball past Leeds United goalkeeper" - the "to him" is a bit redundant; also slightly confusing - can a pass really allow you to take the ball past the keeper? Seems more likely that it's up to your own skill whether you can do that or not, as long as the pass actually reaches you
  • "after eleven minutes after David Silva's volley" - repetition of "after"
  • "In the semi-final, City faced defending" - probably should be "Manchester City" for consistency
  • "faced defending FA Cup champions Chelsea at Wembley, a neutral venue, for the fourth time in the FA Cup" - ambiguous: is it the fourth time they played Chelsea at Wembley, or the fourth time in the Cup overall?
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route to the final - Wigan
  • "in the third round where they faced" - still prefer "in which" probably
  • "dominated the second half" - dominated it how? Sounds like more of an opinion than an objective fact. Might want to say they had more possession or more shots on goal or whatever.
  • "strike from outside the Wigan Athletic penalty area" - link
  • "in the area" - should probably be "penalty area"; although also need to consider whether this is too soon after the previous penalty area
  • "ensured the tie would need to be settled in a replay" - this use of tie might confuse people who don't know about it, especially as it can also mean a draw
  • "second appearance in the FA Cup Fifth round" - round numbers aren't usually capitalised in this article
  • "founding of the club in 1932" - up to you, but you could consider dropping the year since it was already mentioned earlier
  • "4–1 win for Wigan Athletic. Wigan Athletic's quarter-final opponents" - repetition of "Wigan Athletic"
  • "who they faced at Goodison Park" - should be "whom"
  • "McManaman then doubled the lead after a mistake from Phil Neville allowed him to take the ball past Everton's goalkeeper Ján Mucha before shooting" - one of those after ... before constructs, which end up sounding a bit confusing. I might reword to something like "McManaman then doubled the lead when a mistake by Phil Neville allowed him to take the ball past Everton's goalkeeper Ján Mucha and shoot"
  • "The win ensured Wigan would play in the first" - after a string of Wigan Atheletics, we now have a Wigan. Either make them all the same, or consider dropping the Athletic in all but the first mention.
  • "saw them faced Championship side Millwall" - "face"
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Amakuru can't wait, thanks for the comments thus far. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-match
  • Any injuries or anything?
  • "after failing to lead Manchester City to a defence" - probably "he failed" instead of "failing"
  • "Mancini suggested" - not sure it's a suggestion, maybe just "Mancini said"
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
  • "the ball finding Touré: his shot was pushed away by Joel" - not sure a colon is the correct punctuation here. Suggest either a semicolon, or perhaps a new sentence.
  • "8 yards (7.3 m)" - too much precision

", his shot went wide of the Manchester City post" - again, a new sentence or semicolon instead of a comma would seem preferable

  • "Manchester City's Matija Nastasić's long-range strike" - the double possessive here sounds slightly awkward. Maybe reword.
  • "wayward" - a bit journalese
  • "He passed to McManaman who was fouled by Zabaleta around 30 yards (27 m) from the Manchester City goal who was sent off after receiving a second booking" - the double "who" in this sentence makes it a bit confusing. Also I'd suggest the nugget about it being the third sending off should be here rather than in post-match.
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-match
  • "Wigan Athletic also were awarded" - maybe "were also"?
  • "succumbing to a 4–1 defeat" - a bit journalese as well
  • "Wigan Athletic defeated Manchester City" - adding an "again" in here might be useful
  • Also indicate what happened to them afterwards; I understand they lost to Arsenal in the semi and consequently failed to defend their trophy
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • No issues that I can see.

That completes the review. Looks good other than the above minor points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amukuru all done I think, many thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, thanks for that. (I didn't see the ping because of a typo). Happy to support. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon edit

I remember watching this. Some comments:

More to come. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Macclesfield's appeal for a penalty late in the match were turned down --> was or appeals?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wigan Athletic's quarter-final opponents were --> elsewhere you call it 6th round
    It's interchangeable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • four minutes in the first half to secure victory --> there are quite a few "secure"s which is ok, but these 2 are a bit too close together for my liking
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With twelve minutes of the match remaining, Wigan Athletic broke with --> repetition of with
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wigan Athletic won the match 2–0 and progressed to the first FA Cup final in the club's history --> I can see the lure of this record, but at the same time it is inevitable giving the uniqueness of reaching the semis
    Yes, but it was a record at the time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • prior to kick-off --> we need consistency: either kick-off or kick off, but not both
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wigan Athletic adopted a 3–4–3 formation while Manchester City played as a 4–2–3–1. --> this is a bit in an odd place. It would fit better at the end of the previous paragraph
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • finding Touré whose was pushed away by Joel --> something is missing
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and bookmaker William Hill agreeing --> I don't think a bookmaker's views have a place in an encyclopedia
    I disagree. Bookmakers are a very good source for this kind of thing. And in any case, it's simply a method of reinforcing the general vibe around the surprise result. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what happened to Martínez? Especialy since they got relegated
    Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 20 May, Wigan had an open-top bus tour of the town to celebrate the FA Cup victory --> a bit out of place. Should be closer to all the Wigan related stuff
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything about audience numbers for the broadcasts? In UK and globally?
    I haven't found anything in any reliable sources for this. Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition --> is this backed up anywhere in the body of the article?
    Remnant of previous version. Got rid. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: In the United Kingdom, the match was televised by ITV and ESPN. --> I don't think this is important enough to make it in the lead, and definitely not the first paragraph.
    Ok, gone. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: As such, Wigan Athletic --> I don't see why we need the As such. The previous sentence has nothing to do with Wigan going to the Europa league, does it? Or may be As such is not trying to connec those 2 sentences? In any case, should Wigan's journey into Europe not be mentioned first, as winners?
    Deleted as such. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: becoming the first team to win the Cup and succumb to relegation in the same season --> that's not exactly what the body says. The body says from the highest tier
    Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: should the man of the match not be mentioned?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Apart from these minor points, all looks good to me in terms of prose and comprehensiveness. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon thank you Edwin, I really appreciate the comments. I'll try to get to them in the next day or so. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edwininlondon okay, I've addressed almost all of these points, just the viewing figures which I can't find so I'd appreciate your thoughts on that. Great review, thanks so much. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9.4 million in the UK according to The Times [30]. I can't see anything in a reliable source about global audience numbers, there is only the Express saying it's half a billion, a record [31]. I'll have a better look later. I noticed in The Times they mention an issue about kick off time, which I think needs to go somewhere in the article. It was even debated in parliament! [32]. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edwininlondon I added some more detail about that in the pre-match section before the kick-off details, and added the peak BBC figures in the post-match section. Anything else? Cheers again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. I Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder Support from Cas Liber edit

I'll get back to this soon.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I made this edit only. Prose and comprehensiveness look okay to me though I am interested to see how Edwininlondon feels after review finished as he's asked some questions I'd have asked....but a thumbs up from me pending....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber thanks, I've addressed Edwin's point all bar the viewing figures which I can't find reliably sourced. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber get the ping right.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber hi, just a courtesy ping to let you know that Edwin has completed his review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • The Daily Telegraph is inconsistent with the url-access=subscription
  • Ref 43 missing the 11v11 like the others
  • Authors (there's two) missing from ref 44
  • Ref 47 seems to be the only instance of Phil McNulty that is unlinked
  • ref 47 missing link and is formatted differently ("BBC Sport (British Broadcasting Corporation")
  • Ref 50, The Independent could use a url-access=limited like the other ref from The Independent
  • Ref 66 should probably italicize Forbes
  • ref 67 needs a work/publisher or something
  • Ref 69 should presumably include the author (Julien Desbuissons).
Reliability
  • Seems fine overall
Verifiability
Aza24 many thanks, I've addressed all your comments I believe. Please let me know if there's anything else required. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Oldelpaso edit

  • This is an underdog story, but until the post-match section we only get a limited sense of this. While adding emphasis while maintaining encyclopedic tone isn't always easy, we have things like City having won the last 7 meetings between the sides without conceding a goal, Wigan were 40 points behind in the league[33].
    Not strictly true, we do have "with Wigan Athletic in eighteenth place in the league and Manchester City in second position" in the Background section, but I agree that can be bulked up with the factoids you've mentioned here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added those factoids now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth mentioning Wigan reached the League Cup final in 2006. Maybe that they became 43rd winners?
    I'm not seeing the relevance of that to this FA Cup final 7 years later? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the earlier rounds, some more about the degree of squad rotation may be helpful. Wigan were battling relegation, at what point did the cup become a priority? Likewise City harboured title hopes at the time of the early rounds.
    I can add a little more but I'm not able to project "at what point did the cup become a priority", that's down to Martinez and his decision-making toward the end of the season. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • City rested a number of players in the preceding league game [34]
    That doesn't seem to be a reliable source, perhaps we can find a better one? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added that eight players were restored to the starting lineup, with reliable sourcing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronology of Post-match a bit bumpy. Wigan playing in Europe the following season is mentioned before events two days after the game. Plus Wigan were in the Europa irrespective of the result of the final.
    I've rejigged this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wigan were a third tier club when the 2018 meeting occurred. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oldelpaso I've made an attempt at most of your points. Let me know if you can help with the "squad rotation" and potential OR thing about when Wigan starting taking things seriously in the cup? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from JennyOz edit

Hi TRM, a few nitpicks...

  • lede: Watson outjumped Jack Rodwell - Watson name and link
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me, regards, JennyOz (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz all done bar Tevez. Cheers for your comments! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz adjusted the one I mis-read/mis-understood!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, all good, happy to support, JennyOz (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: four supports, passed image and source review, can I launch another? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC) @FAC coordinators: any word? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am supposed to be staying away from WikiCup competitors, but this looks pretty uncontroversial, so go for it. And if Cwmhiraeth strings me up, so be it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just FTR, the original ping isn't in my notifications list, only this latest. Anyway no prob from my side either... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM, for once not a query about how the player nationalities were sourced but where the players' numbers came from -- apologies if I missed the obvious... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose Added explicit sources for that season's squad numbers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2021 (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) 22 October 2021 [35].

Daisy (advertisement) edit

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although aired just once, "Daisy" ad is referred to as one of the most controversial, yet most popular political advertisement. The ad was broadcast on September 7, 1964, with the intention of highlighting Lyndon B. Johnson's anti-war and anti-nuclear positions. However, the ad in-turn was interpreted as an attack ad on Barry Goldwater (Johnson's opponent in the election) and his positions on nuclear weapon. Immediately after its broadcast, the ad was pulled off, but it was frequently replayed and analyzed by network news. Johnson won the 1964 presidential election in a landslide victory, defeating Goldwater by a margin of almost 15 million votes. The Daisy ad is considered a significant reason was his victory, and is considered a turning point in political and advertising history. The article is almost re-written by me, it passed its DYK nomination, GA nomination and received its peer review comments from various editors. Thanks to all reviewers in advance. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass edit

  • Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the further reading section not so much. For featured article it is expected that if the source has something significant to add to the article, it should be cited, otherwise if there's nothing to add it probably isn't relevant enough or adding enough information to be worth putting in further reading. In particular the book that's specifically about the ad and not cited seems like a major oversight and something that makes me doubt this short article is fully comprehensive. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe – In my opinion, the "Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds" book fits better in the Further reading section. Despite its title, the book is focused on Atomic theme and the 1964 election—i.e. the information already included in the Background sections of this article using various other sources. Despite the article's length (13,207 characters), I feel that all main aspects of the ad are covered. I have removed few books from the Further reading section which I feel aren't adding enough information related to the ad. Hope that addressed your concern. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Buidhe – Just a note that the book is now added as a source. Do let me know if you have any further concerns. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D edit

It's good to see this important article at FAC, but I don't think that the FA criteria are met at present due to the sourcing issue noted above, as well as some other gaps:

  • "It remains one of the most popular political advertisements" - popular seems an odd choice of word, and the reference here to a 1964 NYT story obviously doesn't support such a claim (is the ref really needed in the lead?)
  • The lead should note how Goldwater was perceived before the ad - like all really powerful political ads, this played on how he was seen
  • "The principal work of Johnson's campaign" - this is a bit clunky
  • "Despite his relatively high polling numbers, Johnson felt safe to use rhetorical techniques to ensure his victory" - to be blunt, this doesn't make sense - what's the contradiction?
    • Tried to rephrase. Johnson had high polling numbers, and could have won the election even without this ad. Still, he felt safe to broadcast a controversial ad, when it could have easily backfired his campaign. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should discuss the anxieties Americans (quite rightly) were feeling about the risks of nuclear war at this time - it was less than two years after the Cuban missile crisis
  • It's also odd to not see Johnson's ruthless political tactics not discussed
    • Honestly, I didn't feel the need to include this. Johnson had very limited role to play in the creation or broadcast of this ad. Moreover, the ad wasn't intended to be an 'attack ad', but that is how it was interpreted. Wouldn't it go a bit off topic to discuss his political tactics, which isn't directly related with the ad? Please suggest... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "visualize their child in the role of Corzilius" - awkward
  • The scholarly book on this topic noted in the 'further reading' section needs to be consulted - I'm not at all confident that the FA sourcing requirements are met without this. The blurb for the book states that it covers this topic quite broadly, so it may be possible to considerably expand or deepen the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing...
      • I have addressed this point by using the book as a source in the article, and adding various things which were not mentioned in the article or other books. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nick-D – Thanks a lot for your review. I have attempted to address all your concerns, and replied above. As for the sourcing, I have added Robert Mann's book. I hope that addressed your concern. Requesting you to take a second look at the article regarding your leaning oppose. Feel free to suggest anything else which you feel would make the article closer to meeting the FA criteria. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D – Is there something else I can do to improve the article, as I have already included Robert Mann's book. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about this, but I'm sceptical about how little you sourced from the academic book on this topic. The article also seems to be dodging around both the nature of Johnson's political tactics (he's famous for how ruthless his politics were) and how extreme Goldwater was. The ad was part and parcel of Johnson's tactics, and worked because Goldwater was seen as being genuinely dangerous. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D – I have addressed these comments by making necessary changes in the article. Goldwater's extremism is mentioned by various instances in the article and I have added some more facts about his reaction to the ad. I feel that focusing more on his 'extremism' would make the article less neutral. Rest, I feel that the article covers all major aspects of a 60 second ad which was aired just once. Do let me know if the changes were not satisfactory. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kavyansh.Singh, I'm not sure if the "Doing..." template is able to be used as, per WP:FAC, "[g]raphics [...] slow down load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." Pamzeis (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D – Given that various changes have been made in order to resolve all your comments, and the article is again copy-edited, do you still lean towards opposing this nomination? Of-course, you can suggest more changes, which I'll surely consider. Please take a second look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted to just 'comments' until I read this more closely. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a further read:

  • "Goldwater defended himself by charging Johnson with making the accusation indirectly and contending that the media blew the issue out of proportion" - it's not clear what this means, and the wording is close to the source. What the source is is unclear as well.
    • Removed the part about 'making the accusation indirectly', and just mentioned that media interpreted that Goldwater would use nuclear weapons, which Goldwater defended by saying that they [media] 'blew the issue out of proportion'. Hope that its clear now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and second sentences in the para starting with 'The Johnson campaign portrayed' don't flow well, and the second sentence doesn't seem to fit well with the last sentence of this para. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second sentence and the last sentence were somewhat contradicting each other, so I rephrased both of them for increasing the flow. Johnson did had high polling numbers, but that wasn't because of his accomplishments as the president, but because of Goldwater and his extreme statements. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D – Done both. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that revised wording is generally awkward and partly contradictory, and you haven't responded to my comment about what that source is. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D – I have further rephrased that, and now it isn't contradictory. Please excuse if I am mistaken here, but as for the source, it is an essay from Kennesaw State University, Georgia, and should be reliable. However, I'll leave it to the source reviewer to decide the reliability. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the author of the article, and what is their status? It reads like an undergraduate essay, though may be course material aimed at undergraduates. The wording in the article remains short of FA-level prose I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I looked for any alternative source, but wasn't able to find any reliable newspaper/website/book/journal having the exact quote (with one impulsive act....) So I just removed the two sentences supported by that source, and merged the paragraph for flow. As for the article's prose, it was again copy-edited by a member of WP:GOCE on my request after your initial comments. I'll see what I can do, but I don't quite feel that it needs much work. Let's see what other reviewers think. Any further comments/suggestions to strengthen the prose are always welcome. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nick-D, sorry to press you, but should I be reading your comments as an "oppose", at least at the moment? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gog the Mild: no worries at all - I should have posted a follow up comment. I'm neutral at present: I still don't think that the prose is an example of our best work (the first para of the background section, for instance, doesn't flow particularly well), but it's not greatly problematic. I have have no objection to the nomination being promoted, but can't support it. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Nick-D! Just wanted to say that it is completely fine. Your comments were really helpful, and they helped in improving the article. Much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Grapple X edit

Some passing comments for now, hopefully will get a fuller review over the next day or so.

  • Initially struck that we have a still from the ad in the infobox and then the full ad embedded later; given that the video's thumbnail is the same image as the screenshot is there any reason we couldn't just use the video in the infobox?
    • I just shifted the video from "Synopsis" section to the infobox. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He often used various rhetorical techniques including the famous "Johnson Treatment" to gather votes in the senate—I don't think we need to get bogged down in too much detail but a brief gloss as to what the "Johnson Treatment" actually is would be a good idea, alternatively Lyndon B. Johnson#Senate Democratic leader has a meaty quote which explains it and could be linked to here (as "the famous "Johnson Treatment" perhaps) to provide context.
  • notably mocking his campaign slogan "In your heart, you know he's right" with the counter-slogan "In Your Guts, You Know He is Nuts"—Why is one of these in sentence case and the other in title case? No strong preference for either but surely they should both be consistent
  • who proclaimed, "We will bury you! Your children will be Communists!"—I'm not a fan of introducing a quote with a comma when one wouldn't be present if the quote wasn't in quote marks; but in any case as a multiple-sentence quote this should more properly be introduced with a colon per WP:MOS#QUOTE
  • that "[at] the next level, [they could] really run a savage assault: a billboard, e.g., [could] be devised reading 'Goldwater in 64—Hotwater in 65?' with a mushroom cloud in the background."—There's a bit of legwork being done here to keep this quote flowing; is it better to quote less of it (just the proposed slogan perhaps) and paraphrase the rest?
    • Removed some less important part of the quote, and rephrased the rest. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vote for President Johnson on November 3[rd]" —The date formatting throughout the article doesn't use ordinals like "3rd", it's strange to interpolate one here if it's not necessary.
    • The ordinals are added here just because they were used in the advertisement too. Nothing much to do with date consistency in the article, as they are inside the quotes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The video just displays "November 3", which would be consistent with the rest of the date usage internally too. I think we could drop the "[rd]".
        • Yeah, the video just displays November 3, but the voice-over reads it as "November third". However, this is a minor point, and I can drop the "[rd]" if necessary. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be a good idea to attribute the Auden comparisons to who's making them; were they being drawn at the time or is this a retrospective analysis?
  • Make no mistake, there's no such thing as a 'conventional nuclear weapon' .... To do so now is a political decision of the highest order. It would lead us down an uncertain path of blows and counter-blows whose outcome none may know.—Seems to be a four-dot ellipsis in there
  • Eisenhower replied – "Barry, in my mind, this is actual tommyrot."—fronting a quote with a dash like this is inconsistent with the rest of the article
  • they were trying to use what the voters already knew"—Missing a full stop here, whether you want it in or out of the quote marks.
  • A minor point but the quote box in the last heading runs alongside a block quote which looks a little jarring; might be worth looking at moving the quote box template up a paragraph to remove that overlap. It should lose no context as it's clear what its connection is within the heading.
  • I feel like we're good as far as information and historical context goes and there does seem to be a good breadth of sourcing; I can't comment to Nick-D's reservations on this but as a lay reader I was not struck by any obvious gaps in context. That said I think the prose strength is where we need most focus; I'm not a confident copy-editor at FA standards but I still found a few inconsistencies and errors, which should be easily addressed but likely aren't exhaustive. As this is still a fresh nomination and will likely have more breathing time here, it may be worth asking at WP:GOCE/R if anyone is able to give it a once-over. I'll take another look at it during the week to see if I can't come up with anything else. That said it's an interesting subject and I do enjoy these deep-dives on narrower fields. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changes look good so far. I'll be able to return to this in more depth tomorrow hopefully. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Grapple X – Thanks for your comments. I had request User:Twofingered Typist to take a look at the article, and he was kind enough to help further copy edit the article. Do let me know of you have any further comments or suggestions. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a second sweep through now.

  • Lead mentions that the ad is also sometimes known as "Peace, Little Girl" but this isn't mentioned elsewhere--some of the sources use the name in their titles so it shouldn't be difficult to work this in.
    • Added in the prose that the ad wad initially known as "Peace, Little Girl" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few duplicate links; Corzillus' name and the Democratic National Convention both appearing more than once
    • Fixed. The tool now tells "No duplicated links were detected" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the mention of the 84 Mondale advert--I don't know that the information presented is enough to really justify a link; can we get a direct comparison drawn to this?
    • While researching, I got a perfect citation for this; added a line which further justifies why the ad was similar to "Daisy". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We still don't mention an explicit comparison between the two; it's not enough to just describe superficial similarity without a source already making an explicit link between them (this is the same issue with the Auden material below). Looking at the Spokane Chronicle source, it does make direct reference to the Daisy advert, stating Mondale [...] seeks, without the subtlety of Lyndon B Johnson's 1964 ad etc. So the source does draw direct parallels here but we don't mention that. You don't need to directly quote the comparison but do use that source to state plainly that comparisons were drawn to the earlier advert when the Mondale one aired.
        • Now mentioned that the ad was compared with Daisy, for having similar nuclear themes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still would like to see attribution when we're comparing the advert to that Auden poem, I'm not keen on doing that in wikipedia's voice.
    • Did I address this? If not, could you please further clarify this point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean is that "Johnson's line: "We must either love each other, or we must die" echoes line 88 of W.H. Auden's poem "September 1, 1939", which reads: "We must love one another or die."" is stated as a matter of fact, and while yes we can see looking at the lines that they're extremely similar, we really should be attributing the comparison to someone who has made it in a reliable source. The source you've added, Taylor 1992, does this just discuss Auden's poem or does it explicitly describe the similarity between the two?
        • Ah, I see. The comparison of similarity between the ad and Auden's poem is discussed in this source, which says ""Decades earlier, Lyndon B. Johnson drew on another line from the poem [September 1, 1939] in his famous 1964 "Daisy" campaign commercial ..."". I have cited that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of Auden, in the excerpt quoted, it seems the italic emphasis on the last line is not in the original; since we already highlight it in prose I don't think we need the italics here
  • "the White House switchboard "lit up with calls protesting it [the advertisement]""—I think rather than the aside here, we could go with "the White House switchboard "lit up with calls" protesting the advertisement"
  • "When Corzilius was unable to count to ten successfully during filming, it was decided that a miscount might be more appealing to the voters"—I know it's what's used in the source but given that we're talking about voting, I don't know if "miscount" is the best word here; perhaps "When Corzilius was unable to count to ten successfully during filming, it was decided that her mistakes might be more appealing to the voters."
  • All for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Grapple X – Addressed all. Thanks for taking a second look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Grapple X – Hi! The previous 2 points raised were probably resolved. Any follow-ups? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't see the point regarding Auden has having been addressed but perhaps I wasn't explaining myself correctly. It's not that I would like to see more sources cited as footnotes, but that an actual attribution to the person making the comparison is what I feel we should be using. Instead of saying the two are alike, and then appending a citation, we need to point out that someone has made that comparison for us. You can name the writer specifically ("journalist Maureen Corrigan has noted that Johnson's line: "We must either love each other, or we must die" echoes line 88 of W.H. Auden's poem...") or make the attribution in a passive voice ("It has been noted that...", although this should really be used if there's a wider sampling of sources than just this one). My point is that it is preferable to ensure that this kind of literary analysis is clearly being attributed to third-party sources and not to Wikipedia's voice (which is essentially the difference between stating a fact and citing it, and stating that someone believes a fact and quoting them). I hope this makes more sense. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X – Just a courtesy ping that are you in a position of either supporting or opposing this nomination. And of-course, feel free to add any more comments if required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at this point enough work has been done to address my concerns; I am prepared to support at this time. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and support. Much appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • only once officially - officially only once. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DDB isn't used again in the lede, so no need to acronym it here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • emphatically, "These - do we need a caps here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need. The quotations is a complete sentence.
  • The lede should probably mention which party each candidate stood for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I now mentioned that Goldwater was a Republican. Mentioning the Johnson was a Democrat would be reluctant, as it should be self explanatory, given that DNC is listed as a client in the infobox. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lee Vilenski – Just a kind reminder for your comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski – Thanks for your comments. I have addressed all of them. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check and source review — Pass edit

Version initially reviewed — this. Current Ref numbers may differ. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Actually, I reviewed this version Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pretty heavy reliance on newspapers in this article, always a worrisome sign as they tend to be so-so sources (sensationalism, getting basic facts wrong etc.). And here they are even many contemporary ones... Beyond that the sourcing's OK.

I note some inconsistencies, with some sources having archives and others lacking them. Spot-check:

I again ran the IA bot, and it archived 6 sources. Do I need to manually archive the rest? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 44: OK, but I see that it calls the ad "Daisy Chain"?
    • Honestly, I don't know why, when no other major source calls it "Chain"
  • 47: OK.
  • 63: OK.
  • 8: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • 80: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • 18: Can I have a copy of this article?
    • Available on Open library, free registration. Here is the link.
  • 13: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • 6: OK.
  • 60: OK.
  • 66: OK but the text is very similar to the source.
  • 11: Which part of the source supports this claim?
    • Ref#10 supports Goldwater voting against Nuclear Test Ban Treats, and this source supports the treaty passing from the Senate by a vote of 80-14. Quoting the source – ""The U.S. Senate votes to provide its advice and consent for ratification of the LTBT by a vote of 80 to 14."" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 53: OK.
  • 25: Can I have a copy of this article?
    • Currently, I don't have this book in physical format or PDF format. Neither is this available anywhere online, except the site, where it shows a few part of every chapter of the book. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • 29: I don't see Ehrlich mentioned here, is that in the other source?
  • 65: OK.
  • 77: OK.
  • 82: OK.
  • 40: Can I have a copy of this article?
    • Available on Open library, free registration. Here is the link.
  • 16: Can I have a copy of this article?
    • Available on Open library, free registration. Here is the link.

Imma ping Ealdgyth for a second opinion on the various newspaper sources (WaPo, NYT etc.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Provided copy of all the articles you requested which I could. As for the newspapers part, many FA's that rely on newspaper, and I don't think that it is an issue, provided that the newspaper is a reliable one. I have always considered The New York Times and The Washington Post reliable sources. And I don't think that I have cited any newspaper, which doesn't has a Wikipedia article (i.e. all are notable enough). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Any updates on remaining spot-checks and sourcing? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do let me know if there's anything else I can do for the source review to be passed. Thanks for your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria – Can you please provide a second opinion on some newspaper sources (like The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.) used in this article? Are they unreliable to use? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Jo-Jo Eumerus correctly, the concern is not simply are these reliable yes/no, but are they overused. Those particular papers are not unreliable in general, and on a quick look I'm not seeing any that raise red flags. But in terms of overreliance, can you speak to your approach to locating sources for this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the way I would go about this is to first start with academic sources and to only use newspapers to illustrate how the topic was covered in contemporary coverage and to cover uncontroversial facts. But upon thinking more, I am not sure anymore that this article is overusing news sources so I'll retract this concern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I tried. Most of the newspaper sources are used in the "Political usage and aftermath" section, discussing about the contemporary coverage of the ad. I initially tried to cite this article completely using books/journals. But, to comprehensively discuss about immediate aftermath and later uses, newspapers seems helpful. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Just a kind reminder that the nomination in nearing a month, but the source review and spot-checks are still pending. I have responded to all the previous concerns. Would appreciate if you can take a second look. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this passes the source and spot check reviews. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis — support edit

Not a politics person... I will try not to screw this up.

  • Unlink United States in the infobox per MOS:OL
  • "was a controversial — does the ad not exist anymore? If it still does, I believe "was" should be "is" per MOS:TENSE
    • Here, 'was' is used as the ad has never been broadcast since 1964. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "point in political and advertising history" — firstly, I don't understand why "political" links to politics in the United States. The article suggests it's just political history in general. If not, then, I would suggest adjusting the article to highlight that it is political history in the US. If so, then unlink it because linking politics would be an overlink. Unlink "advertising" as well.
  • "advertising agency and [...] created the Daisy advertisement" — not keen on having "advertising" and "advertisement" in the same sentence...
  • "Immediately after its initial broadcast" — remove "initial" as redundant
  • "several times by media, like the" — "like" seems a bit informal here. I'd suggest changing it to "such as"
  • Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, I would recommend having only one to two paragraphs as this article has, by my count, approximately 13,000 characters
    • Well, the article was copy edited by User:Twofingered Typist, who suggested to break it into 4 paras, as every para deals with a separate subject. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the assassination of his predecessor John F. Kennedy" — is Kennedy the only predecessor? If so, add a comma after "predecessor"
    • Well, all the presidents who served before Johnson (35 men) were his predecessors, but Kennedy was his immediate predecessor. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not great with active and passive tenses but: "Johnson was seen by many as a ruthless politician effective at getting legislation passed." → Many saw Johnson as a ruthless politician effective at getting legislation passed. (To be more concise and, I think, convert to active tense)

I'll hopefully leave more comments later. Ping me if I don't reply within a week! Pamzeis (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pamzeis – Thanks a lot for taking a look. I have addressed/replied above. Feel free to add any further comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • Try not to have ad, advertisement, advertising, etc. in the same sentence
  • "although the true authorship is unclear" — authorship meaning writer? Creator? Visual effect creator? The last thing mentioned is the ad's visual effects though this sentence seems to suggest creator. I would appreciate something more specific.
    • I guess that the sentence structure quite clearly says that the 'authorship' here means authorship for visual effects. Any suggestion as to how to make it more clear without repeating it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reworded this but feel free to revert me if you dislike the wording.
  • "with a young girl, three-year-old Monique Corzilius" — I believe "young girl" is redundant: "young" is vague and three-year-old conveys the meaning much better; I believe "Monique Corzilius" will already tell the reader that she is a girl.
  • "missile launch countdown" — linking countdown seems to be a bit of an overlink
  • "The blackness is replaced instantly by the bright flash" → A bright flash instantly replaces the blackness
  • "scene then cuts to footage" — omit the redundant "then"
  • "on November 3[rd]" — I do not believe the "rd" is necessary per MOS:BADDATE
    • Since you and Grapple X both have mentionned this, I have removed the '[rd]'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "September 7, 1964 telecast of" — add a MOS:DATECOMMA after "1964"
  • "of David Bathsheba on The NBC Monday Movie.[44] As the David and Bathsheba film" — can this possibly be reworded to avoid repetition of "David and Bathsheba"?
  • "film was based on a biblical story, it was considered a family film" → film is based on a biblical story, it is considered a family film (MOS:TENSE)
  • "that about a hundred million people" — "about" sounds a bit informal to me. Perhaps replace it with "approximately" or "roughly"?
  • "Fears of nuclear war were related to the audience by a young girl eating ice cream." — I'm confused here. How can a young girl eating ice cream connect to fears of nuclear war? Can we elaborate here?
  • "Other notable commercials" — per MOS:OFCOURSE, try to replace or omit "notable"
  • "Other notable uses of the" — same as above
  • The quote box in #Political usage and aftermath serves no clear purpose
  • "Another child actor, Birgitte Olsen, falsely claimed" — seems a bit sudden. Perhaps start with Corzilius and then talk about Olsen?
  • Also remove the commas around "Birgitte Olsen"
  • "has maintained that position for years" — does she still? If not, replace "has" with "had"
  • "Corzilius became known publicly as the "Daisy" girl after this" — Huh? After what? Olsen's claim?
    • After the initial broadcast in 1964. Newspapers referred to that girl as the "Daisy" girl. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me after these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis I have tried to resolve all of your concern. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I've actually never heard of this ad before… But best of luck with this article. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here :). Pamzeis (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support on prose from Extraordinary Writ edit

As promised, I am here (although inexcusably late). I'll probably focus on prose, although I'll comment on anything that sticks out at me. I'm a bit busy right now, so bear with me if I take a while to get this done.

  • "to gather votes in the senate" – capitalize Senate.
  • "he got the Civil Rights Act passed by Congress" – "got" is an unusual word choice, even if it's not technically wrong. Perhaps something like "he successfully urged Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act" would be more natural?
  • "the ratification of Nuclear Test Ban Treaty" – the ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  • "eventually passed through the senate" – capitalize Senate, and "passed the Senate" might be more natural.
  • "They emphasized on Goldwater's extremism"– remove "on"
  • "shouldn't have strontium-90 or cesium 37" – I'm not a chemist, but I know that cesium-37 is physically impossible. Are you sure the source doesn't say cesium-137?
  • In note b, I would link punitive damages and remove the quotation marks.
  • "Moyers later said: "It [Daisy ad] accomplished" – this should be "the Daisy ad", but it might be easier to get rid of the brackets and just write Moyers later said that the ad "accomplished its purpose..."

More to come. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any rhyme or reason as to whether "Daisy" is in quotation marks or not? We have "created the Daisy advertisement" but "The "Daisy" advertisement has been used". I'm not sure it really matters which one you choose: all that matters is consistency.
  • "telecast of David and Bathsheba film" – missing a "the". I'd recommend "of the film David and Bathsheba. (As an irrelevant sidenote, I'm baffled by why they'd think the story of David and Bathsheba would make a nice "family film", but that's neither here nor there.)
  • "...leaving their parents watching the film, and eventually manipulated into visualizing their child in Corzilius's role" – this sentence is a bit unwieldy grammatically. It might be clearer to split it up into two sentences: I'm having trouble thinking of a good way to do that, but I'm sure you can come up with something.
  • "Immediately after its broadcast, the ad was pulled off the air" – was the ad supposed to have been shown again? You don't really touch on that.
    • No, it was not supposed to be shown again. Johnson's advisors had already planned to pull back the ad after its initial broadcast, believing that it will be pointless to repeat it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. When you say "the ad was pulled off the air", that implies (at least to me) that it was supposed to be shown again (or was being shown again) but was cancelled. If all you mean is that it was only shown once, it might be clearer to just say that explicitly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I just removed that sentence, as it has already been mentioned that the ad was broadcast just once. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious as I am about "Johnson's camping strategy", I presume I will only get to learn about his campaign strategy.
  • "we all realized it [Daisy ad] would create" – in context, I think it's clear enough what "it" is referring to: the brackets aren't needed
  • "told the Senate on September 16" – linking United States Senate is overlinking, in my view. (If you do really want to link it, you should do so earlier in the article, e.g. at "to gather votes in the Senate".)
    • Removed the link. I assume, most of the reader know what Senate is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""actual tommyrot" – might be worth a link to wikt:tommyrot

More later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ – Thanks a lot for your comments. Addressed all. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the largest margins of the popular vote" – if you have the information, it might be worth giving the popular vote percentage.
  • "compared with the "Daisy" due to" – remove the "the", or otherwise add commercial/advertisement after "Daisy".
  • "as one of their campaign ad" – one of their campaign ads. Also, this sentence uses the word "ad" three times: it's a bit repetitive.
  • "see the "Daisy" commercial" – these should be single quotes (since it's a quote-within-a-quote), although I notice the original source doesn't use quotation marks at all.
    • That isn't quote-within-a-quote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although the MOS doesn't say so directly, I understand the usual convention to be that single quotation marks should also be used for a title-within-a-quote; see [36]. This obviously isn't a hill I'm going to die on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after broadcast of the commercial" – after the broadcast
  • "the commercial. Though, she did not see the "Daisy" commercial" – perhaps combine these sentences, e.g. "the commercial, although she did not..." (Starting this sort of sentence with "though" strikes me as wrong, although I can't quite place my finger on why.) Also, it might be worth adding "herself" (or "for herself") after "'Daisy' commercial", just to be clear.
  • "Another child actor Birgitte Olsen falsely claimed" – commas around "Birgitte Olsen"
  • "a "sequel" to the ad" – might be worth stating the message of this ad: arguing that Trump (like Goldwater) was unfit to have access to the nuclear arsenal.
    • Done. Though I didn't Done, although I didn't compared him with Goldwater, as most source don't explicitly compare him that way. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "which argued Trump's ability to handle nuclear weapons." – I think you're missing a word or two.
  • "you know he is nuts" – it's a contraction (he's nuts) in the source.
  • "then-Soviet leader" – the then Soviet leader. (I think you can get rid of the hyphen too: a Google search suggests it isn't used.)
  • On footnote 53 ("LBJ's 1964 attack ad..." in the WaPo), you seem to have reversed the author's first and last names.

I think we're just about there as far as the prose is concerned; I'll read it through again later and that should be all. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ – Thanks again! I have addressed all your comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over Republican Party's candidate Barry Goldwater" – "over the Republican Party's candidate..." or (my preference) simply "over Republican candidate..."
  • "John P. Roohe" – per the source, I think it's "Roche".
  • "25,033,262" and similar: per MOS:CURRENCY, inflation conversions should be rounded to two or three significant figures.
  • "instantly replaces the blackness" – missing punctuation
  • "this treaty [Nuclear Test Ban Treaty]." this treaty [the Nuclear...]

None of those nitpicks keep me from giving my support on prose: there are things that I might word differently, but I think the overall quality is adequate. Thanks for your hard work on this important article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your support and kind word; I have addressed few remaining points. And congrats for Melville Fuller! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

  • @FAC coordinators: – With 5 reviews, three of which have declared their support and one review in underway, as well as a passed image and source review
  1. May I nominate another article (Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign) for FAC?
  2. Is this nomination on the right track? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starting with 2, broadly yes, but it has some prose issues, as picked up by Nick-D above. The prose needs to be "of a professional standard" if the article is to be promoted. Re 1, I think that we need to see what Nick's current view is on the prose before we ok a further nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog the Mild. I'll surely wait to see what Nick-D thinks of the article, but I think that I have, at-least attempted to resolve their concerns. I'll be more than happy to address any further comments. Thanks! And as an aside note, thanks for promoting Draft Eisenhower movement yesterday, Gog! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you may nominate another article. I haven't looked at Truman, but can I suggest that you take pains to ensure that "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" - which, of course, it may well be already. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gog the Mild – I'll nominate it soon. I had opened a peer review page, which was reviewed by Hog Farm and DanCherek, and no major concerns were found. It has been copy-edited, so I think the prose may be fine. But can't predict what a reviewer will bring up; I'll be responsive to reviewer's concerns. Also, we now have 4 supports here ... Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian Rose – How is this one looking? Been open for a month, with 5 supports, passed image review, passed source review with spot-checks, and one neutral. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review. I shall copy edit as I go. If you don't like, or don't understand, anything, could you flag it up here. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Following the assassination of his predecessor John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president in November 1963." Link "president and state which country you are referring to.
  • What is a "local spot"?
  • "network ads" - likewise.
    • For both the above points: Both local spot and network ads are advertisements. Local spots were mostly broadcast then on radios on a smaller level by local advertisers, while Network ads were broadcast during prime-time in network programs, on a larger level. See this. Do you suggest me to add this in the article? I think it would be a bit off topic, but we can summarize it in a footnote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should have explained, I like to ask rhetorical questions. I know what they are, but many readers won't. Ideally an FA should be readily comprehensible without a reader needing to consult Wikilinks or footnotes. In the case of technical topics they may be a necessary evil, but I am not sure that we have to break many readers concentration in this case by referring them to a footnote in order for them to understand what they have just read.
Tried to incorporate in the prose itself. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "kick off" is WP:INFORMAL.
  • "The parent would eventually be manipulated into visualizing their child in Corzilius's role." This doesn't make sense to me. What in the sorce are you basing it on?
  • "Schwartz suggested the ad "struck a responsive chord among the voters". As Schwartz was one of the ads creators he would say that, wouldn't he? Is there no unbiased opinion which could replace this? If not, better to delete I think.
  • What does "pulling the ad" mean? And is it WP:INFORMAL?
  • "Of the 1,800 replies received". Exactly 1,800?
  • Consider an in line explanation of "tommyrot".
  • IMO the extended block quote on the ice-cream ad falls foul of MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Especially given the heavy use of quotations throughout the article.
  • "Other commercials included "Confessions of a Republican" and "Eastern Seaboard". " Either explain each or replace with a more general statement.
That seems to be losing worthwhile content. How would you feel about something like 'The Johnson campaign ran further advertisments in a similar vein, including "Confessions of a Republican" and "Eastern Seaboard".[1]'?
Looks fine. Added back. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of the 2020 presidential election, Johnson retains the victory with the highest popular vote percentage since the popular vote first became widespread in the 1824 presidential election." This does not make grammatical sense. "Johnson retains the victory"?
  • "has maintained that position for years." Does that mean to this day? If so, say so. ('to at least late 2021'.)
    • Not sure. There are very few sources which even discuss this claim, with the most reliable one being cited. Removed the part ("maintained that position for years") – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which argued Trump's ability to handle the nuclear weapons." I assume that this makes sense in US English. For a more international audience, perhaps 'which argued that Trump was incompetent to be in control of nuclear weapons' or similar?
  • "Corzilius said, "The fear of nuclear war ..." In Clinton's ad, or seperately?
  • "when asked whether he approved the "Daisy" commercial". Do you mean that, or 'when asked whether he approved of the "Daisy" commercial'?
  • The final block quote, see comments above on MOS:QUOTE.
    • This now remains the only "blockquote" in the article. Can try to incorporate it in the prose if you still insist, but I think its fine there. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two notes would seem to me better worked into the main text, especially the first one.
    • Added the first one. The second one is still bit off topic for the prose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild – Did most of them. Just suggestions/clarification needed as few points above. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. If I haven't responded to a point, assume I am content. Do shout if you don't like any of my copy editing. A couple of points I have come back on above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild – Thanks! Addressed the remaining 2 points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I am missing something, but @Ian Rose, how is this one going? We have 5 supports, 1 neutral, passed image/source reviews. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry KS, your earlier ping got lost amid a bunch of FACbot notifications to me. Can't see anything obvious needed, will walk through the article with a view to closure in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2021 (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) 21 October 2021 [37].

Edgar Kain edit

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Edgar Kain, the Royal Air Force's first flying ace of the Second World War. A New Zealander, he joined the RAF in 1936 and after his training was completed, he was sent to No. 73 Squadron which was sent to France shortly after the outbreak of war. Flying the Hawker Hurricane during the Phoney War and then the Battle of France he quickly achieved success as a fighter pilot. A sometimes reckless pilot, he was killed performing low level acrobatics over his squadron's airfield. I have taken the article through the GA process last year, and it has undergone a MilHist A-Class review earlier this year. I look forward to working with reviewers to take it to FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who stop by to leave comments and feedback. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Thank you Nikkimaria, I have added so all images have alt text now. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Looks good. Some minor typos:

  • "maneuvers" should be "manoeuvres"
  • "Kain was record as being killed on active service, rather than in action" -> "record" should be "recorded"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support, I have fixed both those typos. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

  • Within 17 days [...] nine aerial victories As a general rule, we write numbers as words above 9, but for consistency within a sentence I would change this to either "seventeen" or "9".
  • Why did he join the RAF and not the RNZAF?
  • This was queried at GA as well. The sources are not clear as to why Kain chose the RAF over the RNZAF. However, the RAF would have had superior aircraft (the RNZAF did not have fighters at the time) and also the overseas travel would have been attractive as well. At the time he joined, a recruitment campaign in the Dominions to attract flying personnel to the RAF was well underway so this would also be a pathway for young men wanting to a career in aviation. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the wing now re-designated as No. 67 Wing, weather conditions affected The use of with implies a connection between the re-designation and the weather
  • Rephrased, that should be better. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • but Kain had successful encounter on 23 November had a successful encounter?
  • That was a typo, fixed. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the link on "the thaw" is helpful, especially as linking it like that suggests an article on a specific thaw
  • However, he promptly took ill with German measles "however" implies a contradiction but I don't see one here, just an unfortunate happenstance
  • few days and during his convalescence,[51] the citation you need two commas (one after the "and") or none but one doesn't work
  • Rephrased by starting a new sentence at "During". Does that work for you? Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the squadron was shortly back at Rouvres "however" again
  • The British fighters attacked, with Kain shooting down a Ju 88 this use of ", with" is ungrammatical and should be avoided in formal prose
  • Suggest putting footnotes 4 and 5 in the body, especially as the content of 4 is mentioned in the lead.
  • Have done - that fn 4 is more appropriate in the body is actually quite obvious in hindsight for as you have noted, it is mentioned in the lead. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to trouble you too much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review HJ Mitchell, much appreciated. I have responded to your various points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian edit

Recusing coord duties, I missed out on fully reviewing this at MilHist ACR so this is the first time I've been able to have at it. After completing my habitual copyedit I'm happy with prose, structure, detail and tone, and will take Nikki's image review as read. See below re. referencing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Reviewed for formatting and reliability at MilHist ACR and, having checked again here, I think it meets the criteria. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support/CE Ian! Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "He was also wounded in action." A little bit random to have this without an explanation in the lede. Can this sentence be expanded to describe how this happened?
  • I've opted to remove this; it was relatively slight since he was back flying a few days afterwards so perhaps a bit trivial for the lede in hindsight. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He started working as a clerk" -> He worked as a clerk
  • "just over seven hours' flying." I do not know the MOS of the apostrophe in this phrase, so I'm flagging it here and ask that you ensure this is the correct use of the apostrophe in "hours".
  • I've revised this to do away with the apostrophe. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By now Kain" -> By this point, since it is not taking place "now"
  • "but this affected the runway of the aerodrome which was prone to bogging. This impacted flight operations for the next few weeks" -> but this affected the runway of the aerodrome which was prone to bogging, impacting flight operations for the next few weeks. I think this change breaks up the "this verbed" structure.
  • "Kain fought an action with" I've never heard of the phrase "fought an action". Are these the correct words?
  • To be fair, it is probably more a naval phrase. I applied it here so as to try and avoid using "encounter" repetitively. I have rephrased to refer to a dogfight, and linked that term. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so; he is a co-author of Aces High, the earliest version of which was published in 1966. The professor Clive Williams was a young serving soldier at the time, so it would seem unlikely. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Please ping when they are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thank you for taking the time to have a look at this one. I have responded to your comments above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2021 (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) 21 October 2021 [38].

Operation Sandwedge edit

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another run with this one, which was last at FAC back in January 2016. At that time it was only half the length it is now, reflecting the paucity of sources available when I was writing it, but some tremendous help from the late Brianboulton identified several texts which contributed to a much more comprehensive overview of a project which never happened. Sandwedge is a minor footnote in the grand scheme of the Watergate affair, but an interesting one, as it inevitably gives rises to the question of "what if". I hope whether any of you take the time to review this or not you at least find it an interesting entry in political history, a quaint reminder of a time when crime in public office was wrong. A lot of the sourcing used is offline but if anyone needs to conduct a source review on these I should be able to access all the print sources again to accommodate this. Thanks in advance to anyone having a look at it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – Pass edit

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Iazyges edit

  • Going to have to review this as Nixon is my favorite president, will start as soon as I finish my current GA review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lede

Suggest expanding the lede slightly, perhaps with more information regarding H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Jack Caulfield's positions, as well as G. Gordon Liddy.

Background
  • "defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote." suggest "defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President, by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote."
  • "by a margin of less than 118,000 votes", it may be worth mentioning somewhere that the actual overall vote count doesn't (technically) matter because of the electoral college, but that several states, such as Illinois, were narrowly lost, which ultimately lost him the election.
  • It may also be worth mentioning there was some considerable belief of voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, in the 1960 election, with several of Nixon's 1972 aides having argued it at the time.
  • "Nixon's initial election bid had already involved the planting of rumors and false information about his opponents as a dedicated strategy" suggest "Nixon's initial election bid had already involved planting rumors and false information about his opponents as a dedicated strategy" for simplicity.
Planned activities
  • "officials who had served under Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat and former Attorney General." may be worth noting that he was a leading candidate for 1968 election before his assassination, perhaps, "officials who had served under Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat and former Attorney General, who had been the leading Democratic candidate in the 1968 primaries before his assasination."
  • "investigators and officials of Inland Revenue," really? The British one? Is there any known reason for crossing the pond, and not getting people from the IRS?
  • "Mitchell had served as Attorney General under Nixon's first term" suggest changing "under" to "during"
Aftermath
  • Article definitely needs to mention that Nixon had to resign because of Watergate.
  • That is all of my suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for having a look at this. I've implemented the majority of the changes mentioned; the only thing not yet addressed is the information concerned the voting margins and accusations of fraud in the 1960 election—I know that White's Breach of Faith details this and I want to be able to accurately quote the figures he presents, but I'm currently moving home and the book is elsewhere today, so this will be added when I have the source in front of me. Otherwise this should demonstrate the changes made. (Also of note, today is when I first learnt, as a European, that "IRS" does not stand for "Inland Revenue Service". Every day's a school day). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edits made look good; I will say that probably most Americans couldn't actually tell you what IRS stands for with certainty. Unfortunately, the pain of my tax accounting course will never leave me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've now added the information about 1960 more specifically, including the particularly fine margins in two states, along with an attributed mention of electoral fraud. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh edit

Very interesting article. This is my first FA review, so fell free to ignore any suggestion which you don't find helpful.

  • Do we really need a specific image size in the info-box (270)?
    Apparently not, I've removed it.
  • ""The operation was planned to help Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign."" – suggesting to red-link "1972 re-election campaign" to Richard Nixon 1972 presidential campaign, rather than linking it to the election page.
    I would prefer at present to retain the current link just because the target is so well-written; I have no issues with a relevant red link but not over a viable in-depth article. It's an easy switch if the article is ever created to the same standard though.
  • ""but rivals within Nixon's own party."" – The lead doesn't tell which party Nixon is in.
    Added
  • ""which detailed a plan to break into Democratic Party offices in the Watergate complex. Liddy's plan eventually led to the downfall of Nixon's presidency, "" – both "break into Democratic Party offices" and "downfall of Nixon's presidency" ultimately redirect to the same page.
    Good catch; the duplicate link tool wasn't picking this up.
  • ""In 1968, Richard Nixon, the United States Republican Party nominee"" – Is "United States" really needed? It should be phrased something like "In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party's nominee"
    Trimmed it; this is what happens when you let a euro write about US politics
  • ""this position granted"" → "a position which granted"
    Got it
  • ""during Nixon's successful bid for the vice-presidency under Dwight D. Eisenhower"" – I won't say that Nixon was under Eisenhower. They both campaigned as a ticket for re-election in 1956.
    I've rephrased it; I would have thought a vice-president always served under a president but now it's just "as Dwight D. Eisenhower's vice-president" to avoid that.
  • ""Nixon's initial election bid"" → "re-election bid"
    Got it
  • ""$511,000"" – suggesting to use Template:inflation
    I've added this template with the "equivalent to" output to all the major dollar amounts in the article now
  • Attorney General is linked twice in the prose.
    Another one the tool hadn't flagged due to a redirect, pared the second one out
  • Link Republican National Convention
    Added to first mention,
  • ""congressman for California"" → "congressman from California"
    Although McCloskey was from California, this is to show he was the representative for California (honestly not sure how often a representative tends to stand for a state other than their home but it doesn't feel like they're one and same)
    Well, "congressman from California" would also imply that he represents California. (is mentioning the state important)? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Gemstone was an umbrella term ...... rival political campaigns" – too long sentence
    I've removed the em dash and split this into two sentences.
  • Its notable to mention that Nixon was the first and only president to resign.
    Added a mention of it, cited to Nixon's biography on the US Senate website; if this needs something further I could dig out one of the more recent books but obviously the older the cite is the more date it looks for a fact intended to remain present to today.
  • Committee for the Re-Election of the President already linked in the prose. No need for it to be in the "See also" section.
    Gone.
  • Any book/work for further reading?
    None that haven't been used already; there's no shortage of output on Watergate as a whole but a paucity on the story that didn't happen.
    Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest, most seems fine to me. It would be much appreciated if you could review this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having a look at this; I've addressed your points above and all changes related to them can be seen here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X – I have made a minor edit. Rest all seems fine to me, and I support this article for promotion as a featured article. Any comments here would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

  • You link Vietnam opposition twice in the lead, and the second mention feels redundant (it comes very shortly after the first and is worded almost identically)
  • Not sure the link on "New York police officer" adds much, and is a bit of an Easter egg.
  • at this time he was Nixon's domestic affairs assistant at what time?
  • Ehrlichman was the one who had initially hired Caulfield in 1969 "was the one who" is redundant
  • Ehrlichman was the one who had initially hired Caulfield in 1969; Ehrlichman intended for Caulfield to conduct private investigations while undercover as a private sector employee, it was Caulfield who insisted on working from the White House bit of a mouthful, with a semicolon and a comma splice in the mix. The easiest solution is to replace the semicolon with a full stop, and the comma with a semicolon.
  • however Caulfield intimated privately that it would also "however" implies a contradiction whereas "also" implies an agreement. Suggest replacing "however" with "although" or similar.
  • "private investigator" is linked on the third use of the term in the body
  • Strachan, Dean and other staff members were frustrated "however" again (see WP:WTA)
  • That October, a meeting concerning Sandwedge Which October? This is the start of a new section.
  • a meeting concerning Sandwedge was arranged Can we rephrase this to use the active voice?
  • Another factor in Caulfield's removal from the helm was the belief of several White House officials, including Dean, that Caulfield's Irish-American, non-college educated background was at odds that's a lot of commas. Suggest dashes for "including Dean". And this use of "non-college-educated" is one compound adjective and needs hyphens between all parts.
  • Liddy's initial draft of Operation Gemstone was deemed active voice is preferable again
  • Likewise was made by Dean in January 1972
  • tried for various crimes, with 48 of these This use of ", with" is ungrammatical as a way of joining clauses. You could replace it with a semicolon or split it into two sentences or restructure the whole sentence.
  • "the most monumental of the Nixon Presidency" You need a reference straight after a direct quote.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for having a look at this. I think I've gotten everything here although if you want to cast an eye over the changes to be sure, especially with active voice concerns, just let me know if anything needs further work. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • FN1: this link works, but is it the page that you're meaning to cite?
    It was not, seems like they have rearranged the site a little since it was used. I've updated the link although it's far from vital--the actual percentages are given in the Black source, the Electrical College was just to provide a governmental source for the winner in addition to the more precise breakdown in the book.
  • Knight is listed at the publisher site as the editor of that work rather than the author. Do individual entries have authors?
    They don't, although it's structured like an encyclopaedia or dictionary with alphabetical entries, there's only an editor (Knight) and three "associate editors" (Robert Alan Goldberg, Jeffrey L Pasley, and Larry Schweikart) credited for it. Is the best option here to switch the field to credit Knight as editor, then?
    Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering References? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alphabetical by author (then by year for Genovese who has two entries) with the House Committee listed after individual authors. Open to changing this if you think the last one should be alphabetised like a name.
    I think if you're treating the committee as an author, it would make sense to alphabetize it with the other authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded above, thank you for looking at this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    United States House Committee on the Judiciary alphabetised under "U"; Knight updated to list as editor. I'm noticing now that this displays the editor credit differently for these two entries, in brackets for the Committee and without brackets for Knight. If these should match, I'm not sure how to achieve it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's... odd. Perhaps raise it at Help talk:CS1? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried playing around with it to no avail, I've left a message at the help page asking if anyone can figure it out. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now solved. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks – Pass edit

Version checked — this

  • Ref#2 – The book specifies "43.4 percent to 42.7 percent", so OK (link)
  • Ref#3 – OK (link)
  • Ref#7 – OK (link)
  • Ref#13 – OK (link)
  • Ref#15 – OK (remaining part supported by Ref#16) (link)
  • Ref#16 – OK for remaining claim of that sentence, which isn't supported by Ref#15 (link)
  • Ref#21 – OK (link)
  • Ref#25 – OK (link)
  • Ref#31 – OK (link)

Overall, pass on spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian edit

Recusing coord duties to review, modern American politics has always interested me so I can't really go past this one...

  • Copyedited so pls let me know any probs, otherwise prose, detail (appropriately succinct given it's really a footnote to Watergate), tone and structure seem fine.
  • I'll take Buidhe's and Nikki's image and source reviews as read.
  • One thought: In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party nominee, won the presidential election, defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President, by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote -- My understanding is that the Electoral College decides the election, not the popular vote (as witness Trump 2016), so is it really accurate to say the election was won by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote? Perhaps with a margin of seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote would be closer to the mark. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I'm happy to rephrase this. The popular vote doesn't decide the winner, you're correct, but the margin being so fine is contextually important as the section expands upon. How does "In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party nominee, won the presidential election, defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President. Nixon's margin of victory in the popular vote was seven-tenths of a percent." sound? Splitting it into two sentences should hopefully provide the necessary separation that these are two different facts. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure that works for me. I agree that even though the Electoral College in both 1960 and 1968 was very clear, the narrow popular margin is what everyone focusses on, so I think it's reasonable for this article to do that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made the change. It's an interesting election in that it shows how strange the College is--the "official" result doesn't look close at all but small margins in large states like Texas mean a swing of a relatively small number of voters would have had big differences in that final College tally; less than five thousand votes for Humphrey in Illinois would have been a 52-point swing for example. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point -- small percentages can make a big difference in the end. Anyway change looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2021 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2021 (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) 21 October 2021 [39].

UEFA Euro 2012 Final edit

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC); The Rambling Man[reply]

So it's another major international tournament final for you guys to enjoy, this one from UEFA Euro 2012. The result was a thumping 4–0 victory for Spain over their opponents Italy, in what was Spain's third successive major trophy after they also won UEFA Euro 2008 and the 2010 FIFA World Cup, playing with their famous "tiki-taka" style. This is a co-nomination with The Rambling Man, and as ever we look forward to hearing your detailed feedback on this article.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

  • Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 20:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Looking now.....

  • Is weird having the Spain-Italy match discussed twice - I'd trim it in the Italy section; they're not that far apart.
    True enough. I've just left the final score in the Italy section. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spain emerged victorious, and headed to the UEFA European Championship final for the fourth time, since 1964, 1984 and 2008. - the years here are superfluouse as they've been mentioned in the background section..excetp 2008 isn't mentioned there..?
    Agreed, years gone, and the glaring oversight in the background section now addressed!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and comprehensiveness otherwise look fine. Late here, will have another lookover later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber as ever, thanks for your comments, we look forward to more. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spain's Iniesta was named as UEFA's man of the match. - mixed feelings, I think I'd drop the "Spain's" here as we've established a few lines before that he plays for Spain....

I read though it again - I can't find anything else to complain about (but I am not the most perceptive of prose analyzers) - the one quibble above is not a deal-breaker. Looks on-target on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber thanks very much. There's also a 2016 FAC which could use your thoughts?! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, good..takes my mind off current premier league season anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "The sixteen-team tournament consisted of a group stage, from which eight teams qualified for the knockout phase." - wording is slightly off here - the first clause makes it sound as if the tourney consisted entirely of the group stage. Maybe try "The sixteen-team tournament began with a group stage, from which eight teams qualified for the knockout phase."
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The top teams in each group, along with the two host teams" => "top team in each group"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There, they were divided into four groups of four" - it's a little unclear that "there" means "in the finals"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a comma after "defeating the Soviet Union 2–1 in the 1964 final" to close off the clause
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were runners-up in 2000, losing 2–1 to France in the 2000 final" - could pipe out the second 2000, as if they were runners-up in 2000 then obviously it was the 2000 final that they lost
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Italy won the last meeting" => "Italy had won the most recent meeting"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second Third mention of Ukraine in the background section is linked rather than the first
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Italy took the lead through striker Antonio Di Natale in the 61st minute, who had come on" - "Italy took the lead in the 61st minute through striker Antonio Di Natale, who had come on" reads more naturally to me
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that it's Spain's route to the final we are talking about, is it really relevant who had scored the winner for Portugal in their QF?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Casillas produced a tremendous diving save" - bit POV.......
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next three sentences after that one are all quite short and perfunctory, is there a way to merge them into more flowing prose?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It took three minutes before Spain found an equaliser through Fàbregas" - seems a bit odd to mention the equaliser but not the goal it equalised?
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A foul from Croatia midfielder Ivan Rakitić on Balotelli, meant Italy" - no reason for that comma to be there
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their third and final match against Republic of Ireland" => "Their third and final match against the Republic of Ireland"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the match headed its way into the 90 minutes" - this reads really weirdly
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England players also rounded off chances, through England strikers...." - no need to re-state England
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both sides, however, still failed to take the plaudits" - is this intended to mean "both sides failed to score"? Never seen "take the plaudits" used in that sense
    Yeah, right? Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Balotelli was the first penalty taker for Italy, as he struck the penalty kick" => "Balotelli was the first penalty taker for Italy, and he struck the penalty kick"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Montolivo became the second player for Italy to take the penalty kick" => "Montolivo was the second player to take a penalty kick for Italy"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He made an attempt to slot the ball, past into the same corner, but missed the penalty wide, outside the goal" - this sentence is really bizarre and I think there's at least one word missing. "Missed the penalty wide" isn't natural English at all
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pirlo became Italy's third penalty taker, as well as Ramos" - eh? They were both Italy's third penalty taker?
    Revised. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Midfielder Ashley Young stepped up to take England's third penalty, but failed to convert his goal, and instead hit the crossbar" => "Midfielder Ashley Young stepped up to take England's third penalty, but hit the crossbar"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You describe two consecutive players as "stepping up", might want to adjust that
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It only took a few minutes, before Balotelli struck again" - no need for that comma
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this time blasted into the top right corner" => "this time blasting into the top right corner"
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were awarded a penalty during the late minutes" - "during the late minutes" isn't really a valid expression
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as they progressed into the final, having won the competition last in 1968" - that last bit doesn't naturally fit in at this point IMO and it was already stated earlier anyway
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was chosen by UEFA as the official referee of the final" - as opposed to the unofficial ref?
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He first became an international referee in 2003, and the same year in June, officiated a 2003 Intertoto Cup first round match between Žalgiris and Örgryte" - can't see how any of this is pertinent, especially the random bit about reffing such an incredibly minor match
    Removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He has also refereed nine other Champions League matches" - "He had also refereed nine other Champions League matches" (assuming nine was the number of UCL matches he had reffed prior to the match being discussed)
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were four assistant refs plus a fourth official? Is that right? What did they all do?
    Indeed, that's what the source says. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Barcelona's Piqué joined Ramos in the centre and Alba of Valencia – played on the left" - no reason for that dash
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Andrea Pirlo, also of Juventus, again played" - don't think you need to restate his forename as he has already been mentioned a couple of sentences earlier
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cassano, who plays for Milan" - not any more he doesn't
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spain advanced for the first time, Silva advancing" - suggest varying the verbs here
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crossbar is linked early in the match report but had already been mentioned twice before without being linked
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after mourning their decision" - "mourning" is an odd word to use in a football sense generally, and I'm especially unconvinced that Spain's manager "mourned" a decision which was in his team's favour
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that Italy played their part in, "by meeting the Spaniards high up the pitch." - don't think that "in," is meant to be there
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Confederations Cup, which was played in Brazil in 2013" => "the Confederations Cup, which was due to be played in Brazil in 2013"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude I think I'm finally done? Let us know what you think. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack edit

That's all I've got, nice work. Kosack (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks for your comments, I think I got them all, let us know if there's anything more we can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • I assume ref 51 needs a retrieval date? Not sure
  • (Optional) Recommend marking refs 6, 47 and 66's urls as dead
  • Ref 19 and 23 are both 11v11 but one has AFS Enterprises and one doesn't
  • Ref 31 should probably be formatted like [[Goal (website)|Goal]], right?
  • Are we sure the ".com" is needed for ref 44? I assume it should linked to SB Nation like ref 30 (and probably including Vox Media?)
  • Should probably link National Post and Chicago Tribune as well (refs 55 and 56)
    Done all of the above.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • I am a bit concerned about the use of Euro Summits: The Story of the UEFA European Championship (only cited once in the article). My concern stems from doubts on considering the source "high quality"; Pitch Publishing does not seem to be a particularly notable publisher (does not have a Wikipedia page, for example), and its not immediately obvious that Jonathan Brien is a subject matter expert
    Hmm... it's worth mentioning that this book has been used quite a bit in some other recent successful FAs particularly UEFA Euro 1976 Final, where information from other sources is less readily available, and also UEFA Euro 2008 Final. It also looks to me from the publisher's blurb that the author is a bona fide journalist: "Jonathan O’Brien is a professional editor and writer who lives in Dublin in Ireland. His work has appeared in the Business Post (his employer), the Irish Independent, the Sunday Tribune and When Saturday Comes". I think if he has work published in those newspapers, which we'd consider reliable sources, then a book he's written would also be reliable?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The bibliography for Euro Summits spans five pages and includes hundreds of high-quality publications and newspapers. Given what Amakuru has said about O'Brien as well, I think this stands up to scrutiny. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Brien's qualifications makes me more confident about this publication's use here and since I was on the edge anyway, if the source reviewers for those past FACs didn't find it objectionable, then I have no issue here. Aza24 (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm The42.ie seems less high quality than the other references used. It seems like a minor news website that is not particularly well-known or regarded and none of the site editors have Wikipedia articles for example. Is there any way it could be substituted?
    I have substituted this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No issues with the other refs. They are from reliable and high quality news sources (BBC, Guardian, Telegraph) or statistical information from well-regarded publishers like UEFA and 11v11
Verifiability
  • No issues Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24: I think I've looked at all these points, with the one response to your concern re the O'Brien book. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - this FAC now has the usual three supports, a source review and image review. Please can The Rambling Man and I have permission to nominate another joint FAC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: pinging again. Amakuru, I don't think the ping above will work since you didn't sign. Aza24 (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: yes, apologies, hopefully this one will work. Re-requesting permission for another joint nom! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: does this ping still work? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barely two weeks since it opened but yes we have the requisites for another nom -- okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FAC coordinators: , I think tomorrow marks the three-week (unwritten rule??) on promotion activation. Please do let either of me or Amakuru know if there's anything more required in advance of the assessment for this candidate's closure so we can make it right as soon as possible. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: anything else required? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this stage, though I haven't walked through it yet. You got your permission for another nom above, yep? I expect to go through the list this weekend with a view to closing several noms, including the other UEFA one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that nom already has four supports and passed image/source reviews. Things just a bit glacial here, that's all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: another five days and promotions taking place of "younger" FACs than this? Any ideas what's going on? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that any younger FAC that was promoted had had more eyes on it than this. Three comprehensive supports is the minimum for promotion so I tend to leave those a bit longer in case anyone else shows up -- obviously not forever, and since nothing's changed in the past week I'm happy to close this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2021 (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) 21 October 2021 [40].

Dracophyllum fiordense edit

Nominator(s): Dracophyllum

This article is about an obscure tree from New Zealand's South Island. It was first described in 1928 by the New Zealand botanist Walter Oliver. Genetic analysis more recently has revealed, though quite obviously morphologically speaking, that is is related to Dracophyllum traversii and Dracophyllum menziesii. Good work by botanists recently, a monograph from earlier this year for example, has made sourcing these Dracophyllum articles quite easy. The most important articles are paywalled however, so I can email them to you if you would like. I have chosen to nominate this article before my other GAs because it has no major issues or missing information – the only potential issue being the difficulty in avoiding too close paraphrasing in the description section... Thanks in advance for your comments. Dracophyllum 23:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 23:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber - Support edit

Looking now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has tiny pink flowers.... - a size is more informative than "tiny"...ditto the fruit in the next sentence
Is mentioning they are 2 by 2 mm worth it for the lede? Dracophyllum > FAC 04:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2 mm diameter round(ish) fruit"? (not a dealbreaker anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this Dracophyllum 08:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is rarely branched but when it is, they grow upright and have greyish-brown bark on older sections, whilst newer growth is a yellow-brown. = this sentence switches subject between first and second clauses..aand then changes topic for third. Needs splitting otherwise (weirdly sounds line the colours only occur on branched specimens. How about something like, "It has a single or (uncommonly) two upright trunks. Then colours in separate sentence.
Agreed, @Casliber: how does this sound:

"Though the trunk is usually unbranched, upright-growing branches may sometimes form – particularly on plants in Westland. The bark on older sections is a greyish-brown colour, while newer growth is a yellow-brown."

Dracophyllum > FAC 05:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you have Approximate distribution AND range in taxobox, why not just "Approximate distribution/range"?
I've opted for just "range" Dracophyllum > FAC 03:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
link Fiordland, subgenus, endemic
Done Dracophyllum > FAC 04:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
some of the imperial range conversions stay the same number, which looks weird.
Which ones in particular? Also, should I be using fractions? Dracophyllum > FAC 05:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good from comprehensiveness and prose POV otherwise ergo Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Femke edit

Article is looking good. I'm leaning support pending source review and comments below

  • Lede says 1.5-5m, but I think the body says are only 50 cm in alpine regions
I basically just followed what the monograph (Venter 2021) said in the description, I'm assuming that the 50 cm example is an extreme / outlier... Dracophyllum > FAC 02:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its range occurs in -> Its range covers?
done Dracophyllum > FAC 04:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe wiktionary link tuft in lede
I chose tuft because I thought it would be easy for most people to understand – is this not the case? Dracophyllum > FAC 21:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-native speaker, I may not be representative, but I've never heard of the word. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sheathed in 60–87 by 30–43 mm (2.4–3.4 by 1.2–1.7 in) leathery, grooved sheaths -> are situated in, or are covered by?
Having read some definitions of a leaf sheath: "the lower part of a leaf when surrounding the stem" and "a structure, typically at the base that fully or partially clasps the stem above the node, where the latter is attached," I'm not really sure if it's right to say the the leaf is "sheathed" by the sheaths, because in this case the leaf sheath is just the bottom of the leaf which wraps around the stem. I could clarify that somehow I think... Dracophyllum > FAC 04:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded it to, "and are attached to the stem by ...." Dracophyllum > FAC 07:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flowering occurs from January to March, producing an inflorescence (flower spike) that is an axillary panicle, which is one that is many-branched and arises far below the leaves, between the stem the leaf. -> split sentence in two
Changed to: "Flowering occurs from January to March, producing an inflorescence (flower spike) that is an axillary panicle. This is one that is many-branched and arises far below the leaves, between the branch the ,leaf." Dracophyllum > FAC 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the construction with the word one is awkward. Try... ... axillary pinacle: the inflorescense is many-branched and arises...
done Dracophyllum > FAC 19:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alts seem to be missing for pictures.
done Dracophyllum > FAC 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third pararaph of the description section is very jargonny. I see you have explained some words, but still difficult to understand. Maybe reread and tweak further. I know at some point prose quality declines with too much explaining. Don't have specific recommendations.
I've explained a little more. A diagram would help but this close ups of flowers are hard to come by and all the botanical drawings are copyrighted... Dracophyllum 08:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"caducous" keeps hanging me up there... Eewilson (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
possibly change "obtuse apices (tips)" to just "obtuse tips" and remove "apices" along with removing the wikilink for it; it's not used anywhere else in the article, so one less thing for the reader to have to learn Eewilson (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, as apex. Sorry about that. ignore. -Eewilson
caducous is gone Dracophyllum 09:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The corolla also has reflexed and oblong-shaped lobes, that are alone a similar size to the corolla tube at 1.5–2.0 by 1.3–1.5 mm (0.06–0.08 by 0.05–0.06 in) that are alone?
removed Dracophyllum > FAC 04:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though he noted that because the 2010 study was based on plastid sequence data and did not attain some species with strong enough evidence, the subgenera are instead based on morphological characteristics -> Can "Though he noted that" may be omitted for an easier sentence structure
I wanted to imply that it wasn't my own original research, but if it doesn't sound like it was my inference without the noted bit, then it can go. Dracophyllum > FAC 09:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear from context, but for clarity you can make the last bit of the sentence active case (he instead based the subgenera on ..). FemkeMilene (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Dracophyllum > FAC 04:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the first paragraph of distribution and habitat be split? Bit long. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Dracophyllum > FAC 03:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • :: @Femkemilene:, Eewilson has conducted a source review, do you now support this nomination? Cheers, Dracophyllum 23:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: I have assumed that Venter is a New Zealander since they did their thesis in new zealand, but can't find anything about him online so will remove that line. Dracophyllum > FAC 08:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note edit

I'll be gone for the next few days for a short wikibreak, feel free to leave comments, though I wont be able to respond to them right away. Thanks, Dracophyllum > FAC 20:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eewilson edit

In no particular order:

  • Alts: I think the alts need some adjustment. See MOS:ALT. For example, the speciesbox image alt currently reads Dracophyllum fiordense in Fiordland on the Milford Track, on the flanks of Mount Balloon. The alt could instead read something like this: "Mountainside covered with green plants with D. fiordense in the center" and add a caption similar to one of these: "D. fiordense, Milford Track, Fiordland National Park" OR "Milford Track, Fiordland National Park" OR "D. fiordense in Fiordland National Park". As a bonus, you could edit the long description of the photo on Commons to include the entire description you have currently used as the alt.
I'm not sure what the <nowiki> will do in the alt for the photo in the Etymology section, but I would remove it, remove the Wiki markup from it (MOS:ALT says no code or markup in the alt), and change it to be similar to the one I described previously. You could also expand the caption a bit to include the location, if you wish.
I've reworked the alts a little, though don't wish to get hold up on them. Dracophyllum 09:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Looks good. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections: I think the Description section could have subsections for Leaves, Flowers, and Fruit to break up the long text. I also think Distribution and habitat ought to have Distribution and Habitat as subsections. You may need to do a bit of rearranging there.
I'll work on reworking the Distribution and Habitat section... Dracophyllum 06:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some subsections – I feel like having them in the description section inflates it too much. Dracophyllum 03:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation: The sentence He hypothesised that this change in range was due either to: misidentification as D. traversii; simply not having being found earlier; or more recent movement of the species further north... should not have the colon. The subcolons are okay, but could also be replaced with commas (and perhaps should) since there are no commas embedded within each of the items.
ehh, the rules for this sort of thing are quite open – i'll change it if it impedes understanding. Dracophyllum 09:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, whatever. :) Check. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant text: Oliver claimed it had been known by others for some years before he collected it in March 1927 on Wilmot saddle and Mount Barber.[5] The type specimen was collected on Wilmot saddle on the Wilmot pass.... First part of second sentence duplicates last part of first sentence.
I don't know why I thought this was a problem, but on second read, it's fine, so forget about this. Eewilson (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsection order: I'd put Phylogeny before Etymology, but not required I guess.
I like it in that order :) Dracophyllum 09:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Seeing it again, I kinda do, too. I may change a couple of the ones I've been working on. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservation section: In the Lead you have Its conservation status was assessed in 2017 as "Declining." This is not in the body, nor is there a Conservation section. I think it should be added to the body with detail as to why it's declining within a section for Conservation that comes after Distribution and habitat.
It's in the habitat section at the bottom, no information is given as to why it is declinig sry. Dracophyllum 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. If more information ever comes up, it may be worth a Conservation section. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venter: There's reference to "Venter" by surname in the Description before the text about who he is and his full name, which doesn't occur until Phylogeny.
not sure when I removed it or if it was ever there but rn this issue is resolved. Dracophyllum 03:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Units of measurement: First instance of any measurement should be spelled out (metres, feet) (see MOS:UNITNAMES), so turn abbr=off there. Under description, mm (millimetres) and in (inches), cm (centimetres), etc.
done, can't seem to make in into inches Dracophyllum 09:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. I'll try, but if it doesn't work, no big deal on inches, I guess. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hypen needed: pyramid shaped should be "pyramid-shaped" as an adjective
done Dracophyllum 23:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date format mismatch: Reference beginning with Norton, David A. (2018-10-02). needs to be changed to have dd mmmm yyyy format in the date = parameter.
Check. Eewilson (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatnotes: I would add the following templates at the top below Short description since the article is already following these conventions: Use dmy dates, Use shortened footnotes, and Use New Zealand English
Added Dracophyllum > FAC 08:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. You should add those to all the Dracophyllum articles you are creating! :) Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • access-date: All sources with url = set should have access-date = set (per something I read recently).
k, done Dracophyllum 09:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • References order: References should be in alphabetical order by author surnames followed by publication date.
done Dracophyllum 09:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes section: Personally, I like "Citations" for the name of that section rather than Footnotes because Footnotes is too close to Notes and because they actually are citations.
Check. Eewilson (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ecology: There is no Ecology section. I think there is some ecology information in the article that could be rearranged/moved to one, and perhaps you can find more. See WP:PLANTS § Ecology.
@Eewilson: I've pulled together some scraps – it's a bit rough though. Dracophyllum 03:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll study it and get back with you. Eewilson (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bird picture is a nice touch! I'll read that more in depth soon. The second paragraph in the Description subsection that begins "Venter recorded in his 2009 thesis and 2021 revision of the genus that plants from the southern population..." can be a part of ecology because it is about the species' interaction with the environment. Very good information for Ecology. Eewilson (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, distribution/habitat and ecology sections often have a rough overlap (plant associations for example)... Dracophyllum 04:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Type specimen: Can you elaborate as to why there is a lectotype rather than a holotype? Is an image to the lectotype online? If so, perhaps a link to it in either a note or a citation, depending on how you use it if you find it.

—Eewilson (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a picture of it as well as explained why it is a lectotype and not a holotype, I have reservations about linking stuff (to external websites) in the article, so I guess I could put it in an external links section... Dracophyllum 03:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I have done is (perhaps) say where it is stored either in the prose or in an efn, then have a citation that has the external link. See Symphyotrichum lateriflorum for any of the specimen images, and Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Variety flagellare and Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Variety tenuipes (or search for the word "stored") for sample prose and citations to go with them. —Eewilson (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll study what you've changed on this and get back with you. Eewilson (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Explanation is good. Anything else will come up in source review. Eewilson (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation: Its range covers two main groups, one in Fiordland National Park, and one in the Mount Cook and Westland National Parks. That first comma after two main groups should be a colon or an em-dash.
done Dracophyllum 04:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date next to author citation: Botanical author citations do not have dates next to them like zoological ones do, so that should be removed from the Speciesbox.
Deleted Dracophyllum > FAC 07:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speciesbox source citations: There should be a source citation for the Binomial and one for the Range map. You can put each of them on the end of the authority = and range_map_caption = parameters, respectively.
done Dracophyllum 06:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: simply not having being found earlier is really not correct — maybe "simply not being found earlier".
done, Dracophyllum 09:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • References subsections: I think you could replace === Websites ===, === Books ===, and === Journals === with ;Websites, ;Books, and ;Journals, respectively. No need in having them in the TOC.
done Dracophyllum 03:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more later. —Eewilson (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conversions: With respect to the conversions, so many of the measurements are so small that conversion to Imperial is meaningless. I would opt for eliminating all of your conversions and just using metric, which I'm pretty sure is acceptable given the location of the species and that this is a scientific article. You will need to place either a nbsp between each number and unit or wrap each in nowrap. I think this will also make the Description secion read much cleaner. Another option would be to use fractions, but you would end up with 0.55–0.60 millimetres (1⁄50–1⁄40 inch) or 0.55–0.60 millimetres (1⁄50–3⁄125 inch) or 0.55–0.60 millimetres (1⁄50–7⁄300 inch) for the smallest one, depending on the precision you choose. I don't think that's useful in this case.

—Eewilson (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tiny ones. Dracophyllum 08:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can probably do the source review in a few days. —Eewilson (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to all the paywalled articles and could send them to you if you would like. Dracophyllum 03:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: That would be great. Do you have my email address from the GA you did for me? If not, message me through here and we can go from there. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! It's looking good. I have the source review to do. Another read-through. I'm also working on a GA review and am in the source review for it, so I'll likely bounce back and forth between it and this. Good work! Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More prose review, reference formatting, plant article contents

After a full read, I have made corrections in the article and have the following for you to address:

  • Does there exist information on the phytochemistry and chromosome analysis of the species or genus? Description needs this if it does.
  • Root structure is missing from the description.
None is given anywhere Dracophyllum 03:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a fragrance?
None given Dracophyllum 03:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presume it is evergreen? Winter or drought deciduous? If so, add that, or add whatever applies.
Can't find anything about that Dracophyllum 03:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "straight-triangular" and is there a clearer way to describe that?
  • "It has an almost globe-shaped ovary, which is 0.9–1.0 by 1.3–1.5 mm (0.035–0.039 by 0.051–0.059 in), hairless, and has a round apex." What is "It"?
the flower/s Dracophyllum 03:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. I changed it. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because the 2010 study was based on plastid sequence data and did not attain some species with strong enough evidence, he instead based the subgenera on morphological characteristics." Did not "contain"? Did not "include"?
It's "attain" Dracophyllum 03:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • mountain flax (Phormium cookianum), Which species is it? Also, Wikilink the species name rather than the common name per plants project instructions. I did that on all but this one because of the confusion.
It's a synonym, the one in the brackets is the more common one in nz Dracophyllum 03:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check. I dealt with it. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't ital or bold punctuation such as parentheses, periods, commas, etc., unless it's a direct quote (I fixed). Put them outside of the formatting.
k Dracophyllum 03:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with space endash space or emdash and no space when used in a sentence. I changed to space endash space because it was what was in the earliest part of the article.
k Dracophyllum 03:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ital the genus name in the journal article titles; sentence case in journal article names; title case in book names; I actually don't know about thesis names, but you have one of each so you may want to find out and see if they should be consistently one or the other
  • All taxa above genus are not italicized. I fixed, but keep this in mind.

Many of the things I have listed during my review here should have been caught in or prior to GA review.

—Eewilson (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Convert template page lists options for the abbr parameter. The value off for that parameter will spell out both values. Leaving the parameter out takes the default, which is to spell out the first value but not the second. See Template:Convert#Parameter list for more info. Eewilson (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Description
    • Paragraph 1: Sort out your two citations at the end of the paragraph within the prose so that the reader will know what came from which. If the same information came from both, use the secondary source (https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/dracophyllum-fiordense/).
    • Paragraph 2: Has no source citations.
    • Paragraph 3: Same issue as Paragraph 1.
  • Distribution
    • Paragraph 2: The sentence "The northern population, in Westland, typically has many branched stems and much smaller fruit and shorter leaves." Should that be with one of Venter's sources or with Norton's?
  • Ecology
    • Paragraph 1: There is a reference to Gray's 1977 thesis in the prose with no citation, then information from and a citation to Lentini et al. 2018, p. 158, then more information from Gray 1977 with a citation to it. Sort out the mismatch.

If you will clear those items up, then I'll be able to continue. Thanks! Eewilson (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

these issues have been fixed, thanks Dracophyllum 23:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay all done, Support! Great work. —Eewilson (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops @Dracophyllum: I forgot these two things that you didn't answer. I still Support, but can you let me know if you've looked into them?

  • Does there exist information on the phytochemistry and chromosome analysis of the species or genus? Description needs this if it does.
Usually these are listed on NZPCN, a search on google scholar turns up nothing. So no, unfortunarely. Dracophyllum 06:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bummer. Okay. Eewilson (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "straight-triangular" and is there a clearer way to describe that?
source says the leaves are "linear–triangular" so basically its a rectangle than becomes shorter, kinda like a triangle. Dracophyllum 06:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it, but don't worry about it. :) Eewilson (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—Eewilson (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "and are shaped like a head of a lance; narrowing to their ends in a triangular form." which I hope makes a little more sense? It's hard to describe... Dracophyllum 08:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does! Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: Are we good to go or are you looking for another review? Dracophyllum 00:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Always like to see more eyes on a nom if possible but it's been a month, so we'll go with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Given the topic I've chosen to nominate, I think I'm lucky to have gotten the amount of reviewing I did. Dracophyllum 06:13, 21 October 2021 (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) 21 October 2021 [41].

Cyclone Dumazile edit

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 21:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC) & ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}[reply]

This article is about Cyclone Dumazile, the third in a series of five storms that brought heavy, damaging rainfall to Réunion in 2018. NoahTalk 21:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Image review looks good (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink edit

Support - I'm happy with the work done to the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • that brought flooding to the east coast of Madagascar and Réunion - that implies east coast of "Réunion". I think it works fine if it's just "flooding to Madagascar and Réunion."
  • In Réunion, Dumazile came less than two months after Cyclone Berguitta dropped torrential rainfall over the island in mid-January. This meant ongoing repairs to bridges and reconstruction efforts after Berguitta were interrupted or set back, especially on the highway between Îlet Furçy and Cilaos. - I think this could be stronger, and I have issues with "came less than two months" and the flow, and not sure about how . Something like - "Cyclone Dumazile followed less than two months after Cyclone Berguitta affected Réunion, disrupting ongoing repairs to bridges and reconstruction efforts." Then you can mention the heavy rainfall from Dumazile (ideally with the rainfall total), and then you can get into the damaged road network, where you can mention the highway.
  • Believe I did what you want here. NoahTalk 23:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you mention the roads in two parts, once related to floods/landslides, and the other due to trees. Any way of combining all three into a single mention of the roads?
  • " In Madagascar, rainfall warnings were issued for most of the east coast and some flooding occurred in Toamasina, as a result of malfunctioning drainage systems after Cyclone Ava in January. " - split into two sentences. One for the warnings, the other for flooding.
  • Is it worth linking the other places in Madagascar other than Toamasina?
  • Looks like Diana Region has an article... the others do not. NoahTalk 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you mention somewhere in the lead and the MH that the storm formed in the South-west Indian Ocean? Kinda important.
  • "A pocket of dry air to Dumazile's west caused the cyclone's low-level circulation center to briefly become exposed, before it was quickly obscured by new bursts of thunderstorms.[" - is "obscured" the right term here? Usually, people think of "obscured" as a negative thing. Could you explain what it means for the circulation to be exposed (dislocated from the convection), and another verb describing the new burst of thunderstorms.
  • Could you add in the MH how close the storm got to the east coast of Madagascar? Ditto for how close it got to Reunion? (or at least a mention of the island, considering how much the article describes the effects there)
  • We are having some trouble finding sources for this, but we will keep looking. NoahTalk 01:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found something stating the distance for Réunion, but I can't seem to find anything similar for Madagascar. NoahTalk 11:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Floodwaters cut off access to Saint-Denis from all but one road. The coastal and mountain highways were closed;[24] a section of the latter road was covered in debris after a landslide occurred. Strong waves submerged four lanes of the coastal highway with seawater, and 150 mm (5.9 in) of rain fell on a cliff overlooking the road." - I'm confused, was the "latter road" the "all but one road"? Or is there only one mountain highway? Maybe talk about these roads separately, since incidents happened on both?
  • Adjusted and clarified what I meant about the cliff part. NoahTalk 22:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the RN5 highway been rebuilt yet?
  • As far as the source says, it is no longer closed. Looks like more projects were proposed to take place. NoahTalk 22:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "The MNS station"?
  • Added in that it is a beach surveillance station. NoahTalk 23:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reunion section is a bit weirdly formatted. It would be nicer if there was a paragraph on preparations/preceding storms, one on the general impacts (and the bit of aftermath), one on the more specific impacts? There doesn't seem to be a logical flow right now.
  • This is the only part that I still think needs work. You mention roads in three separate paragraphs, ditto landslides. Like, I get that the first paragraph mentions the preparations and some meteorological details, but what is the heirarchy of the other three paragraphs? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hurricanehink: The first paragraph has general information regarding roadways (damage/closures) on the island, the second one contains numerous specific occurrences (specific roads closed/affected and in towns), and the RN5 highway is mentioned in the last paragraph due to the prolonged closure and aftermath associated with it. I didn't think it made sense to mention the RN5 highway being closed in one sentence and then bring up the highway again later. I adjusted the landslides (other than the RN5 highway occurrence) since there wasn't much structure for it. NoahTalk 03:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decent article right now, but needs some more love. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "Getting better. All of my concerns were addressed but one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Clayoquot edit

(Just starting this. More comments to come.) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #37 is to a Tweet. Shouldn't we be referencing the news story instead of a Tweet about the news story?
  • "with its Dual Frequency Precipitation Radar" - why is this level of detail on instrumentation important?
  • Simply using radar isn't sufficient enough. There are many types of radar and a reader could think it was a doppler radar or another type commonly used, which it isn't. NoahTalk 22:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Setback" is used as a verb. "Set back" is a verb; "setback" is a noun.
  • "Ports were also damaged by the waves, and in the case of Saint-Gilles, was clogged by debris." - this reads a bit awkwardly as it mixes plural and singular. Perhaps reword it as "Ports were also damaged by the waves, and the Port of Saint-Gilles was clogged by debris."?
  • "Amid favourable environmental conditions, Dumazile strengthened" had me doing a bit of a double take. Can it be rephrased to avoid suggesting conditions that intensify a storm are a good thing?
  • This kind of phrasing is commonplace in meteorology. It isn't meant to imply the conditions were a good thing, but rather in the context of the storm, they were good for it. I have modified it to avoid mentioning favourable. NoahTalk 01:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the disturbance improved in organisation" - as above, try rephrasing to avoid terms like "improved" which suggest that the storm was a good thing. Perhaps "the disturbance became more organised"?
  • Changed to the disturbance's organisation increased. NoahTalk 01:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to declare Dumazile became" isn't quite grammatical. I think this should be " to declare Dumazile had become"
  • "water boil advisory" should be "boil-water advisory". See Boil-water advisory for other synonyms.
  • The part about lack of potable water, water dearths, etc. needs clarification. "Water dearths" is an odd phrase - can you say this another way? The source seems to be saying that tap water was cut off temporarily to certain areas. This doesn't necessarily mean that there was a lack of potable water (e.g. bottled water may have been available, or there may have been ways to collect rainwater).
  • "Authorities worked to clear out drainage systems" - why is this worthy of note? Isn't this something authorities do routinely?
  • "multiple projects were proposed in December 2020 to further safeguard the highway from the effects of weather events as a result of the 2018 shutdown's long duration" - could use rewording, as it could be interpreted as saying that weather events were caused by the long duration of the shutdown.
Yup. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead refers to "riots" in Toamasina, but the body of the article mentions only one riot. I ran the cited Malagasy source through Google Translate and it translated the event as a "student strike" with four students charged with property damage. Are you sure the source(s) say "riot", and if so how many riots were there?
  • Changed to protest even if that is misleading since the source doesnt explicitly state riot. Im assuming it to be OR for me call it a riot even if there is property damage and looting by the whole involved group. NoahTalk 13:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any other sources that can help clarify the nature and significance of this incident? There's a big difference between a riot, a strike, and a protest. When I first read the Wikipedia article I got the impression that people rioted because they objected to how the government was not doing enough to keep power on. After reading a translation of the source, I came away with the impression of students taking advantage of the darkness and chaos to let off steam about nothing in particular. If the only source is the one Midi Madagasikara article, I wonder 1) whether it's important enough to mention in the lead, and 2) do you understand Malagasy well enough to know exactly what the source is saying, or if not, can you enlist someone who does understand Malagasy? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not really anything source-wise that can help to clarify this. Sources are far and few for the African continent, especially for storms like this that aren't very damaging or especially deadly. I can attest that while searching in Malagasy, I found absolutely no results. We did search some local news sites written in Malagasy to find the two sources you mention below. Most of the local Madagascar sources I found were written in French, which is another official language for the country. The word in this case directly translates as strike with protest and riot being vastly different words. The reason I originally labeled it a riot was because it met the common legal definition of one, specifically in regards to the destruction of property and looting. Would you recommend I put it as a strike per the source? I can remove this from the lead since it wasn't a severe event. NoahTalk 23:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the constraints. I guess "strike" is the best term to use, although it raises the question of why the students were striking. I agree with removing it from the lead since this is the only available source - if it was more significant it would probably have been picked up more widely. Thanks for looking into this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Modified to strike. NoahTalk 23:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was the strike added back to the lead? Also, do the sources support saying that the strike was instigated by power outages? Reading the L'Express source, it says that the students had been involved in several disturbances and that their behaviour during Dumazille was "the drop that made the vase overflow," suggesting that the incident during Dumazille wasn't by itself major. The source mentions one power outage but does not suggest that power outages were the motive. It would seem strange to respond to a power outage by throwing rocks at passing vehicles on the highway. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw "Dumazile caused power outages in Toamasina on 4 March, sparking a strike.[64][65]" below, and added it back to the lead on the premise that it's notable and interesting enough, being a direct effect of the storm (though the L'Express source now appears to contradict that). I think Noah may be more familiar with what's going on here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources directly mention the power outages as the motive while the L'Express source doesn't mention the motive specifically for this instance, however, it does state this was part of a pattern. That source is also focusing more on the events following the strike rather than the strike itself. I have again removed it from the lead as I don't think it is notable enough for there. NoahTalk 13:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One more issue on the student incident: The new L'Express source doesn't use the French word for strike, which is "grève". It uses the French word "manifestation" which usually translates into English as "demonstration" or could be translated as "incident". I suggest using the generic term "incident" as the sources don't seem to agree on the term "strike" and the event sounds more like people acting like jerks than anything else. Or consider not mentioning the incident - students being expelled for acting like jerks is routine stuff whether or not there is a hurricane. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your comment since I assume you meant to reply to both of ours. I changed the word to incident per your request. There is a difference in my opinion between acting like jerks and de facto rioting. I believe most people would want to see the conclusion to this similar to saying whether or not a dam failed or possibly something else. It provides a conclusion to the event. NoahTalk 00:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed there are only two sources in Malagasy. What kind of search of the Malagasy news was done? Was there a search of print-only sources? Can this topic be written about comprehensively without a wide range of Malagasy sources? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to my comment above: It's great to see so many French-language sources. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to both of these comments, I found an online local news cache containing a number of sources that can be used for Madagascar (apparently not available in the various search engines). It will take a while to go through all of it, although I did see some just corroborate what sources already in this article have. I likely will have some time tomorrow afternoon to begin that. Most of the sources in question are French, however, there are a few Malagasy ones as well. Over 2/3 of the Madagascan media sites don't even mention Dumazile period so it likely was just isolated to a few regions. NoahTalk 00:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks for looking into this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have added in everything except the Newsmada site. I haven't looked at any of the articles there yet in detail, however, they do have an extensive coverage of Dumazile there. EDIT: I found 9 total sources, some of which just corroborate details already in the article. NoahTalk 14:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added in every source I found for Madagascar. I will revise the lead as needed either after my exam tonight or sometime tomorrow. NoahTalk 21:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KN went ahead and revised the lead earlier today. NoahTalk 18:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fantastic. I'll try to finish reviewing this weekend. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schools were suspended in The Ambalavola District was left underwater" - it looks like some words were accidentally deleted here.
  • Deleted since I reworded the statement and placed it elsewhere. I just forgot to delete that portion of the sentence I had started. NoahTalk 11:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinking: Where other cyclones (Bergitta, Ava, etc.) are mentioned, it would be very helpful to link to their articles. At a minimum, link these names on the first occurrence after the lead (in addition to in the lead, which was already done). Linking once per section would not be overkill in this case.
  • New sources look great. I admire how much work you've put into collecting local perspectives. I have a few more comments below, in addition to my comment above about the strike.
  • I don't understand this sentence: "Strong winds and heavy rains destroyed flat houses, light poles, and metal sheeting from Toamasina to Ste Marie". What is a "flat house"? Are you sure metal sheeting was destroyed, as opposed to being blown off buildings? Metal sheeting is difficult to destroy.
  • Linked to the appropriate article for the first part. Unfortunately, the source doesnt elaborate on whether the sheets were blown off. It simply lists the items as being destroyed, similarly to how I have done. Reason would indicate the sheets were blown off and/or damaged beyond use. NoahTalk 13:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The term "flat house" needs to be changed, as a flat is by definition not a house. If the article uses British English you could use "housing flats". If the article uses American English, the term would be "apartments". Or you could just say "homes".
I ran the source through Google Translate and it was written in present tense, saying "All the way to Ste Marie, heavy rains and winds are destroying the concrete buildings, light poles and metal plates." This, if Google's translation is correct, doesn't fully support the assertion that these things were destroyed; a more accurate term would be "caused damaged to". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weird... I ran it through just now and got a different, but similar output. I changed it to damaged and homes. NoahTalk 00:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 73 has the title of an unrelated story. The title should be “Météo : Dumazile s’éloigne progressivement des côtes”
    Swapped the title; there were two stories on the same webpage for some reason. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the title of ref 33 in English?
    Fixed. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this meets the FAC criteria now. Thanks for your great work. Happy to support. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support from TRM edit

  • Why is the name "Intense Tropical Cyclone Dumazile" in the opening sentence? Intense Tropical Cyclone Dumazile doesn't link here and the common name is just Cyclone Dumazile. Why is "Intense Tropical" in bold too?
  • Intense Tropical Cyclone Dumazile is the official name of the storm, however, per our naming conventions we shorten the article title to Cyclone Dumazile as it is more concise and less cumbersome. Intense Tropical is included in the bold as it is a part of the full name of the storm. I created the appropriate redirect for the link you mentioned. NoahTalk 18:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Salazie," link?
  • "Îlet Furçy" ditto
  • Linked in lead + body. NoahTalk 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Map plotting the track and intensity of the storm, according to the Saffir–Simpson scale" but how? That's not explained. I imagine it's to do with the track colour, but that doesn't appear to have a key. And is that detail accessible to people with screen readers?
  • There is a key on commons that is in the summary for the image which explains the plotting. No, this map is not accessible to people with screen readers. Given the graphical nature of the map, it would be impossible to display the data for people with screen readers unless the map and its key were physical. Any changes to these maps, such as including the commons key in the EN WP template, would require consensus considering the template is transcluded thousands of times. NoahTalk 18:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all honesty, I'm not bothered by the "thousands of transclusions" argument. We have to make images accessible, especially in our "finest" work. If you don't want to do that, that's your prerogative, but I won't support articles which prevent information being accessed by people with restricted access. If you can't make the same information available to those who can't see the image, then it's an immediate oppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no way to make a graphical map 100% accessible and I consider that to be unactionable. I did incorporate some locations into the alt text to hopefully convey the path a bit better. The information on which this track map is based can be found in the meteorological history section. We mention the path the storm took and the major status changes. I get that you want all the data it contains to be 100% accessible to those who can't see, but that's not possible. I can work on getting the key added (likely also has to be in image form for technical reasons), but that will take time and consensus. Added the key into the box in text format as I found a way to make it work without bloating the track box up (to avoid creating sandwiching issues on numerous articles). I BOLDly added it in since I found a way to make it less intrusive. NoahTalk 18:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Grand Îlet. " this is the only geographical entity which appears to be redlinked. Logic?
  • "barriers in Tampon were" link?
  • "during Cyclone Ava.[52] Knee" overlinked.
  • Removed the excess linkage. NoahTalk 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are CISCO and ZAP schools?
  • Added notes explaining what CISCO and ZAP stand for and what type of schools they involve. NoahTalk 16:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 59, 60, 62 and 67 have spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.
  • Ref 7: SHOUTING.
  • Took the caps off the name. NoahTalk 21:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of translating those non-English reference titles using trans-title parameter in the citation templates?
  • Titles have been translated. NoahTalk 02:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all of the concerns above except for the one that I view as unactionable. NoahTalk 16:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the effort you've gone to in order to address my issues. I realise that translating a map into something accessible is a real challenge, but you've done a good job, and thank you. I'm also happy with the remainder of my comments, so I'm supporting this nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CodingCyclone edit

Note: Requested on my talk.

  • "was named Dumazile the next day" You can probably remove "Dumazile" here. It's already established twice that its name is Dumazile.
  • "Cyclone Dumazile followed less than two months" For some reason, "followed less than two months..." is clunky to me. Can you change it to "made landfall affected the area less than two months"? Slightly changed. codingcyclone please ping/my wreckage 18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusted appropriately to avoid repeat wording. NoahTalk 20:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That night, increased thunderstorm activity in conjunction with an easterly wind burst furthered development, and the MFR reported that the system became Tropical Disturbance 06 at 06:00 UTC on 2 March; at the same time, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) classified the system as a tropical depression." Seems a bit long. Maybe split up at "...2 March; at..."
  • "to declare Dumazile had" Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it should probably be "to declare that Dumazile had".
  • "pre-warning was ended" "Was" can probably be cut.
  • "and daycare facilities" Is there a specific reason for adding this detail?
  • "East and westbound traffic, traveling across the island, was restricted to the Plaines highway due to other roads flooding." Pretty sure the two commas can be cut, and a comma should be added after "highway".
  • "after the storm...during the storm." Repetitive.
  • "during cyclones Berguitta," The same wording was used just a couple sentences before. Maybe cut "cyclones"?
  • Can't cut cyclone since this would force the reader to assume the new storm mentioned is also a cyclone. I reworded two instances to avoid "during". NoahTalk 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cyclones Ava," Same thing.
  • "The RN5 highway later reopened; multiple projects were proposed in December 2020 to further safeguard the highway from the effects of weather events. These proposals occurred as a result of the 2018 shutdown's long duration. Authorities in Saint-Paul municipality worked to create a barrier made of boulders, repair an observation deck, and repair ramps leading to the Roches Noires beach. The project was estimated to cost about €46,000 (US$56,000)." Any update on this one?
  • RN5 highway one has the latest update. For the Roches Noires beach, I haven't seen anything mentioned recently about any repairs related to Dumazile. NoahTalk 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spilled their banks" Wording seems off; change to "river banks overflowed"?
  • This is one of many synomyns meaning the same thing. here is a news story with its usage. NoahTalk 02:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Residents in Toamasina chose to remain in their homes instead of evacuating to shelters in an effort to protect their property." This is a bit of a generalization. How many decided to remain in their homes? The majority? Or only a relatively small percentage?
  • The source states it as a majority of the victims, but that could mean anything. It's better not to speculate as to what they mean. NoahTalk 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supplies ran low...supplies ran low" Repetitive wording.
  • Changed the first one since it was fuel running running low. NoahTalk 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Please ping me when everything's completed. Overall an interesting read! I need to continue working on the timeline for this topic as well. codingcyclone please ping/my wreckage 02:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CodingCyclone: I believe I have addressed your comments. NoahTalk 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. Now happy to support. codingcyclone please ping/my wreckage 21:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LightandDark2000 edit

  • "Yellow alerts were issued for the Manampatrana and Matitanana rivers as water-levels neared critical levels." Don't need the hypen for "water levels".
  • "sparking an incident in which three passing cars were damaged by rocks, and tires were burned." By whom? The article doesn't provide any clues until a couple of sentences later. The readers should not be left to guess. Also, link "incident" to riot. I think the term should be linked, for the readers' benefit. As for the link target, we should call a spade a spade. Political correctness crap shouldn't affect how we cover our subjects.
  • Adjusted the wording in the first sentence. We can't link riot unless it is explicitly called one due to implications. There is widescale division on such things as it was rough to even get riot in for the Capitol attack even with sources calling it one. This certainly shouldn't be called or linked to riot if the sources don't explicitly state that. NoahTalk 21:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Ambilobe-Antsiranana road (RN6) reopened on 13 March after suffering flood damage during the storm." Add a comma after "13 March."

That's all I could find. I think that everything else has been covered by the others above. As for the "accessibility issue", I believe that adding the map legend to the track map image template (which has been done), is good enough. Some things just can't be done. Graphics, such as maps (whether it be storm tracks or battle maps) just can't be made accessible to blind people, unfortunately. The Meteorological history is sufficiently descriptive here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, we have tools such as alt text and descriptive captions which can help. Your comment is truly unhelpful and incorrect. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Figured I should reply here as well. Alt text for the track maps would run quite long if we were to describe the whole track of the storm in detail. Would just describing the general shape of the track (e.g. "The storm was weak and barely strengthened throughout its lifetime. It generally went northwest during its life.") be sufficient? Or would we have to add more detail to that? codingcyclone please ping/my wreckage 18:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really good alt text would describe the journey of the cyclone and its intensity. I'm not an expert, but there's no reason as far as I can tell that alt text can't be completely descriptive of the image, especially when it imparts information that is not accessible otherwise. I guess the other way of looking at it is to just forget people with accessibility issues by saying "it's not actionable". I dunno. Personally, at the moment I have no issues with my access, but I know people who do and it would be great if Wikipedia could uphold great standards, not just claiming comments can't be addressed. But I understand that takes time and energy. I supported the nomination and the efforts made, but I realise it's a really niche requirement. I guess one day we'll all understand that a tiny bit more effort makes it much much better for a tiny set of society. Easy to overlook or dismiss that effort as "in-actionable" when it's truly not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Really good alt text would describe the journey of the cyclone and its intensity. This is what the text in the meteorological history is for. Also, what's your suggestion for the alt text for Dumazile's track map? Destroyer (Alternate account) 01:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LightandDark2000:I believe I have addressed your comments. NoahTalk 21:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now Supporting. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Destroyeraa edit

I'll do more of this tomorrow. Destroyer (Alternate account) 01:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is the track map located in the middle of meteorological history section? I prefer it to be adjacent to the first paragraph, similar to all other tropical cyclone articles.
It's located there to prevent MOS:SANDWICHING issues. The text in the met can get scrunched between it and the infobox on screens larger than my own laptop's. NoahTalk 02:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • I'm not happy with listing a general damage figure in the infobox when the text shows this to be a figure associated with only a specific sector and only a specific place. It may be technically true because of the >, but it's misleading. Suggest omitting.
  • "Torrential rainfall, peaking over 1,600 mm (63 in) in Salazie" - the text supports that number at that place, but doesn't specify that it was a peak. Source for this?
  • Changed that as I never intended for this to be represented as a peak rainfall. NoahTalk 01:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN27: the publisher name at the source site appears to be different? And FN34 appears to be the same site and has a slightly different name - check throughout
  • Why does News Mada not include full names for authors?
  • Full names are not listed out for the authors. Some have first names only and others have first name with a last initial. NoahTalk 01:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I see that - I'm wondering if you know why that is the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked KN and we both don't know why the names aren't fully listed out. It also appears that their site is currently down as well. NoahTalk 13:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appears to have been some discussion of this cyclone in the research literature, eg [42]. What was your approach to looking for sources?

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe the article now contains an accurate representation of academic literature. NoahTalk 13:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate? What was your approach to developing this representation? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to use the Google Scholar and ones I have access to through my university (found nothing else through ebscohost and the university) specifically to find more academic literature, rather than general searching through various search engines. Does Google Scholar need to be included in these references or should that be excluded? NoahTalk 09:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - my question was more about 1c rather than 2c. That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: Would it be okay if I nominate another article? NoahTalk 11:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on for now Noah, I am waiting to see what Nikkimaria makes of your recent tweaks to the sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2021 (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) 20 October 2021 [43].

Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago I gathered a mass of material in both English and French on the World War II campaign in southern France, but never got to work on it owing to my loss of admin status. However, I have used it here to create another article in a series on Allied logistics in the campaigns in north west Europe during World War II. The campaign in southern France has not attracted as much attention as those in the north, and its volume in the Green Books series was not published until 1993, over twenty years after than the last of those about the campaigns in northern France (by a historian who had already completed a volume in the Vietnam series). The article was fairly well received when it appeared on the front page at DYK back in March, and has since passed GA and A class reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "civil affairs food supplies had to be given additional priority" I'm not quite clear what civil affairs food supplies are.
    Changed to "food supplies for the civilian population". Linked civil affairs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The October fighting demonstrated that the German propensity for hard fighting had not been underestimated," can the double use of "fighting"be avoided?
    Changed the first to "battles". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The prospect of an Allied invasion of southern France was considered at the Trident Conference in May 1943" what does "the prospect of" add? I'd cut it unless there's some nuance I'm missing.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    " Tehran Conference"/" Tehran conference" Which?
    Captalised, matching its article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    " that had stockpiled for Anvil" I would add a "been" before stockpiled.
    Correct. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    " In addition to the Allied troops, Italian prisoners of war (POWs) of which around 20,000 would arrive in southern France by the end of September.[25]" Verb missing?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The French ships participating created a resupply problem; only 191 rounds of high-capacity ammunition available for its 13.4-inch (340 mm) guns of the French battleship Lorraine.[50]" A "was" seems needed somewhere after the colon.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "and some vehicles drowned " do vehicles drown? Possibly "sank"?
    Yes, they do. If you drive a vehicle into water, it may foul the engine and electrical systems, which will cause the vehicle to stop. Here in Australia a lot of roads go straight across creek beds, since they don't usually have any water in them. Instead they have a big ruler next to it to tell you how deep the water is. See 15 ways to avoid drowning your 4WD Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "and a drydock No. 1 was cleared instead." I'm not sure why you need an "a" here.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Civil affairs is linked twice in close succession.
    Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "The latter was given priority although it was much steeper, limiting capacity to 125 long tons (127 t) per train, and subject to flooding and to deep snows in the winter, because it was less badly damaged." I might move "because it was less badly damaged"to the start of the sentence.
    Good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "bids were taken for movement of freight by rail." It's unclear what this means. Bids from private French contractors?
    Uh no. From the commands and agencies wanting their supplies delivered. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The term POL seems to be used several times before you define it.
    Such a common term. Defined on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Two trains arrived each day that were unloaded roller conveyors that allowed twelve cars to be unloaded simultaneously. " This seems a bit muddled.
    Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

I will take it on faith that images that are stated to have been taken by a service member in fact were, given the unlikelihood that there were private photographers present.
This states it was created by the Imperial War Museum. This was surely not the case?
It says "Author Tanner (Capt), War Office official photographer" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has a creation date listed of 2015.
Changed to "late 1943 or early 1944" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On this, perhaps it could be stressed which D-Day is being referred to.
Changed to "15 August 1944". I think I just pasted the original caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the maps taken from The Corps of Engineers: The War Against Germany, one gives a date of 1993, the other 1 January 1993.
They both say "1993". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On this, is 1 January 1944 an accurate date?
It just says "1944". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something odd going on here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the image pages at Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

  • Plans for Anvil called for landing 151,151 personnel and 19,271 vehicles on the first day. In the first 45 days, 478,931 personnel and 74,386 vehicles would be landed I'm curious about the precision here. Did someone arrive at the conclusion that 74,387 would be too many but 74,385 would be too few? And do we need that level of precision in an encyclopaedia article? Personally, I think the reader might find it a little dense but I guess it's a matter of personal preference.
    Here's how it is done: Each type of unit has a Table of Organisation and Equipment (TOE). These are numbered (eg. 7-15 - infantry battalion). The TOE specifies how many personnel, what equipment and how many vehicles it has. It also lists the weight and shipping space it requires. Then you take the troop list and the manual of TOEs and add them up. You wind up with very specific figures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As to why I prefer to do things this way: years of trying to paraphrase others, particularly the Australian Dictionary of Biography, have led me to prefer the most detailed figures and dates, which provides maximum flexibility to anyone trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each day five units of fire would arrive What's a unit of fire?
    The explanation immediately follows: "This was a somewhat arbitrary measurement for accounting purposes, and was different for each type of ammunition. It was 60 rounds for the M1 carbine, 150 for the M1 Garand rifle, 750 for the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and 900 for the M1919 Browning machine gun." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • by the end of June some forty logistical units believe that should be 40 (in numerals) per MOS:NUMERAL
    WP:NUMERAL: "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserves of ammunition for American ships was → reserves were or ammunition was
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with its cargo set to Camel Red → sent?
    Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • had caused ammunition to be loaded on top not sure "cause" is the verb I'd use for what was a human decision with a seemingly sound rationale
    Re-worded to "in the expectation that there would be heavy fighting, ammunition was loaded on top" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the plan newly-arrived service units needs a comma after "plan"
    Deleted "According to the plan". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • flew out from the UK to Italy via Gibraltar and Marrakesh was the circuitous route to avoid overflying enemy territory or because of the capabilities of the aircraft? Or some other reason?
    Yes. Added: "to avoid overflying German-occupied France and neutral Spain" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that each glider would a pilot and a copilot missing word?
    Yes. Added: "have". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • newly-arrived units no need for a hyphen with -ly adverbs
    Removed per MOS:HYPHEN: Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captain Carl W. Bills, an Oklahoma oil man who, despite his lowly military rank, became the technical supervisor of the pipeline system is £depsite his lowly rank" from the source? It sounds like editorialising in Wikipedia's voice.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The expectation that there would be heavy fighting had caused ammunition to be loaded on ships on top of rations You mention this further up, almost word for word.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 3rd Infantry Division, limited expenditure not sure that comma is supposed to be there? Also, you've given the full name in the previous sentence; "the division" would probably suffice.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what was actually shipped did not always coincided with what "actually" is almost always redundant, and is "coincided" a typo?
    Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ammunition expenditures in November were high, with Seventh Army's 648 105 mm howitzers firing as tempting as it is, using ", with" like that should be avoided in professional-quality prose
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2,684 M1911}} .45-caliber pistols looks like you held the shift key down too long!
    This keyboard is a bit "sticky". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Allied planners could be faulted by whom? Without attribution, that sounds like an editorial statement in Wikipedia's voice.
    Clarke and Dworak. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall excellent, as always, just a few minor quibbles but I'm sure nothing that you won't be able to address easily. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to provide a review. This is much appreciated. I think I have addressed all the issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation on TOEs; you learn something new every day! All my concerns (which were minor to begin with) have been addressed so I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed edit

Lead

  • In the lead, suggest making it explicit that it was the Seventh Army that landed on 15 August and also rewording so that the two dates don't end/start together.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also suggest swapping the order of the final two sentences of the lead so that the are chronological.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

  • Wilson's AFHQ: suggest writing out AFHQ. I know what the HQ is but not sure about AF...Advanced Field?
    Allied Force Headquarters. ASdded, with link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giens and Cap Benat... link these?
    Linked the former; no article on the latter unfortunately. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were remedied in March 1944 with the arrival of Lieutenant General Alexander Patch. "These" being multiple vacancies so presumably it was some of his staff that also helped remedy these, not just him in isolation.
    Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Base 901

  • ...and to that end a list of the required logistical units was drawn up, but although a list of the required units was drawn up,... something wrong here
    Re-worded to remove the repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth paragraph, there is repeated usage of "only when" in successive sentences in the middle portion.
    Re-word to make it read smoother. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Base 901 was assigned to Coastal Base Section unless I missed, this is where the abbreviation CBS should be introduced.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest working in at some point in the last paragraph the renaming of Anvil to Dragoon, to prepare the reader for the transition to Dragoon in the following section.
    The article says: "The Combined Chiefs of Staff changed the operation's codename to Dragoon on 1 August." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Zawed (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assault: seaborne

  • This allowed the Seventh Army and Beach Control Group to... previous mention of the Beach Control Group is in lower case; the singular form is also confusing as there are multiple beach control groups.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Beach Control Group assumed overall responsibility for the operation the beaches... something missing here, maybe of after operation?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the ships were combat loaded... the use of "Although" doesn't seem right as I would expect ammunition to be loaded up top to be disembarked first? Perhaps "Because"?
    Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Coastal Base Section assumed responsibility use abbreviation and elsewhere in the following sections?
    Abbreviated some occurrences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ports: Port-de-Bouc

  • 9 wounded on Tackle. Tackle was towed to Toulon... to avoid the back to back usage of Tackle, suggest: "9 wounded on Tackle. Towed to Toulon, Tackle's crew and salvage...}}
    Concatenated sentences to avoid repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supply and services: POL

  • to just north of Avignon. From the 701st Engineer... I think possibly a missing word after "From"; perhaps "here"?
    Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my review done. I also made a few edits to the article as I went through to correct what I felt were obvious typos/grammar issues rather than raise them here. Zawed (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed all your points. Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, am happy to support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Will do soon. Hog Farm Talk 13:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign, Young is published by a weaker publisher but looks fine per WP:SPS Sources looks reliable enough for what they are citing Formatting is acceptable. Source review is passed; spot checks not done. Hog Farm Talk 16:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support by Pendright edit

Lead:

  • On 12 September, the US Seventh Army made contact with Allied forces which had landed in Normandy earlier that year as part of Operation Overlord.
    "that" had landed "at" Normandy
    Changed "which" to "that". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unexpectedly rapid Allied advance was the principal cause of logistical problems, although a theater-wide shortage of service units and an unanticipated dearth of French civilian labor also contributed.
    "death" of French civilian labor -> Giving death its ordinary meaning, its use here seems out of place
    "Dearth" is correct; see wikt:dearth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • Additional assault shipping Eisenhower required for Overlord was sent from the Mediterranean.[6]
    Think about beginning the sentence with the definite article and inserting that between shipping and Eiesemnhower
    Thought about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In April, the British chiefs suddenly announced that they were in favor of Anvil after all, to which the Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet, Admiral Ernest King replied that his offer to withdraw ships from the Pacific was still good.[9]
    Did King deliver on his promise?
    Yes. Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planning:

  • All were far from perfect, being separated by cliffs and rock outcrops, backed by dominating high ground, and possessing only restricted entries and exits.[16]
    • All "what" were far from perfect?
      I thought it was obvious, but added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drop the comma after ground
      Oxford comma. Retained for clarity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The departure of Lieutenant General George S. Patton for the United Kingdom along with key members of the staff left numerous vacancies at Seventh Army headquarters.
    • Add the definte article between at and Seventh Army
      I think it reads better without. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
      the staff -> was it "his" staff?
      the staff from Seventh Army's point of view. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1 August, 162 personnel were assigned to the Coastal Base Section headquarters, and 532 to the 21st Port, although some were still serving with their former units.[24]
    Drop the comma after headquarters
  • Of these, 43,406 would come from North Africa, 24,015 from Italy[,] and 4,989 from Corsica; 55,772 would be American and 16,638 French.
    The sentence refers to three countries and two nationalities?
  • They were organized into Italian Service Units of 250 men and commanded by Italian officers and non-commissioned officers.
    non-commissioned -> noncommissioned
    Removed hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logistics plan provided for five days' supply of Class I (subsistence) and III (petrol, oil and lubricants) every three days, thus building up reserves by two days every three. For Class V (ammunition), the troops would land with five units of fire.[29]
    petrol -> gasoline
    Changed to POL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Base 901

  • Requests for equipment from US sources was frequently denied because the items were unobtainable, or because the War Department deemed them non-essential, or simply because the French failed to submit the required paperwork in a timely manner.[38]
  • non-essential -> nonessential
    Removed hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mounting

  • Reserves of ammunition for American ships were carried by the ammunition ships USS Nitro, which came from the United Kingdom, and Mount Baker, which sailed from the United States.
    • Change were to was and amunition ships to ship
      Two ships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which came from the United Kingdom, and Mount Baker, which sailed from the United States"? -> Think about rephrasing this

Seaborne:

  • A sand bar at Alpha Yellow caused LSTs to beach prematurely, and some vehicles drowned before a ponton causeway was erected.
  • some, many, or a few LSTs were beached?
    Some. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    some vehicles drowened -> submereged seems more apt?
    That is not the same thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motor cranes, A-frames mounted on DUKWs and 6x6 trucks with Quickway cranes were then used to lift the cargo onto trucks, which took it to a dump where it was unloaded using a crane.
  • There was a general shortage of cargo nets owing to too many ships being unloaded at once, too few trucks to move the cargo to the dumps, and insufficient personnel to unload the cargo at the dump sites.[58]
    owning to -> because of (meaning the same thing) drops a to
    "Owing" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dump sites were selected before the landing from aerial photographs based on their accessibility to road and rail transport, and the area available for storage facilities, but when reconnaissance teams surveyed the dump area after the landing, large numbers of land mines were discovered, which had to be removed before the area could be used for storage.
    • This could be a good introductory to dump sites?
    • landing and area references should be plural?
      Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could drop the comma after transport?
      Oxford comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the dump sites are not definite, I wonder about the use of the?
  • Some of the dump areas were found to become swampy after rain, and had to be moved to higher and drier ground, which often lacked the access to transport.[58]
    • Also introductory?
  • Between 15 August and 8 September 265,939 long tons (270,206 t) of supplies and 46,505 vehicles were landed over the beaches.
    • over or "on?
      "Over" is correct. "On" would mean that they were dumped there, which was not the case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 33,000 POWs and 6,200 casualties were evacuated.[58]
    • This does mpt transistion well?
      Not sure what you are asking here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 14 September the beach dumps held 11,740 long tons (11,930 t) of subsistence, 8,821 long tons (8,963 t) of petrol, oil and lubricants (POL), and 58,488 long tons (59,427 t) of ammunition. Another 10,252 long tons (10,417 t) of POL were held at Marseille and Port de Bouc.[26]
    • petrol -> gasoline
      Changed to "POL", now that it is defined earlier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne:

  • Within 48 hours all the airborne objectives had been taken and the airborne forces had linked up with the seaborne ones.[63]
    • objectives had been "taken" -> why not met or achieved?
      "Taken" is correct. It means that they have been captured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pause here - back soon! Pendright (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Base organization:

  • An advance echelon of SOS NATOUSA was organized in Italy and arrived at Dijon on 12 September to control both the Delta Base Section and CONAD.[75]

Marseille:

  • He opposed the Navy's plan to rehabilitate both and Toulon, and recommended that efforts be concentrated on the former.
    • Something seems missing in the frst clause?
      Looks like somebody has already fixed this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Add a subject to the last clause or drop the comma after Toulon
      Added additional pronoun. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harbor clearance was undertaken by two groups from the US Navy, each consisting of about 10 officers and 100 other ranks, and two smaller groups from the British Royal Navy.
    • "and 100 other ranks" -> enlisted men in the US Navy donot hold ranks, they hold rates?
      Source says "enlisted men"; changed to that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 18 arrived in October.
  • The project was set back when one of the four large tugs used to tow the barges between Naples and Marseille capsized and sank.[85]
    • set back -> setback
      "set back" is correct; "setback" is a noun. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Port-de-Bouc:

  • The capacity of the port was small compared to Marseille, with a pre-war capacity of 7,000 long tons (7,100 t) of cargo, but German demolitions were not as extensive.

Toulon:

  • A large swing bridge that had been collapsed had to be cut up to remove it from the channel and provide access to the berths in the inner basins.[96]
    • cut up -> cut-up
      "cut up" is correct; "cut-up" would be an adjective. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tonnage unloaded through the ports southern France increased from 174,500 long tons (177,300 t) in August to 326,813 long tons (332,057 t) in September, 524,894 long tons (533,317 t) in October, and 547,602 long tons (556,389 t) in November.[97]
    • Insert the word "of" between ports & southern Franc
      Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Railways:

  • "railway" is British English and "railroad" is American English, although they mean the same thing.
    • Why British English for this section?
      The US Army always uses "railway". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inland waterways:

  • Plans were made to remove the obstructions by 8 November,[107] but plans to use the Rhône were abandoned owing to a shortage of suitable tugs for use on its swift-flowing and relatively shallow waters.[113]
    • waters -> There is no plural form for water in Americn English
      Not according to the sources or the wiktionary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subsistence:

  • The 178th Bakery Company established itself in Épinal on 2 October, and the 108th joined it there between 19 and 23 October, while the 7553rd (Italian) Bakery Company moved in to Vesoul.

Medical services:

  • The 52nd 56th and 58th Medical Battalions landed on 15 August to supplement the organic medical units of the divisions.[132]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Pendright (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2021 (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 October 2021 [44].

Greed (game show) edit

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the short-lived Fox game show Greed, which was considered to be the network's answer to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. It was hosted by Chuck Woolery of Wheel of Fortune, Love Connection, and Scrabble fame, lasting for roughly eight months from November 1999 to July 2000. This is my second FAC nomination for this article, as the first one stalled out and was eventually withdrawn for various reasons. I believe the article is much stronger than it was during the first nomination (the referencing in particular is much improved), though as always, any additional feedback is welcomed and appreciated. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

Addressed comments
  • I have a question about this part, while Mark Thompson was its primary announcer. Why "primary announcer" instead of just "announcer"? Where there are other people who did announcements on the show?
  • I have two comments for this sentence: The game consisted of a team of contestants who answered a series of multiple-choice questions for a potential prize of up to $2,000,000. The first being I believe this should be all in present tense as it is referencing things that happen in the show. Second, the "The game" starter reads a little off to me. I would use a different word choice.
  • I would reword this part, although others believed Greed to be the more intriguing and, to this, although others believed Greed was the more intriguing and. It is a super minor and nitpick-y thing I know, but I think it just reads better that way.
  • For this part, After all six submit an answer, the answer is revealed, I would avoid repeating "answer" in such close proximity if possible.
  • I have two comments for this part, consisting of a Jaguar XK8 convertible and $25,000 cash (approximately $100,000 total value). Would it be possible to move both citations to the end of the sentence? I just find the current placement to hinder readability somewhat. If not, then maybe the approximate value can be made a note instead. My second comment is about the value. Is this referencing the value at the time of the show's release? Would it be beneficial to directly say it. If it makes the prose cumbersome, making this a footnote could be helpful.
  • These two sentences, Team winnings of $500,000 or more were paid as annuities. Some travel and accommodations were provided by priceline.com., do not have a citation.
  • For this sentence, Some travel and accommodations were provided by priceline.com., link Priceline.com.
  • This is more of a clarification question. Do we have any behind-the-scenes information about Super Greed? Like why the changes in format occurred?
  • I have a question about the "Production" section's structure. It seems a little odd to mention the show's cancelation and its attempted revival and reruns in the middle rather than the end. The final two paragraphs seem to focus more on the show's production and I would put that information before the parts on the cancelation to have it read more chronologically.

Here are my comments so far. I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a second time to see if there is anything else. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi Aoba, thanks for coming back to this. I believe I have addressed all of these with the exception of Super Greed. I will look into it, haven't come across anything regarding why it was done but I'll get back to you. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I can help. Thank you for your very fast responses. It is completely fine if you cannot find any further information about Super Greed. It was just something that I thought about while reading the article. I know that some things just do not get covered. I will most likely return to this review on Monday (so apologies for the delay). I plan on taking the day off from Wikipedia tomorrow and on Sunday, I want to focus on my own FAC review (so apologies for being selfish lol). I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a super nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. For the table in the "Payout structure" subsection, I think it would be clearer to say Greed instead of "Regular episodes".
  • For this part, who won $1,765,000 on NBC's Twenty One, I do not think it is necessary to include the network. It does not really add to the reader's understanding of this part (at least in my opinion), and other game show mentions (i.e. Sale of the Century, Win Ben Stein's Money, and Jeopardy!) do not mention the network so it is rather inconsistent. To be clear though, I would ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire as the network mention is more relevant there (to point out how Fox was responding to a rival network's success).
  • This sentence, Twenty years after Greed's premiere, Forbes's Marc Berman wrote an article titled "20 Years Later: I Still Feel The Need For Greed", arguing that the show could eventually be rebooted due to the "current era of [game show] revivals"., is rather repetitive to me as it repeats that the article was written 20 years after the show's premiere (i.e. in the opening phrase and the article title). I would try to avoid that.

Thank you again for your patience with my review. Once all my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I trust that if you find further information on Super Greed, you will add it to the article. Have a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done everything here. I did go through Newspapers.com again and all I saw were the standard news stories saying the Super Greed episodes would happen but not why they'd happen. I appreciate the comments as always! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything and for checking for further information about Super Greed. I would not be surprised if this information was just internal with the network and companies involved at the time. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. This really does inspire me to work on a game show article one of these days! Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox edit

We covered so much on the previous nomination; it seems the major thing I hadn't struck by the time it was withdrawn was that I felt the critical reception section was missing possible good content. I went through the refs quickly again and here's my comments so far:

  • Toronto Star articles on ProQuest via The Wikipedia Library are sometimes messed up; the page number for fn 79 is not actually 1. Luckily I have access to the images of the physical newspaper through my university's access to ProQuest, so I can verify that the article is on page A37 and was written by Antonia Zerbisias. The ProQuest id to the document is 1345366464 (docview/1345366464) in case you'd like the change that as well.
  • I don't think fn 55 New York Post is acceptable for an FA. I can't ignore the RfC result at WP:NYPOST. Factual reporting is being cited, but it was determined that the New York Post's factual reporting is generally unreliable.
  • fn 29 is issue 11 not issue 1.
  • fn 36 location=Phoenix, Arizona (according to the byline) not Austin, Texas. same for fn 90; location=New York, New York.
  • is fn 36 missing publisher= ? what is your style for including/excluding?
  • Apologies for the dumb question, but I have to confess, not sure what would go in the publisher field here. The article was written in The Arizona Republic according to the byline but published in the Austin American-Statesman. Does that make Austin American-Statesman the publisher? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 59 should Los Angeles be Los Angeles, California - given the other cities have state/province after?
  • fn 61 I believe Asharq Al-Awsat should be work= not publisher=
  • fn 61 can you translate what it says like a specific quote that proves a Greed version existed?
  • So, I will be the first to admit that I don't know a word of Arabic. However, Google Translate did provide this line from the citation: "the program shown on the “LBC” screen, which is greedy, “Oh killer, you killed” and indicates from the first moment that it develops the side of greed." LBC also refers to the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation, which would seem to specify Lebanon. Finally, the article includes an image of Marcel Ghanem on a set that resembles other countries' versions of the show. While the computer translation isn't great, this would seem to me to prove that a version of the show did in fact exist in Lebanon. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 69, 81 'Greed' should be italicized rather than in quotation marks
  • mmp24.pl article author appears to be Serwis Dzienny
  • when citing two pages from a book I believe it should be pp= not p=, and use an en dash (–) for page ranges, not a hyphen

Once these are resolved I will do spotchecks/other stuff. If you're interested, I have a short article with an open FA nomination that could use some more reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here Is Mariah Carey/archive1. I hope you're doing better than in May! Heartfox (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thanks again! I do have one question regarding the fn 36 publisher...believe all are taken care of with the exception of fn 61 (now 60 with the NY Post ref gone). I'll get back to that in a bit. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Addressed the Lebanese/Arab World version, see my comments above. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can no longer complete the source review. I have changed the heading to "comments from Heartfox". Best of luck with the nomination. Heartfox (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass) edit

  • File:Greed The Series.jpg: The image has clear ALT text and a clear purpose in the article. The WP:FUR is filled out and seems appropriate for this type of image.
  • File:Dick Clark cropped.jpg: The source link leads to the photographer's Flickr profile and not to the specific image. Please modify the source link to this one, which is already used in the uncropped version.
  • File:Chuck Woolery 2004 cropped.jpg: The source link for this one also leads to the photographer's Flickr profile and not to the specific image. The uncropped version uses this link and I would recommend doing the same here. The Flickr profile says that "Some rights reserved", but I trust the note on the Wikimedia Commons page for this image. Also, the date on this one says 25 February 2010, 21:50 (UTC) but the uncropped version has 30 September 2004. I believe the 2004 date is the correct one so modify this image to reflect that.
  • File:JerrySpringerJan2011.jpg: Everything looks good with this one.
  • For the Clark, Woolery, and Springer images, I would modify the image captions to include the year the photo was taken to provide additional context for the reader.

I hope this image review is helpful. I have honestly not done a lot of these, but I have tried to be as thorough as possible. Once everything has been addressed, I will mark this image review as passed. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for the image review, believe all these are addressed now. Let me know if further tweaks are needed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my image review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

While this nomination has passed an image review and gained one general support, it has been open for a month and shows little sign of gaining a consensus to promote. Unless this changes in the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

I don't watch much TV, but I'll give this a look. Hog Farm Talk 20:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The series format consists of a team of contestants who answer a series of multiple-choice questions for a potential prize of up to $2 million." - The rest of the description in the lead is in past tense. Should this be in past tense as well?
  • Running time and episode count in the infobox don't seem to be in the body or cited anywhere
  • Done episode count, will work on runtime (been told in the past it shouldn't include commericals but would think references would likely call it an "hour-long" show). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cited a Newspapers.com clipping with the TV schedule and an accompanying article for runtime. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the prize amount figure, I recommend using {{inflation}} to provide a conversion for current dollars values, as well
  • Added, though we now have an inconsistency in terms of using "million" and the template writing the number out all the way. An editor changed these citing MOS:LARGENUM, though I've always tended to lean towards keeping things consistent and it's not like the exact values of these winnings aren't known...should we keep it the way it is or go back to "X,000,000"? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with either one
  • "Versions of Greed have existed in Argentina,[60] Australia,[61] Denmark,[62] Finland,[63] France,[64] Germany,[65] Israel,[66] Italy,[67] Lebanon,[68] Poland,[69] Portugal,[70] Russia,[71] South Africa,[72] Spain,[73] Sweden,[74] Turkey,[75] United Kingdom,[76] and Venezuela" - Is there a way to rejig the UK link? It's kinda a MOS:EGG situation where it looks like you're linking to the country itself
  • " Berman, Marc (November 4, 2019). "20 Years Later: I Still Feel The Need For Greed". Forbes. Archived from the original on March 13, 2021. Retrieved February 17, 2021." - The author for this piece looks like a WP:FORBESCON situation; not sure that it's reliable enough for FAC
  • Per WP:FORBESCON: "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert." Marc Berman is the founder and editor-in-chief of his own website, and per the linked page, his list of publications for whom he has written extends well beyond Forbes, including several that would no doubt be considered RS. I won't push the issue too much on this one, but would this allow him to be considered an "expert" in this subject? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like per that source, he's done work with CBS, Variety, and a couple other decent ones, so probably fine here. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DeMichael source - is this a high-quality RS? the publisher ( Marshall Publishing & Promotions, Inc) looks like it primarily publishes children's DVDs.
  • As I said in the previous FAC, I've used the book as a source before in several GANs and can't recall any pushback on it, the material seems to be accurate despite it being a smaller/lesser-known publisher. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll kick this can down the road for the source reviewer to have an opinion on. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done all except the inflation conversion, will work on that later. Also made my case for the Berman and DeMichael sources. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inflation done, see question above. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the note that I'm not passing a final judgment on the Marshall Publishing & Promotions source. Hog Farm Talk 13:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • From the get-go, the lead seems a little short.
  • I loathe footnotes after ONE WORD. Can we not footnote that on the first mention of the show in the main body?
  • Aoba was actually the one that suggested we footnote it in the first FAC, so I obliged. I won't let it stand in the way if you insist but thought I should mention why it was done before we change it again. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why just one sentence in the lead is referenced? See MOS:LEADCITE, we should be able to move that into the main body too.
  • "is an American" was? It no longer airs.
  • I've always been told to adhere to MOS:TV, which, in the past, has always said to use "is" as the show doesn't cease to exist in history once it is no longer in production. Again, I won't let it stand in the way of a promotion, just explaining the reasoning here. (A change to "was" would also necessitate a lot of edits to a lot of articles for old television shows). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "November 4, 1999 to" comma after 1999.
  • "series format ... a series" repetitive even if they're being used in a different sense.
  • The lead doesn't really give any insight at all into why it's called Greed. What's the hook in the show format?
  • Honestly, through all the articles I've read prepping this article for GA and FAC, I haven't seen a clear answer as to where the name came from. "The Need for Greed" is a frequent tagline mentioned on-air, but anything beyond that would likely be WP:OR. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the closeness of their" closeness reads clumsily, perhaps "proximity"?
  • "and the one who " maybe "and the player who".
  • "Contestant" has always been preferred from my experience, but otherwise, done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a random drawing" just "draw" is fine.
  • "question and answers" question and possible answers.
  • " who chooses one of them" time limit?
  • No time limit, added that note in, feel free to suggest any tweaks or be bold and tweak yourself. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to question 1," to the first question.
  • Any chance of including an example of the slightly complicated "remaining four questions each have four correct answers to be chosen from several options, starting with six for question five and increasing by one for each question after that"?
  • "is played (see below) prior" don't do "(see below)".
  • The "payout" table needs to comply with MOS:DTT for row/col scopes and a caption.

That's getting us up and running to "Terminator" section. My biggest issue thus far is getting my head around the various complex decision-making options! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments so far, I will address some of the simpler ones tonight and tackle the rest tomorrow. Looking forward to your further feedback as the review continues. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of the easy fixes. Also, several episodes are available on YouTube if you want/need to see an example of how the show works. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you've taken care of the other suggestions and I'll continue the review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Ugh, sorry, this completely fell off my radar. My apologies. Should be good now. Expanded the lead and updated the table, though I still have some outstanding questions regarding the footnote at the start, MOS:TV, and perhaps using a non-free screenshot from the show. I look forward to hearing further feedback from your review. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool, I'll try to get to it over the weekend. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "a toss-up question"?
  • A single non-multiple choice question in which two contestants play head-to-head, reworded. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the only instance in which a contestant..." this sentence is repetitive, contestant in there three times, answer twice...
  • "Only one contestant reached this level" is this the same as "In the only instance in which a contestant"??
  • So with "reached $2,550,000" isn't the lead a bit misleading when it says the top prize was $2m?
  • "on Twenty One" Twenty-One.
  • "date of Thursday, November " is the day of the week relevant?
  • "premiered with a 4.0 rating " is there a link for the millions of us who don't know what a "4.0 rating" means?
  • "viewers.[95] improving" problem.
  • "respectable 12,000,000 viewers" respectable according to whom? and rather precise!
  • "July 14, 2000 episode" comma after 2000.
  • Ref 5: "1700-1799" en-dash.
  • Ref 38: "The Arizona Republic" is a work.
  • Done? Think I got this right but let me know if I didn't. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 59: same.
  • Ref 67: needs en-dash.
  • Ref 68: same.
  • Ref 69: same.
  • Washington Post references required me to subscribe.
  • ISBNs could be consistently formatted.
  • "F-L" en-dash.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, TRM, thanks so much. I have to head to the afternoon shift at work soon, will try to tackle these tonight or tomorrow morning. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: One question regarding the ref from the inflation template, otherwise I believe these are all addressed. Thanks again, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this now, re: the hyphen in the inflation template, if that really is a year range (i.e. 1700 to 1799) then it should be an en-dash so it'd be worth putting a request on the template talk page to make that uncontroversial change. Might even find an admin here who'd do that.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by David Fuchs edit

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Heartfox dealt with most of the outstanding issues; I think the sources used are quality enough for FA, or where I'm less sure (the foreign press) I think they're adequate for the relatively uncontroversial statements attributed to them.

Performed a spotcheck to current refs 2, 15, 28, 29, 35, 39, 56, 60, 61, 81, 93, 94, and 99. Didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or verification fails. Really my only hesitance is the use of primary sources for a lot of the gameplay section. To some degree I feel like if it can't be appropriately cited to secondary sources, it's probably not important enough to mention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Thank you, David! Yeah, it's tough to avoid the primary sources for the gameplay section, especially since the show was only on for less than a year and had plenty of tweaks and changes along the way. I appreciate you taking the time to complete the review! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to chase you David Fuchs, but is that a pass on the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is really just that the gameplay especially seems overly reliant on primary sources beyond the obvious (or stuff that feels like it would be best served by citing directly to it.) If secondary sources aren't talking about minor rule changes, I'm not sure the Wikipedia article needs to mention it either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Der Wohltemperierte. Bcschneider53 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs and Gog the Mild: My bad, I suppose I misread the last bit of David's original comments. I'll take a look and see if I can find some more sources, otherwise I'll trim out what's only mentioned by primary sources. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Okay, trimmed out some of the primary episode citations and minor gameplay tweaks and added two more newspaper refs to help establish secondary sources. My only issue is the top prize section, I'll keep searching, but it seems the primary sources are all I've got at this point, and I think it's important we mention it, especially since the only contestant who played the $2,000,000 question did it when the value was actually $2,200,000. Is this better? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks much better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:43, 19 October 2021 (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 October 2021 [45].

Apollo 4 edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an uncrewed spaceflight, long almost forgotten, but it was a very big deal at the time, attracting VIPs by the score to Kennedy Space Center, including Walter Cronkite, who got a bit more than he expected. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Looks good. Some minor stuff:

  • "Lasting almost nine hours, the mission splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, achieving all mission goals." Wording slightly awkward. Achieving all its missions goals? All the goals of the mission?
Rephrased.
  • "the main objective; landing astronauts on the Moon" replace semicolon with colon.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kennedy's death by assassination" Suggest just "Kennedy's assassination"
OK.
  • "at this time it had not even been decided what sort of spacecraft would be used" Actually, the Apollo CSM was already being designed.
Changed "decided" to "finalized".
  • "return in full to Earth" Suggest deleting "in full", as this already appears earlier in the sentence
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apollo 4 was the first flight from KSC, and the first using Launch Complex 39 there, built to accommodate the Saturn V." I think this should be in the lead as well.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest introducing the abbreviation "LC-39" here
Fine.
  • "Three Saturn IB launches took place in 1966" You could say that these were AS-201, AS-202 and AS-203, as AS-201 and AS-203 are mentioned below.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1965, General Samuel C. Phillips, director of the Apollo Program," Suggest "Major General Samuel C. Phillips, the director of the Apollo Program"
Rank clarified, but I've gone with "Apollo Program Director"--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beginning with the S-IVB on August 14, 1966 (by Pregnant Guppy aircraft) and followed closely by the first stage S-IC on September 12, arriving by barge." In the first phrase you use parentheses, in the second, parenthetical comma. Suggest using parentheses for both.
OK.
  • "The Apollo 1 fire on January 27, 1967, that killed three astronauts during a launch pad test, threw NASA's schedules into further question—even though AS-501 was uncrewed, NASA officials wanted to closely examine its CSM. NASA had planned to restack the vehicle once this was done,[14] but after the fire that destroyed its sister craft, CSM-017 was subjected to an intensive inspection that found a total of 1,407 errors in the spacecraft". This is not clear: did NASA officials wanted to closely examine its CSM before the fire?
The source says "Although Apollo 4 was an unmanned mission, NASA officials wanted to give command-module 017 a close examination." I guess even closer than planned.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other problems were discovered, such as the discovery of an errant bolt in one of the J-2 engines, with NASA concerned both to retrieve the surplus hardware item and to ensure that nothing similar happened again" You mean the bolt?
Yes. "it" won't do and I don't want to repeat "bolt".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "something allowing protection from Florida's weather for equipment and personnel" Suggest deleting "something"
  • "NASA public relations head Julian Schneer" should be "Julian Scheer"
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Previously, the way Wernher von Braun's team at the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the old NACA Langley Research Center engineers tested new rockets was by testing each stage incrementally" Comma after "engineers"
Recast.
  • "kilometres" should be "kilometers"
Done.
  • "re-entry" vs "reentry"
Standardized.
I think that's a quotation
  • "each of the Saturn V's three stages burned for slightly longer than expected" Any idea why?
The source really isn't clear on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to General Phillips" Drop "General"
OK
  • Link "NASA", "U.S. President", "Lunar orbit rendezvous", "Lunar Excursion Module", "AS-201", "LC-34", "LC-37", "heat shield", "atmospheric entry"
Got these.
  • "Launch Complex 39" and "apogee" are doubly linked.
Fixed.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I"ve addressed these things.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Splendid article, informative and interesting. A handful of minor quibbles about the wording:

  • The Apollo 1 fire on January 27, 1967, that killed three astronauts during a launch pad test, – for a non-restrictive clause such as this I think you need "which" rather than "that"
  • bleachers – che?
  • provided the launch crew with invaluable experience – "invaluable" strikes a slightly editorial note without a citation. I think an uncited "valuable" would pass without comment.
  • Also wanted was data … and to evaluate – I'm not quite sure but I think we have a singular verb with plural objects.
  • and this was due not because of the performance … but because the burn – "due … because" seems wrong here: I'd be inclined to replace both instances of "because" with "to", though that change would necessitate a bit of tidying up at the end of the sentence.
  • was transferred to the Smithsonian – the Smithsonian what? A link or fuller title or both would be good here.

Nothing to frighten the horses there, and I'll look in again in the confident expectation of adding my support. – Tim riley talk 23:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reviews. I've completed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good! After a final read-through I am now happy to add my Support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is well and widely sourced, evidently comprehensive and balanced, splendidly illustrated, and a pleasure to read. Tim riley talk 15:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

A great thing about NASA-related articles is the quality of images.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

This article is in good shape, but I'm a little concerned with close paraphrasing. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • Apollo 4 (November 9, 1967, also known as AS-501) - bit clunky. I'd suggest moving the alternate designation out of the brackets.
OK.
  • "it had not even been finalized what sort of spacecraft would be used" - bit awkward
Rephrased.
  • Did Phillips send a team to North American, or form part of the team himself? The Phillips Report article says the latter.
He went. Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dozens of haphazardly routed and skinned wires were short circuits just waiting to happen. NASA managers came to see the problems for themselves. Director of Launch Operations Rocco Petrone was said to have cursed; Apollo Spacecraft Program Office manager Joe Shea welled up in tears; and Phillips stood in stunned silence." - this wording is very close to that in the source.
That was already in the article when I started work and I should have checked the phrasing more carefully. I've rephrased where possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been caught out with a similar issue with 'legacy' text that proved problematic at a review, so no dramas. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On November 6, 1967, the 56½ hour countdown sequence" - what time on 6 November did this start? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. I've gotten all those. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Balon Greyjoy edit

I added two {{nbsp}} templates where a date/mission was broken up up into two separate lines. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • "U.S. President John F. Kennedy challenged his nation" This comes across as WP:POETIC; maybe something more like "Kennedy presented his goal to land"
I think it's OK as is; the language has been used in several Apollo articles, see Apollo 13 and Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins. It's an accurate description of what Kennedy did.
I disagree. Not a dealbreaker for me for the FAC, but I do not think it comes across as encyclopedic writing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "proposed".
  • "what launch vehicle to use:" I would expect the use of a colon to precede a list of potential options, but the sentence goes on to say that the decision hadn't been finalized. Additionally, I think this sentence in unnecessary as the next paragraph is all about the decision process of how to actually land on the moon.
Cut.
  • "early flights of Apollo equipment" Is this referring to just the 3 Saturn IB launches? To be clear which launches this refers to, I would say "The first three flights of Apollo equipment..."
Done with some variation.
  • "This smaller launch vehicle did not use the facilities at KSC" This is out of place in a paragraph about how the Saturn IB tests related to Saturn V vehicles, especially since the previous paragraph states that Apollo 4 was the first launch out of KSC. I'm assuming it relates to the later quote about LC-34/LC-37 and automated checkout, but it isn't really clear how its applicable in that sentence.
It's background to the need to qualify the ground facilities at KSC for crewed flight. The IB flights did not do that, this was a part of the purpose of Apollo 4.
I would add this background to the previous paragraph, when it mentions that Apollo 4 was the first flight out of KSC. The phrase "issues resolved by Saturn IB flights" sounds like it is referring to flight hardware; it doesn't make it seem like ground crews at KSC would be similarly prepared without a launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the need to qualify the ground systems to the background.
  • "launched by Saturn V's" I'm assuming this is referring to plural Saturn V rockets? It should be "launched by Saturn V rockets".
Done slightly differently.
  • The Benson and Flaherty can be paraphrased/shortened. I would work into the previous sentences how LC-34/37 tests founds issues with the automated checkout that were corrected prior to Apollo 4. Additionally, its mention of the delay before Apollo 4 comes before the article discusses the delay; I think that part can be removed.
I think deleting the little we say about checkout procedures, which arguably aren't as sexy as big rocket fly into sky, would be a mistake. I know you don't like quotes, and this is an area that we differ in.
Delays
  • I like the two images of the vehicle, but it causes MOS:SANDWICH; could one be moved to later in the article?
The images are exactly where they should be, since they are discussing what is going on in the adjacent text. I've shortened the first caption, that should help.
Could you crop out the top third of the infobox picture? The picture is really tall, with much of it just being the sky. That would reduce the real estate that the infobox takes up and make the sections less crowded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've substituted a different image of the launch.
  • "and left little spare time for delay" It's not really clear why there is no time for delay, as this discusses how it is to be launched after Apollo 1 (so it's not like an Apollo 4 launch delay causes an Apollo 1 delay).
No, but they're going to need Saturn V for at the latest the fourth crewed mission with appropriate lead times.
I understand there are other timing constraints outside of Apollo 1, but that's not clear from the article. There's no mention of later missions, just the previous Apollo 1 mission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've eliminated the reference to the crewed mission, and added that more Saturn V missions were to follow.
  • "Phillips led a team sent to North American in" I'm assuming Phillips made the decision to send the team, so wouldn't it be enough to just say "Phillips led a team to..."? Additionally, I would say "to the North American plant/factory" as the company name isn't necessarily a location.
Done, more or less.
  • "but after the fire that destroyed its sister craft, CSM-017 was subjected to an intensive inspection" This seems repetitive, as the previous sentence mentions the fire fire and that CSM-017 underwent a close examination. Additionally, it's not explained until later in the article that CSM-017 is the Apollo 4 CSM.
Rephrased.
  • "NASA managers came to see the problems for themselves." This makes it seem like it was a special trip for the Apollo program directors, weren't they all working out of KSC where the spacecraft was being inspected?
According to the Apollo 4 press kit, Phillips was Headquarters (DC), Low (who replaced Shea) was Houston and Petrone was KSC.
  • "Director of Launch Operations Rocco Petrone was said to have cursed; Apollo Spacecraft Program Office manager Joe Shea wept; and Phillips was stunned and silent." This seems like an unnecessary detail/anecdote; these are all pretty typical responses.
My inclination is to leave it in. It serves to illustrate a reaction by people in an article which mostly focuses on machines.
I understand there should be mention of the human factor, but regular things like someone dropping some profanity or crying? It's not like Petrone was known as someone who was mild mannered and would never curse. I'm willing to bet that Petrone wasn't the only one who dropped some choice words, and that they all had moments of stunned silence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Cut.
  • "Other problems were discovered, such as the discovery of an errant bolt in one of the J-2 engines, with NASA concerned both to retrieve the surplus hardware item and to ensure that nothing similar happened again" I assume the larger issue with this bolt being found is preventing things like it from happening; this makes it seem like there was equal effort in bolt retrieval (presumably a relatively quick job) and overall problem prevent (a big task).
Rephrased.
  • "disclosed 1,200 problems with the vehicle" Which vehicle is this? The previous paragraph mentions 1,407 errors with the CSM alone; I'm assuming this is for one of the stages?
Clarified.
  • "its launch site, something allowing protection from Florida's weather for equipment and personnel" I would replace "Florida's weather" with something like "severe weather" since the average reader may not know about the danger of Atlantic hurricanes and think Florida is all sun and beach weather. Additionally "something allowing protection" could be shortened to "protected/protecting" something like "its launch site, protecting equipment and personnel from severe weather"
Hurricanes are a minor issue for outdoor equipment in Florida (speaking as a Floridian). It's sitting outside in the heat and humidity. Changed "weather" to "climate"
Hurricane Michael vs. Tyndall Air Force Base (my old stomping ground) would beg to differ. But seriously, I think adding adding "Florida's hot and humid climate" would clear up what the dangers are.
Equipment
  • "disastrous fire that took their lives" This comes across as WP:EMPHATIC; it has already been mentioned that the Apollo 1 fire killed the 3 crewmembers. I would just shorten it to say that the the astronauts had been trapped inside the CM during the fire.
    Think this point was overlooked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I got it. Cut the word "disastrous".
  • "Apollo 4 was the Saturn V's first flight" This makes it sound like the specific Saturn V would fly multiple times. Maybe change it to "Apollo 4 was the first flight of a Saturn V rocket"
Public interest and media coverage
  • "Others in the NASA family—government workers, contractor employees and their dependents—" It's more clear to use "NASA workers and their dependents", since using "family" to describe a workplace is a figure of speech.
Done.
Launch and flight
  • "November 6, 1967 at 10:30 pm (0330 on November 7 UT)" and "November 9 at 7:00 am EST (12:00 UTC)" have different formats/ways of referring to UTC. This should be standardized (my preference is the latter one)
Done.
I added a time zone to the 10:30 pm, colon to "0330", and an nbsp template. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "11,168 meters per second (36,639 ft/s)" I think converting to mph is a better unit to convey the high speed, but that's just my personal preference.
I'd rather leave it as is.
Onboard cameras
  • "The photographs were not of sufficient resolution to obtain detailed scientific data, but were still of geographic, cartographic, meteorologic, oceanographic, geologic and hydrologic interest." It doesn't make much sense to say there wasn't much data to be used from these photos, and then list 6 scientific disciplines that they were useful for. I would either remove this sentence, or expand on how these photos were used for research purposes.
At the time, these were among the highest shots taken. It's quite understandable that they would be of interest to scientists without being detailed enough to be of real scientific value.
I would then shorten it down to "Earth science" or the like, rather than list off 6 related Earth sciences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath, assessment and spacecraft location
  • "slightly longer than expected" How much longer was this?
Orloff and Harland, as usual, have all the figures, but I'm not sure we need such details in a big-picture summing up of the mission.
But why not say how much longer (e.g. "burned 1 second longer than expected")? The article already explains the effect this longer burn had (1 km higher orbit than predicted). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the exact figure to the discussion of the second SPS burn.
  • "A slight overburn" Is this referring to the engines firing for longer, temperature heating up in the cabin, or that the capsule landed 8.6 miles from its target? It's not clear what an overburn is.
Rephrased.
Since this is about the longer engine burn, it should be moved back to earlier in the paragraph. The paragraph mentions the longer engine burn, the good environmental controls, and goes back to the longer engine burn. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This discrepancy happened not because of the performance of the guidance system (which was exemplary), but because the burn had been controlled from Earth" Expand on how the Earth-controlled burn caused the fast and shallow reentry, since it's not really clear why the on-board guidance system wouldn't be controlling the burn.
According to the press kit, it was to be controlled by the AGS. It's not clear why the ground cut it off.
  • "Von Braun spoke of the mission as "an expert launching all the way through, from lift-off exactly on time to performance of every single stage."" What's the context on this? Is Von Braun complimenting the mission, or is it that Von Braun is being complimented.
He is quoted as saying that. I don't think it's unclear that he's praising the mission.
Who is the expert being referenced in this quote? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expert is an adjective, not a noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Phillips, Bilstein, and Mueller statements all say effectively the same thing, that the successful Apollo 4 mission gave NASA personnel the confidence that the Apollo program would continue. The Phillips quote is particularly long but is mostly him just heaping praise on the Apollo 4 mission. I think the quotes could all be referenced and paraphrased, and just state that Apollo 4's success increased morale and confidence throughout NASA.
I think quotations add more than paraphrasing. It's what people said. Yes, it was for public consumption, but still they said it.
I would at least remove the Bilstein quote then; it is a historian agreeing with Phillips. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the Phillips one instead. We don't need three NASA officials.
  • I don't think its current, but here is a photo of the capsule.
I'd rather not spare the space, the historic NASA photos are more important to have.
Fair enough Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on each of the Apollo missions that followed" Depends on if you count Apollo–Soyuz or the Skylab missions as Apollo missions, but they didn't use the Saturn V.
They were not Apollo missions. I'll change to "Apollo program missions".
  • "Although the Saturn V's stages gave more trouble than on Apollo 4" Maybe say what happened on Apollo 6? Something like "Although Apollo 6 experience pogo oscillation during its first stage and had an early second-stage engine shutdown, it was decided..."
    I see that this was addressed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Brooks, Grimwood, and Swenson quote block extends into the references section. It doesn't say anything that wasn't already discussed in the prose above. I would remove it to avoid crowding the References section.
I think it's an important third party big-picture view of the mission and should remain.
Why not incorporate it into the prose of the article then? Readers won't be looking to the references section to find that information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think quote boxes have their place and this is one place it's appropriate.
  • "The CM is currently on display at Stennis's official visitor center" I would add when the CM was put on display at the Infinity Science Center (2016, according to the reference). Additionally, it should say that it's the Stennis Space Center visitor center, not just Stennis's visitor center.
    I made this change. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've addressed all your points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just updated this with a few extra points and some responses. I'm traveling for the long weekend, so apologies in advance if I don't get back to your points for a few days. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your trip. I've addressed your points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on this article. While we still disagree on some points, I think this article is well-done, informative, and up to FA standards. Happy to support it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass edit

Version reviewed, spot checks not done.

  • I'm a little concerned that fn 2 (an explanatory footnote) is not cited.
  • Fn3: The author seems to call the page the "Master Satellite List" on this list
  • Fn16: I think "NASA History Division" is the website publisher, or at least should be added to the cite in some way.
  • Fn27: "CH9-5" should probably be "Ch. 9-5" to be consistent with the Benson refs.
  • Why is only one website listed under "websites", where there are others used as sources? For consistency, either all websites should be listed there or the section should be removed.

I have no concerns with the quality of the sources. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've removed ref 2 and done what you suggested with the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry for missing this. My concerns have been addressed so it passes my source review. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2021 (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 October 2021 [46].

This Dust Was Once the Man edit

Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 13:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitman's shortest (and un-coincidentally, arguably my favorite) poem on Lincoln. Relatively short, but in my opinion comprehensive based upon the large number of Whitman sources I've looked at. This is my third Whitman and Lincoln article nominated for FAC. Thanks Hog Farm for the GAR, and Damien Linnane for a ce. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DMT edit

Was around last time, seems right.

  • Perhaps I'm showing ignorance in regards to American history, but should "the union" be wikilined?
  • Linked
  • It may be worth wiki link "similar views on slavery" with Abraham Lincoln and slavery - the mention of the union applies the same here as it does above.
  • I think this one might be a little EASTEREGGy because if I linked "on slavery", the reader would presumably expect it to be about Lincoln and Whitman's connection to slavery...
  • Fair point.
  • "The poem was not revised after its first publication" - should mention that this is in contrast to Whitman's usual practice.
  • added note, does that work
  • "in 2019 Whitman scholar Ed Folsom wrote..." → 'Whitman scholar Ed Folsom wrote, in 2019,...'
  • sure
  • For the sake of easing a dense - but not by fault of you - section, I think "Folsom wrote that Whitman scholars generally favor the secession interpretation in a 2014 journal article" can be changed to '—having espoused this interpretation before.'
  • I'm not sure I understand exactly what change you're suggesting here, could you clarify?
  • Splicing the sentences together: "Whitman scholar Ed Folsom wrote, in 2019, that Whitman's 'foulest crime' is generally viewed not as slavery but either as Lincoln's assassination or the secession of the Confederate States of America—having espoused this interpretation before[11][12]". DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spliced in a different way, does that work?
  • Yep, that's good.
  • Roy Morris is a scholar of...? Literature, poetry, Americana, presidents, civil war...? Best to clarify to avoid the dreaded weasel words.
  • clarified
  • "death– as" - Is this hyphen's placement a typo? I.e. should it be spaced out or have the space closed?
  • I think a Comma is OK here
  • "In 1965 Ramsey Clark, the United States Attorney General, read part of the poem to a subcommittee of the United States House Committee on the Judiciary during a hearing on creating penalties for assassination of the president" - this is interesting but ultimately, in my opinion, trivial. It's akin to mentioning Obama's opinions on The Wire, simply lacking the speciality to justify the inclusion.
  • I think it's relevant to show that the poem hasn't completely faded from the popular view and was cited by a prominent American like 100 years after. It's admittedly not the most related and I'm not completely opposed to cutting, but I don't think the article is long enough that it has to go. Willing to discuss further...
  • This, Eddie891, is a good rationale. Fine with it staying. Often, qualms on here need only diplomacy. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I noticed the problem with Griffin (2015) from last time carries over, that being redundancy. Best resolve that.

Welp, that's me. Short comments for a nice and succinct article. DMT Biscuit (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from DanCherek edit

  • Italicize Leaves of Grass in the infobox caption
  • done
  • "Lincoln's assassination on April 15, 1865" — he was shot on April 14 and died on April 15; the lead of Assassination of Abraham Lincoln says he "was assassinated [...] on April 14, 1865" so I would take a closer look at the wording there
  • I mean, it wasn't an assassination until he died, but de-specified to mid-April.
  • "striking appearance" and "unpretentious dignity" — the quotation marks make it seem like those are Whitman's own words. But that's not the case, right?
  • attributed
  • Move the Leaves of Grass wikilink from the Publication history section to the Background section
  • done
  • "Whitman writes in the third line: 'the foulest crime known in any land or age.'" — it looks like you omitted 'in history' so I would either use [...] to note the omission or just use the entire quote
  • added
  • "After arguing in favor of secession" — I'm guessing he wasn't arguing in favor of secession itself, but rather in favor of a secession interpretation, so I would clarify this
  • changed
  • Herman Melville is linked twice
  • fixed
  • "Assassination of John F. Kennedy" — "assassination" in lowercase
  • fixed
  • The Wikisource link is broken.
  • Cut, it takes up a lot of space and we have the full text here
  • Should the article be added to the Assassination section of the Abraham Lincoln navbox? I don't think it's in there currently even though the navbox is used in the article.
  • I don't think it's relevant enough for a link, cut

I hope these are helpful! I have a peer review open here for what I'm hoping will be my first FAC, and any comments would be appreciated if you have the time; no worries if not. DanCherek (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, DanCherek, addressed. What say you? Eddie891 Talk Work 02:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, nice work! DanCherek (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damien Linnane edit

Having already been familiar with this article and recently provided feedback that has been addresssed, I'm happy to support on prose. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Support from Vami_IV edit

Reserving; currently working on an article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am satisfied that the sources used are reliable. Spot check in progress. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All clear on the spot check. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only outstanding matters for the purpose of this review is that there is a long-form book citation ([14]) in #References and that only one publisher is linked under #Sources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, Vami IV, these should be handled. Eddie891 Talk Work 10:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sehr gutt. I'm pleased to support this bid for Featured. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • No problems with the prose.
  • The Background doesn't mention that Lincoln was 16th President of the United States. Probably worth mentioning that Lincoln was president and led the Union side of the American Civil War, considering the analysis mentions this information.
  • Done
  • Any information on the poem's reception at the time of publication?
  • None that I've found, and I've looked pretty hard. It doesn't seem to have stood out among passage to india at the time
  • I checked the lede and infobox, and except for the above mentioned 16th President statement, everything is cited in the article.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you have responded. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THanks, Z1720, thoughts? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

  • @FAC coordinators: I'm not in a particular rush (this has only been open for about 11 days), but it has passed image/source reviews and four supports on prose. Is there anything else you guys are looking for that I can try to drum up? No worries if it's just a matter of time. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be ticking along nicely. Let's give it a few more days to ensure that anyone wishing to comment on it has the opportunity. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you including publisher locations or not? You should be consistent.
  • Leaves of grass: a textual variorum of the printed poems: in Sources Whitman is given as the author, but it is cited as Bradley. Which? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gog the Mild, fixed citation to Bradley (it's in the preface), and removed the only location. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:43, 18 October 2021 (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) 17 October 2021 [47].

Suzanne Lenglen edit

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, a French tennis player from the 1920s. She won Wimbledon six times in singles and six times in doubles, and may have won many more major titles if she didn't retire from amateur tennis in 1926 at just 27 years old to turn professional. She never lost a match in Europe after World War I, but did lose the only amateur match she played in the United States. Although Lenglen is no longer as famous as the current top players, many fans of tennis today will recognize her name from Court Suzanne Lenglen at the French Open. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments the infobox photo is fantastic but I can barely see what she looks like in it, which is the purpose of an infobox photo. I suggest moving it further down and using this one instead in the infobox. Skimming through the article it looks well-written and researched, but one thing that seems to be missing is any information about how her death was received? Did France and the tennis world publicly mourn for her? Was her legacy immediately analysed and reassessed?

It's weird that even her death itself is written about so little. When I saw her dates in the opening sentence I went looking for what happened (there's nothing in the lede) and because she died so young I thought there would be a section or sub-section about it, but I had to scroll around for a bit before I found it in Personal life.—indopug (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi indopug, that's a good point. Besides where she was buried, the book also mentions where her funeral was held and lists some of the famous people from her life who attended. (I could add that?) I think the funeral was open to the public, but it doesn't say how many people were there. My impression from the books is that her death was relatively ignored. Part of the reason for that is because she had not really been in the public eye since she retired. The other reason is that her successor, Helen Wills, was making a comeback at Wimbledon the week she died and the tennis world was more focused on that. The New York Times obituary summarizes her life, but her early death did not change how she was perceived. The French obituaries are similar, I think. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I zoomed in more on the infobox photo. I didn't want to use the other photo of her sitting on a bench because it is not so representative of how she looked as a tennis player. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

Quick comments Not a lot to say at this point, but some issues:

  • Source 4: 61 pages is way too long. Break it down.
    • This section of the book is a list of all of her matches (like a WTA profile that recent and current players have). I shortened the instances when it was being used for specific events in the prose. I don't think it makes sense to shorten it for the career statistics section or the infobox, since the information in those sections spans her whole career (e.g. the timelines of her Grand Slam results). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, fn 87 and 88 are pushing it. (For an inconclusive discussion about this, see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 51#Page numbers)
  • Reference required for the Major Finals section.
  • Consider adding the Olympics to the Major Finals
  • fn 78 should be pp. 118–123; fn 86 should be pp. 619–620 (MOS:PAGERANGE: number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between)

Feel free to argue with me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Giving another lookover Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay - looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. I did tighten the language quite a bit with my first read-through before this FAC. Looking now I can't see any obvious prose-clangers but I am often not adept at picking things up after first read-through. Still i think this is in striking distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon edit

Quite a star worthy of quite a long article. Little to remark, mostly minor points:

  • Suzanne Rachel Flore Lenglen[6] -- Keep the lead free from references. If you add birthname = to the infobox you can add the ref there
    • I think it's typical to put this type of citation here. I've been told before not to put full names in the infobox when the only difference is that the person has middle name(s). Alternatively, I could write her full name at the start of the "Early life" section and cite it there? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both methods would do the job. You can choose or do both at the same time. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 Grand Slam singles titles, 21 in total, and 10 other World Championship titles.[c] -- this is confusing me. This feels like too much detail for the lead. Can't we just say 21 titles in total, of which 8 Grand Slam singles? And just leave all the detail and footnote for the body of the article.
    • Re-worded to: "winning 8 Grand Slam titles in singles and 21 in total. She also had 4 other World Championship titles in singles and 10 in total." The singles count is more important than the total. The World Championship titles are separate ("sort of", it's confusing). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In doubles, she was undefeated with her usual partner Elizabeth Ryan -- they were defeated the first time they played, so don't think we can say it like this
    • Handicap events don't count and are more like exhibition matches. (Also, "doubles" is a different discipline than "handicap doubles".) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, but then I would recommend you add a note further down where you describe the handicap doubles event in Monte Carlo, explaining that handicap matches don't count. As it stands to the uninformed reader it looks contradictionary. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • triple crown -- I would explain what that means rather than depend on the link
  • What is missing in the first paragraph is her number of titles in the doubles and mixed doubles, and the number of Grand Slams of each.
    • The 21 in total means 21 between singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. Changed the wording of that sentence to clarify that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lenglen's father attended tournaments on the Riviera circuit, where the world's best players competed in the first half of the year. -- the word tennis should go in here somewhere
  • was to Suzanne Amblard -- was to Amblard
  • Her volleying ability was instrumental -- according to whom?
  • after her partner suffered an ankle injury -- who was that?
    • It wasn't anyone important. In the interest of space, I left out all of her doubles and mixed doubles partners who were only mentioned once, and weren't particularly significant. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final was the shortest in Wimbledon history -- is it still?
  • signed a $50,000 contract -- what's this in today's $?
    • The book doesn't convert to a present-day value. I think it would be WP:OR (and subjective) to do it myself. The comparison to Babe Ruth's salary is meant to put it into context. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have seen a few FACs converting old money into current. There is a standard way of doing it, although I have never used it myself. I will have a look later to try and find it, but perhaps some of the other reviewers or coordinators could enlighten us. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • an offer of 200,000 francs -- give conversion to today's $ so we can compare with later offer
  • a one set match -- a one-set match?
  • 4000 .. 13,000 -- is it a conscious decision to use , in the latter but not in the former? Would be nicer to have a , in all big numbers throughout the article I think
  • in 1927 and kept that ranking through the end of 1933 and nine of the next twelve years -- next is a bit ambiguous: is it from 1933 onwards?
    • Rephrased to "kept that ranking for the next six years and nine of the next twelve overall until 1938" (It's from 1927 though 1938.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lenglen completed three Wimbledon triple crowns – winning the singles, doubles, and mixed doubles events at a tournament in the same year -- while I agree the term should be explained, this is way too late. Should be at the first use of the term in the lead and then again the first use in the body
    • Repeated the definition at the first instance in the body. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • including the 1919 Wimbledon final against Dorothea Lambert Chambers -- use last name only if person already introduced
  • nd her first match against Molla Mallory, -- same
  • at a cost of up to 500 francs -- give conversion to today's $
  • equivalent to about $44 in the United States -- not sure if this is today's $
  • one in 1947 another from 1950 to 1951 -- add a comma?
  • Gibson played in a series of warmup matches for the Harlem Globetrotters, an exhibition basketball team in the United States. -- while interesting, I think we're straying off topic here.
    • I think if I only clarify what Betz did, the reader would wonder what Gibson did. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • short-sleeved and calf-length pleated blouse -- I'm the opposite of a fashion expert but I thought blouse is for the top, quite far removed from the calf
  • Performance timelines -- I'm not sure what a W means that is not in green. The legend does not explain the colour coding
  • Books: a few publishers are missing location of publisher
  • The one bigger issue I have is about the overall use of references: It is far easier for anyone doing a source review if you put more specific references throughout the paragraph, instead of just at the end of a dozen sentences. For example, [24][25]: these page ranges are quite wide. Better to make them more specific. But check other paragraphs as well.

That's it from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Edwininlondon! I replied to everything above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Support. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1922_(instant)_(cropped)_3.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:Match_of_the_Century_-_False_Ending.jpeg: there's some discussion of the significance of this photo in the image description, but the article itself, not so much. Suggest switching to the generic fair-use tag.
  • File:Suzanne_lenglen_1920.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switched to just the PD-anon-1923 tag. (The authors Herbert Fox and/or Frederic Glover have unknown death dates.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but there is an author credit to a different partnership? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I realized I meant to tag it as PD-1923 / PD-US-expired (fixed that!). Maull and Fox were succeeded by H. Fox and Glover, but the company name stayed the same. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

It seems like the sources are consistently formatted. Is Collins, Bud the same as Bud Collins? Same for Helen Hull Jacobs and Helen Jacobs? As far as I can tell the sources seem reliable but this isn't my area of expertise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, did you want them linked? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
iff they are the same person, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked those, and a few others. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2021 (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) 17 October 2021 [48].

Melville Fuller edit

Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Justice Melville Fuller was, by all accounts, a competent administrator and a kind man, but he also ended up on the wrong side of some of the worst decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has ever rendered. Leading a conservative court in an era of change, the mustachioed jurist struck down the federal income tax, endorsed racial segregation, and turned laissez-faire into a constitutional mandate. Needless to say, the legal academy hasn't looked too favorably upon his tenure: despite recent attempts to rehabilitate his reputation, Fuller remains inextricably linked with what one scholar called "a far-off and bygone judicial age". Yet that age – one in which an increasingly conservative judiciary faced off against an increasingly progressive society – perhaps bears some similiarities to our own. The story of Melville Weston Fuller remains as relevant today as ever.

I've been working on this article for the better part of a year, and I'm confident it's ready to face the rigors of FAC. Hog Farm reviewed it for GAN in July; since then, it's been extensively expanded (by yours truly), carefully copyedited (by the GOCE), and prudently peer-reviewed (by the incomparable Tim riley). My heartfelt thanks go out to all who have helped improve this article. I eagerly anticipate all comments, and I hope you enjoy reviewing the article as much as I enjoyed writing it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Just booking my place. I hope to look in tomorrow to add my considered views after another, post-PR, perusal. ("Incomparable", forsooth! Some might replace the "arable" with "etent" or "rehensible".) – Tim riley talk 20:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My quibbles were dealt with at PR. I have just finished rereading the article in its post-PR state and have seen nothing new to quibble about. The content shows every sign of being balanced, the proportions are sensible, the sources look good, varied and fairly recent on the whole, the illustrations are well chosen and the prose is fine. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 13:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is File:CJ_Fuller.tif paged? When and where was this first published?
  • I'm not sure how it got paged, nor do I know how to un-page it. Is that a problem? (It doesn't seem to be doing any harm.) I've clarified the licensing: the LoC gives a 1908 copyright date, so all should be well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Melville_Fuller_Signature.svg: is this copyright ineligible, or copyright expired?
  • Okay, so can the tagging be changed to reflect that? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Melville_Weston_Fuller,_Chief_Justice,_Supreme_Court,_three-quarter_length_portrait,_seated,_facing_right_LCCN97502838.tif: the author credit indicates that he died in 1952, which was less than 70 years ago
  • File:The_Fuller_Court.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:08_Melville_W._Fuller_bust,_US_Supreme_Court.jpg: what's the copyright of the photograph? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • Consider adding the year of the decisions you cite in parentheses.
  • I've added years to the lead, which I think was the only place missing them. Let me know if you see any others without them.
  • "He helped develop a gerrymandered system for congressional apportionment, and he supported provisions prohibiting African-Americans from voting or settling in the state." Would this benefit from context? Such systems were routine a century before Baker v. Carr and the provisions regarding African-Americans presumably had support that extended well beyond Fuller.
  • I've clarified that the provisions about African-Americans were supported by Democrats more broadly. Regarding gerrymandering, my source says only that Fuller was "instrumental in framing a blatantly partisan congressional apportionment scheme", so I presume that it was a bit more extreme than one's workaday gerrymander (and that Fuller in particular was responsible for it).
  • "a ban on the printing of paper money." By banks or by the federal government (i.e. the new greenbacks that were being issued to finance the war)? (see also the mention of his views in the 1870s)
  • Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The dissenters felt the decision was foreclosed by the Court's past holdings, and each one decried the majority's perceived infidelity to precedent." You're really saying the same thing twice here. I think you say it better when you focus on precedent, so I would rewrite just to say that the dissenters felt the court was not following its precedent.
  • Done.
  • "marked only the third time in American history that a Supreme Court decision was reversed via constitutional amendment.[29]: 59  " Less impressive than it sounds when you consider that the Income Tax Amendment was only the sixth since there had been a Supreme Court, and so three of the six amendments (arguably five) were passed to reverse Supreme Court decisions. I would strike the word "only".
  • I see what you mean, but I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, out of thousands of decisions rendered over the preceding 120 years, this was only the third deemed sufficiently egregious to merit reversal via amendment. For what it's worth, my source expressly says that "the decision became only the third of four to be directly overturned by constitutional amendment". I think I'll keep it as is, although I'm glad to change it if you feel strongly about it.
  • " Most modern legal scholars believe Pollock was wrongly decided" This is from a 2014 paper relying on papers from 1998 and 1999. Can such broad statement, that may or may not be dated, be stated in this way? It may become dated even if it isn't already.
  • I've attributed the statement and given it a date, just to be safe.
  • "the Sherman Act, an 1890 federal antitrust law that outlawed monopolies" Not that I'm aware. "Innocent monopolies" were still allowed.
  • I've removed "that outlawed monopolies" altogether, since the word "antitrust" says all that needs to be said.
  • What is "the legal academy"?
  • Legal scholars as an institution: see [49] [50].
  • "The Court's expansive Commerce Clause cases during the New Deal period essentially abrogated Knight." I might say "decisions" for "cases"
  • Done.
  • " In Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890)," It might be worth noting somewhere that Utah remained a territory until 1896. You've just come off a discussion of the Insular Cases without a paragraph break.
  • Clarified.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these very helpful comments, Wehwalt: I appreciate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only other thing I can think of is can something be said about contemporary reaction at his death?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably insincere on the part of both TR and Taft, who wanted Fuller dead years before so Taft could have the job ... but fine.

Source review - pass edit

Will do one (hopefully tomorrow). Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources are all reliable
  • All of the further reading items are used as sources. Since further reading is generally for items not included as sources, I don't think they need to be listed there
  • Removed. MOS:FURTHER seems to permit duplication when (as here) "the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list", but since both you and Tim riley have independently raised the point I'm glad to just take it out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing stands out as problematic with the formatting

Spot checks coming soon. Hog Farm Talk 05:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Wong Kim Ark decision has taken on additional significance as prominent Republican politicians, including Donald Trump, have called for the reversal of birthright citizenship" - checks out
  • "During his confirmation, Fuller's mustache produced what law professor Todd Peppers called "a curious national anxiety"" - checks out
  • "and legal historian Edward A. Purcell Jr. said that it "helped create a newly powerful and activist federal judiciary that emerged at the turn of the twentieth century and continued to operate into the twenty-first" - checks out
  • "A 1993 survey of judges and legal academics found that Fuller's reputation, while still categorized as "average", had risen from the level recorded in a 1970 assessment." - checks out

No issues with source-text integrity or copyright noted. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hog Farm – much appreciated! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Kavyansh.Singh edit

  • "However, he opposed the Lincoln Administration's handling of the war" – 'Lincoln Administration' could be linked to Presidency of Abraham Lincoln
    • Done.
  • "including William M. Evarts of New York, Nevada's William Morris Stewart, and" – looks a bit odd while reading. Maybe move Nevada after Stewart's name.
    • Done.
  • "Cullom demanded an immediate vote, fearing that delay on Fuller's nomination could harm Republicans' prospects of winning Illinois" – Probably worth mentioning that Republicans did win Illinois in the 1888 election.
    • Somewhat surprisingly, none of my sources mention this, so I don't really feel comfortable mentioning it directly (per WP:OR; WP:SYNTH, etc.). Here's a compromise: I've linked 1888 United States presidential election in Illinois, so curious readers can investigate on their own.
      • That works. The more interesting part about this is that Benjamin Harrison (Republican nominee) won Illinois by just 2.9%. The last Democrat to carry Illinois was James Buchanan in 1856. (please bear with me if I talk too much about elections) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found nothing else which needs to be addressed. Excellent work. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Grapple X edit

I've combed over this one and am happy to support it; well-written, wonderful depth, and it does a great job of balancing biography with legacy. The only thing I could draw attention to, and it's certainly not a hindrance to me supporting this, is that we see the construction "damaged his historical reputation", or "harmful to his historical reputation", etc, a few times, although the section discussing his legacy paints the picture that his image hasn't so much been tarnished as it has just always been poor. Obviously if this is the verbiage of the sources then we should stick to it but if not, it may be worth looking at wordings that would denote that these decisions have shaped a poor reputation rather than harming a good one. Just a thought to consider and a subtle one at that. Good work on this article. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and support, Grapple X. Good point regarding the "damaged his reputation" phrasings: I've replaced them with more accurate wordings (e.g. "has contributed significantly to his poor historical reputation"). Again, thanks! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2021 (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) 16 October 2021 [51].

UEFA Euro 2016 Final edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well UEFA Euro 2016 was a bit of a whimper, and yet we got to the final, where Portugal had somehow "appeared" despite drawing all three of their group matches and qualifying "through the back door" for the knockout stage. It was a bit of a CR7 exhibition up to that point, but the glorious one was forced off with an injury, early in the final against a resurgent France team who had frankly dominated their route to the final. Goalless at the end of regular time in the final, Eder popped up to score the winner to give Portugal their first major trophy and to annoy the French who just went one better two years later by winning the 2018 FIFA World Cup. It's a decent article, I think (of course), and as ever, I will work to address all constructive criticism. Thanks in advance for your comments and any time you might spend with the nomination, it's always appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

  • Image review looks good! (t · c) buidhe 20:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Amakuru edit

Background
  • "along with the host name" - probably mention and link to France national football team at this point. In fact, the body of the article currently lacks links to the France and Portugal team article altogether.
  • "along with the host team, qualified for the finals, along with" - repetition of "along with"
  • "playing one another" - each other
  • "four best third-placed sides"- slightly vague; what do you mean by "best"?
  • "on home soil" - journalese
  • "via golden goal" - "via a golden goal"?
  • "24 times ... won eighteen" - comparable amounts, but I'll leave it to you to decide if they're far enough apart
    Done these all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route to the final
  • "equalised after Birkir Bjarnason scored" - "when" would seem better. I don't think they scored and then equalised afterwards.
  • "Parc des Princes in Paris" - we already know it's in Paris
  • Link penalty area
  • "The first half ended goalless, but late in the second half, Portugal were awarded a penalty kick when Cristiano Ronaldo, who became his country's most-capped player in that game, was fouled in the Austrian penalty area by defender Martin Hinteregger; however, Ronaldo missed the penalty, striking the foot of the goalpost" - long sentence alert
  • "He also saw a header disallowed" - journalese
  • "As the third-placed team from Group F" - not sure this is necessary, it is recapping already known info
These done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link "header" on first use
  • Maybe clarify that the game against Croatia was a round of 16 or whatever
  • "the second-fastest goal ever scored in the history of the tournament" - perhaps say "at the time" or similar, as it has now been demoted down to fourth-fastest. Also the word "ever" can probably be dropped.
  • "more than 10 hours of football" - is this national team only, or including club?
  • "the semi-finals ... The semi-finals" - I guess it's separate paragraphs, but still feels a little repetitive
  • "and saw them" - which saw them?
  • "who they played" - whom they played
  • "Six minutes into stoppage time" - need a link probably
  • "In their final match" - final group match
  • "appeared to foul Switzerland's Blerim Džemaili" - [according to whom?]
  • Could note that Germany were World Cup holders at the time
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-match
  • "This was the first time a match ball was not used exclusively for the final, and the first time multiple balls were used throughout the tournament (excluding the final)" - I think I see what this is saying, but the wording is slightly confusing. Particularly as it's not actually the first time multiple balls were used, only that the changeover from one ball to another occurred at a different point.
  • "official to officiate" - funny-sounding
  • "the aforementioned Champions League final" - slightly eggy link here
  • "has officiated the" - don't need "has"
  • "Domestically, he also officiated the 2012 Football League Cup Final and the 2013 FA Community Shield" - this might be a bit too much detail now.
  • "He is the first English European Championship final referee" - was
These done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
  • Maybe mention the weather and humidity in the prose, as per the infobox
  • I just watched some footage of the match and there was a shot by Sissoko inside the penalty area in the 33rd minute that was saved by the goalkeeper. Maybe see if that's covered anywhere.
  • "The match ended 0–0" - not really ended, as it continued into extra time!
  • "With four minutes remaining Nani's" - should be a comma after remaining
Addressed all these. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-match
  • "tenth nation to win the European Championship" - maybe tenth different nation?
  • "to win the Euro" - odd wording
  • "Had France won the final, it also would have been a Bayern player to have this new record, Kingsley Coman (20 years, 27 days)" - not really sure we need this hypothetical
  • "described Eder as "The ugly duckling scored! Now he's the beautiful swan!"" - doesn't quite scan. "The ugly duckling scored" isn't a description of someone...
  • "his team was "as simple as doves"" - it feels like "his team were" might fit better, to match the plural doves
  • "noting ... He noted that" - repetition of noting
  • Maybe say whether Portugal managed to defend their trophy at Euro 2020?
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "In the knockout rounds, France defeated the Republic of Ireland, Iceland and Germany in the semi-final" - ambiguous wording, the "in the semi-final" could refer to all three teams.
  • "There was a brief delay to the match early in the second half while a pitch invader was removed by security" - I wasn't totally sure that this detail was necessary in the body of the article, but it certainly isn't needed here.
  • "he received the ball and held off Laurent Koscielny before running infield and striking the ball" - repetition of "the ball"
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Good work as ever. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I think I've (finally) addressed your comments, cheers as ever. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm happy! Support.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "The sixteen-team tournament consisted of a group stage, from which eight teams qualified for the knockout phase" - see my comment re: this wording at the FAC for the 2012 final
  • "The remaining four places were determined via two-legged play-offs of the other eight third-placed teams" => "The remaining four places were determined via two-legged play-offs involving the other eight third-placed teams"
  • "the Polish striker's first goal in more than 10 hours of football" - specifically international football, presumably?
  • "saw them reach their first UEFA European Championship final since 2004" - don't need you need to restate this here (it was already mentioned earlier)
  • "France's next opposition were Albania" - opposition is a singular noun but the verb is plural
  • "who they played five days later" => "whom they played five days later"
  • "In addition, Clattenburg, FIFA listed since 2007 and a UEFA Elite referee, has officiated the 2012 Olympics gold medal match and the 2014 UEFA Super Cup" => "In addition, Clattenburg, FIFA listed since 2007 and a UEFA Elite referee, officiated the 2012 Olympics gold medal match and the 2014 UEFA Super Cup"
  • "He is the first English European Championship final referee since Arthur Ellis in 1960 and Arthur Holland in 1964" - firstly, it should be "was" not "is", and secondly it seems odd to say he was "the first since X" and then list list two previous occasions that he was the first since.......
  • "Portugal manager, Santos, praised" - not sure those commas are needed
  • "France, led once again by Deschamps, won tournament" => "France, led once again by Deschamps, won the tournament"
  • That's what I got on this one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude thanks for your comments here (and at the 2012 FAC!), I hopefully have addressed these ones to your satisfaction, let me know if there's anything more I need to do? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Placeholder...looking soon....

Portugal became the tenth different nation to win the European Championship - is "different" necessary here?
Another reviewer said as such. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor tweaks - above is by no means a deal-breaker. Looks good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cas, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Amakuru - Pass edit

That's all I can see on formatting etc. I'll be back with a "comprehensiveness" check and spot checks later on hopefully!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru done, cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: re the dead links, I think the order should be swapped around so that the archived link is the first one that readers see in the cite, not the second. You can do that by flipping the parameter from url-status=live to url-status=dead. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can blame IABot for that, I run it regularly on all these articles and it should be picking that stuff up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done now (manually). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks and breadth of sourcing
  • 1 - where does it verify "suffered their first defeat at a major tournament hosted in the country since the 1960 European Nations' Cup third-place playoff against Czechoslovakia"? Also, it looks like its list of finals doesn't differentiate between those that went to extra time and those that didn't, so "fifth European Championship final to end in a draw after 90 minutes of play" also seems to need another ref.
    Added another ref and another factoid while I was there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 - "six players, three from each team in the final, were named in the UEFA team of the tournament" - my reading is that the breakdown was 4 Portuguese and 2 French.
    Great spot. Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 & 11 - the two sources give different figures for the possession (72% vs 66%) and also shots (26 vs 27) but not too much we can do about that I guess.
    Indeed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sourcing related, but I've just realised that the "Summary" box at the bottom of the "Route to the final" section uses nested tables, which is frowned upon by WP:DTT for accessibility reasons. I think we've got around this in other articles by chopping the group tables and just listing results a simple table to the right of each country's prose.
    I've done that now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, I spot-checked about 10–15 other refs, and found them all accurate.
  • The breadth of sourcing looks good too, covering reactions from the international press as well in addition to the UK sourcing used for much of the prose. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru thanks, especially for that bombshell on the table (which to be honest I only preserved out of respect to some of the other contributors to the article). All should be done. Let me know if you have any other thoughts. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, looks good. Passing on sourcing.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack edit

There's little I can add at this point, the article is very well written and has been thoroughly reviewed. A few minor link points above but I'll be supporting either way. Kosack (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack many thanks, one query for you above, and please do let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: four supports, image review passed and source review passed. Can I nominate another candidate? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a bit earlier than I generally like to consider closure (and, ipso facto, agree to a new nom) but it's clearly pretty much there so sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: anything else required? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz edit

Sorry TRM, just when you thought...

That's it, JennyOz (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz no worries, and thanks for your comments, to which I've responded in toto above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fab! Thanks, happy to support, JennyOz (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2021 (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) 16 October 2021 [52].

Battle of Oroscopa edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A short article on a brief conflict from 2,172 years ago. Despite the article's brevity I believe that I have extracted all the information from the sources that there is. An inconsequential conflict in itself, it is much commented on as the event which sparked the Third Punic War and the destruction of Carthage. Enjoy. But in a constructively critical way. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 00:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Sources?
Le Bohec moved.
  • Harris: edition statement shouldn't be part of the title paramter
Gah! I've done it again! Fixed.
  • Where is Warminster?
Apparently in Wiltshire. Is that a trick question, or did Iazyges get there before me?
The latter, although now I'm not sure that Cambridgeshire is strictly necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that it’s not, and have already removed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've removed one; there is another. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*rolly eyes* I need to put more water in it. Terminated. Thank you. 21:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • One UNESCO (publisher) is sufficient, don't need two.
Can't have too much of UNESCO, but if you insist ...

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again Nikkimaria, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges edit

  • Was the GA reviewer recently, have no further suggestions. I have added state locations to some refs without them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X edit

  • Hasdrubal the Boetharch is being linked here; that article states "He may have been the same Hasdrubal who was defeated at the Battle of Oroscopa in 151 BC" (emphasis mine)—granted that article is much less extensively sourced than this but is this uncertainty something we should be marking here perhaps?
Well now. In the sources Goldsworthy states they are different people; Bagnall, Miles and Harris unequivocally state that they are the same person. To my mind this gives a consensus to the "one person" school, and as Miles and Harris are specialists and Goldsworthy a generalist, and the former two academically considerably outrank the latter, I don't consider that we need to mention the single outlier as a minority opinion.
Fair. If not accepting them as one and same is the outlier then the Hasdrubal article is likely giving undue weight to it.
  • The images both are freely licensed with clear histories as to their derivation. That said, the caption for File:Map of kingdom of numidia ancient algeria (cropped).png states this is "Numidia at its greatest extent"—is there a time frame for this? Given that the battle in question resulted from territorial gains it seems it may be concurrent with these events but if it is or isn't this would be useful to clarify
Good point. Caption changed.
Time frame is helpful but I would have retained the "greatest extent" part; even adding "in 150 BC" to the prior one would have been perfect.
  • Strange to see no links to Numidian cavalry and, to a lesser extent, Carthago delenda est when these subjects come up, the former could easily be included while the latter might warrant a pipe (probably behind "systematically destroyed the city") for context. Just a nitpick, really.
Numidian cavalry. There is reference to the cavalry of the Numidians, and even a description of how they fought. The article on "Numidian cavalry" really relates to those who fought in the Second Punic War, and perhaps earlier. In the intervening 50 years the sources talk of increasing urbanisation, a more organised military structure and the army generally becoming more disciplined. So maybe there were "Numidian cavalry" in the 2PW and Wikipedia article sense and maybe there weren't. As the sources don't commit themselves, it would seem OR for me to.
Fair; the passage describing "cavalry charging and counter-charging while hurling javelins at each other" does seem to indicate a similar battlefield role though, I don't know that it would be OR so much as just an editorial choice not to, which is still fine.
Carthago delenda est. Don't get me started. I went through this repeatedly in the FAC of Third Punic War. Why should we mention an 18th century invention in order to make it clear that there is no record of any contemporary ever saying it in relationship to a war which is not the subject of this article? </rant>
Make sure you open and close any <rant> tags properly.
  • Interesting to see another Carthaginian engagement decided by starvation—do any of the historians draw parallels to the Battle of the Saw?
Sadly not. Perhaps because it was so common.
  • Other than this I'm satisfied with this article—brief, as you mention, but it does not feel incomplete, and the use of historical context makes it a perfectly self-contained read. Would take little to move to supporting this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grapple X and thanks for looking this over. I have responded above to all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see that anything I've raised has been addressed/responded to. Happy to support this at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • " Rome ended... Rome's permission. Rome's ally" bit Rome-tastic.
I have tried to vary the language a little. Not sure how successful I have been.
  • As with a lot of FAs I've reviewed lately, the first para of the lead appears to be a lead for the lead. You mention the heavy defeat and then go back and start explaining the events in brief. A lead for the lead seems odd to me.
I agree. Blame MOS:BEGIN and MOS:FIRST. "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where"; "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic". A FAC without an introduction to the lead is basically failing FAC criterion 2 "It follows the style guidelines". (Talk about unintended consequences. At least, I hope they are unintended.)
Ok, well that's how it is I suppose. A lead within a lead. How .... curious. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frequently annoys me. Meeting that requirement while writing to a professional standard. Grr.
  • The numbers of men, precisely hundred or precisely 1000, is that for real? Should these numbers be "around"/"approximately" or was there a thing that Carthage worked in base ten exclusively?
I can only report what the sources say. Obviously I don't believe the precision for a moment, but the sources all trot out the round numbers without caveats, so me introducing any would be OR. I have just rechecked them; even a retired field marshall, Bagnall, trots out the nice round numbers.
  • In the first para you say "unknown location in northern Tunisia" but then you say "the Carthaginian-held town of Oroscopa" so this is a little odd for me. We know the town name, we just don't (apparently) know its precise geo-location.
Yep. That is exactly the situation. (Classicists spend a lot of time trying to identify the modern location of places named in ancient primary texts. And squabbling with each other about their preferences.)
So why in the lead wouldn't you say it happened in Oroscopa, rather than an "unknown location"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both are true, but you're correct. Changed to "near the ancient town of Oroscopa in what is now northwestern Tunisia", which should work for most readers. They can find out in the main article that it is no more narrowed down than that.
  • "tribal levies " what are they?
Rephrased.
  • " was able to starve the Carthaginians into surrender." so a siege then?
Weell, not in my book. To me a siege is something that happens to a fixed location - a fortification or town - not an army. Or we would have the siege of Dunkirk and the siege of Bastogne (Battle of the Bulge) during WW2. If you think it helps reader comprehension I am not overly anti, but that's why I didn't use the term.
  • "perhaps most, were killed" of them.
Added.
  • "There Hasdrubal was condemned" I would put a comma after There.
Done. (It now reads as gibberish to me, but I have given up on comma wars - there are different schools and the debates can get tedious.)
Sorry, the addition of a comma means that "It now reads as gibberish"? Really? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Carthaginians were" you're using a different pipelink from the one you used in the lead for exactly the same displayed text, confusing.
In the main article I am referring to the foundation of Carthage, so a link to History of Carthage seemed appropriate. I have linked to Ancient Carthage at first mention of Carthage in the previous sentence. I can remove History of Carthage if you wish.
I suggest you don't have Carthage pipelinked twice but to completely different articles. How you cope with that is up to you, might need a little imagination in re-phrasing the prose to make it less easter egg I suppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stripped them of their overseas territories, and some of their African ones." African ones were overseas as well...
Not from Carthage, which is in Africa. See the map in Aftermath.
  • "At the end of the war which war?
Stated.
  • "raided into territory" never heard "raided into", just "raided"...
66,000 examples [53]
3.7 mn examples of the present tense, the first from Oxford reference [54]
Amazing. I would imagine "raids into" would be standard, but "raided into" is most odd to my ear. How many hits for "raided territory"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
!,470! [55]. But possibly that's not quite what you meant.
Some support for its academic use - [56]
  • "grandfather's old ally do you mean elderly or former?
Ah, yes. Neither. Removed.
  • You start and end the battle para with the 151 BC claim, do we need both, or should that last sentence be moved up/merged?
Ah. I really, really take your point. But I can't move up that the battle and surrender, which I have not yet mentioned, to the start. And removing the date at the start is playing silly beggers with the reader. Is it that bad> The reader is told at the start that Numidian raids were happening in 151. At the end they are told that the key events happened in late 151. But I can see why you flag it up. Any thoughts?
So you're using the last sentence as a summary? It just strikes me as odd to do that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. No, intended more to deliniate when it was all over by. Rephrased to express that a little more clearly. I hope.
  • "Carthage paid off its indemnity in 151 BC" so within months?
Clarified.
  • Several intrusive reference placements, never been a massive fan of mid-sentence refs when I firmly believe that readers can wait until the end of a clause before getting linked up to the info they might need.
And I get driven potty by cites which are wilfully not placed next to the information they support. Leaving a reader playing a guessing game at the end of a sentence. If cites are not to be tied to the information they support why not group them at the end of the paragraph, or section. Or all at the end of the article. That would certainly minimise reader distraction.
That's a little extreme, but punctuating sentences with multiple references about completely non-controversial matters seems a little absurd to me. If you're citing things which could be argued over, then fine, but most of your mid-sentence cites are nothing special and could easily just go at the end of clauses or sentences. Perhaps I'm used to reading scientific and engineering papers where we tend to assume a minimum level of intelligence in our readers who can think "well it must be in one of those three citations at the end of the sentence" yet prefer that to the horrible interruption of citations literally mid-sentence. There's no "guessing game". And we're looking for professional prose, not punctuated with [43][67] etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you caught me on a sore spot. I shouldn't have gone into rant mode. Plenty of my sources match cites to prose, regardless of whether that coincides with the end of a sentence, and I tend to think of them as professional.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I even said "end of a clause" so not even a sentence. Your extreme example wasn't what I was saying in any sense. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that it was what you meant. It was intended as a reductio ad absurdum of removing the close attachment of cites from what they support. I did understand "clause" to mean sentence, so I will have a check to see if there is room for any movement and get back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evening TRM, and many thanks for that. Good, thought-provoking stuff. Responses to your comments above. Some I am afraid at some length. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was very prompt. Thank you. More from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon TRM, all citations are now immediately after puncuation, which is hopefully satisfactory. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM, do you have more to come on this? If not, do you feel able to either support or oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I re-read and it's fine by me, so I'm happy to go for support on this one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz edit

Hi Gog, I'm a bit rusty but some suggestions follow...

  • Hasdrubal wlinks to Hasdrubal the Boeotarch which redirects to Hasdrubal the Boetharch which says "not to be confused with the Greek boeotarch" - do your sources definitely use the extra "o" and missing "h" spelling for him?
My sources don't mention "Boetharch" or any variant thereof. Changed to avoid the redirect.
  • In the mid-2nd-century - remove second hyphen?
Done.
  • "by the Romans by the" - reword to avoid 2x "by the" (perhaps, "The Romans referred to the Carthaginians by the Latin word Punicus..."?)
Done.
  • Many senior Carthaginians wanted to reject it, but - swap "it" to "the treaty" (or it could read as "it" referring to Senate's permission)
Done.
  • it is unclear as to whether Masinissa - remove "as to"
Done.
  • components of their shields and equipment - other equipment
Done.
  • Masinissa's son, Gulassa redlink - is this an alt spelling of Gulussa?
Nope, it's a typo. Fixed.
  • Hasdrubal was condemned to death - was he killed?
No. (I deliberately haven't gone into the post-battle story of either commander.)
  • massacre probably were probably over by late - probably remove a probably
Oops. Done
  • faction within the Roman Senate that had wished - is overlink intentional?
No. Fixed. Thanks.
  • the city of Carthage - wlink?
Done.
  • 50,000 of them, who were sold into slavery - in lede you have "death or enslavement of its population."
True. And? "... and killed its inhabitants. Only on the last day were prisoners taken ..." in the body would seem to cover this.
  • The formerly Carthaginian territories became - former? (would be adverb if say verb 'held' was used?)
Changed.
  • The location of Oroscopa, other than that it was in what is now northern Tunisia is not clear. - I think a comma is needed after Tunisia
Done.
  • there are 2 years with non-breaking spaces (201 BC and 151 BC) - remove those or add to rest for consistency
Done.
  • northwestern v south west of - format
Standardised.
  • regardless of the treaty - maybe disregarding? (they basically mean same but disregarding sounds more wilful?)
Erm. You are stating that they mean the same thing, then suggesting a change because they don't. And to me regardless sounds more wilful. Not that I really care, but I thought that you may want to reconsider given your internal contradiction - let me know if you would still prefer the change.
Ha, internal contradiction? My head is full of them!

That'll do for me, JennyOz (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff JennyOz, as usual the article is the better for your dropping by. Is there more to come? Per your edit summary. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good thanks Gog, happy to add support. JennyOz (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and suggestion from Chidgk1 edit

  • Combine the 2 maps and add Rome. Remove siga and cirta
Nice idea, but unfortunately both are pre-printed maps - I can either use them as they are or not at all. Sadly I have not been able to find any maps of this period which are better. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it would be an easy job for the wizards at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop to knock one up. As a European I know where Rome is but I expect a lot of southern hemisphere people do not, so I think it would really help anyone completely new to European history. Also adding Vaga might inspire some keen archaeology student to try and find Oroscopa. Also a good image coming up in Google search might lead someone to click through to the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you found this comment useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators edit

@Ian Rose:@FAC coordinators: Permission to nominate another? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2021 (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) 16 October 2021 [57].

London and North Western Railway War Memorial edit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a hiatus of a few months while the day job was insane, I'd like to bring this one back here to get it its star and make it my 30th FA. The day job is still manic so responses might sometimes take a few days but I should be in a position to see this one through. I believe I've addressed everything that needed addressing from the previous FAC but I'm open to all feedback. The article covers a monument that has stood in the same spot for 100 years next month while everything around it has been demolished and rebuilt. I think my favourite thing about this article is the variety and quality of the images available to illustrate it. Thank you for your time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

I supported this article at A-class and at its previous FAC in April, and support its promotion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

All images have appropriate licences:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -pass edit
  • Sources are all high quality.
  • Spot checks performed on footnotes 6, 10, 11, 15 (both), 19 and 20.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Darroch not come with an OCLC? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: managed to find it but it wasn't easy! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it were easy, it wouldn't need you. ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Tim riley edit

I have no doubt I'll be supporting the elevation of this article, but a few quibbles first:

  • In an article written in the Queen's English it seems a shame to use an American/tabloidese false title such as "Art historian Gabriel Koureas". A definite article would lift the prose into stylish BrE.
    • I dislike definite articles in cases like this. He's not the art historian (I'm reasonably sure there's more than one art historian!), but in this case the sentence is easily restructured.
  • Ref 15 seems to cover a lot, but if it supports "The unveiling ceremony was possibly the largest for a railway company war memorial", fine.
  • I have a Fowlerian distaste for "prior to" rather than a plain English "before", but to each his own.
  • "preferring instead to focus on the company's war record and the actions of railwaymen who had received decorations in order to smooth industrial relations" – one sees what you mean, of course, but they didn't actually receive decorations in order to smooth industrial relations. It might be clearer to rejig on the lines of "Lawrence wrote back that such explanation was "neither necessary nor desirable". To smooth industrial relations he preferred to focus on the company's war record and the actions of railwaymen who had received decorations".
    • Fair point. Done.
  • "Maintenance of the memorial is the responsibility of Network Rail" – WP:DATED? Might be better to add "at 2021" or some such, given the perpetually shifting reassignment of responsibility for every bit of the railways since privatisation.
    • Another good point, especially as NR may soon disappear.
  • ISBNs – the MoS bids us use the hyphenated ISBNS (not sure why).
    • As Hawkeye says, they're not required. I have no strong feelings, but if none of them have hyphens, the hyphens can't be inconsistent!

I enjoyed this article – a pleasure to read for one who has used Euston a lot over the past 50 years. Tim riley talk 19:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim, I'm glad you found it interesting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The hyphenated ISBN is advocated in WP:ISBN but WP:ISBN is not actually part of the MOS. It's painful to reformat ISBNs by hand, so I ordered the MilHistBot to do it; but Harry can feel free to revert. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! After a final read-through I am now happy to add my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It is clear, balanced, evidently comprehensive, well and widely sourced, excellently illustrated and a pleasure to read. Meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page. – Tim riley talk 17:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Zawed edit

I was another editor that supported the promotion of this article to A-class for the MilHist project. Taking a look at it again with fresh eyes, I still think it is great shape and worthy of promotion. Just a few things I picked up, the first two being in the lead:

  • There is something a little jarring for me in this phrase: "a First World War memorial outside Euston railway station". I think putting "located" ahead of outside would improve the flow
    • That works fine.
  • "over a third of the company's workforce; over 3,000 were killed." the consecutive use of "over" is also jarring. As an alternative, perhaps "nearly 4,000 were killed? Or would that be a little too inaccurate?
    • Another alternative would be to replace one "over" with "more than". Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reworded the whole sentence; we can stand to lose some "overs".
  • "He was adamant that the memorial was to honour the dead and not in any way a victory monument." should there be a "be" or "be considered" ahead of " a victory monument"?
    • I put a "was" in front of "not in any way"; does that improve readability?

An excellent article and I anticipate supporting its promotion to FA. Zawed (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zawed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good, adding my support. Zawed (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh edit

  • "cost around £12,500..." – Suggesting to use Template:Inflation
    • I'm ambivalent about these because I'm not sure the result they produce is meaningful.
      • Up-to you then, though I think that it might be helpful.
  • "R. L. Boulton & Sons" – It currently links to a page, which is redirected to Richard Lockwood Boulton. Can we directly link it to Richard Lockwood Boulton
    • This Would be in contravention of WP:NOTBROKEN, which explicitly discourages bypassing redirects and lists several reasons against doing so.
  • "contains the further inscription" – should we add a colon symbol to the end of this para?
    • I generally dislike colons in prose, but this one is probably necessary. Done.
  • "Second World War" – can be linked
    • That feels like overlinking. MOS:OVERLINK discourages links to "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" and I think most English speakers have at least a basic understanding of what WWII was.
      • Although I don't think that it might be over-linking, but its up-to you.
  • "without distraction".[11][4]" – Reference are not in order. 4 should be before 11.
    • Fixed.
  • "(home of another major works)" – Why can't we just say "(home of Wolverton railway works)"?
    • I'd prefer to avoid repeating the place name so close to its first mention.

Overall, this is an excellent article, and I'll support soon after these relatively minor comments suggestions are addressed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you very much for your review. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell – Most of your replies were satisfactory, and I support promotion of this article to featured article status. Would appreciate if you could take a look at this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2021 (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) 16 October 2021 [58].

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) edit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The British 2nd Division was initially formed in 1809, to serve during the Peninsular War. After the conclusion of fighting, it was stood down. This pattern would follow until the end of the century. New divisions were formed to fight at Waterloo (were it played an important role in the defeat of the final French attack of the day), and again formed to fight in the Crimean War. Several other similarly numbered divisions were formed during the century, but were not acknowledged as being part of the division's lineage by Everard Wyrall who wrote the division's First World War history (passing mention has been made to each of these formations, but there is not detailed campaign history). The final ad hoc division was raised to fight in the Second Boer War, where it fought or was present during most of the major battles in the Relief of Ladysmith. In 1902, it became a permanent formation within the structure of the British Army. It went on to fight in France in the First and the Second World Wars, and also fought in Burma during the latter. During the Cold War, it formed part of the British Army of the Rhine in Germany and became an armoured formation. The final decades of the division's history were based within the United Kingdom as a training formation. The article has had the GoCE give it a pass, and has gone through the GA and A-Class reviews. The article is supplemented by three lists that detail the commanding officers, orders of battle, and Victoria Cross winners. The latter two are featured lists, and the list for the commanding officers is currently going through the featured list review process. This is a large article, not 100 per cent confident that it will pass, but here we go!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • Citations: there are several hyphens, rather than en dashes, in page ranges; there are p. and pp, errors, eg cites 163 and 157. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. I have gone though the citations, and tried to fix the various ones that were not up to snuff. Hopefully, caught them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cites 202, 203, 204: are there really pages numbered I and III?
The report is broken up into chapters. Each page denotes the chapter and the page number. Each chapter starts the page count afresh. Please see: http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-129-181-c-21.pdf
  • Further reading:
  • Three works have no publisher location.
  • I have entered two, unable to locate the third (per below)
  • One has no ISBN/OCLC.
  • I have not been able to locate either for this work. Per the IWM, the publication location is not mentioned and it is in a spiral binding. This makes me think that it was an internally generated small print document made for that particular veteran's association, and the IWM has a copy and that's about it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a rhetorical question. Chapters should be shown as "|chapter=" in the mark up, now as pages. eg

Koon, Sam (2015) [2011]. "Phalanx and Legion: the "Face" of Punic War Battle". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. pp. 77–94. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4.

I would generally do that if it was some sort of anthology, but in this case it is single report published together under the single department head. I note that sfn|Mason|1975|chapter=I|p=22 will not work; its one or the other.
Are you suggesting several entries, such as:
I just want to clarify, as I am little confused and want to proceed forward as best as I can.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. It is usual to give page ranges for individual chapters. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have updated the article per the above (including the page range).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having done this much, I may as well recuse and complete the source review.

  • The two Roy works need publisher locations.
    AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cumulative Effect of Cuts ..., on what basis are you listing it under S?
    I think I placed it here, due to the cite using a bit of shorthand with the "Second Report of the Expenditure Committee". I have moved it to its alphabetical place, considering it starts with "The" as a result of the full title". Advisable to rename the inline cite?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palmer et al: the title should be in title case.
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This website includes photographs of the weathered memorial and faded central red star". Suggest → 'This website includes photographs of the [specify which] memorial.'
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lionel Ellis, who wrote the volume focused on the BEF in France for the History of the Second World War, wrote the division" Is it possible to avoid using "wrote" twice in the sentence?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have spotted at least one p./pp. error. Could you recheck.
    I have gone back over them, and I dont see it. Clearly I am overlooking it, but could you be so kind to point it out?
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cant thank you enough! After seeing what change you made, I went and looked at the prior version and it still took me a while to manually spot it, even knowing what I was looking for. Don't know why it caused me such grief!

EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

I supported this article at A-class and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Just flagging that licensing issues have been addressed but captions are still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be honest and say I am complete crap at things like this! I have gone through, and tried to get them? Hopefully, I succeeded!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check that all captions are appropriately cited - for example McDermond seems to be mentioned only in caption
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Sir_Frederick_Adam_by_William_Salter.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    I will see if I can dig up some publication info. Prior to that though, doesn't the UK PD+100 in addition to the US-PD via point 3 (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) factor in?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I found several references to the piece of artwork in works dated to the 1800s, but they did not have an actual reproduction of it. The earliest I found, is in a NPG catalogue from 1981. Based off that and the updated tags, I believe it meets points 1, 2, and 3 for US PD in addition to UK PD. Hopefully, that addresses this one?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:John_McDermond_Saving_Colonel_Haly_by_Louis_William_Desanges_(c._1900).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, not sure when it was first published. However, I have found that it was published prior to the 1996. So I believe the US/UK PD tags cover points 1, 2, and 3. Look forward to additional feedback on these two.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For both of these, was there a copyright notice in the publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I have missed something, the NPG collection does not state the copyright status of the works shown. In the acknowledgement section, it provides a thank you to all "public and private" owners. For the Adam's portrait, it does not mention anything specific, and seems to imply that it was in a private collection until 1929, when it was donated to the NPG. As for the McDermond painting, the article does not include any information on the copyright status of the work. The journal states on the backpage that "authors are expected to seek reproduction permission themselves". Other than mentions that the paintings exist, I have not been able to find anything to state they were published prior to these works (although I am not 100 per cent that these are the first time they were both published).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Publication means when it was made available to the public. In the case of an artwork, when it was donated to the NPG counts as publication. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure if it counts, but the National Army Museum states that they acquired the McDermond (link to painting updated, as there was duplicate copies on the commons) was acquired in 1958 when it was gifted to them by Wantage Urban District Council (the council became defunct in the 1970s).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, display does not count as publication for US copyright purposes: see definition. The reason I ask about copyright notice is per point 2 of the URAA tag - "published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't the lack of copyright info therefore cover point 2?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep! Just wanted to make note that the donation did not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

An interesting article, packing a good deal of information into its 8,000 words, but the prose is not, in my view, up to FA standard. Some suggestions for improving it:

  • I notice some odd spellings. Why use the Americanism "defense" instead of the British "defence"? You need to spell manoeuvre/manoeuver consistently, the adjectival "war time" instead of "wartime" looks odd, and I assume "Japanase" is merely a typo.
    Typo fixed, use of manoeuvre made consistent, and the defence issue addressed. If you do note any additional Americanisms, please point them out!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the United Kingdom – you insist on spelling out the name at each mention (28 times), which seems odd – and a little obtrusive – as you use BEF, BAOR etc at second and later mentions of those entities.
    I have went though, and it has not only used a mere two times within the prose. I have either abbreviated the rest, tweaked the prose, or changed for British Empire etc as needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, only two such formations…" – this is the first of eight "howevers" in the article, most of which add nothing of value to the reader and just clog up the prose.
    I have zapped the majorityEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…was the brigade. These consisted of…" – crashing of gears changing from singular to plural.
    I have reworded this part. Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historian Clive Ponting…" – rather clunky false title, something you generally avoid elsewhere in the text.
    False titles eliminated. I have moved any descriptive into a clause after introducing them, as naming their profession has been a request during prior reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a similar organisation … as used by the Prussian Army" – not very good English, I think. Perhaps something on the lines of a similar organisation … to that used by the Prussian Army"?
    I have updated the sentence per your comment, and made a further change to the followingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the fighting", without going as far as Fowler who calls "prior to" "incongruous" when used as it is used here, I still wonder why a plain "before" wouldn't do here and later.
    Fair enough, changes madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commenced" – a genteelism: a plain "began" or "started" would be stronger.
    The later has been used as a replacementEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "counterattack" (here and later) – the OED, Chambers and Collins all hyphenate "counter-attack".
    All updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to retake Deville Wood that had been captured and then lost to a German counterattack" – Here and later there is some failure to distinguish between "restrictive" (i.e. defining) and "non-restrictive" (i.e. descriptive) clauses. It's the difference between "reviews that are pedantic are a pain" – which is possibly true – and "reviews, which are pedantic, are a pain" which means all reviews are pedantic, and is patently untrue. This sentence needs a non-restrictive construction: "to retake Deville Wood, which had been…".
    I think I have fixed this!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Battle of Ancre that started on 12 November" – as opposed to the Battle of Ancre that didn't start on 12 November? Another restrictive clause that needs to be non-restrictive: "the Battle of Ancre, which started on 12 November"
    A few changes have been made based off this suggestion. I hope they improved the wording, rather than make more problems!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This included significant fighting – what did it signify, exactly? You mean "heavy" or some such adjective.
    After rechecking the source, I was attempting to highlight that these two events were the division's main actions during the fighting. Does the rewording work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notably, one battery … with a notable" – a bit much too notability?
    I have reworded the former sentence, and left the latter intact. I hope the change is okay?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wyrall noted some of the division's old hands had last marched" – not grammatically wrong, but could do with a "that" after noted. See p. 624 here (the link is to the second (1966) edition of Fowler, but the current (2015) edition, which is not accessible online, follows similar precepts).
    I have made the suggested tweak, and thank you for the linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "per the Allied Dyle Plan" – The old advice "prefer good English to bad Latin" applies here. Replacing the "per" with something in English such as "in accordance with" would make for better reading.
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "declared war on Germany in response to their invasion of Poland" – singular noun (Germany) with plural pronoun (they).
    I think I have addressed this one nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite achieving tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced the BEF to withdraw…" – a dangling participle. The wording makes "strategic developments" the subject of the sentence, though you intend the subject to be the BEF. Something on the lines of "Although the BEF achieved tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced it to withdraw" would be better.
    Tweaks madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fighting provided the division with the dubious honour of having the highest casualties" – WP:EDITORIAL unless you have a direct quote for "dubious honour".
    Editorial removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lionel Ellis, who authored the volume" – "authored"? Why not a plain "wrote", or "Lionel Ellis, author of the volume"? Likewise for John Nott, later.
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had been intended for the division to reinforce the British Eighth Army" – does one "intend for", rather than "intend that"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but no move took place as a result of the successful Second Battle of El Alamein" – I think I see what this means – the move was called off as a consequence of the victory at Alamein – but the sentence is ambiguous as it stands.
    I have tweaked this portion of the article, and expanded a little. I hope the changes are more clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2nd Division spent 1942 through 1944 training" – unexpected and not particularly welcome Americanism in a BrE article. "through" should be "to", surely?
    Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a proposed landing that would take place Rangoon" – a preposition seems to be missing after "place".
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The availability of British infantry within India was scarce" – can availability be scarce? Something might be scarce or its availability restricted but I'm not sure you can roll the two phrases into one.
    Opted for the latter, hope that worksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In order to maintain the division in the field" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get quite exercised about "in order to", insisting it should be just "to". It doesn't bother me, but I mention it for your consideration.
    It does simplify it, so tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3,500 British soldiers, of which 2,500 were dispatched" – "which" seems an odd word here: one might expect "whom".
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forces that were not going to be utilised" – Fowler calls "utilise" instead of "use" "an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word".
    Less pretentious edit made :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were selected to be relieved, due to the increasing shortage of British manpower": In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
    Played it safe with the latter optionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the increasing shortage of British manpower in Asia that impeded the ability to maintain them at full strength – another "that" restrictive clause where you mean a "which," non-restrictive one. As it stands the sentence means that there was at least one other manpower shortage that did something else.
    I have replaced the "that" with a "which", and have also moved a comma. I think this should flow and read betterEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to repatriate soldiers, who had served in Asia for at least three years and eight months, back to the United Kingdom..." – Contrariwise, the commas here turn what is clearly meant to be a restrictive clause into a non-restrictive one. Blitzing the commas will do the trick.
    Commas removed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the defence of Western Europe from the Soviet Union" – does one defend something from something rather than against?
    Sentence tweaked, hopefully I didn't go a little overboard when it could have been a simpler fix?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The historian Marc Donald DeVore argued the politically forced change" – another place where a "that" seems called for.
    Missing "that" addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Territorial Army personnel that would arrive from the United Kingdom" – "that" isn't wrong, but isn't it more usual to use "who" when referring to people?
    Switched to "who"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reforms envisioned" – do reforms envision things? And is "envision" a fancy way of saying "envisage"? And is "envisage" a fancy way of saying "foresee" or "intend" or some such?
    Defancified x2: intended it isEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but early training found this to be impractical" – "showed" rather than "found"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a flexible task force that would be formed by the GOC" – you need to tell us what a GOC is, or provide a blue link.
    Full title now included, along with blue linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowed the GOC to tailor their force" – singular noun with plural pronoun. No need to be frightened of using "his" here, as everyone concerned was a man.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was indicated via two white stars" – a plain "by" instead of "via"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 11:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and I really appreciate your comments to help whip the article into shape. I have started working my way through them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to address the remaining comments that you made. I really appreciate the assistance, and look forward to further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I neglected to put this review on my watch-list and promptly forgot about it. I am impressed with the thorough responses to my long list of quibbles, and am now happy to withdraw my reservations about the prose of the article. I know too little about the substance to comment on that, and leave it to more expert reviewers to make their judgements, but as far as the prose and presentation go, I am happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. Tim riley talk 19:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thank you!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

Mainly focusing on prose. I'm not finding a lot to criticise.

  • acquired the nickname: the "Observing Division" I don't think the colon is necessary here and I generally dislike colons in prose.
    What colon? Now, removed! :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid passive voice (eg, A further 516 casualties were suffered)
    This particular example has been rewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fighting had cost 1,320 casualties and included Stewart I think you mean Stewart was included in the casualties, not (just) in the fighting.
    I changed this sentence up, so it should read correctly as you indicatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oman wrote he was a "splendid fighting man if a careless and tiresome subordinate" Is this really relevant to the division? It seems to me it would be better in Stewart's biography.
    Quite, and removed from this articleEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • described him as "the only British commander with even the remotest experience of European war", for his service in the Peninsular War doesn't quite make sense to me. Would "based on" (or similar) work better than "for"?
    Tweaked per your recommendation
  • Notably, George V, and the Prince of Wales – the future Edward VIII – , reviewed the division on 3 December. Why is this notable? Royal inspections of division weren't especially uncommon, were they? Also, I'd use parentheses to avoid having the comma after the dash. And you use the adjective "notable" quite a bit through the article, which gets repetitive and is arguable editorialising (we shouldn't be telling the reader what the most important pieces of information are).
    I have notably going through and tried to get rid of quite a notable number of my notables! Your right about royal inspections not being uncommon, although the POW touring the trenches was something new that happened. Although, whenever the king shows up to inspect a unit or formation, it always seems to be a standout moment within the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fighting divisions with such fine records as that held by the 2nd Division were not allowed long out of the line" You need a ref straight after a direct quote.
    I would, generally, argue that it should be at the end of the sentence when incorporated. But, I have split up what was wrote, and moved the cites etc. to address your point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a lot of short sentences, usually of the form "this caused ...", "this was ..." etc. Try to vary it to keep the reader's attention if they're reading the whole thing. Likewise the ", with" construction to join two parts of a sentence, which is also frowned upon in formal prose.
  • However, the city was liberated no need for the "however"; nothing is being contradicted
    I have gone through and made various tweaks. I think my major problem was bogging down in trying to essentially provide a large list of actions that were fought. Hopefully, some of the changes I have made have been for the better!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mason Review, a Government white paper that outlined a new defence policy, was published during his tenure that's somewhat obvious from it being named after him, but the passive voice makes it sound like something that happened accidentally; you could distil this down and eliminate the passive voice with "he authored the Mason Review in 1975".
  • Most of the last two paragraphs from "The post-war and Cold War period" feels off-topic for the division article. I'd suggest distilling these down to the bits most relevant to the 2nd and putting that into one paragraph. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have boiled down those two paragraphs, which include a reword on the Mason Review, and incorporated some of that text into the section about the 2nd Armoured Division. In the spirit of the review, text was lost, but it is now more efficient?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review and comments. I have made various edits based off your notes, and attempted to address all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell:: A gentle reminder that I have attempted to address your concerns :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Many apologies. I'd forgotten to return to this. I'm satisfied that you've addressed my comments, so (pending TRM confirming that his prose/MoS concerns have been addressed) I support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "al formations bearing the name 2nd Division were formed. Only two such formations..." lots of "form" here reads mildly repetitively to me.
    Some tweaks made hereEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "into Boer territory" could link Boers.
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, for non-experts, Guerrilla warfare could be linked.
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "division moved to Scotland" you said expressly where in England it was located, where in Scotland?
    Location in Scotland addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the article is about the 2nd Infantry Division but "division" is used 368 times in the article including 29 times in the Peninsular War section alone. I may be speaking out of turn but is there literally any other way of referencing the unit will remaining unambiguous without saying "division"?
    Tried to alternative things in the lead a little, but I am open to suggestions. Off the top of my head, early in the morning and with no a lot of sleep, one can only think of "it" and "formation" as viable alternatives.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Battle of Vittoria" our article calls is the Battle of Vitoria?
    I have switched this up. I am not sure why, but Oman and a lot of other English sources (though to present day) spell the town with two 't's. I have noted the same with some German related sources. I am not sure if this is a typo that 'stuck', an English "alternative" spelling, or if the town was renamed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 1 July.[32] On 7 July" repetitive.
    Tweak madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Everard Wyrall, the" redlinked in the main body but not in the lead?
    Additional link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 28 July 1914, the First World War began. On 4 August" could merge, i.e. "On 28 July 1914, the First World War began, and a week later..."
    Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Nivelle Offensive" I think there's been a general agreement that "Offensive" is no longer capitalised in this kind of usage.
    Link piped to drop the capitalEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " of Amiens. So began" two mini-sentences again, I would once again recommend a merge.
    MergedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The strategic situation..." that caption is a fragment so no full stop.
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the "python" scheme" why was it called that?
    I have consulted several sources, and I have not seen any particular reason given for the name. As far as I am aware, it is not an abbreviation and is just a meaningless codename.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "strength.[193][192][197] " ref order.
    Ref ordered updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Territorial Army" link.
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 1981 Defence White Paper. It," this doesn't appear to be italicised in our own article, is it really considered a work or is it more of a pamphlet?
    I have dropped the italicsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "16–18,000 men" I know what you mean, but should this really be 16,000–18,000 men?
    I would of argued the former, but I have tweaked it per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "262ff.." one too many full stops.
    I have removed the full stop from inside the template, so that only one will now displayEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jan.-Sept" needs spaced en-dash, and not sure why some of the months are given here as abbreviations and other are not?
    En-dash added. The titles follow the layout used in each of the works. No idea why the earlier volumes abbreviate the latter do not.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1815-1914" en-dash.
  • "1854-1856" likewise.
  • "1901-1903" ditto.
    All of the above tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1976-7 " ditto (and sure that's not 77?)
    Tweaked, and yes it should have been "77" after a quick double checkingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "outlining the 2nd Division" and "First World War memorial" ... both need full stops.
    Periods addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and comments. I have a bandaged-up hand, which is slowing my typing so it may be a little longer than usual to address these.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, and take your time. I hope your hand recovers soon! Feel free to ping me once you're done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man:: Thank you. I have gone through the article and tried to address your remaining concerns, or have left comments above for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I'm happy with the updates you've made and have no further reason not to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:23, 13 October 2021 (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) 16 October 2021 [59].

Soiscél Molaisse edit

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An 11th century decorative Insular style cumdach (book-shaped shrine) added to a small 8th century wooden reliquary box that may have once contained parts of the remains of a saint, and/or an Early Medieval manuscript. Feedback as always most welcome. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  1. c:File:Case_of_Molaise's_Gospels.png needs a US tag
  2. c:File:Soiscél_Molaisse_MET.jpg : not seeing that tag at the source given, and does the licensing cover only the image or the work as well? Ditto
  3. c:File:Soiscél_Molaisse_MET_2.jpg
  4. c:File:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg needs a US tag, and the source link is dead
  5. c:File:Book_or_Shrine,_Cumdach_of_the_Stowe_Missal_MET_tem12412s1_(cropped).jpg : as above, does the licensing cover the image, the work, or both? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: #1 now has additional {{PD-US-expired}} tag. I don't know why the MET images were licensed incorrectly considering the MET source and their permission statement webpage. All the Met images are now licensed {{Cc-zero}} so I have changed 2 & 3, and 5 to that template. # 4 now has a direct image source link and the copyright template clearly states "This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States." Nikkimaria please comment if you disagree. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ww2censor Ceoil (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the Met licensing cover the photos, the works pictured, or both? Re #4: the statement you reference covers the photographic reproduction, but the actual licensing tag for the work pictured states that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The MET permission page that specifically mentions images and each one has a PD tag and link to the permission statement below the image, so there should be no issue there. Maybe you are suggesting the reproductions might be copyright even if the photo are PD?. I see what you mean about #4. I'll review and add the appropriate one. ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - if the reproductions are not covered by that licensing then we need tags for them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have fixed the external source link for :c:File:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria, are your qualms allayed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still looking for confirmation as to whether the reproductions are or are not covered by the Met licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: I've reread deriviative works (especially see 5th casebook entry c:COM:DW#casebook) a couple of times and am entirely convinced that because these are reproduced copies of public domain works, no new copyright can have been created for the reproduced items, so the MET's own photographic permission is all we need.
Not that it makes any difference to my thinking, the items were sold in Dublin by Edward Johnson Ltd, Dublin silversmiths, in 1908-1912. Edmund Johnson (Edmund being a version of Edward often used in Ireland) listed in the 1908 Dublin directory, as manufacturing silversmiths and jewellers with a Royal Warrant. This entry implies they were defunct by 1926. According to the provenance the works the Mat have were created before 1912 and 1908, so must be well out of copyright even if they were not exact copies, though they claim to be copies. I cannot find anything else significant about "Edward Johnson Ltd" as listed in the provenance other than in the Mats own webpages. ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If these are claimed to be PD because they are mechanical copies of PD works and not because of the Met licensing statement, then these will need separate tagging for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: The Met licence is for their photos not for the piece. How can we place such a PD statement in the files or is there a template for that? ww2censor (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can simply add another template with a note that this applies to the reproduction and that to the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nikkimaria, I'm still not getting what needs to be done re license for the repro Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil and Nikkimaria: I've added an additional work specific PD licence with detailed reasons the works are PD. It's the only template that seems to suit the bill for such a circumstance. ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ww2, you have gone above and beyond on this one. 22:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1 edit

Restoration "It underwent restoration in 2014, when layers of accumulated dirt and a wax coating were removed." may be an unreliable source and seems to refer to the copy not the original.

Any scientific study e.g. carbon dating of the wood?

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will look re studies. Your copyedits were excellent. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the 2014 claim. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moise edit

Hi Ceoil, I hope you've been well. Here, no big complaints. :-) This article seems pretty interesting and I am having a look. You'll notice I'm also making some mini-edits along the way. Here are the comments I have so far, probably more to come:

  • Wiki-link "frontispiece"?
  • "The figures are dressed in long tinics and cloaks, and depicted in a style that closely resemble those found on the cumdachs of the near contemporary Stowe Missal and slightly later Breac Maodhóg.[20]" I suggest something like "those of" before "Breac Maodhóg". I think you definitely need something here for flow. Moisejp (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Moise, fixed those two, and thanks for edits. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The shrine is in poor condition, especially the top "roof" or "house-shaped" portions are lost, as are some of its jewels." Here "especially" doesn't quite seem to work, I'd argue. I think it's trying to say that the main reason we can say the shrine is in poor condition is that some parts of it are missing. Nothing immediately jumps out at me as a good succinct way to say that, but there surely is one. (It's late here and my brain's not at 100%.) Well, see if you have any ideas for a good way to reword it, otherwise I'll try again to come up with something in my next read-through. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great, I'm beginning my second read-through... Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The figures and other elements dated to this last phase can be identified as they are soldered to the plates." I admit I'm a little confused by this sentence. Maybe this just means that we know which components (figures and other elements) were added later (not in the 8th century) because there is evidence of soldering—and soldering suggests they were added after the fact, not in the original phase? But maybe what threw me was the next sentence talks about how we know the dating of the inner core (8th century), so I was kind of expecting it would be logical that this previous sentence was about how we likewise know this part dates from the 15th century. But then when I re-read it I saw the sentence was about something slightly different... I think. Is there information in the sources about how we can date it to the 15th century, and if so would it be worthwhile to add it? I'm not sure whether other people would get confused by the flow of this sentence, or if it was just me. Moisejp (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • During a rewriting following Funk's demands below, this was removed, as agree it contained duplication. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I've got to the next sentence "The major elements date to the 11th century." So that's the 1001–1011 from the previous paragraph. But I see 1001–1011 is repeated again in this paragraph. Could I suggest it might be clearer to reorganize the two paragraphs to be totally chronological: (1) Everything we know about the 8th century phase; (2) Everything we know about the 11th century phase; (3) Everything we know about the 15th century phase. Moisejp (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the manuscript that is mentioned in Dating is the same thing as the gospel book that is mentioned elsewhere? Oh yes, I see this is stated in the lead: "original object held a now-lost companion text, presumed to be a small illuminated gospel book". But since the lead is supposed to outside of the narrative of the main text, the mention of "its manuscript" in the main text seems kind of sudden, as though it's assumed there has already been mention of it—but the only mention so far has been in the lead.
Related to this, I notice the sentence "That book was, until the 19th century, believed to have been transcribed by Molaisse" in the lead is cited to Overbey, but under Description "until the early 19th century the Gospel of St. Molaisse was thought to have been written by the saint himself; one late medieval text describes how it was, as surmised by the art historian Raghnall Ó Floinn, "sent down to him from heaven while on a pilgrimage to Rome" " is cited to Ó Floinn. Maybe both Overbey and Ó Floinn said that until the early 19th century the Gospel of St. Molaisse was thought to have been written by the saint himself, I'm not sure. But it's unusual to have a citation in the lead, and I'd argue it would be more usual to put the citation just here in the main text. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These points re the manuscript have been addressed. Ceoil (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was enshrined in the 11th century with a cumdach made up of plain sheets of tinned bronze decorated with openwork plates of gilded silver and mountings". This seems like a possible repeat of "the rather plain[3] 8th-century wooden core has bronze casing, that was heavily embellished and added to between 1001–1011 when silver plaques were fastened with nails and rivets". If so, it's a bit confusing to the reader to be presented the same info again, and they're not sure if it's meant to be different from what they already read. Moisejp (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm just asking because the wording is so similar, but are the "panels on the front face are missing, and those that remain are in bronze and silver-gilt" the same as "plain sheets of tinned bronze decorated with openwork plates of gilded silver"? And regardless of whether they are, if the description should be kept in both places, should the wiki-link on "silver-gilt" be instead around "gilded silver"? Moisejp (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condition and restorations: "The 15th-century additions seem to have consisted of embossed silver plates, but are now also mostly lost". This is stated as though it's the first time it's being mentioned, but this was already said in Dating. Maybe the sentence can be tweaked to subtly acknowledge that this has already been mentioned. One idea, something like: "The shrine is in poor condition; in addition to the lost silver plates from the 15th century additions, the top "roof" or "house-shaped" portions are also lost, as are some of its jewels."
    I went with your, better, phrasing. Ceoil (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Molaisse is introduced in the lead as "associated with Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571), also known as Molaisse or "Mo Laisse". In the 6th century, Molaisse founded a church on Devenish Island in the southern part of Lough Erne in County Fermanagh, which the cumdach is associated with." Then in the main text he is mentioned in passing "a successor of Molaisse..." as though Molaisse has already been introduced, but he hasn't yet in the main text, only in the lead. These details about "Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571)" and "founded a church on Devenish Island in the southern part of Lough Erne in County Fermanagh" don't seem to be in the main text at all, unless I missed them.
    Now expanded in the article body beyond what is in the lead. I could prob go more, hold on. Ceoil (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those are all my comments. I really enjoyed this article, very interesting! Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mosie....working through these excellent points. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, wasn't sure if you are ready for me to look at your changes? (No rush if you're not!) Just ping me when you're done, cheers! Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, almost there but not quite. Will ping u shortly. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, will be pinging you tonight. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moisejp, would appreciate if you could revisit now. As mentioned above, have rewritten and expanded since you comments, but got distracted. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse, side and end panels: "The also contain triquetra". I would have quickly edited it for you, but I wasn't sure if this is supposed to be "They also contain" or "The (something plural) also contain" or possibly "The (something singular) also contains"? I will assume in good faith that you'll correct that small mistake, and announce my support now. Moisejp (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that, and thanks so much :) Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mr rnddude edit

  • One side has depictions of figures with rounded facial features and disproportionally large heads, in panels decorated with highly ornate borders. - I'm not sure the comma here is necessary. The heads are in the panels after all, yes?
  • However, analysis of the style and technique ... - Why 'however', I'm not detecting any contradiction with the preceding sentence. Unless the unknown 'nlan' is also a craftsman?
  • However the art historian Mitchell Perette describes Baíthín's script as "remarkably uneven" - Again, I'm not noting a contradiction with the preceding statement. Baíthín's script might not be the finest, but that doesn't tell us that Insular craftsmen were not esteemed in Ireland.
  • I leave this up to you, but regarding measurements it might be nice to provide conversions to inches for the Americans that may pass by the article. I don't know how others feel about this being necessary or not.

I don't really have more to comment on. I made a couple of corrections through edits as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

great, thanks. Got these and will add conversions shortly. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
conversions added. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... in the Insular style from an 8th-century wooden core ... - I think you meant to say 'made from an'.
    Reworded this. Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shrine is oblong in shape and measures 14.75 cm (5.8 in) high, 11.70 cm (4.6 in) wide and 8.45 cm (3.3 in) thick, it is the smallest of the extant Irish pocket-book Gospels - comma splice.
  • ... the 8th-century Book of Dimma <- Sometimes you hyphenate, sometimes you don't –> The 11th century inscriptions ...
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two long sides consists of a sliver plate divided into three compartments - Consist of rather than consists of, I think.
    eek, done. Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... he eventually lost out on the eventual purchase ... - You don't need both 'eventual's here.
    reworded Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... speculated that Petrie had heard about it from the antiquarian Roger Chambers Walker - As Walker has already been introduced earlier, you can cut it down to just Walker.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is today in the collection of ... - MOS:CURRENT says to avoid 'today', 'currently' etc. I'm not a MOS stickler, but you could just say 'It is in the collection of ...'
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... he eventually lost out on the eventual purchase sometime during or after 1845 - I'm slightly confused by this statement given that later in the section you state that [i]ts last hereditary keeper, Charles Meehan ... sold it ... in April 1859 for £45. Was the item sold more than once? If so, how did it return to the hands of the hereditary keepers? They bought it back?

Comments from my second read. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have any further comments. Moved to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. The look through was much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • Will have a look soon. At first glance, the drawings are extremely low res, but being from Archive.org, it should be really easy to get larger res versions if you just zoom in to about 100% before you download the page. You should also link to the exact page in the Commons source fields. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Got these, though hope to be able to photograph it in a dew weeks. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, could the full drawing in the infobox get the same treatment? FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done now, and looks much better. Thanks for the tip re zooming to 100% :) Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why it's not one of the photos that's in the infobox?
  • "(d. 1025) (a successor of Molaisse who was an abbot at Devenish from 1001)" I wonder if it would look better to just keep all this in a single parenthesis? "(d. 1025, a successor of Molaisse who was an abbot at Devenish from 1001)".
  • "(a type of ornamented metal reliquary box or case)" Give this explanation in the aticle body too?
  • " 14.75cm high, 11.70cm wide" Give conversions? In any case, shouldn't there be space between the numbers and cm?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro could mention what language the inscriptions are in.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could restate at the beginning of the "Inscriptions" section what language they were in.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "View of one of the long sides, with visible strap hinge. Openwork patterns can be seen on the top facing side. New York replica" Could state earlier it is the replica as part of the sentence, for example "View of one of the long sides of the New York replica, with visible strap hinge. Openwork patterns can be seen on the top facing side."
Many thanks, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St. Molaisse" ANyone to link to? Or can we state which church he was associated with?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and almost nothing of its content or style was recorded" What do we know of its contents?
  • "founded the church on Devenish Island" Can we state where this is in the world? As you do in the intro.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thick, it the smallest of the extant Irish pocket-book Gospels" Missing "making it the smallest"?
    reworded Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A ringed cross dominates the front face" Is this a Celtic cross?
  • Was it normal to depict the Evangelists as animals at this time?
  • "while many other aspects of the shrine resemble objects uncovered during 20th century archaeological digs" Could some examples be given? You give some under dating, but I wonder if they would fit better under description?
  • Devenish Island is duplinked in the article body.
    fixed Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Irish objects kept hereditary collections" Kept in?
    yup, done. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link National Museum of Ireland in the article body.
    Linked Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the long, stringy bodies of the animals on the sides" Which animals? The zoomorphic humans? Otherwise it could be elaborated, don't seem to be described later.
  • expanded on this a bit, but in general they are not any particular animal. from the zoomorphic article "...describes art that portrays one species of animal like another species of animal or art that uses animals as a visual motif, sometimes referred to as "animal style" Ceoil (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "associated with Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571), also known as Molaisse or "Mo Laisse"." Should also be stated in full in the article body.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Soiscél Molaisse is the earliest surviving cumdach, and with a height of just 14.75 cm (5.8 in), also the smallest." Also seems to be only stated in the intro, which should not contain unique info.
  • "was in the possession of the hereditary keepers O'Meehan family of Ballaghameehan, County Leitrim until the 18th century" But the article body says "Its last hereditary keeper, Charles Meehan of Latoon County Clare, sold it to the Bishop of Kilmore in April 1859".
    fixed Ceoil (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Kildare Street, Dublin." Why more location info in the intro than in the article body? There are also other locations that should either be copied or moved to the article body.
    That its in the National Museum of Ireland – Archaeology on Kildare st. now clarified further down. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks again for detailed points. Have most addressed now. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice with the elaborations, and the high res updates to the images look great. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks are not done. It seems like the references are consistently formatted and structured. I kind of question if this is a reliable source. I take that Limerick Leader is a reliable source? William Stokes (physician) seems like a mislink to me. Everything else looks like a reliable source to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, Gog, yes re "Limerick Leader" and has been removed. The William Stokes link is surprisingly correct. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am still wondering about https://fermanaghastoryin100objects.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/conservation-of-the-st-molaise-shrine/. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, thought I had fixed that...now sourced to Moss' overview. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is all, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, should I take that as a pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • " (d. 564 or 571)," Recommend using Template:abbr for "d." There's a couple of places in the article with this, so if you decide to use this template it should probably apply to all instances.
  • "Show are the Teampall Mór church and medieval round tower." -> shown are?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ends have large chain-rings or knots that bear obvious influence from Viking art,[10] while many other aspects of the shrine resemble objects uncovered during 20th century archaeological digs of Viking Dublin, to the extent that Ó Floinn suggested in 2014 that Dublin may have been its place of origin.[10]" Not sure if you need the first [10] reference in this sentence, as a ref at the end of the sentence is generally assumed to apply to the whole sentence. I won't withhold my support if it stays, but I think removing unnecessary refs makes the article easier for readers to read.
    done Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although neither are considered strong candidates." Who do not consider them strong candidates? The wider historical community? Mitchell?
    done Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the information in Condition should be given its own section, considering how short it is. Perhaps move it to Description? I think most of the information in this section is covered in Description anyways.
    Agree, doing...Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    done Ceoil (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "O'Buachalla, Brendan." referring to Breandán Ó Buachalla?
    done Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "De Paor, Marie" Referring to Máire de Paor?
    done Ceoil (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Please ping when you respond. Z1720 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, have you addressed all of Z1720's comments? If so, could you ping them as they requested? If not, could you do so? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hi Z1720, got all of those, except for the d. Template which am still trying to figure out :o Ceoil (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added it myself, tell me what you think. Its inclusion is not necessary for my support. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

Curious, I'll begin after the lead and comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

  • Can the sentence beginning "The book is assumed ..." perhaps be broken? Many clauses.

Images

  • Can we avoid that a left image displaces a header, perhaps by moving right pics left, and the left one right?
    yes, done Ceoil (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Some "references" rather look like notes to me, - could they be separated in a note list?

Lead

  • Can we have a link to St. Molaisse the first time, or - if not - an explanation right there?

All these are really minor questions, - I can support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the look. Ceoil (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2021 (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) 16 October 2021 [60].

2015 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the 2015 edition of the World Snooker Championship. One of the more unlikely winners of the event (at the time), it was won by Stuart Bingham, who defeated 2005 champion Shaun Murphy in the final. With the scores tied at 15-15, Bingham won the next three to win his first (and to date only) world championship. Both players performed poorly at the event until 2021, when Bingham lost on a deciding frame to Mark Selby in the semi-finals, and Murphy lost to Selby in the final.

I've had a lot of fun times working on this article, I hope you enjoy reading it. Let me know your thoughts.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Girth Summit edit

Lead edit
  • "...professional snooker tournament, that took place..." I don't think the comma is needed there (and GtM will attest that I am generally liberal with my commas), and I think it ought to be 'which' rather than 'that'.
  • "...at the Crucible and this was the final..." Is 'this' needed? Perhaps a comma before 'and'?
  • "...a total of 86 century breaks, a record for the championships and higher than 83 centuries set in 2009." I can see what you're doing here, but I don't think the reader needs to be told that 86 is higher than 83. Consider rewording.
    • I've reworded. I do think as the lede is a bit short, that it's not worth removing the amount of centuries in 2009 (it is important), but reworded to make it easier to read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overview edit
  • "...by defeating countryman Ronnie O'Sullivan..." Do you mean fellow countryman?
    • I mean I suppose. I have changed. I'm not sure why it needs to be both words though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Defending champion Mark Selby was seeded 1, while other seeded places were allocated based on the latest world rankings." This is repetitive - we were told this exact same information in the paragraph above the prize fund information.
Summary edit
  • "Mark Selby, who had led 6–3 and 8–4 against Maflin before his opponent won four consecutive frames narrowly escaped a first-round exit, recovering from 8–9 down to clinch a 10–9 win." I think that at the least you need a comma after 'consecutive' to close the parenthetical relative clause. I'll leave it to your judgment as to whether four X–Y scorelines in a single sentence is difficult for the reader to get their head around.
  • "Ali Carter, back at the Crucible after extensive treatment for cancer," We were told about the cancer two paragraphs ago.
    • Indeed, I've reworded to say more info on this. Previously we mention the cancer to explain why he was playing in the competition, so now I've added that he had missed five months of the season, which explains why he might be rusty or w/e Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Selby succumbing to the Crucible curse. Selby was the 16th first-time champion who failed to defend his title since the tournament moved to the Crucible in 1977." Do you think it might be better to reword this a bit, perhaps rearranging the order in which the information is presented? As phrased, it's not explicitly clear what the Crucible Curse is. I'm thinking of something like "McGill won the match 13–9, making Selby the 16th first-time champion who failed to defend his title since the tournament moved to the Crucible in 1977, succumbing to what has become known as the 'Crucible curse'."
  • "...and three from Hawkins, the match again equalled the record for the most centuries in..." Why 'again'?
  • "The final was refereed for the first time by Olivier Marteel..." Is 'for the first time' redundant? (You tell us in the next sentence that it made him the first Belgian to referee a final, so it's safe to assume it was a first for him too).
    • I don't think so. I think we start by saying that it's his first time, and then comment that he was also the first Belgian person to do so. People can also change nationality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bingham came close to a maximum break," Being a bit picky, but the source says that he was on for a maximum break, not that he came close to it.
Footnotes edit
  • Shouldn't there be a 'notes' section, rather than having the footnotes appear in the References section?
  • There's a space between the refs in the first footnote.

That's it from me. Girth Summit (blether) 17:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

Hi The Rambling Man, sorry for the ping - did you have any comments for me? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. And yes, of course, I'll bring comments. As you know, I'm working on other things to try to catch up on the 900-point deficit, so everything else is de-prioritised until then. There's a waaaaay to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go, and apologies, this literally did fall off my to-do list.

  • "referred to as the 2015 Betfred World Snooker Championship" for sponsorship reasons/purposes. A lot of people will never have heard of Betfred.
    • I've added an discription when we mention them fully in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sponsored the event ... sponsored the tournament" repetitive.
  • "Qualifying for the event took place between..." I've never really noticed this before but this kind of implies that everyone who went into the event had to qualify there, and that's simply not the case. This needs a quick addition of the top 16 or whatever automatically qualified in here.
    • I have added it. Let me know what you think, it might be a bit off. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mark Selby ... Selby ... Selby ..." repetitive.
  • "Shaun Murphy the 2005 winner met" commas around "the 2005 winner".
  • "a 50–1 outsider" maybe expand a touch, like "who was given odds of 50–1 to win the tournament by bookmakers before the start of the tournament"? Some people may have no idea what 50–1 means nor its significance.
  • "for the championships" plural?
    • Removed, although arguably it is championships, as in there being many events, but this is probably better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "championships, the most previously being 83 centuries" ->" championship, beating the 83 scored in..."?
  • "sport was played" perhaps "originally" played?
  • " a single elimination format" another thing I may have missed, is there a reason that "single elimination" isn't hyphenated like our article?
    • Changed, although I wonder if our article is titled wrongly, I'm no English expert though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The event's 32 players" repetitive 32. Could be something like "The player participating in the championship are..."
  • "won by Joe Davis, the final being" maybe another thing, "who secured victory at ... defeating X by A-B frames" to give context to the nature of the game back in the day?
    • I'd probably go along with this, but I've had people tell me this is too much, see David Fuch's comments below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which had previously sponsored" again, repetitive.
  • "in Sheffield, England" you mentioned Sheffield in the previous section but link it here?
  • "of 11 rankings events" link for "rankings events"?
  • "England's Mark Selby won" this implies some kind of allegiance with England. As we know the WSC is nationality-agnostic. Englishman would perhaps be less "team-oriented"?
    • Sure. Done, I only started using this when it was like Scotsman X beat Englishman Y, which is a bit repetitive to me.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It featured a 32-player main draw " feels a bit repetitive, that we've said 32 players at least twice at this stage.
    • Actually once, and I've removed that version, as it's not always been 32. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "played at the 8 and 15 April 2015" lead said it was between those dates (implying a tournament that didn't take place on two separate days), so be consistent in the terminology.
  • "8 and 15 April 2015 at the Ponds Forge International Sports Centre" that has a slightly different target to the one in the lead.
  • "start of the main draw" do you mean the main tournament? Or did the actual draw take place on the same day as the start of the final tournament?
  • "from a challenge match system" suggest this needs a footnote, not clear what a "challenge match" system is here, especially without a link.
  • "in the latest world rankings automatically" latest when, just before the start of the 2015 championship, not now.
  • "Mark Selby was" any need to repeat his first name?
  • "penultimate event of the season" well the lead said the WSC was the final "ranking" event, so was the China Open the penultimate "ranking" event too? Do we need to be explicit?
    • Well, the snooker world rankings don't always update after each event; the China open could have been the third from last event, so penultimate is suitable to comment on. It was both the penultimate ranking, but also the penultimate event in general, so no need to comment on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ranked 17–32" English, so 17 to 32.
  • "Despite losing 1–10 to Kurt Maflin, Davis ..." I'm not sure "Despite" is right here. Perhaps "Davis played his 100th match... losing..."?
  • " to Ken Doherty in " no need for Ken.

That's got me to Summary. Again, I do apologise for the delay, I know I said I was working on catching up but this had completely dropped off my list. Ping me when we're done here and I'll do the next couple of sections. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the snooker world rankings were" is overlinked in the lead now.
  • And at "the snooker world rankings prior to" too.
  • "at the chami were"?
  • "Ali Carter, who had" is there another Carter?
  • "led Selt" who is/was Selt?
  • "4–10. Neil Robertson compiled" overlinked and no need for first name if not ambiguous.
    • It is a bit ambigious, as Jimmy Robertson took part in the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shaun Murphy, who declared" likewise.
  • "winning the 2005 tournament" could link.
  • "Graeme Dott defeated" overlinked/first name issue.
  • "against Stuart Carrington with a " ditto. And "a 109 break" might be better as "a break of 109".
  • "McGill were tied ... but McGill led 10–6 after ... McGill" three-peat.
  • "Stuart Bingham reached" link/name issue.
  • "defeat Graeme Dott" is there another Dott?
  • "for Ronnie O'Sullivan" same.
  • "Shaun Murphy over Joe Perry, and" Murphy over Perry
  • "Neil Robertson over Ali Carter." Robertson/Carter.
  • "Judd Trump defeated Hong Kong's Marco Fu 13" Trump defeated Fu.
  • You've already mentioned Fu, so back there would be better to call him "Hong Kong's Fu".

That's up to the QFs. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Rambling Man, looks like mostly the same issues over and over again. I should have looked a bit closer at duplinks. I'll update for the rest of the article. Thanks for taking a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QFs onward...

  • (previous: "lost 4–10. Neil Robertson compiled" overlinked, can keep his first name however as it's ambiguous with Jimmy)
  • "Trump defeated Ding 13–4 " etc, previous rounds have had at least some kind of "running commentary" on how each session went, this is straight in with the result?
  • Same for "Murphy defeated the last remaining qualifier McGill 13–8 "
  • There seems to be a lot more to say, e.g. Bingham in tears after beating Ronnie, where the highest (equal) break of the tourney happened etc?
  • "champion Ken Doherty and" no need for Ken.
  • "and set a new record for a 25-frame match" for most centuries in a 25-frame match I assume you mean?
  • "longest frame in the tournament" that source is contemporary so it was the longest at that point in the specific tournament.
  • "and 29 April as the" no comma, vs "and 2 May, as the " comma.
  • "All four world championship semi-finalists were English.[52] Murphy was the only former winner of the event to reach the last four" fact attack, I would merge these, e.g. "of whom Murphy was..."?
  • "then extending it" extended.
  • Balance of the "semi-final" section seems off, the not-so-close encounter seems to have more than double the prose of the close encounter.
  • "was held on 3 and 4 May as the best of 35 frames, held over" held on, held over - variety please.
  • "won the title in 2005 with an" overlinked.
  • (previous: "Stevens, who had been defeated.." should be full name and link, and then delink/de-first name next instance).
  • "victory over Matthew Stevens and was" no need for Matthew.
  • "to John Higgins" no Alex here so no need for John.
  • "by Olivier Marteel, from" that article referencing this gives some insight into his previous experience, worth bringing that in here, i.e. which tournaments he'd previously ref'd.
    • Added a comment. The source mentions the World Grand Prix, but it's hardly the most important event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "session of the final, Murphy took a 3–0 lead, but Bingham fought back to end the session" session/session repeat.
  • I would think in the description of the final, century breaks would be worthy of note in the prose rather than just going in session-by-session scores.
  • "had odds of 50–1 to win" link odds, and was it all bookies giving those odds or just one or two or...?
    • Source doesn't say, I'd assume the tournament sponsor's odds, but I don't know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also probably worth some context, like how far down the list of likely winners did 50 to 1 make him? In a huge field, like golf or the Grand National, favourites can still be 10 to 1 etc, so how close was he to being favourite or was he a near-rank-outsider, or somewhere in between? Are there any odds stats for the final itself rather than just pre-tournament odds?
    • Not that I can find, (and we wouldn't cite the bookmakers themselves anyway) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final was noted..." "break" appears in this sentence three times, along with the MOS conflict of comparable values in numbers and words.
  • "The 3 qualifying" three
  • "as the best-of-19 frames" you haven't hyphenated this before in the prose above.
  • Round 1 table seems to have an odd spare Player column in the middle??
  • "This was the highest in World Championship history, ahead of the 83 scored in 2009" you have already mentioned this.
  • "was due to donate" do you mean "pledged to donate"?
  • "achieved.[79][39]" order.
  • "and Stuart Bingham each" -Stuart.
  • Might be worth adding in parentheses how many century breaks each player got to save us counting them all up? I mean Neil Robertson scored loads and went out in the QFs. Will also help with cross-referencing that you covered all centuries in the total.
    • Outside of someone scoring a significant amount, it's rare for the amount to really matter - we just list the total and who scored them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have this link declaring when the "modern era" is considered to have started. That is someone's blog and is hosted by a sports equipment shop. Is there something more "solid" on which you can base this claim of a modern era starting?

Just the references left before a re-start. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks like we've covered the above The Rambling Man Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee, I'll do my best to get to finish this first viewing tomorrow morning after I've dropped the kids at school. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder

  • (from earlier: "Neil Robertson compiled" overlinked)
  • "30 April 1 & 2 May" probably needs a comma after April here.
  • "Referee: Olivier Marteel.[62" he was linked earlier (albeit red) so why not here?
  • In the table, there are several rows called "Players" which are actually sessions, why are they called players?
Any thoughts on this one? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fault with {{32TeamBracket-WSC2-v2}}, which I've changed now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on Lü Chenwei has a diacritic on the u of Lu.
  • " Ford, Craig Steadman and David Morris each..." this is the first time their names appear in prose so should be linked here.
  • Linked (except Steadman, who gets a mention in the first round section). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1964–68" per MOS, 1964–1968.
  • "title at 43 in" do you mean aged 43? Standalone this note makes not much sense!

Refs

  • Ref 4 has publisher in the title.
  • So does ref 5.
  • And 6.
  • Why is worldsnooker.com in italics but snooker.org not? Consistent approach to website formats please.
  • Ref 21 has publisher in the title.
  • Ref 22 has World Snooker not in italics.
  • Ref 22 also has worldsnooker.com in italics as a website but that's not consistently used across all World Snooker refs.
  • If Eurosport and ESPN don't use italics, why does BBC Sport?
  • Ref 42 is missing author and publication date.
  • Ref 48 is missing author, as is 49, 50, 52, 61, 65 etc... best to check all the BBC Sport refs as they usually do.
  • Ref 58 needs en-dash in scoreline.
  • Ref 68 has publisher in the title, but then again, the publisher of World Snooker is suddenly WPBSA here, and nowhere else? And that's the only wikilink in the references.
  • Snooker.org appears to be formatted differently in different places.
  • Hopefully all the ref issues from this section have now been resolved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all I have for the moment, you'll be glad to know! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from GhostRiver edit

  • "and the final ranking event" → "and was the final ranking event"
  • Some punctuation needed in the lede after "a total of 86 century breaks"
  • "2014-15 snooker season" needs an en dash – these get missed by the script, I run into the same issue with NHL articles
  • Perhaps the most pedantic point I plan to make, the reference to "Yahoo News" should be to "Yahoo! News"

Looks like GS did a thorough comb-through, so only a few comments from me! — GhostRiver 23:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs edit

Comments as follows:

  • General:
    • As a non-snooker person, there were a few places I stumbled where I think it would more accessible to a layperson if things were explained rather than purely relying in wikilinks, for example:
      • What a century break actually is
      • what frames are
        • I get the need for these two, but they are particularly simple terms, and we do link them. A century break, being a break of over 100 seems quite logical, maybe there is a need for understanding what a break is. I can't really think of a better phrase than "points in one one attempt at the table", which is a bit wordy and doesn't really explain the term either. Frames are simply individual games, but a "frames (games)" is a little bit like telling someone to suck eggs Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, but if someone has to link away to learn what a term is, they're not coming back in all likelihood. You've got popups for hovering desktop users, but they're a distinct minority of readers these days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I get that, but it's such a basic term, I'd be really reticent to have "frames (games)" or similar on these articles, it would feel like saying "goals (points)" in football, or explaining what a touchdown is in American Football. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's some tense changes that I think should just be past tense (ie. "The breakdown of prize money for this year is show below" reads weird coming after "the prized fund [was] raised".
        • Sure, but this is saying that the breakdown of the prize money is listed in the article below. If you said "prize money from the event was shown below, it wouldn't be correct, and wouldn't read correct. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose:
    • Selby fell to the Crucible curse, It may just be me, but the phrasing here feels like it lends too much credence to the curse actually existing, and I think reads more plainly if you cut it in the lead and just say Selby lost 9-13 [...] to McGill, becoming the 16th first time champion" etc. (It works fine in the body IMO.)
    • Contrary to my considerations about accessibility above, I think the overview could be shortened a bit. Having an explanation of what snooker is is good, but I don't think the next two bits about its background are that relevant. Likewise the second paragraph talking about the championship structure is directly relevant, as is where it's currently held, and the previous year's titleholder, but I don't think the date of the first world championship or Hendry's record is that useful.
      • I'd disagree - and I generally ask for more background information in FACs. Having a good understanding of the event overall, such as how long it has been held for, and who has won it the most times gives prestige to the event. If you remove that, we could be talking about an event that is a year old, rather than one that's run for nearly 100 years. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think some of the background information is useful, but adding random names of people who aren't going to come up again and don't directly relate to this year's final I think are more confusing rather than more edifying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sheffield is not linked in its first use, but in its second.
    • First-round debutants at the Crucible were England's Craig Steadman,[34] and Stuart Carrington,[35] Scotland's Anthony McGill,[36] and Norway's Kurt Maflin.[37] McGill and Carrington had both played at the Crucible before, in the Junior Pot Black in 2006.[38] I might be misunderstanding, but it seems like if McGill and Carrington had already played at the Crucible before they couldn't be first-round debutants there?
      • I have changed this, as it doesn't read well (some users say "The Crucible" as if that has some special meaning). Basically they reached the main stages of the event for the first time, which is played at the Crucible. Very few other events take place there, but one event is the Junior pot black (and senior world championships). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stevens had been defeated in the 2000 final by Williams, eliminated him at the 2015 event, completing a 10–2 victory comma splice
    • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • after Reardon who was 45 in 1978—we've heard how old Reardon was just before this so it doesn't seem relevant to restate it.
  • Media:
  • Images appear appropriately licensed and free.
  • References:
    • What makes Global Snooker Centre, Chris Turner's Snooker Archive, Inside Snooker, Global-Snooker.com, Snooker Scene, and Snooker.org high-quality reliable sources?
      • Global Snooker was run by Global Cue Sports Ltd and had an editorial roll. Chris Turner is a snooker historian who did work for both the BBC and Eurosport. Inside-Snooker is run and edited by Hector Nunns, who is still the BBC correspondant for snooker, Global-snooker.com I'm having some issues finding out who ran the site, but I know we generally consider it reliable for match/tournament results. I can replace as it's only used once if there's an issue, Snooker Scene is the longest running cue sports magazine in the world, ran by snooker journalist and author Clive Everton and snooker.org is a multi-award winning statistical site. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the one source that definitely cannot be claimed to be high-quality reliable in this instance is Global-Snooker.com and it should be removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to be inconsistency in the ref formatting regarding whether web sites are italicized/capitalized or whether they have the TLD appended or not.
    • Did a spot-check and didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or verification failures.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Without spot-checks. Sources are consistently formatted. Are WorldSnooker, StubHub, snooker.org reliable sources? Ditto for Grimsby Telegraph and Leicester Mercury. Not much else to say, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, World Snooker are the organisers, and in charge of professional snooker, so as reliable as it gets. Snooker.org is an award winning statistical site with an editorial roll. I'd probably agree about StubHub, so I've removed it. The last two are local newspapers, so will have editorial rolls, so I don't see an issue with these Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator request edit

Support from zmbro edit

  • Now I'm not knowledgable on this subject whatsoever, but just doing quick spotchecks on refs, prose, and images it looks more than ready to me. Happy to support. – zmbro (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2021 (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) 16 October 2021 [61].

Second Battle of Independence edit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is presumably around the time that Sterling Price realized his 1864 Missouri Raid was in big trouble, as the Union managed to get sizable bodies of troops to the east and west of the Confederates, with a river to the north. Second Independence represents the Confederates' attempt to hold a rear guard long enough for the main body of the army fought a way across Byram's Ford. This article was listed as a GA in April and passed an A-class review earlier this month. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up the maps and providing a legend for Price's_Raid.png
    • Done in the same manner as for the 13th Mo. Cavalry FAC. Hog Farm Talk 04:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't duplicate caption in alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 edit

  • Can comment, shortly Eddie891 Talk Work 17:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " who supported ending the war" I mean, they both presumably wanted the war to end... I think you could be a little clearer that mcclellan wanted an immediate peace
    • Done
  • "was ordered to send his infantry across the river to more important areas of the war" by who?
    • Braxton Bragg, Jeff Davis's military advisor at the time. Added
  • With the situation east of the Mississippi River collapsing" I think you could give a little more context , though this is background.
    • Added a little bit - is this better?
  • "This movement proved to be impossible, as a large-scale crossing of the Mississippi was prevented by Union Navy control of the river." might be more concisely expressed along the lines of "Union Navy control of the river made this movement impossible"?
    • Done
  • "political forces in Kansas prevented the militiamen" could you expand on this a bit?
    • I've added a single sentence. This is a bit too complex of a situation to get into here, but I think it suffices to say that there was a gubernatorial election going on in Kansas, a lot of the militia officers were politicians on competing sides, and there were many accusations of conspiracy. Hog Farm Talk 06:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • only a single regiment suggest" contextualizing the size of a regiment
    • I've added the strength of the rear guard force
  • Who are the people referenced in "The Unionists also charged "-- you only mention 'unionist' once before in the context of a citizen
    • Rephrased. Not sure why that word was used there
  • Suggest a date for "File:HedrickiteTempleLotWithCofChristBuildingsNearby" rather than 'modern', because it could go out of date at any moment.
    • Done. Thank goodness it was in the file description page
  • "modern historian" is an interesting title because it could suggest that he's a historian of modern times or a historian of the era in modern times; the same way contemporary could be read two ways, imo.
    • Removed. I think I had it in mind to contrast it with Paul Burrill Jenkins, who wrote a dated account of this part of Price's Raid before 1910, but since Jenkins isn't used or mentioned it isn't necessary
  • Any idea why Kennedy would attribute so many fewer losses to price than Price himself admitted?
    • Unfortunately, no.
  • "beyond hope of meaningful landscape preservation" Do both studies use that exact phrasing?
    • Rephrased, as the 1993 report does not use that exact phrasing
  • Not seeing "influencing the 1864 United States Presidential Election." Supported in the body
    • I think it's covered by the statements that McClellan and Lincoln were squaring off in the election and that it was thought that it might help McClelland (both mentioned in the second paragraph of the background section). Do I need to make the connection a bit clearer in the body?

I think that's if from me Eddie891 Talk Work 15:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Eddie891: - I've made a first pass at responding to these above. Are the changes satisfactory? Hog Farm Talk 06:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, it looks good, happy to Support. I missed "improve McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln" in the body, which led to my last comment. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2nd para of lead is hard to follow unless you already know where the rivers are edit

As a reader who does not know the geography of the area I found I could not understand the second para of the lead by just reading the lead. Perhaps a diagram of the battle showing the rivers more clearly would help.

Working on this. Hog Farm Talk 06:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: - I don't think there's a freely licensed map of the battle beyond what already exists in the article, but I have tracked down some distances between Independence and the rivers and added them to the article body and the lead. Does this help with comprehensibility? Hog Farm Talk 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little clearer but as it seems the rivers were important militarily I think the article would greatly benefit from a better plan of the battle. The guys at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab have done really great diagrams for me in the past. I am sure if you give them a rough sketch they will produce a plan worthy of a featured article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Display name 99 edit

  • Why is Pleasonton's command the only Union unit mentioned in the infobox, despite Curtis' Union Army troops and the Kansas militia both being spoken of in the lead? Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to clarify in the lead that Curtis's troops fought in the Battle of Byram's Ford, which was concurrent with this one
The lead looks fine now. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the lead, I think "1864 United States Presidential Election" should be "United States presidential election." It's minor, but it's in line with how I've seen the names of elections written out, both on and off Wikipedia, including in the "Background" section of this article. It's better also not to have "Redirected from" when one clicks on a link. Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • "By September 1864, the Confederacy had essentially no chance of a military victory..." A little too strong for my taste. True, Atlanta had just been captured, but Hood's army was not yet destroyed and the Siege of Petersburg was still in a stalemate. Only 1-2 months before in the East, the Confederacy had nearly captured Washington D.C. and had bloodily repulsed a Union infiltration attempt at the Battle of the Crater. I suggest changing "essentially no chance" to "little chance." Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Changed.
  • Are there any details about the general outline of the plan that you can add to the end of the "Background" section? Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some direct quotes from Smith's orders. Price had a decent amount of leeway in what to do.
  • Is it possible to mention the unit(s) and commander of the infantrymen at Saint Louis? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smith and the XVI Corps. Clarified.
  • Who were the troops who reinforced Jefferson City? Where did they come from? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Militia and a couple cavalry brigades. Added
  • Was the Army of the Border part of the Department of Missouri under Rosecrans? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was Lexington in relation to Glasgow and Sedalia? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Display name 99: - I can cite this into a map in Collins - Lexington was west of Glasgow and northwest of Sedalia. I'm not sure where to put this though without it being awkward. Glasgow and Sedalia are only mentioned once each, and not in the same context as Lexington. Where do you think this would work in the best? Hog Farm Talk 05:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it then. Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes us to the end of "Prelude." It's a solid article, but as you can see I think it would benefit from more detail in some areas. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far! I'll keep trying to address this in chunks. Hog Farm Talk 05:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Sounds good. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Knowing that Price would eventually have to turn south to return to Confederate territory..." Would he if he was successful? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be better clarified in the background now. Smith had tasked Price with trying to take St. Louis and to retreat through Kansas and the Indian Territory if Missouri could not be held. After Jefferson City, Price realized Missouri could not be held, so he started the movement towards KC. Hog Farm Talk 06:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "40 of Blunt's men who had been captured during the Battle of Little Blue River were rescued" Can you say exactly where and when this happened? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source I used for this (Monnett) was borrowed from a relative who lives a couple hours away and has since been returned. While I have library cards for three county libraries (despite technically only meeting eligibility for one), two of them don't have the book, and the third lists it as "unavailable". I'll have to hunt to see if other sources mention further details about this. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't seem to be in Sinisi, Lause, or Collins, and I can't get a preview on Amazon or Google books. Will likely get a chance to consult this work when I visit family for Labor Day (if I don't forget). Hog Farm Talk 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades had become tired and disorganized" Can you say how exactly? Moving too slowly, units mixing together, etc? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • is "as both McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades had become disorganized through exhaustion and confusion" better? Sinisi isn't much more specific than basically saying they got tuckered out.

That's it until Aftermath. This is a great explanation of the battle. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Continuing...[reply]

  • Is there any reliable estimate of overall Union casualties? Any idea why not? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't found anything. Best I've found is one source is 600 Union losses on October 22 but that includes the much heavier fighting on the first day of the Battle of Byram's Ford. Sources indicate that losses at the Battle of Westport on October 22 and at the Battle of Little Blue River on October 21 are underreported, but don't say much specifically for Second Independence. I did some digging in the Official Records and found reports on the campaign by Brown, Sanborn, and McNeil, but none break down casualties for this battle. My guess is that there wasn't a good chance for reporting - Winslow fought well into the night, McNeil and Sanborn were both on the move early the next morning, and Brown was arrested on October 23. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Frances Kennedy? Can you briefly introduce her and explain why she is notable? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Confederate brigade commander? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added, it was Clark. I had to dig this out of Collins's referencing
  • In the final sentence, can you restate the total number of men that Price had with him at the start of the campaign so that the reader can understand the scale of the losses without having to refer to earlier in the article? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added

That should be all. Hog Farm, your changes look good so far. Just address the last couple and I'll be happy to support. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a long day at work so I couldn't get to this tonight, but hopefully I can finish off all except for the Monnett query, which hopefully can be done over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: - Thanks for this review! I've tried to reply as best as I can to the remaining points. Unfortunately, it's looking like I won't be visiting home over Labor Day due to the sudden and unexpected need for COVID test results, so the Monnett item is still up in the air. Hog Farm Talk 02:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. Get to that when you can. I'm pleased to support this article. However, please fix the error that you made when stating Price's losses in the penultimate paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I'll take a look at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox
  • suggest stating the location in the first sentence
    • Done
  • suggest "Price's men made contact with Curtis's Union troops"
    • Done
  • "6 miles (9.7 km) from Independence" in what direction?
    • Added
  • a bit more context is needed for "while Pleasonton drove back Confederate defenders from the Little Blue." ie he was actually pursuing Price at the this stage, or at least closing up on his rear.
    • Added
  • suggest "The expansion of the town then city of Independence into areas that were rural at the time of the battle has resulted in urban development over much of the battlefield, and it has been concluded that it is beyond hope of meaningful preservation."
    • Done
  • where does the 7,000 Confederates infobox figure come from?
    • "Fagan's division with 4,500 men was left at Independence as a rear guard, and Marmaduke's division with 2,500 men was between Fagan and Shelby". Should this be made clearer?
Body
  • "but were confined to the southwestern Missouri"
    • Fixed
  • suggest "With the dire situation for the Confederacy east of the Mississippi River in the Atlanta campaign and Siege of Petersburg,"
    • Done
  • "threats to the Union flank" which one?
    • Added

Down to Battle. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "were already almost to Price's line" was this actually Fagan's line, as his division was the rearguard?
    • I've rephrased this to "the Confederate line"
  • "to allow Pleasonton to pursue Price directly" but wasn't he already doing this? Perhaps this could be tweaked to reflect that?
    • This is in reference to Rosecrans wanted Smith and Pleasonton to move south and cut off the path the Confederates would have to take in a retreat. two sentences earlier, where Pleasonton was briefly intended to swing to the south
  • "The 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment and 17th Illinois Cavalry Regiment of McNeil's brigade forced back Confederate pickets,[37][38] from Slemons's brigade and under the command of Colonel John C. Wright,[39] at the river crossing, but were delayed because of a burned bridge. " is unclear, perhaps it needs to be split up into two or more sentences with greater focus on the subjects of the sentences. For example, which force was commanded by Wright? Were the pickets at the river crossing?
    • I've split this into three sentences and have tried to clarify everything
  • "Clark's and Freeman's brigades" - isn't this just Marmaduke's division?
    • Pretty much, but the source specifically identifies the two brigades separately rather than just the division. I'm inclined to keep it this way, as Marmaduke also had a couple scouting companies and Harris's Missouri Battery (1864) that I haven't seen mentioned in sources about the battle
  • "After falling all the way back to Independence, Cabell was joined by Clark's and Freeman's brigades" and "Despite support from Hughey's battery which lasted until 15:00, Cabell's brigade was forced back to Independence itself. " seems duplicative
    • Good catch. It is duplicative - I've moved the first mention down towards the second one
  • "While coordination between the charging unit was intended" between 2nd Arkansas Cavalry and which other unit?
    • Will need to consult the local library's copy of Kirkman for this.
      • Rephrased - between Sanborn and McNeil
  • "the right wing of Sanborn's brigade instead moved in front of the rest of the Union line,[44] as part of the 2nd Arkansas Cavalry was already halfway to Independence when the rest of the units began advancing" isn't clear. Were only troops from Sanborn's brigade advancing? If so, perhaps reflect that and maybe be more specific about how far units had advanced.
    • As above, will need to hit the library for this.
      • I've tried to rephrase this to make it clearer. Sanborn and McNeil were both advancing, but part of Sanborn's brigade got in front of everyone else. Source (Kirkman) doesn't say how far
        • Perhaps this would be better as "While coordination between McNeil and Sanborn was intended, the 2nd Arkansas Cavalry – on the right of Sanborn's brigade – had commenced their advance earlier than the rest of the attacking force, and were halfway to Independence when the rest began advancing towards the town."? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest Union Arkansas regiment→2nd Arkansas Cavalry
    • Done
  • suggest "The attack drove the Confederates away to the west and southwest, but the Union forces did not pursue them due to fatigue."
    • Done
  • "McNeil's brigade was ordered to charge again" again? And towards whom, the Confederates to the west or southwest? Perhaps "continue the assault and charge the Confederates west (or southwest) of Independence."
    • This was very poorly worded. I've tried to rephrase this
  • can I suggest "1st, the 4th, and the 7th Missouri State Militia Cavalry Regiments"?
    • Done
  • also "3rd and 4th Iowa Cavalry Regiments, and the 4th and 10th Missouri Cavalry Regiments"
    • Done

That's all I could find. Nice job thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peacemaker67: - Sorry this took almost a week. I've made an initial reply to everything above. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff, well done on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass edit

References

  • #58 — Could be styled "pp. 91, 114 n.41", but that's up to you.
    • Done, as I was mainly just guessing on how it should be formatted with the other way

Sources

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose - With this one looking in pretty good shape (3 supports, ir + sr), may I have a second one? Hog Farm Talk 20:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Reviewing this to clear the FAC backlog, non-expert prose review.

  • In the infobox, did "Pleasonton's division" have a name? Should it be wikilinked or redlinked?
    • It doesn't really have a widely used name other than "Pleasonton's division". Divisions in the American Civil War were generally pretty ad hoc formations like this one, and don't really have anything to base an article on.
  • "that it is beyond hope" I know beyond hope is reflects the language in the quote further down the article, but I think it's too much of an idiom to have in Wikivoice without quotations. Maybe rephrase to "that it would not be possible to preserve." or something similar?
    • How does "meaningful preservation is no longer possible" sound?
  • "by part of the XVI Corps," Wikilink XVI Corps?
    • It's already linked two paragraphs above in the Prelude section, so I'm not sure that that's necessary
  • "Independence to finish mopping things up." Mopping things up feels too much like an idiom. Perhaps be more specific on what they were doing during this "mopping up" time.
    • @Z1720: - Kinda stuck on this one for now. Monnett is the only source I can't easily access (borrowed it from a relative who lives two hours away when I wrote the article, and it's unavailable at the local library or either of the two university libraries I can access). Collins, Lause, and Sinisi don't discuss what McNeil and Sanborn did during Winslow and Brown's attacks. Will try and find a copy of Monnett somewhere. Hog Farm Talk 03:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately I don't have online access to the book, either. If you struggle to get a copy I might be able to get it from a local university library. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Winslow's men attacked, and quickly drove back Cabell's and Freeman's brigades." Recommend removing the comma for flow, although it's an oxford comma so I won't oppose if it's kept.
    • Removed
  • "Concerned about the safety of his wagon train, Price ordered it to move at daylight for Little Santa Fe, via Hickman Mills." Since there is no wikilink for Little Santa Fe, I recommend giving a short explainer about where Little Santa Fe is.
    • Glossed
  • "The Union troops broke through the line, and hit the flank of the Westport line." Also recommend removing this oxford comma for flow.
    • Removed

Those are my comments. Great job as always. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for this delayed response. I was hoping there would be a response to HogFarm's RSX, but it doesn't look like there will be. Perhaps the following phrase can be removed to alleviate my idiom concerns: "to finish mopping things up. As part of this process," When the source is found, I think we can change "mopping up" to more precise words. @Hog Farm: thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: - RSX came through in the clutch. The source states Sanborn and McNeil were left to clean up the town, take care of the dead and wounded, and to bring up the Federal wagon train before describing the rescued men, and the hotel/bank as hospitals. "clean up the town" may well be an idiom itself, as I doubt Sanborn and McNeil's men were on janitorial duty. What would be your preferred phrasing here? Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, "Sanborn and McNeil were left to manage various tasks related to the town's post-battle condition: they..." and then describe the rescued men, conversion of buildings into hospitals, etc. I'm not thrilled with this sentence, so feel free to change it up. Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z: - How about Brown and Winslow were to move against the Confederates while McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades remained behind in Independence to manage post-battle cleanup tasks. A local bank and hotel were taken over by McNeil and Sanborn's men [...]? I'm not super thrilled with that suggestion, either. It's kind hard to avoid being idiomatic when the source itself is idiomatic and there's not really a good clear English phrase to describe this. Hog Farm Talk 05:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hog Farm: Sorry, I missed this ping. This suggestion works for me. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2021 (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) 15 October 2021 [62].

English invasion of Scotland (1650) edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) and Girth Summit (talk)

Another joint venture from the itinerant repeat nominator Gog the Mild and the Scottish history expert Girth Summit. Charles I was king of England and Scotland, as two entirely separate matters. When the English chopped his head off they didn't consult the Scots. So when the Scots crowned Charles II it was as king of Britain (not Scotland). Which, with massive understatement, could be described as a provocation. In short order Oliver Cromwell was leading an English army across the border. The campaign was hard fought, but ended with the whole of Scotland subjugated. OK, in some ways it ended with Charles and the Scots' army going down to defeat in Worcester. Which part of Scotland is Worcester in, you ask? Read the article. Lovingly crafted and fresh from a rigorous GAN courtesy of Tayi Arajakate we believe this is ready for the exigencies of a FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "the English government, exasperated ..." can we lay responsibility to something that can be linked to? Possiblities in the body include the Rump Parliament and the New Model Army, for example.
Technically it was the Rump Parliament, so so linked.
  • "After years of rising tensions the relationship between Charles and his English Parliament broke down in armed conflict, starting the First English Civil War in 1642.[3]" I might cut the words "in armed conflict", not only does the causation read oddly but the words seem redundant.
Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Godly war" shouldn't this be lower case per MOS:GOD?
Done.
  • You refer to the "Scottish government" or "government" a number of times, but it is not clear who this is. Is this the same as their parliament?
Well yes and no. Is any nation's government the same as its parliament? It wasn't clear at the time who this was, hence the repeated internecine fighting and purges.
See also the Committee of Estates. The question of whether it's the parliament, or the committee, or both, isn't always clearcut and the sources often just say 'government' - I think that trying to be specific each time would be difficult, and errors might be made. Government is accurate, if slightly vague.
  • "Subsequently strict military discipline was enforced." A comma might be useful here.
You clearly use commas differently to me. I have stuck one in, but placement was largely guesswork. Could you check, and if you don't like it move it? Thanks.
  • "Large musters took place at Northampton, Gloucester, Reading and Barnet, and the London trained bands assembled 14,000 strong on 25 August and Fairfax secured Yorkshire." A bit of a run-on sentence.
Split.
  • transported to North America to work as forced labour." Is this the fate you allude to in the last sentence of "Battle of Dunbar" as "were deported to become indentured workers on English possessions overseas"? If so, and if the sources permit, I would be specific as to North America in the Dunbar allusion. The reader my be vague as to English colonial holdings in the 1650s.
Just checking, you are suggesting a change to Battle of Dunbar here? I'm not disagreeing, just checking that I understand.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. The Dunbar prisoners were, I believe, transported separately from the Worcester ones. I think what Wehwalt is asking is whether we can be specific as to where the Dunbar prisoners got sent to.
I've checked the source, which discusses prisoners from both battles being (separately) transported to various parts of North America. It doesn't talk about possessions elsewhere, so I've changed the text to mention NA specifically. GtM - if you're aware of them going elsewhere as well, please rephrase as necessary. Girth Summit (blether) 11:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After seven months the Army removed Richard and re-installed the Rump in May 1659." The date comes as something of an afterthought. I might say "In May 1659, seven months after Oliver Cromwell's death ... "
Done.
Correct. Would you like more?
Is it necessary to end both the lede and the body in identical phrasing?
Obviously not. Is there a problem with this? If so, which would you like rewriting? (Or both?)
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, I think that is all of your comments addressed, although a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Some images are missing alt text
Apologies. Not sure what happened. Even the cut and pasted from previous FAC images lost their alt text. All now present.
  • File:Battle_of_Dunbar_medal.jpg: tagging for the original work is fine, but I'm wondering about the image - was the source given the first publication?
Ah. Very good point. The photographer is unknown, and I struggle to track it back further than 1967. I am off-Wiki for a few days, so I will let Girth Summit have a look at it. They have access to sources I don't. But we may have to remove it.
  • File:Battle_of_Worcester.jpg: source link is dead; where was this first published?
Relinked. In 1810 in a work by Machell Stace. (Cromwelliana: A chronological detail of events in which Oliver Cromwell was engaged from the year 1642 to his death 1658.)

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GS, could you have a look at the Dunbar Medal thing and ping Nikkimaria once you either resolve it or fail to and remove it. Up your street I think. :-) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I'm not sure I'll be able to go back further than 1967, but I see that on commons there is File:Thomas Simon, Oliver Cromwell, Commemorating the Victory at the Battle of Dunbar (obverse), 1650, NGA 117631.jpg - that seems to have had all rights waived by the owner, would we be on more solid ground using that image (which shows the same thing)? Girth Summit (blether) 18:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one would be fine with improved tagging - the current tagging reflects only the status of the image and not the medal itself. (Should be pretty simple to just port over the tags from the current image, if they're picturing the same object). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Better? Girth Summit (blether) 18:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped in article now, thanks for the advice. Girth Summit (blether) 18:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative suggestions for lead edit

As an older Englishman I already know that Charles II was a king - but for younger foreigners would the first sentence be improved as something like "In 1650 the English Commonwealth's New Model Army invaded Scotland, intending to forestall a Scottish army led by King Charles II invading England." ? And that sentence could perhaps be its own paragraph (maybe add another sentence with result later) as the next sentence is a flashback?

So my concern about calling him King Charles II is that, at the point in his life that we're talking about here, the question of whether he was king and where he was king of is somewhat contested. He was not yet King of England, and while the Scots had proclaimed him "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland", it's obviously not clear that they had the authority to do so. Plus he hadn't been crowned yet (that happened in January 1651). We can't possibly unpack all of that in the first sentence, and so I personally think it's better to refer to him as "Charles II" (which is his COMMONNAME) in the opening sentence, and then explain things more fully later on in the article. Girth Summit (blether) 11:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And would it be better to use a different tense next like "From 1642 to 1648 Royalists, loyal to King Charles I of England, had fought Parliamentarians in the First and Second English Civil Wars" ?

This wouldn't be wrong, but it's not clear to me that it would be an improvement - I'll see what GtM thinks. Girth Summit (blether) 11:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other reviewers would certainly then ask why the article was written in two tenses. Currently we have picked one and used it consistently. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please take a look and comment on my submission here Chidgk1 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 edit

  • Not sure what "paridly" means?
That it is a typo. Thank you.
  • "was able to regain control of the government" had they previously held control?
Very well spotted. Let us not delve into that. Tweaked.
  • Do we have a number of people purged by the commission the first time around?
Not that I have been able to find. GS?
I've gone back to the sources, but I'm not seeing numbers for the first purge. They talk more about the quality, rather than quantity, of people who were purged - it got rid of a lot of the pesky experienced officers who had seen fighting on the continent in the 30 years wars, obviously not the sort of person you'd want in your army if you thought you were about to go up against Cromwell. Girth Summit (blether) 17:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how many english soldiers there were?
We do. A sloppy omission. Added.
  • "Edinburgh Castle held out until December" Maybe add a date when the city was first taken so we know how long that is?
Good thought. Done.

Very nice overall, only a few minor thoughts. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eddie, good stuff as usual. Responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You write prose that is so easy to review. Happy to Support Eddie891 Talk Work 17:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Rather an unwelcome change for a Gog article – the bad guys won! (Still, the good guys won ten years later, as you mention at the end.) As far as I can tell, knowing little about this period, the content is well balanced, and the sources look excellent to my layman's eye. I offer some minor comments on the prose, but very few, as the article is excellently constructed and beautifully written:

  • In 1650 Scotland was actively raising an army – can one raise an army passively?
    Changed to 'rapidly' - any better?
    Per Eddie's review above, I see that I actually changed it to 'paridly'. Oops.
  • the English were willing to fight to defend the republic – was the term "republic" used at the time? Question asked from a position of complete ignorance, but the word seemed vaguely anachronistic/parachronistic to me)
    I believe the word was used at the time (and there's the Dutch Republic too).
Widely used in the scholarly literature. I could provide quotes or point you towards analyses of Milton's or Cromwell's political views if you would like. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the authority to approve all of the king's councillors …. all of the King's subjects in Scotland – superfluous "of"s here, à l'américaine.
    Hmm. Looked alright to me, but I bow to all of your pronouncements on matters of prose. :P
Afterthought: I am painfully aware that attempting the capitalisation, or not, of royal job titles is the road to insanity, but I can't help noticing the king/King in this bit of the text. I most decidedly do not press the point.
Fiddled with caps throughout.
  • bitterly divided on whether or not to ratify its terms – does the "or not" add anything useful?
    Gone
  • Exasperated by Charles' duplicity – strange form of the possessive, where one would expect the usual "Charles's"
    True - fixed
  • Scotland was actively rearming – actively, again. Seems an odd word.
    actively --> rapidly
  • They pressured Thomas Fairfax – is pressuring someone different from pressing him?
    Changed
  • launch a preemptive attack – you hyphenate "pre-emptive" earlier (as does the OED)
    changed
  • so as to enable – the first two words seem otiose
    I don't know what otiose means (sounds like a brand of breakfast serial), but changed regardless.
It is a large, South American, aquatic mammal. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serves me right for being lazy. It means "superfluous" but is quicker to type and easier to spell. Tim riley talk 18:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised I typed 'serial' while thinking 'cereal'. Any I imagine I can write FAs? Girth Summit (blether) 19:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It can happen to andone. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which by this point was short on supplies – short of supplies?
    Hmm. This bit was Gog's, so I'll leave this for him to comment on - either would be correct in my view.
Oops. Caught. 200,000 cases of "short on supplies": [63]. It would seem that "of" is more common, but has been declining in frequency of use, while "on" is an acceptable (alternative?) use which has been gaining currency. As ever, I would seem to be at the cutting edge of the use of English prose.
  • called up all of the troops it could – another strange "of"
    gone
  • On arrival in France, he declared he would rather be hanged than ever to return to Scotland. – and did he ever return? A footnote would be nice, telling us yea or nay.
    I'm fairly confident that he never set foot on Scottish soil ever again, but I would need to check the sources to see whether I could actually source that in a footnote. I'm not in a position to do that right now, but may return to it.
    Woolrych confirms that Charless II never returned to Scotland, so I've added a footnote.

Those are my meagre gleanings. Tim riley talk 12:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review Tim riley - I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. GtM is away at the moment, gets back tomorrow - I'm sure he'd be delighted to find a support from you waiting for him! Girth Summit (blether) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon Mr riley, and thank you for your usual attention to detail. My colleague seems to have dealt with dealt with your concerns better than I would, and probably could, have - I shall have to go away more often - and we await your magisterial decision with trepidation. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't do any such thing, you cheeky beggar! You know jolly well I'm going to support, which I hereby do. Thanks for the requested footnote: I think it rounds the matter off satisfyingly. To conclude my review: as a non-expert reader I can't comment except in general terms on the substance of the article, but it looks more than fine to me, and is well and widely sourced. It is commendably neutral, and thoroughly readable. Top-notch work by the two nominators. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 18:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry sir, Mr riley sir. Additional work for being cheeky in class has been completed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There really is going to be trouble next time we meet at the Wehwalt Arms. Tim riley talk 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully not anything I can't lubricate my way out of with sufficient red wine. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

  • Ref #31: "Woolrych 2002, p. 483–484." needs a pp not a p.
Done.
  • "Dow, F.D. (1979)" should be "Dow, F. D." with spaced initials per MOS:INITIALS. The hyphen in the year range of the title also needs to be made into an endash.
Done.
  • I know John Philipps Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer are linked on their first mention in the Sources section (Edwards, Peter (2002)), but I think linking them as chapter authors for "Kenyon, John & Ohlmeyer, Jane (2002)" and "Ohlmeyer, Jane (2002)" would also be useful to the reader.
I just know that someone is going to object, but done.
Someone always does, but I always prefer to add aids to the reader. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lodge, Richard (1969)" is formatted differently because it uses {{Citation}} rather than {{Cite book}}: for consistency switch it to the latter.
Done.
  • "Stewart, Laura A.M." should be "Stewart, Laura A. M." with spaced initials per MOS:INITIALS (for both the 2016 and 2017 sources).
Done.
  • "Wheeler, James Scott (2002)" needs an endash in the year range of the title.
Done.
  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
  • Searches don't reveal any glaring omissions, this article appears to accurately cover the source material.
  • The nominators are experienced and trusted editors, so spotchecks are not necessarily needed. That said, I have Wanklyn, Malcolm (2019) and Brooks, Richard (2005) on my shelf, so I did spotchecks against those, which check out fine.
  • Further checks for copyvio or close para-phrasing revealed nothing of concern.

That's a wrap. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Harrias and thanks for picking that up. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, all good. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "an independent nation at the time". Sounds a bit colloqial to me. How about "which was then an independent nation"?
Done.
  • "twelve years after being crowned by the Scots". Above you say the Scots "declared" him king of Britain. Why not say crowned? BTW it must be a unique title?
Because the Scots declared on 5 February 1650, Charles arrived in Scotland on 23 June, but wasn't crowned until 1 January 1651.
"King of Great Britain, France and Ireland". I'm not sure. Girth Summit may know. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what I'm being asked to comment on here - can you expand on "BTW it must be a unique title"? Girth Summit (blether) 18:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took "king of Britain" literally as a possibly unique title. If it was "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland" then I think you should use that term. Also I think it is important to say that he was crowned by the Scots. It is odd to say both in the lead and the text that his 1661 crowning was twelve years after the first one, but never to mention the first one specifically. Perhaps at the end of the first paragraph "The Scottish Parliament, which had not been consulted prior to the execution, declared his son, Charles II, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland on 5 February 1650, and he was crowned on 1 January 1651." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​ So, a few things to unpack. I think we're focussing on the 'king of Britain' bit, rather than the full formal title, because that's what the sources focus on. The English weren't particularly bothered about the other bits - it was the fact that the Scots were calling him king of Britain, and therefore of England, that they felt threatened by. The sources talk about it in these terms, I don't think we should gloss over that, but we also don't want to spend a whole paragraph spelling it out.
With regards to where to mention the coronation, my feeling is that this point is the wrong context to being it up - it happened after the defeat at Dunbar, when the Scots were already very much on the back foot. If we were to insert it at the relevant chronological point however, it doesn't work to just drop it in as a random factoid, it would require discussion, and again I don't think we want to give it its own paragraph.
I wonder how you would feel about the addition of a footnote at the point in the paragraph you have suggested, where we give the dates, locations and unique titles used both for the declaration and the coronation? That would allow us to present all the information, without distracting from the flow of the article. Girth Summit (blether) 19:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we may have to agree to disagree, which would be no big deal. I do not think you should say that he was declared king of Britain if that was not his title, but you can easily get round this by saying that he was declared king full stop, without specifying of where. If you do not want to mention in the text that he was crowned, then I think you should leave out that his 1661 coronation was 12 years after the first. My immediate reaction was 'what - where did the article say he was crowned?' Dudley Miles (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry - I totally agree with you that we should introduce the facts of the coronation somewhere, since we allude to it later in the way that we do - I'm sold on that. For me, it's just a question of whether it's better done with in a footnote, or as a (potentially awkward?) factoid in the body of the text, or as a properly explained (but potentially distracting?) tangent from the narrative we're putting across.
We can't just say that he was declared king - that is omitting a crucial point, which all of the relevant sources mention: the Scots had declared him king of Britain, which the English saw as a direct challenge to their new Commonwealth. Nobody can say whether they English would have reacted differently if they'd just reverted to the old title 'King of Scots', but the sources are very clear that the Scots' decision to declare him 'king of Britain' was very relevant. Girth Summit (blether) 20:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realised as soon as I posted that just king would not work and my post on that was apparently accepted even though it crossed with your reply. I do not see why you should not use his full title and I think that it is misleading to use a wrong one, even if it was used colloquially at the time. On the second point, I do not think a footnote would do as most people probably do not read footnotes. An alternative would be to spell out the first coronation when you mention the second - something like Charles had been crowned by the Scots on date, now twelve years later he was crowned again. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the details of his Scottish coronation in a footnote straight after his English coronation. I have no objection to putting the information in the text given your (to me curious) dislike of footnotes, but after several several attempts have not been able to do so felicitously.
  • "Under pressure from the English to withdraw their forces now the war was over," This threw me a bit as I had not realised that the Scots kept their forces in England against the wishes of the English. I think you need to explain their remaining earlier in the paragraph if you say how they left.
Unpacked a little.
  • Portrait of Charles I. I think you should say by Anthony van Dyck
Why?
I think it is unfair to use an artist's work without giving him or her credit, but maybe that is just my personal view. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to clutter up this sort of information in line. If a reader is interested in discovering who the artist was they can click on the image and the answer is there, as is the norm for photographs. They are probably used to this approach from Wikilinks.
  • "the New Model Army purged Parliament and established the Rump Parliament. This had Charles tried for treason against the English people; he was executed on 30 January 1649,[13] and the republican Commonwealth was created". "This had Charles tried" is unclear and colloquial. How about "the New Model Army purged Parliament and established the Rump Parliament, which appointed a court to try Charles for treason against the English people. He was convicted and on 39 January 1649 he was executed.[13] On 19 May the country became a republic as the Commonwealth of England.
I will take the advice of m'learned friend. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what is unclear or colloquial about the original phrasing, but I have no objection to the proposed alternative. Done, with some minor adjustments to the second sentence. Girth Summit (blether) 18:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "declared his son, also Charles, King of Britain." Again, why not crowned?
Cus he wasn't. See above.
  • "Scotland was rapidly rearming" This repeats the previous sentence.
Rephrased.
  • "Lambert was sent to capture Edinburgh". This is the first mention of Lambert, who is only identified below. Also, it would be clearer to say that Cromwell sent Lambert (assuming he did).
    I've reordered the references to Lambert, so that he is properly introduced at first mention. I'm not sure I see the problem with Lambert being sent to do something - the article is already quite heavy with clauses where Cromwell is the subject, it's nice to have a bit of variety! Girth Summit (blether) 20:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several of his officers, however, refused to take orders from him". Did they leave because he had been defeated or because he was not godly enough. You should clarify this.
Who knows. Even the sources of the time tended to report facts rather than claim to be able to peer into men's souls.
The sources I've read don't spell this out. From the context, I infer that it was the ignominy of defeat, but I wouldn't be able to back that up with a solid citation. Girth Summit (blether) 20:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The exhausted Scots paused in Worcester". Did they take Worcester or were they invited in. You should clarify this.
Neither. Worcester didn't have a military garrison. They just marched down the street, as they had in all the other towns they passed through. Worcester only became important with hindsight as the Scots paused and were so were later brought to battle there.
  • An interesting point. I took the reference to Carlisle refusing entry to indicate that the royalists could only enter towns with permission. I think clarification would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a footnote.

Dudley Miles (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, Gog the Mild, some responses above. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 18:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley, are you satisfied with the responses/actions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see the nominators have not replied to my last two posts on 10 September on title and crowning, and on Carlisle/Worcester. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Probably crossed wires. Apologies. I am on my way to bed, but will try to look at them first thing tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Dudley Miles and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. I have, I think, addressed your outstanding concerns. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon Dudley, I was wondering if you have had the opportunity to review my recent response to some of your comments above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I still don't like 'King of Britain', but that is just personal taste. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the name edit

Given the recent 'move drama', I do think the article would benefit from some discussion about the naming, specifically about the recent discussion about "Third Civil War/Third English Civil War" not being a suitable label. Girth Summit provided plenty of evidence in the discussion, and it seems a glaring omission from the article itself. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, could you unpack/explain a bit what you are asking for, cus I honestly don't know. Are you suggesting that something is missing from the article? Or something else? Thanks, and apologies if I am being a bit slow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. During the move discussion(s), Girth demonstrated that there is a fair bit of discussion amongst subject experts, not necessarily relating to an appropriate name, but certainly highlighting that "Third Civil War/Third English Civil War" is not a suitable name. While there is some discussion about this elsewhere, such as at Wars of the Three Kingdoms and English Civil War, I think the move discussion(s) demonstrated that the article would benefit from some discussion about whether it is considered part of the "English Civil War", whether "Third Civil War" is a suitable name, and why not. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias - I agree with you that a short section on this would be warranted - I was holding off on putting anything together until the move discussion was concluded, since that would obviously have affected how such a section was worded.
The sources that I'm aware of which discuss the name 3CW itself (rather than merely using it) are Woolrych, Wanklyn, Ohlmeyer & Kenyon, and Grainger. All of them are critical of '3CW' for various reasons, but they would allow us to say that it has sometimes been called that, and to make attributed statements about why that name is problematic. What I would really like to be able to do would be to say something along the lines of 'In <year>, <name of historian> proposed that the conflict should be considered as the Third Civil War because <reasons>. Other historians have criticised that viewpoint, <attributed statements criticising it>. I am not in possession of any source that would allow me to do that though: I have looked, but have not been able to find out who coined the phrase, or identify any scholars writing about it in positive ways. Even scholars who still use the phrase sometimes find it necessary to point out that it wasn't actually a civil war (e.g. Malcolm Atkin) - I've found nothing at all that would help me to write about the positive case for that name. I do not want to be criticised for writing something that comes across as one-sided, so I would be very grateful if anyone is able to point me at sources that would help me to put 'both sides' of the naming issue. (I don't need additional sources that just use the name however - they won't help us write about the name). Girth Summit (blether) 18:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I've added a short paragraph on this. Comments very welcome, from you or anyone else. Girth Summit (blether) 18:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I'm content with what has been added. More would be great if we can find sources, but this acknowledgement of the topic is sufficient for the requirements of the FA process I feel. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:50, 14 October 2021 (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) 15 October 2021 [64].

1988 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1988 World Snooker Championship, won by Steve Davis, who became the first player to complete snooker's Triple Crown in a single season. (Although the Triple Crown wasn't actually a thing back then.) The most exciting match of the tournament was the first of what turned out to be seven Crucible clashes between Jimmy White and Stephen Hendry, with White winning the deciding frame. There are quite a few offline sources used, and I'm happy to provide the relevant extracts on request to reviewers. Thanks in advance for your help in improving the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Thanks, Nikkimaria. I've added alt text. Let me know if you have any suggestions for improving the descriptions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Nikkimaria. I've added another picture (of Cliff Thorburn). It's a crop I made of an existing Commons image. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay - the image description should include a direct link to that existing image. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720 edit

Still a non-expert. One day I'll have to actually watch a Snooker match.

  • "He had been banned from the first two ranking events of the season,[29] as part of a punishment imposed by the WPBSA for behaviour including headbutting the tournament director at the 1986 UK Championship." Were these events before the Championship? If so, I think this needs to go before the preceding sentence, and more context for why this is important should be included. Maybe something like, "Alex Higgins, who won the competition in 1972 and 1982, was banned from the first two ranking events of the season. This was a punishment imposed by the WPBSA for behaviour including headbutting the tournament director at the 1986 UK Championship. His ban meant that he needed to win against Drago to retain his status as an elite top 16 of the snooker world rankings. However, Drago defeated him 2-7, causing him to lose his position."
  • Re-oderered, as suggested. Looking at the detail of the rankings, I think he would actually have needed to reach the quarter-finals to stay in the top 16. I've added a further sentence. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but, after their second, morning, session was stopped due to over-running," -> "but, after their second session the following morning was stopped due to over-running," To remove the commas?
  • "with the pair both playing attacking snooker." What does that mean?
Reworded this again following TRM's comment below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Davis snookered himself whilst on a break of 61," What does snookered himself mean?
  • "who the bookmakers has rated a 500/1" -> had rated
  • "when playing a safety shot" What is a safety shot?
  • There's a glossary link (safety) at the first instance. Should something be added into the article either in the body text or as a note? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must have missed the first instance. You can consider wikilikning safety shots, instead of just safety, but I won't withhold my support over this. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leaving him one behind Ray Reardon's total of six titles." Why is it important to mention Reardon's total? Did Reardon hold the record?
  • Yes, for the "modern era" (which is defined under the Overview section). Text amended accordingly. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final talks about Davis's ranking because of this match, but not Griffiths. Is there anything noteworthy to say about his ranking because of this game?

Those are my comments. Please ping when you have responded above. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review and constructive comments, Z1720. I've replied above. Let me know if any of the points need further action or if there is anything else required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed so I can now support. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "the first tournament having..." well the first tournament there, not in general.
  • "matches in a single-elimination format" already linked as "knockout tournament".
  • " with a discretionary "non-tournament" status" why?
  • I wasn't able to find out. Robidoux was talking to the press in June 1987 about his scheduled move to become a professional after the World Amateur Championship, but I've not found anything (even in Snooker Scene) with more details. (That peculiar ststus, and him earning a place as a full professional through walkovers is also mentioned in the years B&H Snooker Yearbook.) Suggestion? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "walkover"
  • "Tony Drago (pictured in 2012) made..." needs a full stop.
  • "the bookmakers' pre-tournament favourite" all bookies?
  • Link "odds"
  • "These were" They?
  • "rankings for the first time" he was never outside it on his way up?
  • "In the ranking list for 1988/1989, Higins was placed at 17th, two points behind 16th-ranked Cliff Wilson" this would be better as a footnote as it has no real bearing here, you've already said Higgins fell out of the top 16.
  • "due to over-running" what happened, lengthy frames?
  • Added some detail. The Guardian article refers to Werbeniuk's "awesome drinking" so we could expand this slightly. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
  • "suffering serious road traffic accident" missing an "a" I think.
  • "The score was 10"... seems odd phrasing. Perhaps "Thorburn won the match 10..."?
  • "using a cue stick that he had only started using " using/using.
  • "Jimmy White (pictured in 2016) won his..." needs full stop.
  • "defeated one former" a instead of one.
  • "an emphatic defeat" surely it was an emphatic victory for Foulds/Davis??
  • "playing attacking snooker" this is linked to "offense" in the glossary which makes no mention of "attacking" so a re-word.
  • "thus leading 9–6." surely "thus led"?
  • "of the coronavirus pandemic" wouldn't the more specific "in the United Kingdom" article be more appropriate here?
  • "frames scoring 271 points" maybe clarify this was a "total" of 271.
  • "was 4–4[45] James" missing full stop.
  • "the bookmakers had" all bookmakers had the same odds?
  • The source says "Steve James, who started the tournament at 500-1, was no more than 6-4 to beat Thorburn withe the scores level at 6-6." I found an Evening Standard article from 15 April 1988 that says Coral were offering these odds; so two option are remove the statement, or amend it to include "Coral" and the ES source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he made his fourth century break of the competition, 103." odd dangling number, maybe "he made 103, his fourth..."
  • "the red balls when" overlinked.
  • "Griffiths fluked a" link fluke here rather than later.
  • "best-of-35 frames" 35-frames
  • "It was ... It was... " repetitive.
  • "his win in 1979.[52]" overlinked.
  • "Steve Davis (pictured in 2014) won..." needs a full stop.
  • "laid a snooker and" overlinked.
  • "penalty points" doesn't appear in the glossary, it's not a common term in snooker is it?
  • " 57 break" -> "break of 57" (to mix up that sentence a bit)
  • "Griffiths missed a black from its spot" but this pays no heed to where the cue ball was...
  • "was Davis' fourth" Davis's.
  • In the final summary table, it's not explained what (X) means.
  • "103 Steve " would prefer to see colons separating the lists of century breaks and player's names.
  • Ref 25 is BBC News.

That's all I have for the moment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the thorough review and constructive comments, The Rambling Man. Sorry it took me a few days to come back. There are a couple of points above where I'm seeking your advice. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per comment below, I couldn't find any explanation of this unusual "discretionary non-tournament" status. Maybe "which meant Robidoux earnt a ranking merit point that enabled him to gain full professional status for the following season" needs to go too? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, The Rambling Man, hopefully I've resolved most of your review comments. At your convenience, please let me know what else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've had a couple of looks and I'm happy my concerns have been addressed, so will support the nomination. Good work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • ranking professional snooker tournament - whilst this is fine, I tend to leave out the ranking part, as it's not really super important to understand the subject. We later discuss how it's the sixth and final ranking event, which is where I would link this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's previously linked in the article at "knockout format" but I've added it here too, assuming that this is of benefit to readers even if it might be seen as overlinking. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 113 players were involved - can we reword to avoid starting a sentence with a number? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • American pool player Steve Mizerak made his competitive snooker debut, losing 3–10 to Anthony Harris - should really come first, as it's a separate round Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alain Robidoux had been provided with a discretionary "non-tournament" status by the WPBSA, which permitted him to compete in the world championship but not any other tournaments. - this might need additional explaination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended, as I couldn't find any explanation of this unusual status. Maybe "which meant Robidoux earnt a ranking merit point that enabled him to gain full professional status for the following season" needs to go too? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Players seem to have full names after their initial introductions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended. (Match was "almost 10 hours" so not really that remarkable.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we maybe have another image, maybe Thorburn at the quarters? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks
  • FN11: edition statement should be in a different parameter from title, and publisher is missing. And is this the same source as FN15, 27, etc?
  • Amended the edition statement to year. It's a self-published source - see here for something on Downer, including a claim that the Almanac has "become a key resource for commentators and journalists alike". The Almanac is published annually and sold via Snooker Scene. Yes, it's the same source. I've cited different chapters separately - let me know if there's a better way to do this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming the whole book is written by downer, as opposed to this being an edited compilation? If so, there are a couple of options. You could just cite pages from the book and not worry about chapters at all, or you could split the book details to a Sources section and use short cites referring to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Downer is the only author, Nikkimaria. I've used page numbers to avoid having just one source that uses sfn. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes global-snooker.com a high-quality reliable source? And if it is kept, be consistent in how it is cited
  • Some Times refs include London, while others don't - why?
  • BBC News is sometimes italicized and sometimes not, and then FN58 just uses BBC - should be consistent
  • FN38 is incomplete
  • FN45: what kind of source is this?
  • It's an ebook, from the publishers of Snooker Scene. Cite ebook redirects to "cite book" but let me know if I need to amend the citation. No print edition was published. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that other books include publisher location, suggest doing the same here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include location for Toronto Star but not Aberdeen Press?
  • What makes Chris Turner a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turner worked for Eurosport doing statistics and writing articles for their site. However, looking into this a bit deeper I discovered that the WPBSA took over the annual awards from the Snooker Writers' Association in 1985, and that James also shared a prize for the Highest Televised Break of the Year, so I've amended the text and changed the references. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review, Nikkimaria. I've replied to all of your points above. Let me know if anything else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN45 (now 42) is still pending; once that's fixed it should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2021 (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) 15 October 2021 [66].

Dhoby Ghaut MRT station edit

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a major MRT interchange station in Singapore. Following the failed first nomination, I have rewritten several parts of the article to avoid close paraphrasing, with the guidance of other editors. ZKang123 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments asking for more edit

Not essential but if you are able to get more and better pics of the artworks I think that would be interesting.

Not essential but can you get a plan or get the graphics workshop to draw one?

Any stats on usage? Usage as % design capacity? And why do people use it - mostly shoppers? workers? tourists?

Is the airflow good against covid do we know?

Heath e.g. defibrillator?

Emergency precautions and procedures for fire, terrorism etc? Is there a passage to the CD shelter?

History before the contract was awarded? For example traffic problems beforehand? why is it in that place, was there an open tender, public opinion, politics?

Operating finance - e.g. is advertising allowed on the walls?

Buskers presumably not allowed in Singapore?

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your comments. However, there arent't official sources for these, or news that thoroughly mention traffic patterns and stuff. The Land Transport Authority doesnt give detailed information like passenger patterns in the station and stuff. Whats on the page is what I can get from available sources.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have never been to Singapore but it seems from casual research that the station must by law have an "emergency response plan" but that Singapore does not have a freedom of information act - so I understand your difficulty in getting hold of official info. But maybe if you live nearby you can get some of the above - for example the existing pics are not bad but if convenient it would be nice to have close pics of more of the art such as "Universal Language" which sounds interesting. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but here we dont have FOP for 2D artworks, so I cant really show any close-up of the artwork (I do have some shots of the floor tiles, but I dont think they are worthy of upload due to the weird angle). Besides, I dont think its necessary to flood the page with too many pictures.
Also we do have a layout diagram but there will be some trouble recreating it without violating copyright.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK I don't know much about copyright. An academic search such as "Google Scholar" on the station name may get more info. For example are you allowed to use the layout diags in https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/523/1/012057/meta perhaps simplified at the Graphics lab?

Keep searching and I expect you will find more info - like https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2019/5/2/joint-news-release-by-the-land-transport-authority-lta-sbs-transit-smrt---joint-ground-deployment-exercise-to-validate-.html

I find such info to be more useful on mainspace MRT pages. I dont really wish to add info that will make the station article too much of a tourist/transport guide.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now I concede that not all my suggestions are good and that info that should be on https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Singapore should not be here. But I do believe that you would be able to add more to the article if you dig around a bit more. At the moment I don't think the article is comprehensive enough to be featured. Perhaps there is a featured article for a metro station somewhere in the world that you can refer me to and prove me wrong? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from the metro stations FAs I came across (like Aldwych tube station), they don't go into detail on shops and stuff. Also in the design section, I actually mentioned about a Civil Defence shelter being close to the station. However, I will look into your suggestions and try to find more material.--ZKang123 (talk)
I cannot remember whether Aldwych had any shops. Anyway if you achieve featured status this will likely be the first modern metro station to be featured - which will be a great example to others so I am glad you are working on this Chidgk1 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more information on shops and also wheelchair accessible amenities in the station. Will also add more about fire safety.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

retail problems https://mothership.sg/2020/10/red-cross-pop-up-store/ https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ghost-town-shops-orchard-xchange-tell-sluggish-business-landlord-smrt-moves-take-back

fig 10 for example https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Spiros-Antonatos/publication/277668515_Traffic_measurement_and_route_recommendation_system_for_Mass_Rapid_Transit_MRT/links/55c30dc208aeca747d5ddd8b/Traffic-measurement-and-route-recommendation-system-for-Mass-Rapid-Transit-MRT.pdf although you should try and find more reliable source

Comparisons can be made with these station fa's: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stations#Featured content Dracophyllum 22:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, mothership is largely self-published. I will look into adding the retail section.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding stuff - I withdraw my opposition but would have to read carefully to see if I support - ping me if you want me to check Chidgk1 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: you are free to check.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Much better than before but I now have a few more comments:

NEL and CCL abbreviations used in lead before being defined in contents

Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk)

Consider using less exact dates in lead

Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk)

Is it open continuously?

Yes. There are no closures or anything like that.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st para of history section needs improving as tenses a bit confusing - "will" and "was expected" - so were they in fact done?

Fixed. Yes they were done.--ZKang123 (talk)

"Previously, the station was part of a line service that ran continuously from Yishun station in the north to Lakeside station in the west." so the single line was split into multiple lines? could maybe use a diagram to show or link to section of an article which explains. Also maybe move this earlier in history.

Basically there was a through service from Yishun to Lakeside. Now the MRT operations split so that NSL (the station it is on) serves from Yishun (now extended to Jurong East) to Marina Bay (which extended to Marina South Pier). Here's the MRT map for reference.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mention it is on the inner spur of the circle line - it took me a little while to understand how it was a terminus on a circle

Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In the planning stages of the Marina Line (MRL), which will become the CCL Stage 1 (CCL1), the station was to be the terminus of one of the line's branches." - are these tenses right?Chidgk1 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten part for more clarity and added a line diagram map for clarity.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the above issues.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: sorry for the ping but are there further issues?--ZKang123 (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art section comments edit

Some grammar and small comments :)

a) "Sun simultaneously wanted commuters to enjoy his work." >> This makes no sense without another clause. E.g: "..., while also..."

b) "Derived from the station's role as a "gateway" for arts and culture in the area, he hoped to explore an "objective" and "pure form of expression" that connect to all cultures." >> ... that connected to all ...

c) "The work intends to connect commuters to their immediate environment while considering the station's functionality and environment." >> Repetition of environment should go.

d) "In creating the artwork, Baet used pencil and paper to sketch rubbings, and he used plasticine to capture moulds." >> Delete "he used."

e) "By using white for the work, Baet intended to avoid distracting commuters and hoped to make audiences comfortable" >> Audience probably isn't the right word here. Maybe: "... and hoped instead to make them comfortable."

f) "These seats, while functional and practical, are designed to improve commuters' experience on the line." >> I feel like the practical aspect of the seats is what makes the commuters' experience better, which makes the it seem off.

g) The first paragraph in the public art section should talk more about the fact that they are lanterns and less in the abstract.

Ok that's all I have for now, thanks :) Dracophyllum 11:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed above concerns.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The prose issues in the art section and the wider article having being resolved, I'm gonna give this a support. Well done! Dracophyllum 10:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for 17 days and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to promote. Unless this changes by the three week mark i am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • North South (NSL), North East (NEL) and Circle (CCL) - I feel like these terms aren't really long enough to warrant shortening (at least in the lede), the lede isn't super long, and it might make it easier to read for most users. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I will add a few comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "Located in Dhoby Ghaut, Museum Planning Area, at the eastern end of Orchard Road shopping belt" - I would suggest something like "Located at the eastern end of Orchard Road shopping belt in Dhoby Ghaut, Museum Planning Area". By the way, is Museum Planning Area a legally defined census division or just a neighbourhood?
  • "as part of the original MRT line extension" - I think you should give a little context, maybe a few words, about the original MRT line in the lead. Many outsiders wouldn't know offhand that the original MRT line was split into the East West and North South lines. Furthermore, it may read better if you said "as part of an extension of the original MRT line".
  • "Since 4 November 1989, the North South line serves the station" - this should be "the North South line has served the station"

History:

  • "from the Novena to Outram Park stations" - For consistency, this should be either "from Novena to Outram Park stations" or "from the Novena station to the Outram Park station".
  • "Before work began, tenants of Amber Mansions had had to move out to make way for the construction of this station" - This wording is awkward. Something like "Before work began, tenants of Amber Mansions were compelled to relocate for the station's construction" may be better.
  • Shouldn't the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph, about land acquisition beginning in 1978, be relocated to the beginning of the section? Especially if the land was acquired for the MRT.
  • "Due to the station's soft marine clay" - The ground has soft marine clay.
  • "near Cathay Cinema" - I presume this was right next to the station site?
  • "the three pieces of timber, intended to support the crane," - Either the commas can be removed (i.e. "Investigations revealed that three pieces of timber, intended to support the crane, were not properly fastened and inadequate in providing support") or the "the" before "three pieces of timber" could be removed. If you add commas, then it indicates that the crane fell because there were three pieces of timber supporting it, which failed. If you remove "the", then it indicates the crane was supported by at least three pieces of timber, of which three failed.
  • "in September that year" - This should be "That September".
  • "the system operational split on 4 November 1989" - Like I said for the lead, this needs a little clarification, as not all people know about the split.
  • "The NEL station was constructed with considerable difficulty" - This could be rephrased to "The NEL station's construction was considerably difficult".
  • "Motion detectors had to be set up to monitor the effects of the construction" - Presumably to prevent settlement (structural)?
  • "The MRL was later confirmed to serve from this station to Stadium station in November 1999" - This sounds strange to me. Was the MRL routing finalised between these two stations, or was it just that the MRL would serve some stops between these two stations? Would the MRL just run between these two stations, or was this part of a longer line?
    • Fixed. More of the confirmed routing with the six stations.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "support was needed to keep the underpass stable" - I would suggest active voice for this sentence, e.g. "the underpass was stabilised"
  • "began operations" - I would just say "began operating" or even "opened".

Station details

  • I'd recommend splitting the info about the Jewish cemetery into its own sentence.
  • "The station name, Dhoby Ghaut" - Just wondering which language this is in.
  • For that matter, what does "walking distance" mean in this context? What is the distance you're using to determine which landmarks are being mentioned? (I know these are in the sources, but it would be helpful to mention something like "within a few hundred metres".
  • "The official station code is NS24/NE6/CC1" - Should this be "The official codes are"?
  • "the next adjacent station being Bras Basah station" - This is redundant as "next" and "adjacent" mean the same thing.
  • "and increases" - There are a few issues with this. First, grammatically this should be "increasing". Second, the headway is 5-6 minutes off-peak and 2-3 minutes peak; the frequency would be 10-12 trains per hour off-peak and 20-30 tph peak. So this would need to be clarified, as the headways would decrease if the frequency increases.
  • "180 metres (590 ft) long" - This should be "180-metre (590 ft)-long", i.e. {{convert|180|m|ft|adj=on}}-long
  • I assume the NSL station is the shallowest. I also assume the five levels include concourses, but it would be good to clarify this. (On an unrelated note, it's a shame the station layouts were removed as they would've been useful here.)
  • "until they were surpassed by Bras Basah station on the CCL in 2010" - I suggest "until 2010, when Bras Basah station on the CCL opened".
  • "The station itself is not designated as a Civil Defence shelter" - Are MRT stations typically CD shelters? If so, then this should be rephrased to "Unlike many other MRT stations, the station..." If not, then see my next point.
  • "an underground car park underneath the ten-storey tower are designated shelters instead" - First, "are designated shelters" should be changed to "is a designated shelter", as the car park is a single thing. Second, if MRT stations aren't typically CD shelters, then I would move this to the beginning and rephrase this as something like "An underground car park underneath the ten-storey tower is designated as a Civil Defence shelter, though the station itself is not designated as such."
  • "The station also has wheelchair-friendly facilities for the disabled" - This is also redundant as "wheelchair-friendly" necessarily means the facility accommodates the disabled.
  • "The NSL station has been upgraded to include lifts, ramps and dedicated toilets for the disabled" - But it was not built with accessible facilities?
  • "onsisting of tiles with rounded or elongated raised studs" - What type of tactile paving is this? It sounds like this type (though that image doesn't look like DBG). I would link tactile paving as well.

Public art

  • "A mobile sculpture Lantern of Music" - I would remove "a", which is unnecessary as this is a specific named sculpture.
  • I went over the "Public art" section in my previous reviews of the article, and it doesn't look too different from before. I'll address this later and see if anything significant still sticks out.

Overall, this looks good. Coverage-wise, there may be some information like retail presence (which Chidgk1 mentions above) that could be added to the design sections. But I disagree with them on the inclusion of other things like COVID airflow and advertising, as that may get a little too granular for FA. Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My comments at the peer review and on this nomination look like they've been sufficiently addressed. The public-art section looks good. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TRM edit

  • "an underground Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) interchange station on the North South, North East and Circle lines. " -> "an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) interchange station on the North South, North East and Circle lines, in Sinagapore." (to avoid the potential confusion of having Singapore and MRT linked next to one another).
  • "in 1987. Since 1989" repetitive.
  • "Stanford Canal" is that really Stamford?
  • Is there a good link for "interchange station"?
  • "above the NSL platforms" you haven't explained what NSL means at this point.
    • Fixed to just North South line.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Novena to Outram Park station" add a full stop as it's a second sentence/frag in that caption.
  • "The station was to " -> "It was..."
  • "Thomson–Sembawang road corridor" what's that? Is there a link?
  • "tenants of Amber Mansions were" what was that, where was that?
    • Added a footnote for the building.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the station's construction, ... for the construction of this station" far from professional writing.
  • "station[11] was awarded" don't see the point of the ref being there, ruins the flow and can go at the end because what use is it here?
  • "US$24.3 million' non-breaking space.
  • What is marine clay?
  • Is "Cathay Cinema" the same as The Cathay? Could link.
  • For $ values, could inflate too as this was developed a few decades back.
    • Hmm so I do inflate the local currency or the converted USD value? Is it "local - USD - USD" inflated or "local - local inflated - USD inflated"?--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nvm I figured. Per WP:MOS I used local currency (amount awarded at the time) and converted to USD inflated value. (e.g. S$1,000 (US$1,234 in 2020))--ZKang123 (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • stabilize vs organised. Which variant of English is being deployed here?
    • British spelling. Changed to stabilise.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brief para starting "To help people... contains the word "station" eight times. Try to mix it up a bit, where it's unambiguous you can just go for "it" for example.
  • "extension to Outram Park station" overlinked.
  • "began to serve the NSL with the operational split of the MRT system" I literally don't know what that means.
    • If you look at the map, train services used to run from Yishun to Lakeside as one single service; the MRT system back then subsequently split into two lines once the eastern line was completed. A bit difficult to explain briefly.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vast white space between the NSL and NEL sections.
    • Oh that's because of the Template:Clear. Removed that.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a starting point. Will crack on with the next few sections when we're done here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "construction of ... Construction of " repetitive.
  • "was considerably difficult" slightly odd phrasing and everything is relative, so perhaps something about facing challenges or similar?
    • Fixed. Slightly rephrased the NEL section.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Motion detectors had to be set up to detect any movement" again, a bit repetitive, the "movement" could literally be settlement (the link) in any case as it's specific what it was looking for.
  • "Marina Line" why is Line capitalised here?
  • "The station became..." which one?
  • "part of Orchard Road had" link.
    • I thought it's already linked in the lead. But fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the underpass linking ...., the underpass" repetitive.
  • "is a Hindi term" just link Hindi.
  • "Young Men's Christian Association" YMCA? Link?
  • "The station is between.." perhaps "Dhoby Ghaut is between..."
  • "with a headway of 2 to 5 mins in both directions" etc, do these trains operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
  • "the five-level underground station[60] is the largest station on the network,[4] with" -> "the five-level Dhoby Ghaut is the largest station on the network,[4][60] with..."
  • "55 metres (180 ft) travellators" 55 metre
  • travelator has one l.
  • There feels like some repetition here, e.g. "complex Atrium@Orchard above the station." here yet " It is underneath ... and The Atrium@Orchard shopping mall" a few paras back. Needs revisiting to gather such information into a coherent set of sections rather than repeating things in different sections.
    • Hmm I managed to find only two mentions of it, one in the lead and another in the design section. But clarified that the complex is actually a office building. source.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shops are less frequented by commuters especially " comma before especially.
  • Isn't there a COVID-19 in Singapore article that's more specific than the general worldwide one used here currently?

That takes me to "Public art". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Public art onwards

  • (previous section: "between the Somerset and City Hall stations" both overlinked)
  • (previous section: "adjacent station is Bras Basah station" overlinked)
  • "Art-in-Transit programme" it seems to be that since this forms a fundamental part of most if not all of these MRT articles that the "Art-in-Transit programme" should have its own article.
    • I am still working on it, but been busy recently.--12:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Milenko's earthy" "earthy" there doesn't link to anything.
  • "practical.[94][95][94]" uses 94 twice?
    • Fixed.--!!!

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, happy with the changes per my comments, so supporting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • What is the difference between the three levels in the infobox and the five in the text?
    • Well, the infobox is about platform levels which seem to exclude levels that aren't platforms. The whole station has five basement levels, but only three are platform levels (one for each line). Source: https://archive.vn/pJxs0.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are the other two if not platforms? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • well, they are concourse/linkways between platforms.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be supported in the text - for example, the bicycle facility
  • "These seats are also displayed in the other CCL interchange stations, such as Buona Vista and Bishan stations." - source?
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
    • This appears pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • How are you deciding when to include and when not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Honestly, Im asking other Wikipedian users on this issue. Do I also add retrieval dates for already dead links (when I found the urls, they are already dead).--ZKang123 (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN8: how could this source be accessed?
  • Infopedia appears to be a tertiary source targeted to students - what makes it a high-quality reliable source?
    • Well, it's done by the National Library Board. I will adjust the references to the original sources cited.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Business Times or The Business Times? Are publications linked first time, every time, or never? Check throughout for consistency
    • Unlinked for consistency.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • More work needed here, eg Straits Times vs The Straits Times. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN27: formatting doesn't match other similar sources?
    • changed param work. Might be a typo in citer generator.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN33: don't include website name in title param
  • FN35 doesn't appear to be working
    • Fixed and linked to another web archive. The Web Archive Singapore can be rather spotty.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN45: suggest taking out the website parameter and adding in a publisher parameter
  • What makes OpenStreetMap a high-quality reliable source?
  • Fn54 is incomplete. Ditto FN70, check for others
    • More work needed here - FN54 is currently broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • FN54 seems ok for me. You need me to add in the authors for these news articles?--ZKang123 (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN57: use displayed title rather than HTML title. Ditto FN68, check for others
  • FN64: page?
  • Be consistent in when you include location
  • There seems to be a significant reliance on non-independent sources - could you speak to your approach to this issue?
    • Hmm, by searching through news archives via NewspaperSG, or the old web archive
      • What old web archive? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Web Archive Singapore. I kind of search "Dhoby Ghaut MRT" through Google and all. For more specific stuff, like the artworks, I key in the artists' name or the artworks' name. I find that citing the artist herself is ok since she's an expert and does not like giving undue weight or smth... I am more of quoting her for the prose not covered in other sources. Are there other non-independent sources I should look out for?--ZKang123 (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • While the artist is obviously an expert on her own work, see the issues with this outlined at WP:IS. Similar issues exist with eg citing the organizations involved in creating and running the project. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm yeah I understand, but if you dont want me to use,like for example the artist, should I just remove the segments derived from the source? Also for the contractors... I think I can remove the Obayashi one, but not for STECS as it provided a more specific contract value compared to the LTA news release on the CCL contract. For me, I just think using them will improve the credbility of the article...--ZKang123 (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Removed the Obayashi website reference and cut down on Delia's website references to the parts not included in other sources.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Bibliography?
    • Is there an order for bibilography?--ZKang123 (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally it's done alphabetically by author surname, although you could do otherwise if you have a reason to. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok ordered as you wished.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circle Line: Linking All Lines is missing publisher, and the author name appears inverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, is this one good to go now?? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, still considerable work to be done on formatting, and I'm still concerned about the reliance on non-independent sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nikkimaria, sorry for pinging you. I have fixed the issues you have raised (see above). Any further comments?--ZKang123 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All issues raised have been responded to. IMO there is still an overemphasis of non-independent sources, but I'm not opposing over that issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check edit

  • 5: I don't see the infobox data at the source.
  • 8: OK.
  • 9: Can I get a copy of this page?
    • I don't have a copy of the book; it is only available in the national library. I am unable to pop by recently. Same goes for most of the requested pages. However, I managed to personally create a scanned copy of Leong's book that details the NEL construction.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16: OK.
  • 17: OK.
  • 26: I don't see this station mentioned?
    • Well, it was part of the segment that was opened in the article. You can see the attached map for details.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 41: Can I get a screenshot of this page?
  • 45: I don't see the date anywhere?
    • Well, only in the other source. I just cite this ref 45 to show it's part of the CCL 1 plans.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 49: Source is broken.
  • 61: I don't see 5:37 in the source.
    • You have to click on Dhoby Ghaut station, followed by HarbourFront (the last one). Nevertheless I'm still providing another source.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 62: Is level B4 also part of NEL?
  • 66: OK.
  • 78: OK.
  • 79: OK, but I have some minor WP:CLOP concerns - the text of the source is quite similar to ours, minus some synonyms.
    • Did a minor fix, but if you suggest improvements to other concerning phrases I didn't spot, let me know.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 83: OK, but is this a reliable source?
  • 87: Can I get a copy of this page?
  • 88: Can I get a copy of this page?
  • 89: I don't think the PDF supports most of the claims here.
  • 90: Can I get a copy of this page?
  • 93: Can I get a copy of this page?

That's all from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I cannot provide the pages of the artwork books. They are only available for reference in the national library (which is quite a distance away from where I live). I did have photos of the pages but I have deleted them after working on the artwork section.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes the spotcheck, subject to reliability & didn't-check-inaccessible-sources caveats. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CactiStaccingCrane edit

I have fixed most of ce errors, which most are very minor. I think the article gets a pass on prose. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Images all have appropriate licensing.
  • Some other concerns:
    • The first map (of early phases) does not seem to be necessary, as this station's lines are not its primary subject. The Marine line map fits much better.
    • File:CC1 Dhoby Ghaut MRT Platform B C830C.jpg - fairly low quality and redundant to the other platform image, so it can probably be left out.
  • ALT issues:
    • Most of the ALT descriptions are quite lacking in detail, with only the bare minimum used. Some examples and suggestions:
    • Infobox image - "Photograph of station entrance" should be expanded to mention the stairs, shape of the entrance, and its materials
    • NSL platforms of the station - "Station platforms" only describes a fifth of the image
    • Map of the planned Marina Line - Should add the branches and location of Dhoby Ghaut on the map.
    • Matrix at the CCL platform - Should mention the other elements of the photograph
      • Fixed above issues. Described the images to the best of my ability.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce 00:46, 8 October 2021 (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) 13 October 2021 [67].

Manon Melis edit

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate another football article. For nine years Manon Melis was the all-time top scorer for her country's national women's football team. She retired from professional football just before her national team won their first and only tournament in 2017. Thanks to Sportsfan77777 (GA), ChrisTheDude (PR), and Twofingered Typist (copy-edit) the article is in a much better state, but I'm sure there is still room for improvement. I welcome your feedback. Thanks for taking a look. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria! Edwininlondon (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • I PRed this, so doubt I will pick up much, but here goes.......
  • "suggested the talented young Melis to play with" =>"suggested that the talented young Melis play with"
  • "A girl playing football was still unusual at the time" - is this really true? You already said that she had previously played for the girls' team, so there was clearly a structure for girls' football, which would mean that a girl playing football was hardly unusual. Do you mean that a girl playing for a boys' team was unusual?
I guess it's all relative. Say a club with 15 boys' teams would just about be able to form 1 girls' team. Or in another way (pardon my guessing numbers here for mid 1990s): 75 out of 100 boys played at a club versus 5 out of a 100 girls. Which is low compared to current levels, but high compared to 1970s and 1980s ... The source says unusual. Other sources also mention unusual. Would you like to modify it with "somewhat"? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. In that case maybe say "Girls playing football was still somewhat unusual at the time"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this offer meant she also had to find other work" => "this offer meant that she would also have to find other work"
  • Whoops, got to cut and run - will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • "Former Brazilian football player Pelé handed out the award to Marta" - seems a bit irrelevant to Melis's career
I removed Pele. It now reads: "but she did not win; Marta did"
  • "ahead of the 2012 season start in April" => "ahead of the 2012 season starting in April"
  • "joining Mittag on attack" => "joining Mittag in attack"
  • "they booked a 3–2 win" => "they achieved a 3–2 win"
  • First sentence of the Kopparbergs section has both a comma and a full stop at the end
  • "Having represented the Netherlands on youth teams" => "Having represented the Netherlands at youth levels"
  • "Japan soon scored on the other side of the pitch" => "Japan soon scored at the other end of the pitch"
  • "While it was unusual for her as a girl in the 1990s to play football" - see above
I inserted somewhat
  • "Having built a hierarchy of nine women teams" => "Having built a hierarchy of nine women's teams"
  • "Melis jumps...." caption is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
Is it not a full sentence? It's got a verb, a subject. What is missing?
I think I have addressed all your other points, just the caption is unresolved I think. Thanks for taking the effort to review it again, after your thorough peer review. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - humblest apologies, I completely forgot about this review. I'll take another look later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits, suggestions and improvements. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sportsfan77777 edit

Noting I reviewed this article for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • You can put "at Feyenoord" in the first sentence
  • she (add "also") won the Swedish Supercup (to link to the previous sentence)
  • She Melis was the Damallsvenskan top scorer (too many "she"s in a row)
  • , alongside <<<=== you don't need the comma
  • goal scoring <<<=== pretty sure just one word
  • In the final group game against Denmark, she scored a crucial goal, sending them through to the quarter-finals, where she was one of the Dutch players who scored in the penalty shoot-out against France. ====>>> In the tournament, she scored a crucial goal in the final group game against Denmark to send her team into the knockout stage and later converted a penalty in the shootout against France to help them win their quarter-final. (The other structure doesn't work because both things didn't happen in the game against Denmark.)
  • Melis has been the manager of women's football development at Feyenoord since 2017, with the goal of creating a first team that competes in the Dutch Eredivisie and is supported by youth and reserve teams. <<<=== Rephrase to indicate that she has done this.
I did, but have a look.
Early life
  • She Melis was a ball girl (first mention in a paragraph should never be "she")
2007
  • Melis moved abroad to play professionally for LdB FC Malmö in the Swedish league Damallsvenskan, <<<=== you don't need the first "league" (there is another "league" after the comma)
  • of media coverage ===>>> just "media coverage" OR "in terms of media coverage"
  • In her first home game, ===>>> In Melis's first home game, (Melis isn't in the previous sentence)
  • but she did not win; Marta did ===>>> but she lost to Marta
  • Linköping eliminated Malmö in the third round ===>>> Malmö were also eliminated by Linköping in the third round
  • She scored hat-tricks in key matches ===>>> Melis had hat-tricks in two key matches (in particular, changing "scored" to "had" just to mix it up with the following sentences)
  • In the domestic cup she scored twice ===>>> In the domestic cup she had two goals
  • Örebro, the eventual winners, eliminated Malmö in the quarter-finals. ===>>> Malmö were eliminated in the quarter-finals by Örebro, the eventual winners.
  • she won the awards ===>>> Melis won the awards
  • cross bar ===>>> crossbar
  • Melis helped Malmö ===>>> This Supercup win was followed up by Melis helping Malmö
  • Linköping defeated her team 2–1 ===>>> Linköping came from behind to win 2–1
  • comfortable position ===>>> a comfortable position
Sky Blue
  • a fast forward player (add "like Melis")
2012
  • did not see success in the domestic cup again ===>>> still did not see success in the domestic cup
  • Malmö came from behind ===>>> Nonetheless, Malmö came from behind
2014
  • seen (add "several") key players
  • (add "including") two goals on assists from Göteborg stalwart
  • she scored four goals ===>>> Melis scored four goals
  • (11) ===>>> with 11 (get rid of the parentheses)
2016
  • She wore the number 14 jersey. <<<=== This doesn't fit here. Maybe tack it on to the end of the first sentence, or make it the second sentence.
Done. See if ok.
Early
  • middle of the UEFA Women's Euro 2005 qualifying
  • double round-robin tournament (add "with four groups")
  • second goal, with the game ending in a 3–0 win ===>>> second goal in a 3–0 win
  • The Dutch failed to qualify for Euro 2005; Denmark and Norway advanced. ===>>> The Dutch finished qualifying in fourth out of five teams as Denmark and Norway were the only teams to qualify in their group.
  • the Dutch (add "again") did not qualify
  • would not participate in the 2008 Olympics (add "either")
  • Almost three years after her debut, in her 34th cap, she scored her third goal for her country, in a 2–0 home win over Italy.[110][113] <<<=== This is just a friendly right? If so, I don't think you need to mention this.
The point is that for someone who ended up being the alltime goalscorer it is surprising to have a 3 year gap and 30 games of no goals. I changed it to Not until almost three years after her debut, in her 34th cap, ... and to avoid the Not until repetition I changed that Not until a few sentences earlier into Only in her 16th cap. Better?
  • of their play-off tie and qualified ===>>> of their play-off tie to qualify
  • Looking back at the end of her career ===>>> Looking back at her career after it ended
  • mostly thanks to strong defending ===>>> mostly due to strong defending
  • with Melis taking the third ===>>> including the third taken by Melis
  • put the Dutch into the semi-finals. In the semi-finals England awaited. ===>>> put the Dutch into the semi-finals against England.
  • but goalkeeper Rachel Brown intercepted ===>>> but it was intercepted by goalkeeper Rachel Brown
Middle
  • Eight goals (add "in total") by Melis
  • cross bar <<<=== one word
Final
  • sending the Netherlands through.[140] Italy awaited In the play-off final. ===>>> sending the Netherlands through to a play-off final against Italy.
  • , Melis's teammate at Göteborg ===>>> , Melis's teammate at Göteborg,
  • after a pass from Martens ===>>> off a pass from Martens
  • As of December 2020 <<<=== update to today
I looked for a reliable source a few weeks ago, just before the Olympics, and failed to find a recent one. I'll have another search and will update if possible.
Manager
  • In 2013 ===>>> A few years earlier in 2013
  • her wish Feyenoord had a professional team, so she could play for them ===>>> her wish for Feyenoord to have a professional team that so she could play for them
Playing
  • she is a centre forward, and he was a winger ===>>> she is a centre forward while he was a winger
  • goal scoring <<<=== one word (appears twice)
General points
  • As indicated a bunch of times above, just noting you can't use "she" for "Melis" if Melis wasn't mentioned in the previous sentence.
Thanks ever so much for taking the time again to go through the text with such attention. I have addressed all points, and made a few comments as above. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru edit

I will be reviewing this FAC in the next day or two. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I'm inline behind you.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing this a lot of late, haven't I... too much going on in the summer holidays. I'll really try to get back to this later today.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time during your busy summer holidays. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • The lead gives her full name as "Gabriëlla Maria "Manon" Melis". This info should also be here, and cited.
  • Done
  • "the talented young Melis" - this feels a bit like editorialising. If sources say she was talented, then attribute it with a quote.
  • Done: I removed talented
  • "she later said that their teammates often ridiculed her direct opponents for having to compete against a girl" - this doesn't seem very clearly written. The "their teammates" is introduced before we know who's under discussion. I assume it means that whoever was assigned to mark her was ridiculed by the rest of that person's team? Anyway, please try to word more clearly.
  • Done: your assumption is correct.
  • "In 2012, Melis observed" - I think it might be better to say "Melis later said"; the "in 2012" part gives the impression it's part of the same timeline. And "observed" is mentioned as a word to avoid at MOS:SAID.
  • Done
  • "Melis was a ball girl once at a national team match played at Sparta Rotterdam's venue Het Kasteel. From early on she has been a Feyenoord fan" - the language seems slightly unpolished here. Suggest something like "During her childhood, Melis appeared as a ball girl during a national team match at the Sparta Stadion Het Kasteel. She supported Feyenoord, one of her father's clubs, from an early age and has said that Giovanni van Bronckhorst and Henrik Larsson were her favourite players during her youth."
  • Done
RVVH
  • "the senior level" - is there a link for this? It might not be entirely clear what this means.
  • I can't find anything appropriate. There is a page about youth system, but nothing about senior level. Would you like me to redlink it?
    No, that's fine. I guess it's clear enough!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the club's only women's team" - this sounds like you're talking about a single women's team, while the club has several men's teams. Is that what you meant to say, or did you mean a "women-only team"? Either way, it needs a bit of clarity.
  • Both actually. But to avoid confusion I removed only. Too much detail. Since we have just mentioned mixed, women's team is clear I think.
  • "Teammate Leonne Stentler, who had joined her on the boys' teams and who ended up gaining 16 caps for the Dutch national team" - two things: (1) was it a boys' team, or was it a mixed team? (2) the prose could do with some improvement. Maybe something like "She was joined by Leonne Stentler, who had also played for RVVH's mixed youth teams. Stentler, who went on to earn 16 caps for the Dutch national team, later said that the drop in level had negatively affected their motivation".
  • 1) it was mixed. I changed it. 2) ok, done
  • "Other internationals at the club were Jeanine van Dalen and Sandra Muller" - were these internationals at the time, or later?
  • At the time
  • "The women had to make their own way" - informal language, maybe something like "The women had to arrange their own travel to away games..."
  • Done
  • "RVVH did not win the league during Melis's tenure" - this sounds a little incomplete; were they a team which usually challenged for winning the league? What sort of positions did they finish in during Meelis's tenure, and how dit those compare with other seasons when she wasn't there?
  • There is nothing I can find. All there seems to be from this time is a list of league winnrs for each year, no standings. This was not professional sport and had no mainstream media coverage.
  • Also, is there no information on how many games she played and how many goals?
  • Sadly not.
Be Quick '28
  • "Her dream was to focus fully on football" - sounds a bit POV. Phrase in a neutral encyclopedic tone.
  • Rephrased: She wished to focus fully on football,
  • "this offer meant that she would also have to find other work" - why was that? If she remained in the Netherlands would she not have to find other work?
  • She wanted to become fully professional, not semi-professional, which is what this essentially was. Might as well stay an amateur in the Netherlands then until a better offer comes around, I guess was her thinking.
  • "Melis only played for Be Quick for a few months" - it feels like a bit more detail is needed here. How many games did she play, how many goals etc and was it a successful time
  • I wish I could find more detail, but sadly there are no records other than her moving to the club and leaving the club. Still amateur football.
LdB FC Malmo
  • "one of the strongest leagues in the world according to FIFA" → "described by FIFA as one of the world's strongest leagues"
  • Done
  • "and ended up the club's top scorer" → "and finished as the club's top scorer"
  • Done
  • "but her tally was dwarfed" - tweak language for encyclopaedic tone
  • Done: but her tally was surpassed by
  • "Umeå repeated as champions" - the term "repeating" sounds odd in British English, I think this is more of an Americanism. Maybe something like "Umeå retained the championship"
  • Done
  • "during which Brazilian forward Marta was shown a red card" - don't really need this detail, as it has nothing to do with Melis
  • Done. removed.
  • Suggested condensing of wording: "Melis shared the league's top-scorer spot that season with Umeå's Marta, each of them scoring 23 times, although 6 of Marta's goals were scored on the last day of the season in an 11–1 win over already-relegated Bälinge".
  • Done
  • The paragraph starting "in the 2009 season" could be combined with the previous one as it looks rather short.
  • I would prefer to keep each paragraph dedicated to one season. Should I try to find something of interest to add to the 2009 season paragraph?
  • "recorded a notable stretch" - notable according to whom? Better just to state that it happened, without saying it was notable.
  • Done. Removed.
  • "Melis scoring three goals for a hat-trick in one of them" - just saying she scored a hat-trick would be sufficient, as this is fairly usual terminology and there's a link for readers who don't know. Might be nice to say which of the three games she scored the hat-trick in, and against which opponents.
  • In my previous football FAC a reviewer urged me to add the definition of a hat-trick in line. I merely copied that here. I am happy to take it away. Done. I added the opponent.
  • "Melis finally won the league" - not sure we need "finally" here, it sounds slightly POV
  • Removed.
  • "Melis had hat-tricks in two key matches" - who defined these matches as "key"?
  • I did. Is it too editorial? Goteborg finished second and Umeå won the league multiple times in recent years, so I thought it was reasonably safe to say key. Better to say this perhaps: "Melis had hat-tricks in two matches against rival title candidates:"
  • "She scored the opening goal in a 2–1 win" - perhaps "She also scored..."
  • Done.
  • "in a notable 11–1 win over Asarum" - avoid saying "notable"
  • Done.
  • "In their description of the history of Damallsvenskan, the Swedish Football Association wrote that the 2010 season saw some stars leaving the league and, consequently, audience numbers declined, prompting a decrease in sponsor funds needed to attract new stars" - not sure what this has to do with Melis
  • I think it is good to give some wider perspective on the women's game at the time. Ultimately she leaves the Swedish league for the US, with more stars, higher audience numbers, more sponsor money.
  • "Melis again finished as Damallsvenskan's top scorer" - we said "again" in the previous paragraph, so sounds slightly repetitive here.
  • Done.
  • "For five straight seasons she was Malmö's top scorer" → "she has been Malmö's top scorer for five straight seasons"
  • Done.
  • "Melis played her first ever Champions League game on 29 September 2011 in Italy against Tavagnacco" - what was the score?
  • 2-1 defeat. Added.

That's it for the first tranche. I'll continued with Sky Blue FC once these are addressed...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Look forward to more. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Blue FC
  • All looks good.
Linköpings FC
  • "also a fast player" - her being a fast player sounds a little like an opinion, rather than something objective; might be better to note and attribute the source which said they were both fast (apparently "fleet-footed" is the term they used!)
  • I removed it
  • "The club did not start the season well, but she kept her scoring ability" - would be good to give a more information about this. Like how many goals, and how many defeats the team suffered etc.
  • added "managing just two wins from the first eight games," and "scored four times in a 4–1 win over Piteå"
  • "Melis still did not see success in the domestic cup" - maybe rephrase to something like "Melis's lack of success in the domestic cup continued, as Linköping lost..."
  • Done
  • "at the venue she had played in for five years" - slightly awkward wording. Probably enough just to say it was an away game, or give the name of the stadium or something (I notice you name it several times further down).
  • How about this: "In June she faced her old club Malmö at the Malmö IP stadium, where she had played for five years."
  • Ref 66 isn't loading properly for me, even the archived version. I can't see any information on the page. Am I missing something?
  • There seems to be a website glitch. Looks like the data from the database is not loading. I have alerted the website owners of the issue by email.
  • "mostly because of a hat-trick by German international Anja Mittag" → "with German international Anja Mittag scoring a hat-trick".
  • Done
Malmo part 2
  • "on an assist from Sara Björk Gunnarsdóttir" - not sure if we really need this detail, given that Gunnarsdottir isn't mentioned anywhere else.
  • What if I add a bit about Sara Björk, such as ", who later went on to win the UEFA Women's Champions League in 2018 with Lyon"? Extra things like that convey that Melis was playing with top quality players. Alternatively, I just remove the bit about the assist.
  • "in front of over 2,500 spectators" - slightly prefer "more than" rather than "over"
  • Done
  • "seven points ahead of number two, Tyresö" - I think "second-placed" would sound better than "number two"
  • Done
  • "two goals fewer than her teammate Mittag and 12 fewer than the league's top scorer Press" - per MOS:NUM it should be either 2 and 12, or two and twelve, as the numbers are comparable.
  • Done
  • Also add a comma before Press
  • Done
Kopparbergs/Gotebord
  • "The Dutchwomen's first competitive match together" - I assume this means Martens, Geurts and Melis. I would actually give the names for clarity.
  • Done
  • "Melis was offered and accepted a lucrative contract from Göteborg, despite being happy at Malmö" - lucrative sounds slightly a matter of opinion here. If possible, give the exact financial advantages. Also, it might be better to order it differently. Start with her being happy at Malmo, then say that Goteborg came in with an offer, and that she decided to accept it for financial reasons or whatever.
  • Done
  • "including two goals on assists from Göteborg stalwart" → probably "long-term Göteborg player" rather than "stalwart"
  • Done
  • "Melis and Martens linking up for many years for the Netherlands national team" → "Melis and Martens' many years of experience together on the Netherlands national team"
  • Done
  • "He had noticed in training how Martens would hold up the ball for an extra second so Melis could make her runs" - might be better as a quote from the coach, as the holding up for an extra second is an opinion rather than a fact.
  • I removed it. Not too sure about translating foreign language quotes, so just removing it is best.
  • "yielded a disappointing result" - this sounds like it's Wikipedia's opinion that the result was disappointing. Reword for NPOV.
  • Done
  • "which had merged with" - maybe "who had merged"? I think we usually treat teams like they're a group of people rather than a single object.
  • Done
  • "In a notable match in July 2014" - notable according to whom? And what was the eventual score?
  • Done
  • "because of a 3–2 defeat" → "as a result of a 3–2 defeat"
  • Done
  • "in second place on the top scorers list, far behind Mittag, who scored 23 goals versus her 16" → "in second place on the top scorers list with 16 goals, substantially behind Mittag, who scored 23"
  • Done
  • "Melis's final season in Sweden, the 2015 Damallsvenskan, was a disappointment" - again, a disappointment for her, but not necessarily for Wikipedia.
  • Done
  • "Göteborg only ranked sixth on the table. Her old club Rosengård won the title again." - combine into one sentence, e.g. "Göteborg achieved only a sixth-place finish, as her former club Rosengård won the title again"
  • Done
Seattle Reign FC
  • Say which country this is in in the opening sentence. It might seem obvious, but best to state it explicitly, e.g. "in the American National Women's Soccer League"
  • Done
  • "after landing wrongly on the pitch" - odd wording
  • Done
  • "She came back strong from injury" - should be "strongly" I think
  • Done
  • "in 16 appearances she scored seven times ... Watt topped the league's scorer's list with 11 goals" - either 7/11 or seven/eleven.
  • Done
  • That takes me on to "international career".  — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for all your comments so far. I'm looking forward to the rest. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
Euro 2009
  • "Having represented the Netherlands at youth levels" - it would be good to have some brief detail on this, like when she was called up, which teams etc (the infobox says u-17 and u-19 teams).
  • Done
  • "Against Belgium" - might be good to say "Her debut was against Belgium" or similar, just so we connect it with the date, which was mentioned two sentences ago.
  • Done
  • "playing only three minutes" -> "for the last three minutes" (assuming that's what it was)
  • Done
  • "for the first time in her fourth cap ... Only in her 16th cap" - these are close enough together that it's worth matching, 4th/16th or fourth/sixteenth. Probably go for 4th/16th, since we later also see 34th cap.
  • Done
  • "for a major tournament" - I think you could remove this
  • Done
  • The word "tie" should be linked to the article Two-legged tie, although I've realised this isn't the first occurrence, that would be up in the Malmo section "Melis scored once in the away leg of the tie", so please link it theere.
  • Done
  • "the technically very capable French" - sounds like a matter of opinion; make it a quote, or reword
  • Done
  • "In the semi-finals England awaited" - unnecessary, you just said the semi-final was against England. It's also slightly journalese.
  • Done
  • "In another tense game" - again, "tense" is an opinion
  • Done
  • "a Jill Scott header gave England a place in the final" - give the final score.
  • Done
  • "Prior to the Euro 2013 in Sweden" - we don't usually have "the" before "Euro 2013"
  • Done
  • "Fortunately for the Dutch" - should probably just drop this; "fortunately" implies they had some luck with other results or something, but scoring the equaliser was actually in their own hands.
  • Done
Managerial career
  • "given that Miedema has been a lifelong Feyenoord fan" - change to "had" I think, for past tense
  • How about "is a Feyenoord fan". I don't want readers to think Miedema no longer is one.
    OK, that will be fine then.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it I think. I think the overall picture looks OK to me, so I'll hand over to TRM once these issues are responded to. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again, Amakuru, for your insightful comments and fine-tuning. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good stuff, thanks for sorting, happy to support now. Over to you, The Rambling Man.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

Just checking in to confirm I'll take a look at this once Amakuru has done his review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TRM. Looking forward to it. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, I'm happy for you to make direct edits in the article, should you prefer to do that. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. Not sure what I was thinking.
  • The opening para of the lead seems to be a lead for a lead. Why not write the lead chronologically?
  • I see. I think that's because I tried too hard to get her all-time goal scoring record in early on. I moved that down now. Is that sufficient or do you feel the first paragraph should read more like "In 2008 she was top-scorer. In 2010 and in 2011 she won the league and was top scorer. In 2012 ..." Would that be better than grouping the league wins, then grouping the top scorer records?
  • "At the Euro 2013 in" we don't normally put "the" in front of Euro XXXX competitions.
  • Done
  • "and aims to create a first team that competes in the Dutch Eredivisie and is supported by youth and reserve teams" this feels a bit advertising. This is probably the "aim" of all coaches everywhere, bar those who just buy successful teams. Better to re-phrase to suggest her coaching method is to encourage youth development. And that's probably enough.
  • She is not the coach but in charge of creating the infrastructure (teams, coaches, support staff). I think what is unusual here is that they first created the youth teams, then the reserves and only just now field a first team in the Eredivisie. Is perhaps the word "competes" wrong? Should that be "takes part"?
  • "She confirmed in March 2021 that Feyenoord Women would field a team in the Eredivisie for the first time in the 2021–22 season" this reads a bit weird to people who just assume that Feyenoord would have had a female team there in the first place.
  • I feel this is connected to your previous point. Should perhaps the paragraph start with something like "In 2017 Melis was appointed as manager of women's football development by Feyenoord, who, unlike rivals Ajax and PSV, lacked a women's team. In the following years she set up youth and reserve teams, and in the 2021–22 season Feyenoord fielded a first team in the Eredivisie for the first time."
  • "professional football player" footballer.
  • Done
  • "the Dutch Eredivisie" is "Dutch" needed here?
  • I would think it helps. I doubt the name is well known enough
  • "her direct opponents" what does "direct" bring to this?
  • I was under the assumption that opponent could be any member of the other team, and direct opponent just the one central defender covering her. Is that not correct?
  • boys' -> boy's?
  • I think boys' team is correct. In line with women's team
  • "ball girl" is there a link for this?
  • Yes. Done.
  • If Sandra Muller was international, why not linked?
  • Done
  • "RVVH did not win the league during Melis's tenure.[14]" well, ok, but most club's don't win the league during the tenure of most of their players. Is there any information on how the side actually performed?
  • I'm afraid it's the only thing that is available about the side during her time. These were amateurs, without any coverage in the media. Do you think it is better to remove "RVVH did not win the league during Melis's tenure.[14]" altogether?
  • "this offer meant that she would also have to find other work" why?
  • The offer was not enough to live on. How shall I make this more clear? Something along the lines of "In 2006, Melis received an offer to play in the German Frauen-Bundesliga, for Duisburg, but declined. The proposed salary was not sufficient to live on, and finding additional part-time work seemed daunting to her because she was unable to speak German fluently."
  • "described by FIFA as one of the world's strongest leagues" FIFA described it as the "world’s most competitive league" and they did that in 2012, not in 2007 when Melis joined.
  • Removed. I did a quick search to see if there was any authority talking about the league in 2007 but could not find any.
  • "In her first season she scored ten goals, and" how many games? Difficult to contextualise whether this is spectacular or mediocre.
  • I will find a source for that. The two sources for this sentence only mention 10 goals.
  • "with Umeå.[25] Umeå won " repetitive.
  • I changed it into "In her second season at Malmö, Melis scored the first equalising goal in a 2–2 draw with Umeå, who ended up winning the league again, their fourth consecutive title." Is that acceptable?
  • "Malmö came third again but fewer points" reword this, "Malmö finished the season third, but having closed the gap..." or something. Right now, it doesn't read grammatically correctly.
  • Done
  • "Melis shared the league's top-scorer spot that season" -> Melis was the league's joint-top-scorer that season
  • Done
  • Spot checking the odd ref, as I go, and "In the 2009 season Melis played 20 games, scoring 10 goals. She shared the club's top scorer spot with Frida Nordin.[31] " neither the live nor the archived ref seems to verify this. I think we may need to do another sweep on sources.
  • There is a problem with the website of the Swedish Football Association. As I mentioned above I have emailed them to alert them of the problem with their database. I failed to notice this on July 21 when I archived the last batch of pages from their site. The pages do load, but the data does not show. Fortunately I archived some pages from their site earlier, for instance ref 61 on April 29, see [[68]]. I've started a list of alternative sources to use, should the Swedish Football Association not fix their website in the next few days.
  • "Malmö were also eliminated by Linköping in the third round of Svenska Cupen Damer, the domestic cup.[35]" what does this have to do with Melis?
  • Removed
  • " club Melis won the league" well, no, the club won the league while Melis was there, needs rephrasing.
  • I see, yes of course. I changed it to: "In Melis's fourth season at Malmö the club won the league"
  • "She surpassed her 2008 goal tally of 23 by scoring 25 goals in 22 games and was the 2010 Damallsvenskan top scorer.[37] Malmö finished 11 points ahead of the second-place team Göteborg.[36]" is all this stuff before the Champ League qualification? I'm struggling with the chronology.
  • I struggled with this for quite some time as well. But yes, it's all in chronological order. It turns out that the Swedish leagues then played from spring to fall, unlike many other European leagues who play from fall to spring. So Malmo winning the league in October 2010 meant they qualified for the Champions League starting in September 2011.
  • "over previous rivals Umeå" what's a "previous" rival????
  • Removed
  • "Melis had hat-tricks" had? She scored them.
  • Done
  • "two key matches" what made them "key"? According to whom?
  • Removed
  • "over champions Linköping" reigning or future?
  • Defending. Added.
  • "another big victory over Umeå" just say the score and leave it to the reader to decide if it was a "big victory".
  • Done
  • "she had two goals " she scored twice perhaps?
  • Done
  • "In their description of the history of Damallsvenskan...." again, it's not completely clear what this has to do with Melis directly?
  • I think it is good to give some wider perspective on the women's game at the time. Ultimately she leaves the Swedish league for the US, with more stars, higher audience numbers, more sponsor money. But happy to remove if you think that is too far off topic.
  • "was followed up by Melis helping Malmö successfully" no need for "up".
  • Done
  • And maybe "being part of" rather than "helping.." with a suitable reword?
  • Done
  • "in the race with" this is tabloid journalism.
  • I replaced it with "keeping Malmö close to league leaders"
  • "played both crucial last games" odd, POV. perhaps "played in the last two games of the season".
  • Done
  • "She has been Malmö's top scorer for five straight seasons" odd tense. Do you mean, at that point she had been her team's top scorer for five solid years?
  • Sorry, past tense in English always gets to me. I don't know if she was at any time the club's all-time goal scorer, but she was for five seasons in a row the person who scored the most goals for her club in a season. So would it be best to say "For the fifth season in a row she had been her club's top scorer."?
  • Done
  • "twice to secure a 5–0 " to help secure.
  • Done
  • "next round. The next opponent was" ->" next round, where they faced"
  • Done
  • "leg of the tie, helping" see above. Explain the concept of home/away first time.
  • Done
  • "and a comfortable position" nope, that's POV.
  • Done
  • "This home game, on 10 November 2011, was her last game with the club" repetition of "game", and maybe something like "The second leg, at home on 10 November 2011, was Melis's last game for ...."
  • Done

This takes me to the "2011–2012: Sky Blue FC" section. Feels like there's plenty of tightening up of prose to do here, and some possible sourcing issues. Once you're through these, I'll take a look at the next few sections. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much. I believe I have addressed most of it, but please do check my changes, as I mentoned before, English is not my native tongue. The sourcing issue with the Swedish FA website still stands, hopefully they fix soon, otherwise it is plan B for me. Looking forward to your improvements for the next sections. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "the jersey number 9" ->"the number 9 jersey"
  • Done
  • "from her jersey number 14 at" repetitive, and shouldn't that information go in the Malmo section anyway?
  • Moved up
  • "managing just two wins from the first" -> "winning two of the first..."
  • Done
  • "but she kept her scoring ability" unnecessary.
  • Removed
  • ""scored four times in a 4–1 win" perhaps "scored all four of her side's goals in their 4–1 victory..."?
  • Done
  • "Melis was successful in an 11–0 win over Djurgården, scoring four times" again, tighten this, something like. "She also scored four times in Linköpings' 11–0 defeat of ..."?
  • Done
  • "where she had played for five years" we don't need that here.
  • Done
  • "In the sixth minute she scored the game's opening goal, assisted by a pass from Louise Schillgard. Nonetheless, Malmö came from behind and defeated Melis and her new team 2–1." significant detail on a single, inconsequential match in her career, at most you could say she scored in a 2–1 defeat, but we don't need all the rest.
  • Changed. I had it in there because although inconsequential in terms of league wins, it is personal to play against one's old club. But I removed all the detail, it was too much, you're right.
  • Same comment applies to the second match against Malmo too.
  • Done
  • "Tyresö, who acquired Marta, took the title in a dramatic last match of the season" what relevance does this have in this bio?
  • Removed
  • Again, in the Malmo section, we seem a little obsessed with performances against her former clubs, and not just on how she herself got on throughout the course of the season.
  • Removed details not about her, including first Linkoping match in which she didn't even score.

That takes me to "2014–2015: Kopparbergs/Göteborg FC". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2014–2015: Kopparbergs/Göteborg FC onwards

  • "Melis was happy playing at Malmö again..." doesn't feel encyclopedic in tone.
  • Changed into "Although Melis had wanted to stay at Malmö, when Göteborg"
  • "invest in strong players to contend" no need for strong.
  • Done
  • "contend for" I would go for "compete for".
  • Done
  • Have we linked the Dutch women's team in the main body yet? I'm not sure...
  • Done
  • "season well with a 5–0 " remove well. Need to stop adding "opinions"
  • Done
  • "Martens'" -> "Martens's"
  • Done
  • "the Netherlands national team" netherlands or Dutch? To some of our non-expert readers, this change in nomenclature is confusing.
  • If I look at how the BBC mixes the two terms happily, I think this is fine (see [[69]]). At least I'm not using the Holland term :) Do you want it to be explained? That seems overkillto me, it is linked after all.
  • "the Malmö IP stadium yielded a disappointing result for her. Malmö" again, this fixation with playing previous teams is not quite what I'd expect from a bio on Wikipedia. And "yielded a disappointing result" is far too clunky.
  • Removed. I moved the fact that Malmö changed its name to Rosengård to the next sentence.
  • "won 5–0.[77] In the 4–0 win over Jitex BK" temporal context, i.e. was this the next match or next month/year??
  • Not an issue anymore now that the 5-0 is gone.
  • "This meant that Rosengård and Örebro qualified for the 2015 Champions League, while Göteborg did not.[80]" another sentence which isn't directly related to this bio. If that had an impact on Melis, frame it that way.
  • Removed.
  • "substantially behind Mittag" no need for substantially, let the readers work that out for themselves.
  • Done
  • "was a disappointment for her." did she say that explicitly? If not, don't attribute that emotion to her.
  • Removed.
  • "came back strong" not a tabloid.
  • Removed
  • "top scorers list"->"top scorers' list"
  • Done
  • "yet far behind leader" just state facts, not "far behind".
  • Done
  • "After a frustrating season" was it her who said that? Attribute, say (for instance) "After a season which she considered to be frustrating, ...."
  • Rephrased to more neutral wording, since it is not clear if the reporter said so or she did herself. So simply "At the end of the season .."

That's up to "2016: Seattle Reign FC" The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next set

  • (previous section: "included Dutch internationals " overlinked).
  • Done
  • (previous section: "with Rosengård (Malmö's" ovelrinked)
  • Done
  • "jersey.[83][84] In an interview she said it was a dream come true to play in the US.[85] " merge, jersey,[83][84] stating that it was a dream come true to play in the US.[85]"
  • Done
  • "Other stars playing" not encyclopedic tone.
  • Rephrased
  • " as Kim Little" perhaps indicate her nationality.
  • Done
  • "travel with a hoodie" travel wearing a...
  • Done
  • "season got off to a bad start with" season started with a defeat... Don't put POV on it.
  • Rephrased
  • "Melis's old club" former club.
  • Done
  • "over 5,500 people. She scored" -> "over 5,500 people and scored"
  • Done
  • "Houston's Kealia Watt and Western New York's Lynn Williams topped the league's..." not really directly relevant.
  • Removed
  • "Early years: Euro 2009" not keen on this "Early years/Middle years/Later years" bylines. And each section isn't exclusively about the Euros/WCs either, why not covering things like the Cyprus Cup for example?
  • Done: I used years instead. I have also added some Cyprus Cup coverage
  • "Netherlands at the youth levels, making her debut in the Netherlands" repetitive. And where she made her debut isn't particularly interesting unless you're going to tell us against whom and how she got on.
  • Actually that was meant to refer to the name of the team: "the Netherlands Under 17 team". I made that more clear by dropping the Netherlands and capitalizing the team names
  • "on as a substitute," link.
  • Done
  • "qualify in their" qualify from their...
  • Done
  • "seemed challenging" to whom? POV, not encyclopedic tone.
  • Rephrased
  • "hosts, Finland" link the team.
  • Done
  • "against Denmark.[114] Despite Denmark" repetitive.
  • Rephrased
  • "the third taken by Melis" comma after third or else this could be interpreted that it was Melis' third penalty that went in.
  • Done
  • "failed to convert" repetitive, maybe "failed to score".
  • Done
  • "Finally, Anouk Hoogendijk scored" and then switch this to "converted her penalty...
  • Done
  • Any reactions to how Melis played up to the semi-final in Euro 2009, or just game facts?
  • I'm afraid I have not been able to find anything other than one match report calling her fast, which isn't very useful. I guess it is a sign of the times: if things were reported at all if was basically just the facts, not much of an analysis
  • "the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup, Melis" overlinked.
  • Done
  • "Norway proved too strong, despite Melis scoring against them once." this is a bit vague, could we just say what happened in the game, how it ended and that Melis scored?
  • Rephrased
  • I have added some Cyprus Cup goals and a tally when she moved into 2nd place on the all-time list
  • "Dutch fighting for " competing.
  • Done
  • "The Swedish media featured her to introduce the Dutch team to the Swedish public. To the Dutch media she explained how Sweden was more advanced in terms of media coverage of women's football" this feels a little clunky and awkward, what does the first sentence mean? And isn't the second sentence really quite patronising?
  • Rephrased
  • "Germany, Iceland and" Iceland overlinked.
  • Done
  • "Dagný Brynjarsdóttir scored Iceland's..." this seems out of chronological order, should be before you declared the result and that they didn't qualify.
  • Rephrased

That's me down to World Cup 2015 section. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup 2015...

  • "the Dutch beat Albania 4–0; Melis scored a hat-trick" maybe less clunky to say "Melis scored a hat-trick in a 4–0 victory over Albania"?
  • Done
  • "A loss at home against Norway made direct qualification challenging" this is OR, just stick to the facts, i.e. what would be needed for them to qualify after defeat against Norway?
  • Done
  • "in all the other matches" remaining, not other. And probably "remaining group matches".
  • Done
  • "Their first opponents were Scotland" instead of "first", it'd be better to say something like "They opponents in the second round" or whatever the first knockout round was referred to.
  • Done
  • Done
  • "Little, who later would" you should reinforce that Little scored for Scotland, not the Netherlands.
  • Done
  • "clean sheet" link to football glossary.
  • Done
  • We still seem to be covering the Netherlands games where Melis's performance isn't even mentioned, there's no point in that in this bio.
  • Since Melis said this playoff was one of the highlights of her career it seems odd to leave out a description of the final Italy game. I kept it as brief as possible. I wish I could find Melis detail for these 2 matches but Miedema scored all the goals and takes all the coverage.
  • "made necessary saves" what does "necessary" add here?
  • Removed
  • "Japan soon scored at the other end of the pitch. A quick equaliser did not materialise" merge, and tone, e.g. "Soon after, Japan scored and after the Netherlands failed to equalise..."
  • Done
  • "They came one goal short of qualification" how does that work?
  • Added more Melis detail and clarified.
  • "As of December 2020," it's nearly October 2021, any update?
  • Unfortunately not. Nobody seems to publish a list, so all we can do is wait until some journalist from a reliable source happens to mention it after checking Opta. Would you prefer I remove it?
  • "A few years earlier in 2013" A few years earlier is unnecessary.
  • Done
  • "on home soil" journalese
  • Rephrased
  • (earlier: link assist on its first usage).
  • Done
  • I see you use {{double dagger}} in a note, but not actually in the table?
  • Dagger removed.
  • Tables in the "Career statistics" section need to comply with MOS:DTT, row and col scopes for example.
  • Done

That's taken me down to the references. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been a lengthy review: suggest (like your previous FAC, the super-high-scoring game) that next FAC gets a thorough copyedit from both a native English non-football fan and a native English football fan. Almost all of my issues would probably have been taken care of before the nomination got started. But you've worked very hard and patiently so, my main concerns have been addressed, and it's always a good thing to see more women's articles at this quality, so happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work! It's been good to be able to learn from you. I'll take your advice to heart for the next FAC. Much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Some of the infobox details, such as height, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
  • The Eurosport profile page, ref#2, has the height, date of birth, place of birth, position
  • What makes worldfootball.net a high-quality reliable source? vrouwenvoetbalnederland.nl?
  • worldfootball.net is run by data company Heim Spiel, which also runs data websites for other sports and sells sports data commercially. According to [[70]].
  • Have not yet been able to find anything. They show a list of logos as their clients, including Die Zeit and ZDF, but I have not yet been able to verify that these outlet indeed buy their data from Heim:Spiel. Unsurprisingly, since very few businesses publicly display their suppliers. I will keep looking. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • vrouwenvoetbalnederland.nl was set up in partnership with the Dutch football association. It had an editorial team, its own reporters and photographers. It ceased to exist in 2018. According to [[71]]
  • Do we know if the site had an editorial policy? I was trying to check that link using Google Translate but didn't see anything obvious. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about policy found yet. I have been able to locate a job advert but nothing about policy [[72]] Edwininlondon (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eurosport should not be italicized. Ditto Vice Media, check for others
I changed work= into publisher= for anything that is not a newspaper, magazine, or journal
  • FN10 is missing language. Ditto FN12, check for others
Done
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links
I removed them all.
  • FN58 is incomplete. Ditto FN56, check for others
Done
  • FN56 is a dead link
Fixed
  • FNs53 and 78 cite the same site but are formatted differently - should be consistent. Check throughout.
Done
  • FN90 is missing author, FN59 is missing agency - please check throughout
Done
  • FNs 95 and 97 are to the same site but credit it differently - why?
Incompetence. Fixed it.
  • BBC Sport is sometimes italicized, sometimes not - be consistent
Done

Significant formatting cleanup needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the effort using your eagle eye to spot these issues. I believe I have addressed them all. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still pending answers on worldfootball.net and vrouwenvoetbalnederland.nl. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I am unable to find out anything about the quality of the data Heim:Spiel provides to its clients and uses on worldfootball.net, I have removed it and replaced it with a new source, the website from Swedish TV channel TV4. I am not having much luck with finding out if the vrouwenvoetbalnederland.nl site had an editorial policy. All we know for sure is that it was backed by the official Dutch football authorities and that it had fulltime staff members. It has all the signs it had a policy but I have no proof. Would it be worth trying to locate and contact the founders and ask if such a policy existed, or does that not count as proof? Edwininlondon (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are able to provide more information that would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No replies so far. At least the emails did not bounce. But the site looks abandoned, it seems it is in dormant mode. In the meantime, looking on the archived pages on archive.org I tried to locate a hint of editorial policy. Only things I could find were on the terms & conditions page where they stated that the content is created with the highest possible care, and on the Colofon page [[73]] it showed there were 5 full-time employees. It stated (using Google Translate): "The website has been in existence since August 2002. The site contains a wide selection of news about women's football. In addition, the site, with the help of reporters, brings as much "latest news" as possible, compiles dossiers on topics that stay current for longer." Edwininlondon (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikki and Edwin, sorry if this was resolved and I missed it but we really should wrap this one up one way or the other. If we're satisfied the source makes it, let's pls state that the source review passes, if not then I guess we need to replace the source, or remove it and the statements it cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my end, I'm not entirely satisfied, but also am not opposing over use of this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that. I wish I knew what to do to get the policy, but have run out of ideas. It's unfortunately the only source for many of these claims, otherwise I would replace this source of course. (Not too big a surprise actually that they are the only one: they were set up to provide the coverage they observed was lacking). I have set an alert for when the editor pops up in the news again, so I can try and approach them again.) Edwininlondon (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720 edit

Let's get this out of FAC! Non-expert prose review.

  • "which she won three times with her club" Can this be more specific? Does the club win anything when they win the league? Does winning involve finishing at the top of the table?
  • Yes, clubs that win the league normally get a trofee. And yes, winning involves finishing top. But I don't think that should be explained here in the lead, I think we have to assume some basic knowledge and provide links to the reader to find out more. Damallsvenskan was that only link, which may be a bit indirect, so I linked league to Sports league.
  • " In 2016, close to the end of her playing career, she moved to the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL)" I don't think "close to the end of her playing career" is necessary. Instead, I wish there was a sentence about when she announced her retirement.
  • Done
  • "playing for Seattle Reign alongside World Cup winners Megan Rapinoe and Hope Solo." why are these players important to mention in the lede?
  • Removed
  • "and later converted a penalty in the shoot-out" I do not know what this means. Can this be simplified?
  • Not without adding many words, which would give disproportional space to the event. So I simply removed it.
  • " given name Manon," What is meant by this? Who gave this name to her? Is this a cultural thing that needs further explanation?
  • I have linked Given name and added a footnote. It is not unusual in the Netherlands to have an official name and an unofficial name, which the parents would declare at birth. A bit like Catherine being official and Kate being used, but with greater deviation possible and the parents saying so, rather than the community organically.
  • Any info on who her mother is?
  • Not that I can find unfortunately.
  • "follow in his footsteps." should be reworded per MOS:IDIOM
  • Done
  • "that the young Melis play with and against boys," Delete "the young" as we already know what age she is from the previous sentence, and so is redundant.
  • Done
  • "In her last ever home game" delete ever as redundant
  • Done
  • "Although Melis had wanted to stay at Malmö," Delete had
  • Done
  • "Göteborg achieved only a sixth-place finish," Delete only as unnecessary
  • Done
  • "Other Seattle players included 2011 FIFA World Cup winners Nahomi Kawasumi and Rumi Utsugi, 2015 World Cup winners Megan Rapinoe and Hope Solo, as well as Scottish international Kim Little." I don't think this is necessary in Melis's article, and belongs instead in the Seattle Reign FC article.
  • Removed
  • "playing only for the last three minutes." Delete only as unnecessary, the reader can draw the conclusion that this was a short time
  • Done
  • "Melis almost scored with a curling drive but missed the net." What is a curling drive? Is there a link for this?
  • No link, so I just made it more generic, using "shot"
  • "since only the best performing teams at the World Cup would go to the games in London." -> "since only the best performing teams at the World Cup would qualify." As we can't assume that the reader will know that the 2012 Olympics took place in London.
  • Done
  • " in third place in the group. But victories" -> " in third place in the group, but victories"
  • Done
  • " She was tasked with building a girls' football academy for all age groups." Tasked by who?
  • Added "by Feyenoord"

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720:Thanks very much for taking the time to go through it all. Much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed, I support. Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts, Z1720. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2021 (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) 13 October 2021 [74].

James Longstreet edit

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Longstreet was one of the leading Confederate generals during the American Civil War. Like many Civil War generals, Longstreet graduated from West Point Military Academy, fought in the Mexican-American War, and served on frontier duty. As a Confederate, he rose to become Robert E. Lee's chief subordinate in the Army of Northern Virginia. Longstreet was present at most major Confederate victories during the Civil War, and he nearly always played a decisive role. Longstreet had a tactical preference for the defensive, which at times contrasted with Lee's aggressive style. Longstreet strenuously disagreed with Lee's strategy at multiple times throughout the Gettysburg Campaign of 1863. After the war ended, Longstreet supported Reconstruction, unlike most former Confederates. For this he was lambasted as a traitor, and his detractors scrutinized his war record and accused him disloyalty by sabotaging Confederate victory in the war, at Gettysburg and at other instances. Since the late 20th century, Longstreet's reputation has improved among professional historians and the general public. He is now considered one of the war's greatest military commanders. Display name 99 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support edit

  • I'll get to this over the coming week. I will note that while I've got 9 ACW FAs, they're mostly Trans-Mississippi; I'm not quite as familiar with the theaters of the war Longstreet fought in. Hog Farm Talk 23:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hog Farm. I know that you do most of your work in the smaller Trans-Mississippi Theater, your Civil War contributions to this site are nonetheless very impressive and I look forward to seeing your thoughts on this article. Display name 99 (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given Gog's comment below, I'll look extra close to see if anything can be trimmed a bit (agree that this is a topic where its okay to go a little longer). Hog Farm Talk 04:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " including George Henry Thomas, William Rosecrans (his West Point roommate), John Pope, D. H. Hill, Lafayette McLaws, George Pickett, and Ulysses S. Grant, who was of the Class of 1843" - Don't think that it's necessary to state the year that Grant graduated. It's reasonable for the reader to assume that he knew cadets outside of his grade. Also, Pickett graduated in 1846 and Thomas in 1840 and they aren't noted as graduating in other years
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was commissioned a brevet second lieutenant" - what was his non-brevet rank? Did he hold a permanent commission?
Wert, Longstreet, Helen Dortch Longstreet, and Mendoza all mention his brevet rank without giving any non-brevet rank. Eckenrode/Hamilton and Piston appear not to mention the subject at all. I don't have access to Sanger or Sawyer/Hay. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as part of Army of Observation under General Zachary Taylor" - Should it be the Army of Observation? Also, recommend using Taylor's formal rank (I think Taylor was a brigadier general at that point; recommend double-checking me)
Done. According to Wert, he was a major general. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On March 8, 1845, Longstreet received a promotion to second lieutenant" - As an ACW studier, I'm familiar with the brevet system. However, a fair number of readers may read this and think "wasn't he already a second lieutenant"? I think this can be handled with a footnote where you mention the brevet rank.
I understand but I'm not sure what to do here at the moment. Wert doesn't explain it. The article links brevet, so someone could click there if they were confused. I'll see if I can add something later.
Warner's Generals in Gray doesn't say, either. There may just not be a good source for this. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " stationed at Fort Marion in St. Augustine, Florida" - link Fort Marion
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He served at the Battle of Contreras" - indicate when this occurred
I removed this sentence because it turns out to have been inaccurate. Longstreet was in Worth's division, which was unengaged at Contreras. The soldiers who fought at Contreras were under the divisions of Twiggs and Pillow. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Mexican-American War section isn't quite clear enough. In the beginning portion, its indicated that he was fighting under Taylor, but in the later parts, those battles were part of Winfield Scott's column which was coming from a different direction. Recommend indicating the Taylor/Scott transition
Thank you. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet's first assignment placed him on recruiting duty in Poughkeepsie, New York," - I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "first assignment", given that he had served at others posts and in the Mexican War prior to this
Changed to "next assignment." Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date is wrong on the file page for File:Gen. Longstreet LCCN91783856.tif - you'll want the date whatever book it was published in was published, not the date the picture was taken (put the date taken in the description). It's fairly clearly an antebellum portrait based on the uniform, but the reference to "Gen. Longstreet" is fairly clear evidence that the plate itself doesn't come from something published in 1860
The LOC website says that it was published between 1860 and 1890. I have changed the date accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " His experience resembles that of many would-be Civil War generals" - is "would-be" necessary?
No. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be wary of using rank abbreviations like Lt. Col. or Brig. Gen. without introducing them explicitly. Not all readers are going to be familiar with the abbreviations
Valid point. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A second attack soon began, but Confederate successes were hampered when inexperienced soldiers from Colonel Jubal Early's brigade sent to reinforce Longstreet began firing on their own men. Tyler eventually withdrew, as he had orders not to bring on a general engagement." - recommend getting a secondary source for this, especially the Early part, given that Longstreet had pretty rocky relations with a lot of the Confederate officers by the time this was written. I personally don't have a First Bull Run book to consult, but I know of a few editors who might. If you can't find a secondary source, I can probably go try to check out David Dezter's Donnybrook: The Battle of Bull Run, 1861 from a local library and look in there
Another good point. I checked Wert. He mentions that one of Early's regiments fired a volley which nearly hit Longstreet, but it doesn't say anything else. Changed accordingly while keeping the citation to Longstreet.Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly recommend against using the rank of "General" as a shorthand, since General is how the CSA rank of full general is generally presented in sources. For instance, "Longstreet received an order from General Joseph E. Johnston" - while Joe Johnston was promoted to full general the next month and his promotion date was backdated, he was technically only a Brigadier General at the time of First Bull Run. I know this is picky, but it's kinda a minor accuracy thing
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finding the ground he occupied untenable, Longstreet requested reinforcements from D.H. Hill's division a little further up the road and received Early's brigade, to which was later added the entire division" - what does the source (Longstreet's memoirs) say about when this request occurred? Stephen W. Sears's To the Gates of Richmond states that Longstreet's request occurred "Earlier in the day [in context, earlier than when Union reinforcements arrived on the field], as the fighting intensified" as when Longstreet requested reinforcements. Sears also attributes the request to wanting a reserve.
Longstreet (p. 74) says this: "From the swelling noise of battle I concluded that it would be well to ride to the front, and ordered the remaining brigade (Colston's) and the batteries of Dearing and Stribling to follow. Stuart sent his horse artillery under Pelham into action on the open field. [paragraph break] Viewing the ground on the left, I thought it not so well protected as [R.H.] Anderson conceived, and sent to D.H. Hill, who was a little advanced on the march, for one of his brigades." Wert p. 105 speaks of Confederates throwing the Union back; Wert p. 106 mentions the request for reinforcements. I believe that the article is correct here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Longstreet reported 9,000 Confederate troops engaged compared to 12,000 Union troops, and the Confederates suffered fewer casualties" - this is sourced to Longstreet. I only have one secondary source about the Peninsula (Richard "Dick" Wheeler's Sword over Richmond is primarily a collection of primary accounts), but Sears has very different numbers. Sears has "Some 13,750 Confederates in the divisions of Longstreet and D. H. Hill saw action at Williamsburg", not including the reserve troops. He also states "During most of the day-long battle against Joe Hooker [...] [the Confederates] enjoyed a better than 1,300-man advantage over Hooker's unsupported division. Only late in the afternoon, after the arrival of [...] [Union reinforcements], did the Federals finally gain a manpower advantage there"
Removed as I don't think it's possible to reconcile the two. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McClellan inaccurately characterized the battle as a Union victory in a dispatch to Washington" - if you want a nonprimary source for this, I can cite it to Sears p. 82
Added. Thank you for the suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On May 31, during the Battle of Seven Pines, Longstreet received his orders verbally from Johnston, but ended up apparently misremembering them." - what does Wert say about this? Sears p. 121 says "yet it is hard to believe that his [Joe Johnston's] instructions of the day before were so vague that Longstreet confused something so simple as which road he was to use. More probably, Longstreet believed his command of the army's right wing allowed him the independence to change the plan, and that by shifting his division over to the Williamsburg Road he would not have to come under Johnston's eye - and Johnston's direct supervision - once the fighting began But Sears can be a bit of a maverick occassionally, so it would be good to see what other sources say about this. I'm gonna leave a message for User:BusterD to see if they have anything that could be useful.
Wert disagrees. He says: "Longstreet evidently misunderstood his orders." (Wert p. 115) He offers alternate explanations before concluding that Longstreet having misremembered the road that he was supposed to march down is the most plausible scenario. "From the evidence and from his actions early that morning, Longstreet made an honest mistake in moving his division to the Williamsburg Road." (Wert p. 123) According to Alexander in Fighting for the Confederacy, "Gen. Longstreet entirely misconceived his orders and instead of marching straight down Nine Mile Road massing in front of G.W. Smith, he crosses over to the Williamsburg Road to get behind D.H. Hill. Of course he would not have done it had he not conceived himself ordered to do it." (Alexander 1989 p. 85) Wert explicitly concurs with Alexander's view that Longstreet would have only taken the road that he had if he felt that Johnston had ordered it. Piston calls Seven Pines a "colossal blunder" (p.31), says that "Longstreet erred badly" (p. 180), and, as the article says, calls it "the lowest point in Longstreet's military career" (p. 19). The consensus appears to be against Sears here. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine, then. Hog Farm Talk 01:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think it's worth mentioning that on the first day of Seven Pines, only got one of his six brigades and none of Huger's to support Harvey Hill? (Sears p.130)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the source say that File:Gen. Longstreet, C.S.A. LCCN2004678555.jpg is from 1861? The LOC file description page just states that it was between 1861 and 1890, although I may be missing something.
It doesn't seem to do so. Date removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready for the Second Bull Run section. Having to take a break here, because I've got to travel for work early in the morning. I hope I'm not being too picky. Hog Farm Talk 04:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "making the Old War-Horse the senior lieutenant general in the entire Confederate Army" - Didn't Edmund Kirby Smith have the same date of rank as Longstreet?
Changed to noting that he was the senior lt. gen. in the Army of Northern Virginia. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some places behind the stonewall" - stonewall should be two words here
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Confederates would have to march over close to a mile of open ground" - provide a conversion to kilometers here, for those readers who use the metric system
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final plan called for an artillery barrage by 170 cannon of the Washington Artillery" - most of the 170 guns were not part of the Washington Artillery.
Removed mention of the Washington Artillery. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Wilderness to Appomattox section, will continue later. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. It's been very helpful. It's always nice to have a reviewer who is knowledgeable about the topic. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Longstreet plays a prominent role in Michael Shaara's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Killer Angels and in the film Gettysburg, being portrayed by Tom Berenger. He is also featured in Shaara's son Jeff Shaara's novel Gods and Generals, a prequel to his father's novel. In the film Gods and Generals (2003), he is portrayed by Bruce Boxleitner and given a minor role. Longstreet was played by Brian Amidei onstage in the world premiere of The Killer Angels at the Lifeline Theatre in Chicago." - source supports none of this - it's about a stage adaption of The Killer Angels (not the film), doesn't mention Gods and Generals, and barely mentions Longstreet. Hog Farm Talk 05:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that. That source has been removed, as has any mention about the stage adaptation, which does not appear sufficiently noteworthy. New sources have been added for everything else. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Longstreet Society is an organization and museum in Gainesville dedicated to the celebration and study of his life and career." - It's fairly weak sourcing to cite a likely non-notable 500-member organization to its own website; if this can't be sourced to a solid secondary source, recommend removing. My recommended test for determining if pop culture or memorials are truly significant is if they can be reliably secondarily sourced.
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto with the GLRP
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it and replaced it with the Baltimore Sun source as well as an article from CNN. Both articles were also helpful in adding content elsewhereDisplay name 99 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaves Wilderness/Appomattox, Postbellum, and Legacy, as well as a general look at the sources. Hog Farm Talk 05:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I have addressed all of the points that you have made thus far. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not seeing any direct evidence that File:General James Longstreet.jpg is specifically a 1865 picture
Changed to "after the war". Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Project Canterbury website" - citation needs publisher and accessdate
It's the ref supporting him attending Bishop Polk's funeral. Hog Farm Talk 14:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing "Project Canterbury website" anywhere. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a category about the Aztec Club listed. A mention and citation of this needs to be added per WP:CATV.
Removed as I couldn't find any mention of it in the major sources. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He contracted pneumonia and died in Gainesville on January 2, 1904, six days before his 83rd birthday. Bishop Benjamin Joseph Keiley of Savannah, Georgia, a veteran of the Army of Northern Virginia, said his funeral Mass" - recommend getting a better source than a blog for this. Blog post author is described as a "small town lawyer" and helps run a nonprofit; I don't think this demonstrates great credentials for this subject. The source also doesn't mention pneumonia.
Done. Replaced with references to Piston and Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are Knudsen's credentials? the Knudsen work is publisher by a self-publishing company
He is a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who is supposedly a strategy expert. Beyond that, I don't know. Before I started preparing this article for FA nomination, there were a lot more references to Knudsen than there are now. For the most part, the content that was sourced to him did not have much factual information but was instead vague, at times a little off-topic, and even rather pretentious-sounding analysis of tactics and strategy. I'm glad that these are out, and that Knudsen is sourced less than before, but do you think it's best that he be removed entirely? I can definitely see that making sense. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend removing entirely, if that would be possible. Frankly, it looks like Knudsen's work has been largely ignored scholarly, and I'm just not sold that it's a great source from what I've seen of it. There's at least one part where Knudsen is cited for his opinion on Longstreet; I'm really concerned that Knudsen is probably not WP:DUE weight for his opinions. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's gone. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spot-checked a couple of the Tagg references and saw no issues.
  • There appear to still be some rank abbreviations and a few stray uses of the specific rank "General" as a generic rank, such as "before Union General Gouverneur K. Warren, Chief of Engineers,".
I fixed some of these, and if there are any that I missed, I'm sure I'll find them. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's most of my comments. This article is an excellent effort about a significant figure. The article would be one of the longer FAs, but I didn't think it seemed particularly bloated anywhere. I will note that I'm a major nerd when it comes to this conflict, so what I consider to be due detail may be the result of me having great interest in minute material here. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I've responded to everything. Thank you for your kind words about the article and for your helpful assessment of it. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, thank you once more. Knudsen's removed. Is that the last of it? Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having great patience with my sometimes-picky review, Display name. Support. Hog Farm Talk 15:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, your review was extremely helpful. Thank you for your support. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment edit

Over 15,000 words!! See WP:TOOBIG. A very brief skim suggests a number of areas which, IMO, would benefit from a more summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thank you for your comment. I can't say I didn't see it coming. My featured article nominations tend to be a bit long. This is long too, but it isn't my longest nomination. I've had two longer. Andrew Jackson passed at almost 16,00 words, and John Adams passed at a little over 16,000, almost 1,000 words longer than this article. I know that this does not mean that this article should automatically be given a pass, but articles on very important topics are allowed to run a little long. The American Civil War is easily the largest war in the history of the United States, and an article on one of the top military commanders in the war, a man who was definitely in my opinion one of the two or three best Confederate generals, and also perhaps the war's most controversial general, seems important enough to me to allow for some extra space to cover his contributions and the debate surrounding them. Display name 99 (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments edit

We non-Americans don't know what antebellum means so please link somewhere. And if "postbellum life" means "postwar life" more non-Americans would understand.

I do not agree that this should be changed. Postbellum is Latin. It means "after the war." A quick Google search would reveal what the term "postbellum" means in America, and I don't see anything necessarily wrong with occasionally sending readers to the dictionary or to Google. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99I think we should make it as easy as possible for the readers - for example "The Economist" would not make the reader look up such a word just as it would not make Americans look up UK specific words. I am British and am sure at least 90% of Brits don't know the word "postbellum" - would be interested to hear from other non-Americans though - would most good English speakers in your country know the word? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, I think that most Americans would know the word. Some wouldn't. At the start of the section, I added a link to an article with a literal definition of the word as well as explanations of its various usages, including the one in connection to a period in American history. Display name 99 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, I'm not sure if you're still interested in what's happening here, but I broke the "Postbellum life" section into two smaller sections on the advice of a different editor, and that word is no longer used. Display name 99 (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If known please mention why he was ambassador for such a short time.

I had not mentioned it before because the chief Longstreet biography that I was using to write the article, the one by Jeffry Wert, glosses over his ambassadorship in two paragraphs and says nothing of his reasons for departure. The article's hefty length was also a concern and I was wary of extending it any further. However, it is a worthy subject. William Piston's biography of Longstreet is roughly half the size of Wert's, but he dedicates two solid pages to Longstreet's tenure as minister and I was able to glean a fairly solid summary from there. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Longstreet was subject to vigorous attacks over his war record beginning shortly after his death and continuing until the end of his life." needs fixing.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but (for good reason I think) I've never seen someone solicit reviews for their FA nominations within another nomination. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, I have responded to your points. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99 - sorry for slow reply - see reply above - also please ping if you want me look more to see if I can support - not sure why I did not see ping - if no response in future feel free leave message my talk page Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99 Should nickname be in infobox? Infobox needs changing to emphasize his miliary role and deemphasize diplomatic Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the infobox is fine as is. Nicknames don't have to be included. There are several in the article, but he's not known by any of them in the same way that Stonewall Jackson is. Political and diplomatic positions go ahead of military service in infoboxes, even if they are far less notable. I don't think that a reader of this article will be confused by the infobox and think that he was primarily notable as a diplomat. Display name 99 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not possible to make the diplomatic job smaller type than the military? It seems too prominent in the infobox now especially on the iphone mobile app where it is larger type on a white background. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything more to say on the matter than what I said. Display name 99 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Display name 99 - Is writing "P.M." in capitals normal in US English? At least one more battle or campaign plan needs adding - for example "Second Bull Run" is hard to follow just from the text Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. They are abbreviations after all. They stand for ante meridem and post meridiem. There are different ways of writing it and I see nothing wrong with this one. I added a map to Second Bull Run. Hopefully it's a little easier now. I intend to add one to Chickamauga as well later when I have more time. Display name 99 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, I have now added maps to both Second Bull Run and Chickamauga. There are numerous battles mentioned here and I can't include maps for every one, but all of the major battles and campaigns where Longstreet fought now have maps. Display name 99 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up all maps, and providing legends in captions when appropriate
Legends added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:James_Longstreet.jpg: the source file does not appear to exist - who is the author and when/where was this first published?
I'm sorry about that. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gen._Longstreet_LCCN91783856.tif: image description has the collection mislabelled as author; is the author known? Ditto File:Gen._Longstreet,_C.S.A._LCCN2004678555.jpg
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the latter, if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry-I had gotten it confused with something. The author is indeed unknown. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but again, we have a tag stating the author died over 100 years ago - how do we know that to be the case? If the image was created towards the end of the given date range it would be very possible for that not to be so. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Peninsula_Campaign_March_17_-_May_31,_1862.png: what is the source for the data presented in this map? Ditto File:Fredericksburg-Overview.png, File:Gettysburg_Battle_Map_Day2.png, File:Pickett's-Charge.png, File:Wilderness_May6_1100.png
The source for these maps, as linked in the descriptions, is Hale Jesperson, a cartographer who has made over 200 maps for media. He doesn't appear to say where he got his data, but is it enough just to cite him as the one who drew the map? Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - that's fine as far as the copyright, but I'm asking about the verifiability of the map. It's fine if we have a source that confirms the data, even if it wasn't the one originally used - is that possible? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most major campaigns from the American Civil War have individual books written about them. I could easily cite such a book for each of the maps, although I would not be able to do specific page numbers. Would this work? If so, where should the citations go? Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:James_Longstreet_crop.png needs a US tag
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:James_Longstreet_photograph.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:James_Longstreet_later_life.jpg
There are two different authors. Both died in 1897. Their names are listed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing that on the latter? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize but I had once again gotten it confused with a separate image. The latter photograph was, as the description says, scanned from Longstreet's memoirs which were published in 1896. There is no author credited in the memoirs. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As above, how then do we know this unknown author died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:General_James_Longstreet.jpg: source link is dead; where was this first published?
Source link added to Library of Congress. This image was published between 1865 and 1890. Added publication data. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:JamesLongstreet.jpg: suggest using the specific Brady-Handy tag
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Er, doesn't seem to be? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[75] Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - referring to copyright tag here rather than creator. See commons:Template:PD-Brady-Handy. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gettysburg_Battlefield,_Pennsylvania,_US_(25).jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a public monument erected on U.S. government property in 1998. I don't know what that means legally. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was it a work for hire, or is the copyright otherwise held by the federal government? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike most monuments at public battlefields, the statue was not built by the federal government using taxpayer funds. Money was raised privately by the General James Longstreet Memorial Fund. The statue was sculpted by a man named Gary Casteel. [76] Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... would there be any other reason to believe the statue is in the public domain? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. The only thing that I didn't quite know how to answer was px size for images. Can you direct me to some place showing how it's supposed to be done? Thank you once again. Display name 99 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMGSIZE has some details on how to do this. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. px have been removed and maps have been scaled up. Nikkimaria, I have addressed all of your responses. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I understand what you meant now about the authors' death dates. I have removed the tags from the images where the author was unknown. I added books to the maps as sources for the data. I added the Brady-Handy copyright tag. Regarding the statue, I don't know anything other than that it was a privately-funded monument erected on public property. I don't know where that leaves us in terms of copyright. Thank you for your assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: - I believe it depends on that (non-public) VRT tag. If the tag applies to the photograph, the image is likely nonfree because the United States does not have freedom of panorama for 3D art, and I'm not seeing any indication that the statue is in the public domain. If the tag is from the copyright holder of the statue, then the image is fine. But if the tag is for only the photograph, then it will need to be removed as the image would only really meet WP:NFCC in an article about the statue itself. Hog Farm Talk 17:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, the author of the photo is a Wikipedia editor, and since VRT interacts with the public, I think that it is likely for the statue rather than the photo. Display name 99 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we confirm that? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, as you can probably tell, I am extremely unfamiliar with Commons and image copyright. I would not know how to do that. Display name 99 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone on this list would be able to access the ticket, or you could ask on the Commons VRT Noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and Display name 99: - I actually posted a query yesterday; this is the response. Hog Farm Talk 13:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! So that's fine then. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt - Support edit

  • "as a primary reason for the Confederacy's loss of the war. " Suggest "as a principal reason why the South lost the Civil War"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and reminded him of his more happy younger days." more happy?
Changed to "happier." Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet demurred against three suggestions from Lee urging him to attack" Does one demur against something? Demurred to, I would think, is more common.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "P.M." Think we use pm. Please check other instances.
I don't think that this is important. I think that professional writing generally uses either P.M. or PM. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and then Longstreet himself was told to take command of the detached divisions and the Departments of North Carolina and Southern Virginia.[123][15] " Do you intend for the refs to be out of numerical order? Similarly "but he refused.[197][196]"
No. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and, by threatening a federal city," Are we talking Washington or Philadelphia here?
Washington, Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, or New York. Lee's options were very open. His and Jefferson Davis' goal was to force Lincoln to negotiate through the seizure any major city controlled by Union forces. I don't think that they had a specific one in mind. It depended on how the strategic situation turned out. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Peach Orchard" why the initial cap?
Because it's the title of the article. But it looks awkward in the text so I made it a pipe. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two miles" I think we also give the metric conversion, please check for other instances.
Added metric conversion to this and other instances. I may have missed some but I'm sure I'll find them. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You twice mention Longstreet receiving a congressional pardon. I take it that this was actually a removal of disabilities under the insurrection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment?
You are correct. I didn't fully realize that the information was repeated. I took out the first mention of it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the salary of the customs post, wasn't the true value of the position in the fees and in the opportunity for graft in employing customs employees? Did Longstreet profit therefrom?
This is not discussed in the sources that I consulted. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be mentioned that Lee had been president of Washington College, when you mention the attack.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. We have a long article already and I'm not sure that's noteworthy. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could think of at least two other works in which Longstreet appears as fictional character, 1901 and The Guns of the South, but I doubt it's necessary to mention them.
  • I've read 'The Guns of the South, and would recommend against mentioning. I don't remember Longstreet being a pivotal character in that one (although it's been a few years since I read it). Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of any of these and so I have no reason to doubt your assessment that they are probably not notable. Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, thank you for your review. I have responded to everything that you have said. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators edit

@FAC coordinators: Hi, I'm just making a query to try to check in and see where we stand with this nomination. The realize that all of the reviews that have been made here have turned out favorably, but there have not been many reviews and the article has gone two weeks without any comments. I have twice had to undergo the frustrating experience of having an article fail FA review not because of opposition to it because it did attract enough reviewers. Are we anywhere close to that happening at this point? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is always irritating. No current danger of it timing out, but, yes, it needs further reviews at some point. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, I have listed it at Urgents and Requests for a general and source review respectively. If you are aware of potential reviewer feel free to send them a neutrally phrased request. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 - Support edit

  • I'll try to comment shortly. Ping me if I've forgotten after a week or so... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Eddie891. It's been 6 days, so I'm just reminding you. Thank you for agreeing to do this. Display name 99 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James remained with uncle Augustus" maybe just "with his uncle"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Southern aristocratic traditions had not yet taken hold." can you link or further explain "southern aristocratic traditions"?
Added link to "planter class." Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seemed largely uninterested in politics" seemed to who?
Changed "seemed" to "appears to have been." Obviously, the person who makes this judgment is Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a man of some political prominence" is this really necessary? Does it add anything? Why not just "But Augustus, a ... minister, was a fierce"?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe add a year for when the Nullification crisis happened?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is considered likely" who considers it likely?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even though many Americans in this era considered them to be immoral" maybe "at a time when many Americans considered them immoral" would be more concise?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the vacancy for his congressional district had already been filled" this will likely be hard to understand to those unfamiliar with the application process-- is there anywhere we can link, even if it's to a section?
I don't see any good way to do this. I agree that at first it might be a bit hard to understand, but then the reader can step back and infer from the text that admission to West Point depended on appointment by one's congressman. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, Longstreet was appointed in 1838 by a relative, Reuben Chapman, who represented the First District of Alabama, where Mary Longstreet lived." Maybe "Longstreet was instead appointed the following year by a relative, Reuben Chapman, who represented the First District of Alabama in the United States House of Representatives, where Mary Longstreet lived."?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gentleman feels like an overlink
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would longstreet get a brevet commission as a low ranking cadet?
I checked Wert, Longstreet, Helen Dortch Longstreet, and Mendoza. None of them give any reason as to why he received a brevert commission or what his non-brevet rank was. Regrettably, there does not seem to be a source available for this. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a brief furlough, Longstreet set out to join the 4th U.S. Infantry at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri. Longstreet spent his first two years of service at the post, which was under the command of Lt. Col. John Garland." might be more concisely expressed as "After a brief furlough, Longstreet was stationed for two years at the 4th U.S. Infantry at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri, under the command of Lt. Col. John Garland."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet's commander, Lt. Col. Garland" only one or the other is needed, it's already been established that Garland is Longstreet's commander
Second one removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historians agree that " how many? All of them? Two? Five? twenty?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scott besieged the city and subjected it to regular bombardments" Not following this linking choice
The city of Veracruz was mistakenly linked twice. The second link should have been to the Siege of Veracruz. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add a sentence clarifying the end of the war?
Added a sentence stating that the Battle of Chapultepec led to the fall of Mexico City. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • her only rarely in his memoirs
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Longstreets' time at Fort Bliss was pleasant." does this really add anything? I think the following two do a good enough job of establishing the gist of their stay-- and "pleasant" is pretty subjective.
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the way, Longstreet came across his old friend Grant " A nice anecdote, but is it really relevant to an encyclopedic article?
I kept the fact that Longstreet met Grant, because I like how the article follows their journey together a little bit before the war. However, I removed the rest. It says more about Grant's character than Longstreet's and thus probably isn't relevant to this article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Through 'subsequent activities', please remember these are just suggestions and thoughts... Eddie891 Talk Work 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, thank you for your review. I have addressed all of your concerns thus far. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, will try to power through some more

  • " to cast his lot with the" perhaps simply "to join the"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which implied a commensurate" what does 'implied' here mean? Who is it implied to or by? I guess I'm just a little confused
It meant that he would be the highest-ranking officer from that state and thus had a chance at being commander of its militia. Rephrased. [77] Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Bonham outrank Longstreet if they were both BG's?
It is determined by seniority from date of appointment. If Bonham became a brigadier general first, he would outrank Longstreet. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his memoirs, Longstreet would write" perhaps simply "longstreet wrote"?
It's phrased in this way to avoid repetition with the phrase "he wrote" that is used later in the sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but ended up apparently misremembering them. " perhaps simply "apparently misremembered"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "diluting the effect of the massive Confederate counterattack against McClellan." 'massive' feels both subjective and unnecessary
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Postwar criticism of Longstreet" can you date this more specifically than simply 'postwar'?
See the postbellum section. It began in the mid-1870s but continued for the rest of his life and long after his death. It cannot be dated to a specific time. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of Longstreet's finest performances of the war" According to who? This feels like a subjective opinion wanting of atribution
Attribution added. [78] Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prevented this plan from taking place" either "prevented this" would probably suffice
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an impressive Confederate victory" again, feels subjective. Impressive to whom?
Changed to "strong." This word is less subjective and I don't think it's in dispute. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Union right largely entirely" is there something missing here?
Yes. Should have said "entirely collapsed." I edited that part recently and something obviously got twisted up. It's fixed now. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet deserved" again feels like a judgement call that Wikipedia shouldn't be making in its own voice-- maybe simply "Longstreet received..."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Once again he developed innovative tactics to deal with difficult terrain," why not just "He developed tactics to deal with difficult terrain"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why he was confirmed as an episcopalian
No. Like for his later conversion to Catholicism, we do not know exactly what precipitated it. Per Wert p. 418: "Longstreet wrote virtually nothing about his religious beliefs." Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was able to regain" perhaps simply "he regained"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I never heard of any other cause of the quarrel than slavery."-- This gives the implication Longstreet viewed the war as being over slavery, yet earlier our article gives the impression he reluctantly joined as a states rights issue. Which was it?
Both pieces of evidence seem to conflict, but none is more valid than the other. Perhaps Longstreet viewed the cause of the war as slavery and, whether he agreed with it or not, felt that it was his duty as a citizen of a Southern state to follow it if it chose to leave the Union. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's just about it... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, I have responded to everything. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonably happy to support on prose Eddie891 Talk Work 00:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Eddie891. Let me know if anything else comes to mind. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose from TRM edit

  • "Ellen J. Dortsch" not referred to as this in the main body, just the infobox?
Changed to "Helen Dortch". Not sure why she was called by that. I neglected to adequately check up on the infobox when preparing the nomination." Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • His first "non-notable" wife is mentioned in the lead, but not Dortsch?
Added [79]. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the linked "campaign" articles appear to not capitalise the "C" of campaign. Why are we doing that here?
    • Don't remember where the exact discussion is, but I think earlier this year MILHIST decided that the MOS for campaigns was to lowercase campaign. Hog Farm Talk 20:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSA is used in the infobox but never explained.
There is a link to the article for the Confederate States of America. Just as it's commonly known that the United States can be called the USA, I don't think that it needs to be explained any further that the CSA is equal to the Confederacy. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Louisiana State Militia" is mentioned twice in the infobox but never used directly in the prose.
His service in the militia is discussed in Postbellum life. I added a direct mention of the name of the militia in which he served to avoid confusion. [80] Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one single element of the infobox is referenced inline, why that one specific fact?
There's a footnote about it because there is some additional information surrounding it to be explained. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Update: The link didn't go to the proper place and the footnote didn't fully seem to be necessary. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anglicized" explain/link.
Link added [81], but I don't think that any further explanation is necessary and could possibly be added without sounding redundant. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Nullification Crisis. It" we don't appear to capitalise either word.
As a historical event, the word "nullification" is always capitalized when referring to it. Whether crisis is capitalized or not can depend and I'm not sure if one is more correct than the other. I made it lowercase however because that seems to be the convention on Wikipedia, like campaign. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to explain this as best I can. There were two Hills who were Confederate generals: D.H. and A.P. Hill. Both of them are very important and come up frequently in Civil War accounts. Neither one is usually referred to simply by his last name, because this would engender confusion. Whenever their names come up, they are usually called by their initials or something else derived from their first and middle names. Both Hills are mentioned frequently in this article, and so we have to follow the convention of using more than simply their last names each time we refer to them. (It's the same thing with the Andersons: R.H. Anderson and G.T. Anderson, although whereas the Hills are roughly equal in importance, R.H. Anderson was much more important than G.T. Anderson, although both are still mentioned in this article.) I think that the Wikipedia article is called Daniel Harvey Hill because that is his full name and better to use than his initials, although the use of his initials is more common and so maybe it would be better per WP:Common name if that article's title was changed to use his initials, like the article for A.P. Hill. What I decided to do was to refer to him as "Daniel Harvey Hill" the first time his name came up, and to leave his initials there for every other mention as an abbreviation. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "near Natchitoches, Louisiana as part of" comma after state, check the rest.
Comma added. Checked the rest and added two more commas. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mexican-American War" en-dash in the section title.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "received a brevet promotion" what is that?
None of the sources explain it, but the term "brevet" is linked so that a reader who does not understand can learn what it is. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brief visit with his family, Longstreet went to Missouri to visit " visit/visit. repetitive.
Changed second use of "visit" to "see." Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "courtship or marriage. Longstreet" merge.
Not sure what you mean here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chief Commissary" what's one of those?
It's explained later in the sentence: "On January 1, 1850, he was appointed Chief Commissary for the Department of Texas, responsible for the acquisition and distribution of food to the soldiers and animals of the department." Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "provided valuable experience" valuable according to whom?
According to historian and Longstreet biographer Jeffry D. Wert. I removed the word "valuable" because that seemed like something that might require attribution. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about a third of the way through and literally just skim-reading, there still feels (to me) like there's a heap of stuff to do here. Did this get a non-MILHIST peer review or anything similar before FAC? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not perfect on nomination, and there were a few things that have been pointed out to be already that I should have seen before nominating. But I believe that the article is very high quality and is ready to be a featured article. I think that you will find it gets better as you read the section on the Civil War, which is of course the most crucial. To answer your question, the article did not undergo that kind of assessment. It became a good article way back in 2007, and by the time I began serious work on it in 2017, it had fallen well below good article standards. I worked on it by myself intermittently from then until now. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, Thank you for your review. I have addressed all of the concerns that you have raised thus far. Display name 99 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, do you have any further comments? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying on from "American Civil War" section

  • "At the time of ... at the beginning of" repetitive prose.
Fixed [82]. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "United States Army" it was "U.S. Army" before.
Removed "U.S. Army." Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reared in Georgia" brought up in?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the U.S. Army on" suddenly linked here?
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commission as a lieutenant colonel in " overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "toward Manassas Junction. Longstreet's" overlinked.
Is it? That's the only time that this is linked. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Literally the previous sentence or so, at "at Manassas, where" it is pipelinked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with sabre in" might want to link that.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... my horse's heels, or stop the break"." this quote needs reference.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General Milledge Bonham, Bonham" repetitive, rephrase.
Done. [83] Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commanded by Generals Daniel Harvey Hill, " overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the 20th" by January 20.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet immediately returned to Richmond.[51] ... Longstreet arrived in Richmond " repetitive.
Changed first instance to "the city." Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "danger. George Pickett and " overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "funeral and burial" plural, burials at least if they had a joint-funeral.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Union Maj. Gen." suddenly abbreviated ranks?
I think that this is fine. The ranks are commonly abbreviated, and once we introduce the non-abbreviated ranks, I don't see an issue with using abbreviated ones for the rest of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then be consistent. You have repeated ranks in full previously. This appears to be the first time you go for abbreviations. I don't mind what you do but it must be consistent throughout. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to the beginning of "Peninsula" section. Lots of trivial issues, but nonetheless, issues that need fixing for a FA. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Rambling Man. Display name 99 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Main articles: Peninsula Campaign and" campaign.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longstreet would write " wrote.
It's written this way to avoid repetition with "he wrote" later in the sentence. Feel free to recommend alternate phrasing or go in there yourself and make a change. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Second Bull Run" why isn't this called "Second Battle of Bull Run"?
The word "battle" isn't used in any other section titles. I see no need to do so here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "put Major Gen. John Pope in command" overlinked.
Link removed. (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "600-yard (548.6 meter" unnecessary precision.
Seems fine to me. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commanded by Lafayette McLaws, R.H. " overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on October 26. On November 7," repetitive.
Adjusted. [84] Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McLaws' " -> "McLaws's" per MOS.
I can't find this. I copied the whole article into a Word document and did a search but nothing came up. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant was" overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "massing around Frederick, Maryland. Lee" likewise.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the Battle of Gettysburg would" ditto.
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4:30 in the afternoon" why not just "4:30{{nbsp}p.m."?
I see no problem here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until 4 P.M. Meade" earlier we used p.m., not P.M. be consistent.
The style that I've chosen is A.M. and P.M. I found two previous instances where this was not followed and remedied them. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "July 13–July 14" no need for second July.
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under George Henry Thomas in the center.[203]" overlinked.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "escape towards Lynchburg, and " likewise.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acceptance of Reconstruction and" and that.
I can't find any case of that previously being linked. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "House in New Orleans, which" ditto.
Link removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "returning to Gainesville, Georgia. By" ditto.
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "succeeding Wade Hampton III.[15] " and here.
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "librarian Helen Dortch. Although" this too.
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "century, Douglas Southall Freeman kept criticism" similar.
Link not removed. See below. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More overlinked: "hometown of Gainesville, Georgia, through the", "novels by Ben Ames Williams, one " and the three: "novel The Killer Angels and in the film Gettysburg, being portrayed by Tom Berenger.[284"
Links to Gainesville, Killer Angels, Gettysburg (film), and Tom Berenger removed. Link to Ben Ames Williams not removed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, thank you for your review. While this was helpful, I do have an issue with removing some of the links that you suggested. While it may be in accordance with a strict and technical implementation of Wikipedia policy, I think that it is unhelpful to the reader to remove links that were only mentioned very long ago in the article. For example, someone wanting to know who Ben Ames Williams was, coming across his name at basically the very end of our article and seeing that there was not a link, would most likely not know to look under the first paragraph of "Subsequent activities" all the way near the beginning. Likewise, Helen Dortch was only mentioned much earlier, but if someone clicked on this article wanting to find out something about Helen Dortch, they wouldn't think to go to the "Subsequent activities" section between the Mexican-American and the Civil Wars, but to the section on Longstreet's life after the war, which is when he married her. In "Historical reputation," while Wert doesn't need to be linked because he has been mentioned many times over, Douglas Southall Freeman is mentioned only once, buried in the middle of the Civil War section a long ways up. Gettysburg should be linked at the start of the section about the Battle of Gettysburg, even if it was already mentioned in the Second Bull Run section. I think I was pushing things already by agreeing to remove links to the articles of a list of generals who were only mentioned once in the section on Longstreet's time at West Point. But especially in these cases, I think that to remove the links would not improve the article. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how selectively overlinking certain items helps the readers at all. But that's your call of course. I can't support an article which adopts that approach. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi TRM, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah apologies. I have just noticed your comment immediately above, which, obviously, answers my query. (I had noted it when it first appeared, but then forgotten it in the intervening two weeks.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Display name 99, the re-linking in this articles clearly runs into MOS:LINKONCE. While your logic above may be persuasive for the closing coordinator, can I suggest that you recheck that it applies to every multiple link? Several are currently close to each other in the article, undermining your "were only mentioned very long ago in the article" argument. I have just remedied two identical links in two paragraphs. There are other less extreme but potentially unpersuasive examples. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, thank you for your assistance with the article. I have removed one case of double links that were very close together, but am unable to locate any others. Are there more that you know of? Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the one case left which does not clearly meet the test you set - I leave aside the question of whether that test is sufficient reason for ignoring the MoS - is Douglas Southall Freeman. And when something like this is not clear I feel one should default to the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I've removed the second link to him. Display name 99 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild you've promoted this already? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild weird, I never got back to re-reviewing everything. Yet it's been promoted already? Oh well. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi.Random edit

Placeholder... I'll verify the content of sources/cites, but I am not inclined to start !voting in either direction. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi.Random, thank you very much. I know that source reviews often don't end in someone voting one way or another. So if by the end of it you do vote to support, that would be great, but it's fine if you don't. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like 32 sources; 25% = 8. By rough count, 336 cites; 15% = 50. So let's say, minimum 8 sources, minimum 50 checks. Will take a few days 'cause real life and all. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To FAC coordinators and other reviewers: there's gonna be a tl;dr word thicket below. You don't need to read it if you don't want to. I'm gonna add all of it for the nominator's benefit. My summary is: (will insert here later).
    • Wert, Jeffrey D. (1993). Cited around 120 times. I checked 14: Wert 1993, pp. 30–31, 2 cites, first good, second includes text from page 32. Cite either needs to be moved 2 sentences earlier, or page range increased to 32. Wert 1993, p. 46, 2 cites. Both OK. Wert 1993, pp. 47–48, 2 cites. "learned how to manage troops" doesn't sound quite correct; source says "gained valuable experience in the administration of a military force". Those might seem like near-synonyms, but to my ear at least, the former sounds like battlefield exp., whereas the latter does not. But several other details are quite correct. [The source text seems to have an error: Fort Marion Scott --> Fort Martin Scott]. Wert 1993, p. 206, 2 cites. "Jackson has been described as the army's hammer, Longstreet its anvil." Have other sources said this? If not, may wanna explicitly attribute it to Wert. It is an original turn of phrase...googling, Jackson as "hammer" is commmon but Longstreet as anvil not so much. May wanna attribute. I think you should. "Wert observed that..." Other details OK... Well, here in the "Suffolk" section of our article there are overlapping cites (Wert 1993, pp. 227–228, 1 cite; Wert 1993, pp. 228–229, 2 cites.) There's info from that three page range all mixed into this section. I suggest consolidating them and making these both Wert 1993, pp. 227–229. There's no fear of a larger page range. I once got in a huge freaking argument (and lost ignominiously) by blowing my top when people were using page ranges of quite literally 50 pages, maybe more, I don't remember... There's also a direct quote that is 1) not cited by itself as it should be, because it's a direct quote, and 2) not actually quoted perfectly word-for-word, as it should be, because it's within quotation marks (direct quote). Make the wording perfect and put a one-page-only cite immediately after it. These cites are... OK-ish. Not blatantly wrong. Just a bit mixed up. Probably OK. Wert 1993, pp. 422–423, 2 cites. "Early, in a speech at..." Is that Jubal Early? Name not near in our article. Looking at source, yep, it's Jubal... "The following year, Pendleton claimed.." Ditto, give first name 'cause it's in a new section. Early's words are just a wee liddly bit too close paraphrase. Although I see you altered several key words, the sentence structure is pretty much the same as the source...Oh, I didn't know Longstreet was critized for the black New Orleans troops... Other details OK. Wert 1993, pp. 258–261, 1 cite in the "July 1–2" section. Oh here's a bigger page range. Does it cover the whole first paragraph of the July 1–2 section? Mmm. I think... there are some details in that para that do not seem to be in Wert in that page range. For example, the idea that attacking Cemetery Hill was best seems to be on page 267 (not in the range of this cite). I think you are casting too wide a net here. I'm not a fan of bunched cites ("[142][147][148][149]") anyhow, preferring to use {{sfnm}}. [Though WikiMedia in its wisdom may delete sfn and related templates if they ever get their way and move entirely to Visual Editor....)]. I think you need to re-read this entire paragraph closely. I don't like this cite, as it stands.. [more later] ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, 6 total cites. Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, p. 148. It's stuck in a cite-hive ("[111][112][113][114]") at the end of a 344 word chunk of text. What part of all that is Eckenrode & Conrad? Yes, this page is about the same engagement that is described in that big chunk of text. And yes, the general conclusion about the hopelessness of the Union position is the same. But I cannot specifically pin down any bit of text in our article that I would wanna cite to Eckenrode & Conrad. I strongly suspect this should be an {{efn}} with text like "For another account, see Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, p. 148." But OTOH, some people hate (or pretend to hate) footnotes, and scream when there are too many. But there are successful FAs with many, many footnotes. So... delete, or footnote, but do not cite in this manner. [More later] ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi.Random, thank you for all of this work. I'm a bit busy in real life today but will begin to work on all of this soon. As a general note about the style of citing many works at once, descriptions of battles include details which are found in many sources but some details which are only found in one. If I wanted to include something which was only found in one source in between two pieces of information that were found in another source, that would automatically require three footnotes. Rather than have an innumerable amount of footnotes with often-repeating page ranges, which would be difficult for me to cite and confusing and overwhelming for the reader, I found that the best way to do it was to summarize a battle and then cite all of my sources at the end of each paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may or may not be a matter of opinion, but I disagree with your method...and no matter what opinion you hold, you absolutely must put a specific cite behind any direct quote (inside quotation marks). ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And according to the MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Display name 99: I remember about a billion years ago, when I was a GA reviewer and editor, we did this thing where we would leave a paragraph entirely uncited until the very last sentence of that paragraph. There then we would cite one source (only one) and put a not-too-very-big page range. That practice seems kinda OK-ish to me. It's kinda reasonable, assuming evrything in that paragraph is in the cited source and page range. But I don't think it's good practice to leave a stretch of text uncited and then cite several sources at the end. And I really, really don't think that the purpose of a citation is to note a passage from a source that certainly does cover the topic of that paragraph, but that source/passage doesn't actually mention the details that are mentioned in that paragraph. [I hope I explained that well.] In that case, as I mentioned earlier, you can either use a footnote like {{efn}} or similar and say "For another account, see Author Year, pp. xx-endash-yy", or you can just never even mention that source. It depends on how awesome you think that source is, for some reason... I think you need to check the entire article for this sort of issue. I'm really sorry, but I do think so... and you need to be careful about the boundaries within the text of each citation. Most people assume that the boundary of a citation runs only as far as the previous citation. I hope I explained that well, too. So I think you need to look for long-ish stretches of uncited text (more than two sentences? more than three? something) and parse them carefully. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lingzhi.Random, thank you for all of your hard work here. I have made progress on what you have said through edits to the article. I intend to post a fuller response to you here within the next day. Display name 99 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If fixed some of the issues with page ranges. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're mistaken about the source text having an error. It refers to Fort Marion in Florida. Fort Martin Scott is in Texas. He went there after the Mexican-American War, as the article says. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "learned how to manage troops" to "provided experience in administrative military work." Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attributed the hammer and anvil analysis to Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed Eckenrode & Conrad p. 148. I agree it's not necessary.
  • Fixed error in quoting a direct quote in the Suffolk Campaign section. I understand that anything in quotes must be given exactly. It was just a mistake. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added first names to Early and Pendleton under the Postbellum life section. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point about citations, particularly on the matter of direct quotes. I'm working on moving citations so that there is one after every direct quote and so that there aren't so many crowded at the end of a paragraph. I've already done this with the first paragraph of July 1-2. I removed Tagg p. 206 from the paragraph as there didn't seem to be any direct information from it that was used. I know I didn't use it; some other editor put it in before, but all of the text was mine and I didn't use that source. I just never bothered to remove it. Piston p. 51 was cited twice in the paragraph. I found in only one of the two citations was any information actually taken from it. I removed the other. I think that this paragraph is good now. More to come. Thank you. This has been very helpful. Display name 99 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Display name 99: Thank you for your response. I will continue with the review (I'm only about 20% done), and see what develops. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the page ranges in the Suffolk section are fine. I'm not citing Wert pp. 227-229 if I'm only using information from pp. 227-228. Display name 99 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I altered the summary of Early's remarks. [85] Display name 99 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The attack on Cemetery Hill part was not within the Wert page range, but it was in the other sources. I added p. 267 to the Wert citation. Display name 99 (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a general comment: I really like it when people put {{main|Battle of Chickamauga}} under sections like "Chickamauga" and "Fredericksburg", etc. I bet you're probably concerned about over-linking, but I find those sub-headers really, really convenient. He said, hinting. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, pp. 214–217: "In one of the most daunting logistical efforts of the Confederacy"...says who? That is an opinion, and needs to be cited... Moving on, I find this cite to be deficient again. Few facts in the stretch of text within the scope of this cite appear in Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, pp. 214–217, and many are clearly not mentioned. For example, the name "Wigfall" does not appear in this book at all! ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the part of the sentence that you quoted. I made it so that the Eckenrode & Conrad quote covers only the abandonment of Chattanooga, which is not mentioned in Wert. Hopefully that solves the problem. I will probably add those templates. But I'm off to sleep now. Display name 99 (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, pp. 227–231. All OK. Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, p. 245. Only one fact in the six sentences of our article appear in Eckenrode, but it is in the last of the six. So OK...Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, p. 318. It's OK, but I have a suggestion. This anecdote about L's soldiers fearing he was dead, so he waved his hat, seems to play into L's importance to the assault. Also, our text says "Longstreet missed the rest of the 1864 spring and summer campaign, " and Eckenrode mentions specifically the battles and movements he missed. I think our text would benefit from including that list...Eckenrode & Conrad 1999, p. 376. This about blaming L for Gettysburg. yes this cite is OK. But our article doesn't mention that Gordon also attacked L, see page xiii. Also, L seems to have done something that "superceded" pendleton; does that mean something similar to "relieved of command" ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piston 1987, 18 total cites. Piston 1987, pp. 19–20: All OK... except did you mention Smith's nervous breakdown? It seems odd to say he commanded for one day and leave it at that. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi.Random, thank you again for all of your work here. Here is what I have accomplished so far. I added the templates to the start of the sections. Do you think I should leave the links to the battles and campaigns in the body of the text, or should I get rid of them? I moved the other two citations with Eckenrode & Conrad p. 245 to before the last sentence. This way, the final sentence is only cited to that source, and the Eckenrode & Conrad citation does not cover anything else. I'm not sure what you mean about the anecdote. Maybe worthy of mention, but length is a concern. I added the battles and campaigns that Longstreet missed. Pendleton and Early were Longstreet's two most vocal critics, but he had many others. This article can't cover everything. I don't think that Smith's health is worthy of mention. It has no direct connection to Longstreet. Furthermore, Smith probably would have been removed anyway. As the senior major general in the army, he was basically just a placeholder for a day until Lee could arrive from Richmond. Display name 99 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I defer to your judgment regarding what to leave in and what to leave out. And I defer to other FAC reviewers about how many links to add, and where. All I'm saying is, I love those subheader links. They are soooooo convenient for me. So easy to see. One reason I almost always use asterisks instead of single quotes to indent my comments is because those single quotes are a little hard for me to distinguish, especially if I forgot to use my "cheater" glasses. [Another reason is habit]... I do think Gordon should be added to the list of detractors. According to Eckonrode, his attack was significant.... Did you mention "why" he was attacked? I haven't read the whole Wikipedia article, only skimmed... seems the deal is, Longstreet criticized Lee, and everyone was engaged in a concerted effort to create a public cult of veneration for Lee. for various reasons. ♦&—nbsp;Lingzhi.Random (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I'm still not inclined to mention Gordon. Piston barely mentions his criticism and Wert doesn't do so at all. With only one source paying any significant attention to it, it just doesn't seem notable enough. The immediate cause of Longstreet coming under criticism was his support for Reconstruction after the war. This should be obvious once you read "Postbellum life." Most Southern whites vehemently opposed Reconstruction as well as the Republican Party, which was seen as the party of Northerners and Southern blacks. But Longstreet joined the Republican Party and called for cooperation with the North and acceptance of Reconstruction laws. It effectively anathematized him from white Southern leadership, and it was followed shortly by attacks on his conduct during the war. Longstreet's military conduct did not come under any major public criticism either during the conflict or in the years immediately after it, but it did after he became politically active. To be sure, many former Confederates simply wanted to deflect as much blame from Lee as they could, but the main reason that Longstreet became a scapegoat was his postwar politics. His criticism of Lee mostly didn't begin until after he himself came under attack, and was mainly a defense mechanism to deflect blame away from himself. Criticism of Lee was basically tantamount to blasphemy in some Southern circles, and so Longstreet certainly made things worse for himself by doing this, but it wasn't the immediate cause of the criticism directed at him. Display name 99 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • wow, long reply. :-) Good, thanks! Sorry my error caused you to have to explain. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I like talking about that stuff. I'll await further posts from you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piston 1987, pp. 41–42. All Ok. Piston 1987, pp. 153–157. All OK. Piston 1987, pp. 159–161. All OK. Piston 1987, pp. 137–139. All OK. Piston 1987, p. 78 (2 cites). OK. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • changing gears, you need a cite immediately after every direct quote, even if the quote is in a stretch of text covered by a multi-page cite. Starting at the bottom of the article, I quickly found many, including these:
      • best staff officer in the Confederacy
      • or order him before a court-martial
      • strategic offensive and a tactical defensive
    • You need to go through the same exercise, for the whole article. The problem is, that may strand a "widow" section of text above the direct quote and leave it uncited, if your direct quote is inside a large stretch. So then you need to add two new cites per every such istance, alas: a one-pager for the direct quote, and a whatever-length for the widow... ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi.Random, Thank you. This is done. I went through the rest of the article and found three or four more. I added citations immediately after the quotes to these. Display name 99 (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorrel 1905, pp. 140–141. I am using the Gutenberg .txt version, which does not have page numbers. However, I found the section on Fredericksburg and Marye's Hill battle. The only thing our wiki seems to have in common with Sorrel's acct is Cobb's death. Everything else in Sorrel on that matter does not appear to be in our article... Sorrel does mention Jackson's struggles in detail. He also gives casualties: "We lost in killed and wounded--Longstreet, 1,519; Jackson, 2,682;

total, 4,201. Jackson was also reported as having lost in missing 526. These figures are also adopted by Ropes, and he gives Burnside's army as 122,500, ours as 78,500. I do not think that more than half of our forces were engaged on the 13th. The Federal losses, attacks on Marye's Hill, 8,000; loss of whole army, Federal, 12,650 killed and wounded. (Ropes figures.)" ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Longstreet's troops "easily repulsed several more assaults." Sorrel writes about how strong the Confederate troops were and how easily they disposed of the Union troops attempting to take their position. I know that none of the specific details are in Sorrel aside from Cobb, but I feel comfortable leaving it where it is. As for the casualty figures, primary sources can give different accounts, so we rely on the authors of secondary sources for the best estimates. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lingzhi.Random. Do you have any further comments? Thank you for all of your work on the article. Display name 99 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: Got you scheduled for tomorrow...sorry if any inconvenience... ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've done four sources and 26 checks, but I'm losing steam. Going by what was there when I started, that's 12.5% of sources and 8% of cites.
    • Mendoza 2008, pp. 3–4; All OK. Mendoza 2008, pp. 4–5; All OK. Mendoza 2008, pp. 38, 50; All OK. Mendoza 2008, p. 48; our wikipedia article does not mention that Stewart initially refused Longstreet's orders and requested the orders in writing. Is this important? All else OK. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I find it odd that you didn't consult Hite, Major Hampton E. A Leadership Analysis: Lieutenant General James Longstreet During the American Civil War. Pickle Partners Publishing, 2015. It's right there in archive.org, waiting... I would think a Leadership Analysis by a US Major in the Defense Technical Information Center would be eminently interesting. At he very least, look for conclusions... but insights on many details could be interesting too! ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Lingzhi.Random. I came across Stewart's refusal to move forward unless he received confirmation from Longstreet. I initially declined to include it, but I reconsidered. I added it in with a new citation to Sorrel. [86] As for the book that you mentioned, I can't find it on archive.org, but more importantly, I cannot establish any historical credentials for the author. Yes, an analysis of 19th century warfare by someone in that profession could certainly be interesting, but just because a person holds an important position in the United States military today does not mean that the person is a qualified historian. The press is non-academic. As such, I feel completely fine not using it. Display name 99 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OH, it's an MA thesis. Never mind. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi.Random, just a polite reminder here. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Lingzhi.Random has retired, which leaves us with something of a situation. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild. Linghzi has chosen to pass the source review. He or she posted the comment at the top of the section rather than at the bottom. Please scroll up. Also, I've left a post on the talk page of an additional editor who I know frequently edits early U.S. history topics asking for a general review. So I hope to have a little bit more activity. Display name 99 (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was looking at "To FAC coordinators and other reviewers: ... My summary is: (will insert here later). Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that of issues that may need to be considered edit

There's been a lot of work in this article, that's for sure, and it is in good shape. My comments are minor.

    • Abbreviation style may need to be made consistent (e.g., Lieutenant Colonel or Lt. Col.)
Mentioned on the article talk page. I think it's in good shape. Abbreviations are used after first mentions. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make sure to remove duplicate links.
A couple of duplicate links maybe after many paragraphs without mention. I just removed one of these but I don't know how big of a deal it is if in a long article like this something is linked near the beginning and again near the end after not being mentioned at all in between. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv, a few duplicate links were pointed out to me by a different reviewer. They have now been removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even more minor, Sorrel is mentioned as Longstreet's chief of staff, or de facto chief of staff, in three out of four mentions. Does it need repeating?
The final time is a direct quote, so it cannot be altered. But I did remove the mention of it in the July 1-2 section. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following statement needs a secondary citation: In the first part of the Northern Virginia campaign of August 1862, this stereotype held true, but in the climactic battle, it did not. This could use a secondary citation, without one, it sounds close to WP:OR. I'm sure it is easy to get.
It's sourced to Wert p. 156. That citation also covers in the information in the next sentence, and I see no good reason to use the exact same citation for two sentences in a row. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the largest thing I noticed is that a goodly number look like they have citations, but the sources are primary sources not secondary sources. These primary sources add value to the article, but the sentences need support from a more objective source. Cursory readers who are unaware may think Longstreet (1991) and Alexander (1989) are contemporary secondary sources, but they are actually reprints of 1896 and 1907 primary sources. I think each sentence which uses these as a stand-alone for a statement of fact also needs to have secondary source to verify that the participant's perception has been historically verified. I'll list the examples I noticed:
Again, as I said on the article talk page, Alexander's book is not a reprint of a 1907 source. It was discovered long after his death and published for the first time in 1989. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Confederates pursued their enemy but stopped once the retreating troops came under the protection of a battery on the opposite side of the river, ending the Battle of Antietam after 18 hours of fighting. Longstreet
Added citation to Sears 1983. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • December 12 saw only a small amount of desultory fighting. Longstreet
I don't think there's any need to add a secondary citation. There's no reason to doubt Longstreet here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Union army suffered almost 8,000 casualties at Marye's Heights; Longstreet lost only 1,900. Longstreet
Deleted as I couldn't find a source for the first part. Hog Farm, maybe you could lend a hand here? Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding a great single figure here. Best I can do is Frances Kennedy's The Civil War Battlefield Guide p. 148 has "The battle of Fredericksburg cost Burnside 12,600 casualties, almost two thirds of which occurred on the few acres in front of the sunken road", Bruce Catton's Glory Road pp. 64-65 which has "In killed, wounded, and missing, the army [of the Potomac] had lost more than 12,600 men ... The great gulk of the casualties had been incurred in front of the stone wall" and Stephen W. Sears's Lincoln's Lieutenants p. 467 which has "The cost for teh Union was worse even than Antietam - 12,653 ... The assaults aimed at Marye's Heights account for 70 percent of that total" Hog Farm Talk 02:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, thanks a lot. That should work. I can work that percentage into the text. Display name 99 (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness I made some typos. The Catton quote should be "bulk" not "gulk" and the teh in the Sears quote should be the. Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Longstreet insisted that Lee had rejected this plan and ordered him to make the assault against the front of the enemy lines. Longstreet and Alexander (maybe this can be modified to something saying that "Longstreet says he insisted...", then the Longstreet and Alexander citations hold up.
Added a citation to Sorrel. Sorrel writes that he carried a message from Hood asking if he could move around to the right. As another eyewitness, I think that the text is now on solid ground. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The force would include 15,000 men. Longstreet
Added citation to Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When Longstreet himself arrived on the field in the late evening, he failed to find Bragg's headquarters. He and his staff spent considerable time riding looking for them. They accidentally came across a federal picket line and were nearly captured. Longstreet. This one is difficult as there are unlikely to be additional witnesses. There's no reason to doubt Longstreet, but it and forty years of memory also provides a valuable alibi.
Again, added citation to Sorrel. As a staff officer to Longstreet, he was also an eyewitness. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plan was well received and approved by President Davis Longstreet (talking about Longstreet's plan.)
There's already a citation to Wert there. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Longstreet said that if Grant gave too strong demands, he ought to "break off the interview and tell General Grant to do his worst". Longstreet. Longstreet states he said this, maybe make a "Longstreet says..."
Added citation to Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • More troops from both sides soon poured into the fighting, which raged for three hours. Alexander (cited twice).
No reason to doubt Alexander here. His memoirs are probably the best single primary source for military history about the war from a Confederate perspective. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lee held his ground at Antietam until the evening of September 18, when he withdrew his army from the battlefield and took it back across the Potomac and into Virginia. Alexander
    • I've produced a secondary citation for this. Hog Farm Talk 22:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Large portions of Hill's and Ewell's corps...were unengaged, and Meade was able to shift...from Ewell's front in order to oppose Longstreet. Alexander
See above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After Longstreet ordered Hindman's division forward, the Union right collapsed entirely. Alexander
And again. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary citation added to Wert. Display name 99 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, these are all pretty easy to find secondary-source support to back up the primary sources. Wtfiv (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review. I will get to these comments in more detail soon, but as a brief note, while some of these could certainly use secondary sources, I don't think that they are entirely needed. Here is what I mean. Longstreet's memoirs, though valuable, have major problems. They're covered by bitterness and can be quite biased. Some of the information that you have pointed out which is cited exclusively to Longstreet should indeed have a secondary source. I will work on adding them. However, I don't think that every one needs one. I am specifically talking about Alexander. Alexander was a brigadier general of artillery. His memoirs are recognized as being perhaps the most balanced and fair account of the conflict by any general on either side. They are dispassionate in tone and were written probably at least about 50 years after the war ended. I don't think that all of the citations to Alexander necessarily need secondary sources. Display name 99 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Display name, I recently picked up quite a few sources about the war at a charity book sale - I can try and hunt down stuff for specific items if you have trouble with them. Hog Farm Talk 01:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hog Farm. Wtfiv, I have responded to your review. As you can see, I didn't agree with all of it. But it was definitely good to add additional citations to some spots. Thank you for looking at the article and sharing your suggestions. Display name 99 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Hog Farm, where are we with this one? Is it at FA standard? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gog the Mild: - I feel comfortable with this one, although I want to check one thing. It's made very big improvements during FAC. After another look through the sources, I've never heard of the publisher for Sawyer, but it's cited in RS such as this and this and the information isn't particularly controversial. Pollard can be a bit Lost-Causey at times, so I want to give the Pollard cites one last check. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am satisfied with the sourcing on this one now. Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheking Pollard edit

As I'd say Pollard is the weakest source used here, and doesn't seem to have been brought up by anyone else, I'll give it a little extra attention. Ref numbers from this revision.

  • 60a - Looks noncontroversial
  • 60b - Checking other sources in my library, vol. 1 of Shelby Foote's trilogy doesn't give a captured cannon total, I didn't see one in vol. 1 of Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants (just says that cannons were taken without saying how many), Glatthaar's General Lee's Army doesn't have a figure, and McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom doesn't either. Sears 2017 p.199 says the Confederates captured "two batteries", while Sears 1991 p. 75 says "The Confederates carried off four of the guns and an ammunition limber; the other six were so deeply bogged in the mud they could not be dragged out"
  • 60c - Material is supported by other cite, as well
  • 108 - Noncontroversial, other cites as well
  • 111 - Ditto to above
  • 119 - Noncontroversial
  • 139 - Noncontroversial
  • 230 - Noncontroversial
  • 233 - Noncontroversial
  • 234a - Noncontroversial
  • 234b - Noncontroversial

So my only real question with Pollard is what to do with the captured cannons. Hog Farm Talk 20:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, thank you very much for your work here. I've replaced the Pollard reference about the cannon with a reference to Sears and changed the information in the article accordingly. [87] Display name 99 (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC was closed with an open oppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, why do you do this to yourself? Anyone can look at the page history and see that isn't true. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing anything to "myself" Gog, thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and active comments, they're still relevant. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:40, 13 October 2021 (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) 13 October 2021 [88].

Tyler Skaggs edit

Nominator(s): — GhostRiver 13:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American baseball player who tragically died two years ago from fentanyl poisoning. This article underwent the good article process back in March. After that, I did a large-scale expansion in order to reach the "comprehensive" criterion, and I tightened the prose in several places as well based on how my writing skills improved between the GA process and preparation for FAC. Once this expansion was complete, this article underwent a thorough copyedit from a member of the GOCE, and I performed several other small tweaks, mostly to the references. All feedback is appreciated, and I hope that this is an enjoyable reading experience about a man's too-short life. — GhostRiver 13:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Famous Hobo edit

Two initial comments:

1) Some more information has come out about the investigation of Eric Kay, here's one of the sources I found. I'm not sure how much information will directly relate to Skaggs, but I think it's important to comb over anyway.

Famous Hobo I've looked over some of the recent information relating to the investigation. Most of it appears to be tangential and is primarily related to Kay, but I added some information about how MLB instituted a new opioid policy, and how the DEA later determined that fentanyl was the primary driver of Skaggs' death. — GhostRiver 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2) This is more of an aesthetic choice, but I'm not a big fan of the lede image. It doesn't show Skaggs' face. I think either [File:Tyler Skaggs (28995932598) (cropped).jpg this] or this would be better.

I have changed the lede image to one of the two that you suggested. I do like the other one, especially because it gives a good glimpse of his jersey number, so I moved it to the appropriate section. — GhostRiver 22:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look over this article a bit more in depth in a day or so. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Famous Hobo, did you still want to add something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose, I don't want to overstep or feel like I'm pushing this FAC through, but it appears that Famous Hobo has only made a handful of sporadic edits in the past month (I count 13 since August 25, with a few gaps). — GhostRiver 22:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No that's fine GR, we like to courtesy ping people but we don't leave things open indefinitely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude - Support edit

  • "but was optioned to the minor leagues in 2013" - what does "optioned" mean in this context? Is there an appropriate link?
    • Added a WL
  • "As a junior in 2008" - what does "a junior" mean in this context? I am guessing it isn't just a synonym for child......
    • Reworded and added the appropriate WL
  • "During his senior season" - what's a "senior season"?
    • Reworded and added the appropriate WL
  • "a scoreless sixth inning of relief" - what's an "inning of relief"?
    • Reworded
  • "and went 8–4" - what does that mean?
    • Clarified
  • "where anchored the team's starting rotation" => "where he anchored the team's starting rotation"
    • Fixed
  • There's a random gap between the refs after "where he pitched eight strikeouts"
    • Fixed
  • "with a 4.34 ERA n his first 12 starts" - the random n should presumably be "in"
    • Fixed
  • "Skaggs was a late scratch" - what does this mean? Sounds painful.......
    • Reworded/clarified
  • "Skaggs continued to suffer from physical pain he managed" => "Skaggs continued to suffer from physical pain which he managed"
    • Fixed
  • "while declaring his changeup "at least an average pitch" that sits between" => "while declaring his changeup "at least an average pitch" that sat between"
    • Fixed
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Looking now....

  • A native of Woodland Hills, California, and a graduate of Santa Monica High School, the Angels selected Skaggs in the first round of the 2009 Major League Baseball draft. - so the subject has changed between the clauses of this sentence, tweak to "A native of Woodland Hills, California, and a graduate of Santa Monica High School, Skaggs was selected by the Angels in the first round of the 2009 Major League Baseball draft."
    • Done
  • Although he was a standout in the Angels' rotation between 2017 and 2019... - I'd say "standout" was a little too casual...."figured prominently" or somesuch
    • Done
  • link hamstring
    • Done
  • Avoid 1-2 sentence paragraphs where possible
    • Done

Looks good on comprehensiveness and prose otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Comments addressed, thank you! — GhostRiver 12:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Sanfranciscogiants17 edit

I thought this was extremely high quality when I reviewed this as a GA. A few comments, but all minor stuff:

  • ”His favorite sport was basketball, and he referred to himself as "not the greatest dribbler but I can shoot".” – “His favorite sport was basketball, about which he described himself as “not the greatest dribbler” but being able to shoot. - Better grammatically.
  • ” In 2008, his junior year of high school, Skaggs had a 1.11 earned run average (ERA), with 89 strikeouts, 44 hits allowed, and 22 walks in 63+1⁄3 innings pitched, enough to receive Player of the Year honors from the Ocean League.” – “In 2008, his junior year of high school, Skaggs was named the Ocean League’s Player of the Year after posting a 1.11 earned run average (ERA) with 89 strikeouts, 44 hits allowed, and 22 walks in 63+1⁄3 innings pitched.”
  • ”As a senior the following year” – “During Skaggs’s senior year” – The way it’s worded right now, it looks like the sentence is saying the scouts were a senior.
  • ”He played 10 Rookie League” – “He pitched 10 Rookie League”
  • ”started in 17 games” – Don’t need in.
  • ”they named Skaggs” – “the league named Skaggs”
  • Player of the Year is capitalized in the high school section, but pitcher of the year is not for 2011. Seems like both of these should be done the same way, for consistency.
  • ”Futures game, but was selected” – “Futures game but was later selected”
  • ”where he pitched eight strikeouts” – “where he recorded eight strikeouts”
  • ”forearm tightness, and was” – No comma needed.
  • ”After pitching the third out” – “After recording the third out”
  • This is probably from a rearranging of the article, but Andrew Heaney needs to be linked in the personal life section and delinked later on. (Corbin is fine, linked on first mention earlier.)
  • ” Skaggs had planned to represent Mexico at the World Baseball Classic before his death” – The next one he could’ve represented Mexico in would be the 2021 Classic, so I would say “Skaggs had planned to represent Mexico at the 2021 World Baseball Classic.” That way, the sentence doesn’t accidentally imply that he planned his death.

Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanfranciscogiants17 All comments have been addressed, thank you! — GhostRiver 13:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks good now! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Will do soon. Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes The Samohi a high-quality RS? It's about us page says it's a high school newspaper written (at least largely) by high schoolers. It is a lot glossier than the high school newspaper I briefly wrote for, but I'm not sure it's enough to
  • Zimmerman 2012 (SB Nation) - I'm not sure about this one. I'll give most pieces by the overall parent site reliability (especially when you get writers like Geoff Schwartz or Jon Bois involved), but as a reader of a couple of the team-specific sites, the quality is all over the place. This ref is one of those team-specific sites. I'd say there's probably a better source for him being called up as the extra player for the doubleheader
  • While I personally read Bleacher Report and think it's fine for my sports news purposes, the scattered discussions in the WP:RSN archives don't look on it highly. I'd recommend removal or starting another RSN discussion about the source
  • The link to the publisher in the Sportscasting source is wrong. Not familiar with that one, but it's only used to cite noncontroversial stats information, so that's probably fine


The breadth of sourcing used is what would be expected for the topic.

Spot checks:

  • "At the end of the season, the Diamondbacks named Skaggs their minor league Pitcher of the Year." - checks out
  • "Going into the 2013 season, Baseball America named Skaggs the 10th overall MLB prospect, and the highest-rated prospect in the Diamondbacks organization" - not seeing where that's stated to be Baseball America's ranking; it looks like MLB.com's ranking
  • "He spent nearly a month on the disabled list before being activated on July 2 to start in a game against the White Sox" - checks out
  • " He made his first major league start since undergoing surgery on July 26, 2016, pitching seven shutout innings in a 13–0 defeat of the Kansas City Royals. The only baserunner of the night was Alcides Escobar, who reached base on a walk" - Source says he also gave up three hits. I'm a Royals fan, and I think I vaguely remember this game
  • "Skaggs went 8–10 for the year, with an overall ERA of 4.02" - checks out
  • "That same year, Mike Newman of FanGraphs proclaimed Skaggs' 72–76 miles per hour (116–122 km/h) curveball the best in Minor League Baseball" - Source says 76-77 mph
  • "He pitched 10 Rookie League innings that season, both in the Arizona League and with the Orem Owlz of the Pioneer League. Between the two teams, Skaggs posted a 1.80 ERA as a rookie" - checks out
  • "Skaggs made his professional baseball debut on August 22, 2009, relieving starting pitcher Fabio Martinez with a scoreless sixth inning for the AZL Angels in a 2–1 win against the AZL Athletics" - checks out
  • "On July 25, 2010, Skaggs was one of several players sent to the Arizona Diamondbacks in exchange for three-time All-Star pitcher Dan Haren. In exchange for Haren, the Diamondbacks received pitcher Joe Saunders, prospects Patrick Corbin and Rafael Rodríguez, and a player to be named later, speculated to be Skaggs."
  • "On June 30, 2019, Skaggs texted Eric Kay, the communications director for the Angels, asking for painkillers. That night, Skaggs did not respond to his wife Carli's good-night text, which she typically sent when he was on the road." - checks out
  • "Angels pitchers Taylor Cole and Félix Peña combined to throw a no-hitter against the Seattle Mariners, winning 13–0. It was the first combined no-hitter in California since July 13, 1991, the day of Skaggs' birth. After the game, the players removed their memorial jerseys and laid them on the mound to honor his memory" - checks out
  • "On December 12, 2019, MLB and the players' union agreed to start regularly testing players for both opioids and cocaine, and to assign players and team staff to mandatory educational programs on the dangers of prescription painkillers" - checks out

The 3/12 rate of issues in the spots checks isn't enough for me to oppose on this, but I would recommend that you go through and check your citations to make sure everything matches, as it is high enough to be concerning. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm I have made a number of fixes.

  • I replaced the Samohi source with one from Santa Monica Daily Press and have tweaked the wording accordingly to match the source
  • I have replaced the SB Nation source with an Arizona Sports citation and have altered the wording accordingly; he ended up pitching in the first game of that doubleheader, and that source does not mention explicitly that the Diamondbacks needed another pitcher
  • I have removed the WL on Sportscasting
  • I have changed Baseball America to MLB.com on the one source
  • I have changed the sentence regarding Escobar accordingly
  • I have changed the speed of his curveball; I believe that was an issue with my dyscalculia more than anything else

Regarding Bleacher Report:

  • I have replaced the source for the 2014 starting rotation with one from the Los Angeles Daily News
  • Although I believe that the Baseball America report mentioned in the second BR reference is important, I have no easy means of accessing the original source due to paywalls and difficulty retrieving printed texts, so it has been removed.
  • I have not removed the two references to the article "What Tyler Skaggs Left Behind." If there has ever been an RS on Bleacher Report, it is this one: the author, Mirin Fader, is a career sportswriter who wrote for The Orange County Register, Los Angeles Daily News, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN before joining the staff of Bleacher Report full-time. She now writes for The Ringer and has published a book through a mainstream publisher. Additionally, this is a longform piece that relies almost completely on interviews with Skaggs' widow and mother, not a sabrmetrics-based piece. That it was published on BR likely has to do with the details of her contract with them at the time, not a deficiency in reliability.

Let me know if there is anything else. — GhostRiver 15:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a couple more spot checks soon, and then this ought to be fine. Hog Farm Talk 16:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After MRI tests revealed a strain to the common flexor tendon of Skaggs' arm, the Angels placed the pitcher on the 15-day disabled list" - checks out
  • "The injury kept him out of the lineup for 14 weeks after he suffered a recurrence of oblique pain shortly before a scheduled rehab assignment in July" - checks out
  • " Santa Monica athletic director Norm Lacy once called Skaggs the school's best baseball player since Tim Leary" - checks out
  • "Of Mexican descent on his mother's side, Skaggs had planned to represent Mexico at the 2021 World Baseball Classic" - checks out

No further issues detected in spot-checking, so pass on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 22:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • I have a pathological dislike of single-sentence paras, the lead opens with one, can we merge?
    • I split it into two instead, which should make each sentence simpler to understand
  • "the minor leagues" link?
    • Added.
  • "Skaggs' " -> Skaggs's
    • I don't believe that this is correct, as multiple articles use "Skaggs'", but changed anyway.
  • Multiple instances of that.
    • See above.
  • "best baseball player since Tim Leary" for people like me, the comparison is meaningless, is there any context which could be added to demonstrate why that comparison is impressive?
    • Added that Leary was a World Series champion.
  • Link outfielder.
    • Done.
  • And pitcher, in the main body.
    • Done.
  • "fastball speed, for instance, had dropped to 88 mph" you mentioned previously that his fastball speed had dropped before but I'm not sure I ever saw what it was at peak?
    • Added the highs and lows of the season, as provided in the article.
  • "by Mike Morin. Morin broke" repetitive.
    • Fixed.
  • "shutout innings " is there a link?
    • The article Shutout (baseball) refers to a complete game shutout, so I changed to "scoreless".
  • "seemed less effective" according to whom?
    • Specified.
  • "the passing of" don't use euphemisms.
    • Changed.
  • "inspired MLB" maybe prompted.
    • Changed.
  • Check refs for consistency, e.g. the use of ESPN or ESPN.com etc seems to vary.
    • They should all read "ESPN" now.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man comments have all been addressed. — GhostRiver 13:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777 edit

I'll review this article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • first round <<<=== I think it's worth clarifying "supplemental first round"
    • Done.
  • Ulnar collateral ligament goes to a disambiguation page. Maybe it should go to Ulnar collateral ligament of elbow joint?
    • Done.
  • Also related to that, I would write it with its abbreviation: "ulnar collateral ligament (UCL)" as that injury is better known by the abbreviation than the technical term.
    • Done.
  • Skaggs opted not to pitch until the 2016 season <<<=== I think that's misleading. He missed the 2015 season because he had Tommy John surgery. Needing >14 months to recover and get back to the majors is typical; he didn't really have a choice. He only opted not to try to get back for the very end of the season.
    • Done.

Early life

  • gridiron football <<<=== I think for an American you can just say "football" (and also link to American football rather than gridiron football)
    • Done.

Minors

  • , Randal Grichuk and Mike Trout, ===>>> : Randal Grichuk and Mike Trout; (for consistency with the pitchers part)
    • Done.
  • both in the Arizona League and with the Orem Owlz of the Pioneer League ===>>> playing in both the Arizona League and with the Orem Owlz of the Pioneer League
    • Done.

Dbacks

  • minor league Pitcher of the Year <<<=== "Minor League" should be capitalized (or none of it should be capitalized)
    • Done.
  • after he was called up ===>>> after Bauer was called up
    • Done.
  • on September 28 <<<=== I think it was September 24 (Also, I think it's this link, but I can't get it to work. It's referenced here, and mentioned here)
    • Changed, although I do not know why the references aren't working. SB Nation is not being used for the reasons described in Hog Farm's source review above.
  • and was ultimately optioned ===>>> , but was ultimately optioned
    • Done.

Angels

  • Arizona received Mark Trumbo <<<=== start a new sentence (otherwise, it doesn't have parallelism.)
    • Done.
  • developing the other pitches in his rotation <<<=== "rotation" isn't correct, "repertoire" or "arsenal" would work.
    • Done.
  • mechanical tweak to his pitching method ===>>> tweak to his pitching mechanics
    • Done.
  • serving alongside Santiago, Jered Weaver, C. J. Wilson, and Garrett Richards <<<=== What does "serving" mean? (This is just the starting rotation, right? If so, specify that he was named to the starting rotation.)
    • Changed.
  • and that the pitcher had been placed ====>> and was placed
    • Done.
  • who broke Skaggs's no-hit bid ===>>> who lost Skaggs's no-hit bid (Hitters break no-hit bids, not pitchers)
    • Done.
  • pitch in a minor league game ===>>> start his rehabilitation in the minor leagues
    • Done.
  • he had begun ===>>> he was able to begin
    • Done.
  • 13–0 defeat of ===>>> 13–0 win against
    • Done.
  • second and third benching ====>>> second and third instances
    • Done.
  • Skaggs gave up 17 runs in 6+2⁄3 innings <<<=== clarify this is two starts
    • Done.
  • Add a footnote that the disabled list was renamed the injured list.
    • Done.
  • Skaggs dominated the Angels' rotation <<<=== "dominated" isn't the right word.
    • Changed.

Pitching

  • Okay.

Personal life

  • Okay.

Death

  • On July 6, 2019, Andrew Heaney became the first Angels pitcher to start after the death of his fellow left-hander. <<<=== What do you mean by this? The Angels played a few games in-between.
    • First home game. Clarified.
  • His first pitch against George Springer of the Houston Astros was Skaggs's signature overhand slow curveball, and it went unchallenged with no swing. <<<=== Re-word to clarify this was intentional, i.e. that Springer knew about the tribute.
    • Done.

Overall

  • I think the section headers are a bit weird. The first LAA section specifies it's only the minors, but the Dbacks header doesn't indicate most of the section is just the minors or that only the shorter last two paragraphs cover the years in the header. I think it might be clearer to start his career with a minor league sub-section header (or just a regular section header?) and then sub-divide with sub-sub-section headers for the Angels and Dbacks. Then, wrap the Dbacks major league section (those last two paragraphs) and the Angels major league section in a major league sub-section (or section) header.
    • This is the part that gives me pause, because I have never seen a baseball article formatted in such a way and in fact have run into issues during GA reviews about splitting in such a way. I would be far more amenable to keeping the headers the way that they are and adding subheads within the Dbacks section for minor leagues/major, as well as potentially adding additional subheads in the second Angels section for before/during/after the Tommy John injury.

Looks like it's in good shape! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777 Addressed everything except for my comment above. — GhostRiver 12:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just minor things,

For the lead, I was also suggesting to make a mention that he had Tommy John surgery (as that's probably more recognizable than just mentioning the UCL injury). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added/clarified.
For Heaney, it wasn't a home game. I think it was just Heaney's first start since Skaggs's death. From the source, "Heaney considered Skaggs his best friend." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified/fixed.
For the headers, splitting the Dbacks with minors/majors sub-section headers could work. But then, switch to 2010–13 for the header? Not having the years in the header match up with the years covered still seems strange to me (I can't find another baseball FA that does that). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. For consistency, I also renamed the first part "Los Angeles Angels organization", and then changed the years in "Return to the Angels" and added appropriate subheads. Let me know what you think.

Sportsfan77777 Additional comments addressed. — GhostRiver 19:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think these headers are much clearer, supporting! Good work!! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: Courtesy ping – this nomination is at five supports, image and source review have been passed, and it's been 7.5 weeks since nomination. Famous Hobo was pinged 2.5 weeks ago, to no response. — GhostRiver 16:00, 13 October 2021 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (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) 10 October 2021 [89].

Operation Transom edit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Transom was one of the most diverse military operations of World War II. Undertaken in mid-May 1944, it involved a fleet made up of ships from six Allied nations (including a British and an American aircraft carrier) that sailed from Ceylon, refuelled in Australia and attacked a city in the Japanese-occupied Netherlands East Indies. The sources are oddly divergent over whether the raid was a success, but all agree that it provided the British with useful exposure to superior American carrier tactics.

I developed this article to GA standard in August 2020, and it passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review last month. It has since been further expanded and improved, and I am hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up the map not using fixed px size
  • File:Carrier_strike_on_Surabaya,_Java_in_May_1944.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:HMS_Illustrious_(87)_steams_past_USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)_in_the_Indian_Ocean_on_18_May_1944_(NNAM.1977.031.085.012).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the link for the first image, and replaced the second as the source database is dead. @Nikkimaria: thanks a lot for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 edit

  • I reviewed this article at A-class and support its promotion to Featured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moisejp edit

I've read through twice and made several minor edits. The prose is excellent and (although I don't know much about the subject) it seems very comprehensive. I support the article's promotion. Moisejp (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

As usual, little to nitpick about here. A few suggestions:

  • "Land-based American heavy bombers struck Surabaya that night and Australian aircraft laid mines in nearby waters." sort of begs the question of where the Australian aircraft came from.
    • Northern Australia - tweaked Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "small British-led Eastern Fleet which was led" could you vary the "led...led"?
  • in this context should British Government→British government?
  • Dutch East Indies→NEI (as previously defined)
  • "Australian aircraft also laid mines" which squadron and where did they fly from?
    • Nos. 11 and 43 Squadrons and Yampi Sound in Western Australia - added Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • should it be "the official historian of the Royal Navy's role in World War II, Stephen Roskill,..."?
  • ditto "The official historian of the overall British effort in South East Asia, Stanley Woodburn Kirby,..."

That's it. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coordinates given in the infobox seem very specific. What's the source for those?
    • They point to the docks at Surabaya, which were the main target of the operation. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ranges should use dashes, even in titles
  • Brown: should publisher be Frontline Books? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed - I had the US publisher for some reason, despite my copy being the UK edition (due to over-reliance on the auto-fill tool in the citation template, I suspect). Thank you for this review. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "on the city's port and the naval base there." Delete "there", as I don't think it's necessary, as the sentence already describes that the naval base is in the city.
  • "The Wonokromo oil refinery located in the city" wikilink to Wonokromo?
  • "The reinforcements which were scheduled to arrive over the next four months would comprise 146 warships." -> "The reinforcements, which were scheduled to arrive over the next four months, would comprise 146 warships." or "The reinforcements scheduled to arrive over the next four months would comprise 146 warships."
    • I've reworked this sentence Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the infobox to ensure the information is in the article and found no concerns.
    • That's always a good thing to check! Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments, a well-written article otherwise. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: thank you for this review. I think that I may have addressed your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comments have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Recusing to review.

  • The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz edit

Hi Nick, as a non-milhist'n I found this easy to understand. I have just a few mos-type suggestions...

  • and that the Indian Ocean would be a subsidiary theatre - move wlink to first mention (first sentence in para above)
  • a water distilling ship and - is wlink intentional ie not to distilling ship?
    • I didn't know we had an article on that topic! Linked. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • kept them at least 600 miles (970 km) from Japanese airfields - why? is that an out of range thing?
    • Yes, that's right. I've added this. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • times (6:30 am, 7:20 am, 8:30 am, 10:50 am, 3:00 pm) - add nbspaces per mos
  • flying off point - add hyphen?
    • Searching Google Books indicates that British English works don't have a hyphen here. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • reached Bremerton, Washington on 10 June - geocomma after Washington
  • and ... severe destruction -nbsp ellipsis
  • a 1990 work by Edywn Gray - typo Edwyn, plus add wlink and authorlink
  • photo reconnaissance aircraft - hyphen?
  • Illustrious's usual air wing v Illustrious' crew farewelling - consistent possessive
  • from the Allied landing on Wakde island v the Allied landing at Wakde Island off - consistent cap on island
  • categories - none for Ops involving US?

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2021 (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) 9 October 2021 [90].

D. H. Turner edit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A curator and scholar, D. H. Turner spent the better part of his life at the British Museum and British Library, where he focused on liturgical studies and illuminated manuscripts; fittingly, the few years of his career spent elsewhere included time at an abbey. His work included several major exhibitions and loans, including sending the Gospels of Tsar Ivan Alexander to Bulgaria, the Moutier-Grandval Bible to Switzerland, and a copy of Magna Carta to the United States.

This article builds on the available sources about Turner's life and publications, and manages to be exhaustive while not overly long. It was given a good-article review by J Milburn in 2018; more recently, I have dug deep for reviews of Turner's publications and works discussing his impact, and added what is there. It is now ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Image licensing looks ok (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Wehwalt edit

  • "and in succeeding years helped loan several medieval manuscripts for the first time in half a millennium" Instead of "helped loan", perhaps "helped arrange the loan of"? After all, he did not do the loaning himself.
  • Done.
  • "Through his work the Gospels of Tsar Ivan Alexander returned to Bulgaria for the first time since the 1300s, and the Moutier-Grandval Bible returned to Switzerland, its home throughout the Middle Ages." Given the discussion re returning certain museum or library items to their countries of origin, I'd clarify that these were loans.
  • Clarified.
  • "From assistant keeper he rose to deputy keeper." Can more be stated about what this means? If this is a considerable advancement, the accomplishment may be lost on the reader.
  • I've looked around, but haven't found anything that really lays it out. I understand that assistant keeper is an entry-level position, and keeper is the head of the department, but I'm not sure how high up the ladder "deputy keeper" is.
  • "universities of Cambridge and East Anglia." you are not consistent on capitalisation of this phrase the two times you use it.
  • Capitalized.
  • "He followed up the former work " haven't you just listed three? It's hard to understand what "former" means in that regard.
  • Changed "the former work" to "the first book".
  • "leading to the loan of Magna Carta to Washington, D.C. for the 1976 United States Bicentennial celebrations" was the document loaned to the City of Washington or to some institution such as the Smithsonian? Similar on Sophia.
  • It was at the United States Capitol; added a couple sources and some more information. On the other hand, I haven't been yet able to find where the Gospels of Tsar Ivan Alexander were displayed. I'll keep looking, though, since sources undoubtedly exist. Per Backhouse and Jones 1987, the loan was accompanied by "a blaze of nationalistic publicity."
  • "and introduced her to the exhibition and loans of manuscripts." Should loans be loan?
  • I'm really not sure. "introduced her to the exhibition" sounds correct, in that "the exhibition" is used as "the practice of exhibiting." But I don't think "the loan" can really mean "the practicing of loaning." Maybe it should be "the exhibition and loaning of manuscripts"?
  • " the British Museum and later Library" "came at the museum and library" Are these consistent?
  • I think so; my intention, at least, was for the former to be proper nouns and the latter to be common (improper?) nouns. But I could be persuaded otherwise.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wehwalt. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

  • Following several years spent working at a hospital and living at an Anglican Benedictine abbey – were these years concurrent or sequential? Not clear.
  • Probably sequential; according to the source, "Between [his 195 graduation] and his arrival at the British Museum, where he took up his post as Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts on 3 December 1956, he undertook a period of hospital work and tried his vocation in the Anglican Benedictine community at Nashdom Abbey in Buckinghamshire. At Nashdom his incipient interest in liturgical studies was encouraged, not least by daily practice, and he came into contact with Dom Anselm Hughes, doyen of specialists in the history of medieval music." How does "Following several years spent at a hospital and at an Anglican Benedictine abbey" sound instead?
  • the move occasioned only by the deaccession of the museum's library elements in favour of the new institution – this would be better if written in plain English. I imagine it means that the stuff was moved from the BM to the BL, in which case it would be as well to say so clearly.
  • coauthor of the paper – the OED hyphenates "co-author".
  • Done.
  • the Chair of Palaeography at King's College London – does chair of palaeography need Capital Letters?
  • Nope.
  • analyzed a set – unexpected –ize ending in a BrE article (though we know the OUP is still to catch up with modern –ise use).
  • Changed.
  • repurposing as teaching material – rather a posh term for "reusing"?
  • There's not a huge difference between the two, but I think "prepurposing" is slightly more precise. It suggests a change in use, not just a second use.
  • He also assumed the chairmanship – sounds a touch usurpative put like that – he was appointed, presumably
  • Changed to "undertook", which is the word the source uses. Haven't been able to find another record of the positions (e.g., proceedings of the organizations), although I assume you are correct that it was an appointment.
  • and him with it – not sure the accusative will do here: him wasn't subsumed: he was.
  • Changed.
  • responsibility over loans – does one have responsibility over things rather than for them?
  • Changed (there was one above, too).
  • Turner helped author – what a horrible word! What's wrong with a plain English "write"?
  • Changed, although I'd be curious to know what you find so objectionable about "helped author"? The OED, for its part, records usage of "author" as a verb going back to 1597.
  • The OED comments "This usage has been objected to by some commentators", and quite right too. Shakespeare, never a man to be shy of turning nouns into verbs, managed without "authoring" or "to author". I haven't got the current edition of Fowler to hand, but in the third edition (1996) Burchfield says that the use of "author" as a verb is found in America, but "does not find any kind of acceptance in the quality newspapers, or in literary works, in Britain". Plain Words points out that nouns such as "contact", "feature", "glimpse" and "sense" have been turned into verbs, but continues, "loan, gift and author were verbs centuries ago and are now trying to come back again after a long holiday, spent by loan in America, by gift in Scotland and by author in oblivion. These have not yet succeeded, presumably because they compete with the established alternatives lend, give and write." Here endeth the Epistle of Timothy. (Well, you did ask.) – Tim riley talk 07:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • interacting with the Foreign Office – wasn't it the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by then?
  • dignitaries including Lord Elwyn-Jones and Queen Elizabeth II – with all due respect to his Lordship, it looks a bit odd to tack the Queen on after him, whatever the chronological order of their viewing the thing.
  • I was saving the best for last, but I take your point. Queen Elizabeth II now appears before our man Elwyn.
  • he helped loan … he helped lend – I think consistency would be nice here, preferably standardising on the latter.
  • Done.
  • several months leave – several months' leave?
  • Done.
  • keeper of manuscripts Daniel Waley – a clunky false title
  • Added a "the" at the beginning.

Those are my few comments on the prose. The actual content seems to me top notch. Tim riley talk 20:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the close look, Tim riley. I enjoyed reading your comments (and adjusting accordingly). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A fine article, which in my view meets all the FA criteria. It appears comprehensive, balanced and proportionate, is well and widely sourced, appropriately illustrated and a pleasure to read. If I may be permitted an afterthought, I think "Bibliography" for the list of books you cite is perhaps not ideal: some people would use the term for the list of the subject's own books, and given the (very minor) scope for confusion I'd be inclined to call the list "Sources" or some such. I do not press the point in the least. – Tim riley talk 07:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harry edit

  • D. H. Turner was born on 15 May 1931 If it was me, I'd give either his full name or just his surname here. The article title is his initials and his full name is given in the lead, so surname only is probably preferable, much as my username would suggest I empathise with the two initials and surname!
  • Done. If an article on you someday makes it onto this site, however, we may have to make an exception!
  • Maybe specify where Northampton is for readers not familiar with English geography? "Northampton, England" is not very helpful. "in the English Midlands" or "in central England" would be my suggestion.
  • Went with "in central England".
  • subsumed into the British Library, and him with it suggest "Taylor" instead of "him" just for an abundance of clarity
  • I'm not sure that calling him "Taylor" would clear things up. But kidding aside, I think it's fairly clear already, given that nobody else is named or mentioned in that sentence.
  • lifelong refusal to cross the Atlantic do we know why?
  • The sources don't say why.
  • Is it not a little redundant to list the author name in a list of his publications?

I've tried to avoid duplicating Tim above, but your usual high standard and Tim's attention to detail have left me slim pickings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, HJ Mitchell. Appreciate the comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, just to state the obvious! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Iazyges edit

  • Backhouse, Janet is linked twice.
  • Not sure if you're talking about in the text (where she also had a duplicate link) or in the bibliography. I removed the duplicate from the text. As to the bibliography, it's generally my practice to have a new link per citation.
  • Warburg Institute is already linked as the publisher, so probably no need to have two links within the same citaiton pointing to the same page.
  • Is there a reason why "Hartzell, Karl Drew" is given as 1989 instead of December 1989?
  • Cambridge lists it as December 1989, but I don't see December listed anywhere in the front matter (available here).
  • For "Lynch, Joseph" the JSTOR page gives a date of January 1982, rather than February 1967.
  • Whoops. Fixed.
  • "Prescott, Andrew" uses the ISBN for the 1997 edition, rather than the 1988 edition; use ISBN 978-0-585-19928-3 instead.
  • Fixed.
  • Thanks for the source review, Iazyges! Responses above. One note on ISBNs: WP:ISBN advises that "if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type." As a result, I've gone with the 10-digit versions in this article; the latest work with an ISBN is from 1988, and 13-digit ISBNs were not issued until 2007. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Usernameunique, article passes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review

  • "met the medieval music specialist Dom Anselm Hughes." If Hughes is notable enough to mention in this article, then he's probably notable enough for an article and should be wikilinked. Otherwise, remove this sentence as unnecessary detail.
  • "Particularly while an assistant keeper he also focused on scholarship, seeing many articles published and teaching part-time at the Universities of Cambridge and East Anglia." -> "While assistant keeper he also focused on scholarship, published many articles and teaching part-time at the Universities of Cambridge and East Anglia." to tighten up the language.
  • Per the below, the sentence has been removed.
  • "Including two bequests by Perrins, and eight purchases at a collective and below market £37,250, the museum acquired ten of the collection's 154 manuscripts." -> The museum acquired ten of the collection's 154 manuscripts, including two bequests by Perrins and eight purchases at a collective and below market £37,250." This starts the sentence with a noun, a structure usually preferred in English.
  • Done.
  • The first paragraph in Career is repeating information that is stated in the next two sections, and reads more like a lede. It should be deleted, in my opinion.
  • Fair enough, removed.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when they have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Z1720. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2021 (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) 9 October 2021 [91].

Power Mac G4 Cube edit

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 90s, Apple Computer was on the brink of bankruptcy, until they brought back old cofounder Steve Jobs. Jobs relentlessly pruned Apple's product line and brought the company back to prosperity. But in between the saga of hits like the iMac and the iPod... there was the Power Mac G4 Cube, a commercial failure so sudden that the product was discontinued barely a year later, and remained arguably one of Jobs' greatest missteps in his time back at Apple. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited Apple-related topics for nearly three years, with my familiarity, can I consult for the position co-nominator to help since I have yet not contribute significantly to this particular article. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, co-nominators are expected to have made significant contributions and to have been invited by the primary nominator. Graham Beards (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • small form factor Macintosh personal computer - can we reword avoid three links together like this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • at customers in between - I don't think this means anything, clarify. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power - could probably say how much it was marketed at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like some of the stats, dimensions, release date and weight would be useful for the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • gives the impression the computer is floating[according to whom?] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The technical words (RAM, optical disk, hard drive) need linking Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A higher-end model was available only through Apple's online store - and what was this model? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what is normal about these articles, but would specifications not be more suitable under overview? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • . "I wanted the [flat-panel] Cinema Display but I don't need the features of the PowerMac," he told Newsweek. + can we have the source where he says this directly after the citation (the sentence)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • displays and peripherals "[they] create - there's something missing in this sentence, as it doesn't read right Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • product matrix - a what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • specced-up consumer iMac - is specced-up a word? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 500 MHz model and added new memory, hard drive, and graphics options. - I'd like to know what these are earlier in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • having aesthetic flaws turned into a negative public relations story for Apple, as well as turning off potential buyers for whom the aesthetics - you use "aesthetics" a lot - could you maybe use a synonym? You use it twice in this sentence alone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macworld wrote that consumers treated the Cube as "an underpowered... Did we have an author for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jobs' ability - as much as I hate it, should be Jobs's per MOS:POSSESSIVE Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the item didn't sell well due to the price, it's surprising we don't have the amount in the article at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Lee Vilenski, I think I've addressed most of the above. In retards to mentioning the price, I'm following WP:NOTSALE, which recommends against pricing unless it's integral to the subject in sources, and in general I didn't find that to be the case in coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments by Sdkb edit

Hi David! I don't think I'm going to get to more than the lead, but a few comments:

  • The way that the Power Mac G4 Cube is referred to in short varies in the first paragraph, with "the Cube", "the product", and "the machine" all making appearances. Being more intentional about terms used and not being afraid to just use "it" might help a bit with making the prose flow. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On release, the Cube won awards and plaudits for its design. Reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power, its limited expandability, and cosmetic defects. This might be better as a single sentence with "but" as a conjunction. Also, it confused me a little to hear that it was praised for its design but criticized for cosmetic defects, which I'd think would count as part of the design. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The product was an immediate commercial failure; made it a rare failure for the company; Despite its lack of success with consumers There's a lot of redundancy here that re-wording might be able to eliminate. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Museum of Modern Art holds a G4 Cube Lots of old computers are held in museums. I'm not seeing why this one being in the Met is noteworthy enough to be due for the lead. Also, the along with its distinctive Harman Kardon transparent speakers feels wedged in there—if it's an important enough design element to warrant covering in the lead, it should be mentioned along with the other design stuff. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that helps, and best of luck with the nomination! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey Sdkb, thanks for the comments. I've made tweaks to all of the above. The only thing I'm iffy on is whether to cut the MoMa reference; it generated news coverage from papers like the NY Times when it happened, which I feel demonstrates that it wasn't a usual thing (certainly back then), and it also ties into the notions of how it was a beautiful product that just didn't have a practical demo for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I read the article, and while I certainly see why it's in the body, I'm still not quite sold on it for the lead. Ultimately, though, I'm just here for quick comments following your Discord invite, not to !vote support or oppose, so no worries if you ignore any of my suggestions where you have a different view. If you're looking for reviews to do yourself, I have a pre-FAC peer review open here. Best wishes with this FAC! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wingwatchers edit

@David Fuchs:

  • "sold by Apple Computer Inc" The company was now simply as Apple Inc, for "sold", suggest changing it to "developed and marketed" for more details
  • Overuses of "the Cube", consider changing some to "it"
  • "Apple's designers developed new technologies and production techniques to create the product", removed that, every company do that everytime for innovation, don't you agree?
  • Overuses of "Apple", suggest switching some to "the company"
  • Grammatical grasp needed further imporvemnets and maybe copyedit, for example: "born", recommended "drew inspiration"
  • No details was available for the release date, to announced a product was different than releasing it to public

Wingwatchers (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty and replied to these comments here [92]. If the nominator disagrees, please ignore me. Graham Beards (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graham. I would agree that the changes were not a net improvement. As to the above, I'm not sure the comments above demonstrate that WW has a strong enough grasp of the English language to improve the text beyond its current state. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

I made a few edits rather than list nit-picks here. Please feel free to revert them if they are not helpful.-Graham Beards (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

CommentsSupport by Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "The Power Mac G4 Cube is a small form factor personal computer, sold by Apple Computer, Inc. between July 2000 and 2001." I don't think the comma after personal computer is needed.
  • "the Cube was born from Apple CEO" -> the Cube was conceived by Apple CEO, to remove an idiom (Jobs did not literally give birth to this)
  • "to give the impression the computer is floating." -> to give the impression that the computer is floating.
  • "The machine has no fan to move air, and thus heat, through the case." I had to read this a couple times to figure out what is meant. Perhaps, "The machine does not have a fan to move air and heat through the case."
  • "the high price might spell the product's failure." -> the high price might cause the product's failure, to remove another idiom
  • "Macworld found the touch-sensitive power button too sensitive and that they accidentally activated sleep mode regularly, and reported that the stock 5400-rpm hard drive and 64 MB of RAM on the base model slowed the system considerably." Recommend splitting this into two sentences, as this contains two separate critiques of the product.
  • Is " Kahney, Leander" Leander Kahney?
  • "Cook, Tim" should probably be wikified, even though he is mentioned in the article already.
  • Is "Levy, Steven" Steven Levy?
  • Is "Muschamp, Herbert" Herbert Muschamp?
  • The infobox mentions that this is part of the "Power Mac" product family, but I don't see that information in the article.
  • Lede says, "The Power Mac G4 Cube is a small form factor" where is this information cited in the article body?
  • Lede says, "Apple positioned the Cube in the middle of its product range, between the consumer iMac G3 and the professional Power Mac G4." Where is this information in the article body?
    • It's discussed where Jobs is talking about his desires for the computer and later in how it stacks up against the iMac and Power Macs, but I've made it a bit less oblique of a mention.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Z1720. I believe I've addressed the above, and responded inline where I thought it was relevant. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, I support. Z1720 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • fn 11: page number required
  • fn 15: PC Magazine Australia (correct title) is missing ISSN (1329-3532)
  • fn 16, 26: MacWorld Missing ISSN (0741-8647)
  • fn 28 says MacUser but actually MacWorld?
  • Sources are high quality and appropriate. fn 31 is a blog, but expert - okay
  • Spot checks: 3a, 21, 22, 24, 29, 38 - all okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye7 for the look. I believe I've fixed all the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:02, 7 October 2021 (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) 9 October 2021 [93].

German destroyer Z39 edit

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a German destroyer that served in WW2. This article has been to FAC twice so far, failing first due to sourcing issues, and secondly due to lack of reviews. I believe this article is at FAC standards after major improvements made after the first review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Z39-Zerstoerer1936modA-USN-Photo.jpg: the source gives a courtesy credit for this image - who is that person? Ditto File:Captured_German_destroyer_Z39_underway_off_Boston_on_22_August_1945.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution to Robert F. Sumrall, US Navy, has been added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "she laid numerous barrages of mines" - is there a possible link for barrage? I don't think this meaning is particularly well-known
    Strangely enough, no. The various Wikipedia articles only describe specific barrages, such as Naval mine linking to some. Wiktionary for Barrage doesn't directly refer to naval barrages, only indirectly by mentioning explosives/projectiles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the period after "Transferred to the French Navy" in the infobox
    Done.
  • Per MOS:SECTIONHEAD; Destroyer Function should be Destroyer function
    Done.
  • " the average size Allied ships" - size of?
    Fixed.
  • To me, the structure of the background section feels awkward. It starts off by discussing specific WW2 tactics, then two sections of more general worldwide and German naval background. I'd recommend moving that first section about WW2 destroyer tactics to after the Plan Z section
    Done.
  • Link Plan Z somewhere
    Done.
  • "22 battleships (two), seven carriers (none), 22 heavy cruisers (four), 61 light cruisers (six), 255 destroyers (34)" - add some ship type links here. In particular, I doubt that most readers will know the difference between a light and heavy cruiser
    All but destroyers and submarines are linked in the first sentence of this paragraph; I've added links to those two. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't ship class mentioned in the design section?
    Fixed.
  • Any of the sources say anything about why the Greek coat of arms of all things was on the ship?
    I can see if new sources have come out or if I've missed something; I think a source that didn't pass WP:V stated that it was because the Greek royal family was, indirectly, "German" by way of being related to the Danish royal family who was related to a Holstienian noble family; it seems possible given that the Germans had a simultaneously wide and narrow definition of German (per their roving band of Aryans accomplishing everything good in history). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fourteen 3.7 cm (1.5 in) guns" - single or twin?
    Fixed.
  • "Koop & Schmolke 2003, pp. 42–42." - This page range is malformed. And there's been a tag into the article about this page range being malformed since 2020. This should have been addressed before this was taken to FAC
    Fairly embarrassing. I do not personally own the book; unfortunately, my university library does not quite match the beast that is the Houston Public Library, so I've put in an interlibrary loan. Will resolve as soon as it arrives. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I was able to find a copy online; ref fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox specifies that the boilers were water-tube boilers; this isn't specified in the body. As not all boilers are water-tube boilers, this should be directly clarified in the body
    Fixed; good catch. The link on boiler currently points to water-tubed boiler, have removed the pipe so the text itself speaks to water-tube boilers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a ship expert, so I may wrong, but the infobox gives the completion date as the commissioning date. But wouldn't "and Z39 was not fully operational until 7 January 1944" be the completion date?
    You are correct; fixed.
  • "After these changes, she began minelaying operations in the Skagerrak and the Kattegat until March when she was transferred to Reval off the Gulf of Finland" - can we have a more specific date for this? This could be read to suggest that this happened right after the Project Barbara work; but surely this wouldn't have happened until after the commissioning. The chronology isn't clear here
    Added.
  • Is there a map that can be added to the German service? It's really hard for me as a non-European to have the foggiest idea where these various bays and islands are located
    Haven't been able to find one; I've put a request in with the Wikimap cult Project. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the oil shortage affect Z39 in any way? It's mentioned, but no consequences of it are really mentioned, although it seems like running low on oil would mess up your naval fleet movements
    It definitely did, but I didn't find a source to actually say this, several sources mention other ships and units being kept in port due to lack of oil, but I can't really extend that to Z39 without it constituting OR, I believe. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerhard Koop, Klaus-Peter Schmolke (p. 114) mentions Z33 and other Swinemünde based ships, I can't get a full view of the page with Google preview, however; must wait for it to arrive. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading items should generally be relevant to the specific subject - are O'Brien and Zaloga really relevant to this subject, or just general works on WWII
    Removed.
  • For consistency with how you format the other refs, drop the usage of Annapolis, Md. to just Annapolis
    Done.
  • Pae 218 here gives the more specific date of November 1947 for the transfer to France
    Added.

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: implemented all the fixes, the only thing left is to attempt to find more information on oil shortage effects, and see if anyone is willing to create a map for her operations. Will hope and pray for information regarding the usage of the Greek coat of arms, but its unlikely. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It would be preferable if material for the oil shortage could be found, but I understand if it just isn't possible. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthyovenator edit

Will take a look and review soon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is excellent. Since I'm not very knowledgeable in this area I just have some minor points and questions:

  • The fourth and fifth sentences in the lead both start with "She". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed
  • The ship was part of the French navy for substantially longer than either the German or American ones, but I presume Z39 is still the most common name used (and not the later French designation)?
    Yes; additionally, it seems like an unwritten rule (or perhaps it is written somewhere) that whatever the most important role of the ship is, is the name most sources and articles will use. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the end of World War One, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, which put strict limits both on the size and displacement of warships that she could possess. are countries typically referred to as "she"? Why not "... warships that the country could possess."? I see that you've continued to gender Germany later as well so maybe I'm just confused about this since I'm not a native English speaker.
    Most countries are actually referred to as she in English, however, Germany could theoretically use gender-neutral (in its own language it is, from what I've heard), or masculine, as it is a Fatherland, unlike most countries. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The more you know! Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erich Raeder, the Grand Admiral of the Kriegsmarine, was assured by Hitler that war would not start until at least 1945. Raeder had wanted the deadline for the completion of Plan Z to be extended to 1948, but Hitler insisted on 1945. World War Two began in 1939, meaning that very few of Germany's heavy ships were finished at that point. Was Raeder assured in 1939 that the war would not start until 1945? Surely Hitler must have been aware that the war would start much sooner at this point given that it started later that year? Would be nice with more insight on this but I understand if it might be out of the scope of this article.
    Yeah, he did actually make this promise in either late 1938 or early 1939. To my understanding, the Germans were fully ready to go to war over the annexation of the Sudetenland, but after the British and French folded on that, they pretty much thought they could do whatever they wanted as long as it wasn't a direct attack on France, Belgium, or England. Hitler did think it would be 1942 before war broke out between them and England/France, which I've now added to the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stuff. So still a d*ck move to tell Raeder that they weren't planning to go to war until 1945. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but this is also the man who intentionally put 2-3 people into effectively one position, so they'd fight, and he'd see who won and was therefore the greatest Warrior Aryan, or something to that effect. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichthyovenator: Believe I have responded to all of your comments/suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright edit

@Iazyges: Is the article written using British or American English? Pendright (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: It should, in theory, use American English. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: Thank you - back shortly. Pendright (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Yes! Pendright (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: The article has the {{use British English|date=March 2020}} template, so if it is to be written in American English, should this be changed to {{use American English}}? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's my bad, this article uses British English because a lot of the sources do; I didn't have it tagged on the talk page and didn't check the article itself so I had assumed it was American English. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the article to American English. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: I leave you with more than a few comments. You'll note that many of them are of the type that would have been corrected in a routine copyedit. In any event, I look forward to your responses and stand ready to answer any questions you may have. Pendright (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will say that the article did get a copy edit by our esteemed friend User:Twofingered Typist in 2020, although the article has changed somewhat since.
<>My apology to each of you. Pendright (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Her anti-aircraft armament was increased extensively during the war.
anti-aircraft -> antiaircraft
Not done, Antiaircraft is a much rarer use, and I think all but maybe Chicago MOS in American English would overwhelmingly use Anti-aircraft.
<>Could you be a bit more specific?
Anti-aircraft is almost overwhelmingly used by sources, people, etc; antiaircraft isn't necessarily wrong so much as odd; the Chicago MOS is notably the most hostile to usage of hyphens in general, but I think even they would use anti-aircraft. The LA Times mentions this example specifically. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<->To the case in point, when the word antiaircraft is used particularily in connection with guns or armaments the word is unhyphenated in publications authored by Norman Freeman, U.S. Destroyers - 2004 and John C. Reilly, Jr., U.S. Navy Destroyers of World War II - 1983. In the scheme of things the hyphen is insignificant, so I yield to your preference, but without necessarily agreeing with it. Pendright (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She served [the navies] with a total of three different countries: from 1943 to 1945 with the Kriegsmarine as Z39, from 1945 to 1947 with the US Navy as DD-939, and from 1948 to 1964 with the French Navy as Q-128.
  • Consider the above suggested changes
Done.
  • Throughout her German [service] career, she laid numerous barrages [(concentrated efforts over a wide area)] of mines in the Baltic Sea and bombarded Soviet forces several times.
Consider the above changes
Did change career service, added (explosives concentrated over a wide area), for clarity. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last months of the war, Z39 helped escort steamships, which were evacuating German soldiers and civilians from Eastern Europe to Denmark.
Replace the comma and which with that
Done
  • She was damaged twice, once by Soviet planes while in Paldiski, and then by British planes, while in Kiel.
  • Drop te comma after Paldiski
  • Done.
  • Drop the comma after the second planes
  • Done.

Interbellum:

  • Following the end of World War One, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, which put strict limits both on the size and displacement of warships that she could possess.
  • "World War One" -> World War I or the First World War
  • Replace the comma and which with the word that
  • Done.
  • Several negative consequences resulted from this, however, such as making them slower and overweight.
  • Consider dropping "however"
Done.
  • Were they slower because of being overweight?
Largely, but not entirely. Don't think I could get WP:V source to say this, but German destroyers, in general, were supposed to be fast, partly because British destroyers tended to be slow, and a bunch of destroyers that were significantly faster than a cruiser while bearing similar armaments would truly dominate the seas. Great idea, but the engines didn't really work out great. Part of the slowness comes from the over-engineering of the engine, I believe. Source does say slower, so I'm in favor of keeping it unless one will give me enough to expound upon it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although German heavy destroyers matched British light cruisers in armament, they were much less seaworthy, and had far worse facilities for control and use of their guns.[3]
Drop the comma after seaworthy
Done.
  • As a result of the treaty, Germany felt that her ships could not compete with those of the Allied navies and began to ignore the treaty, at first covertly, and later openly after Hitler publicly denounced it.
If this is the first mention of Hiller, then his name and title should be spelled out, including the date on which he openly denounced the treaty.
Done.

Plan Z:

  • Plan Z was a German naval re-armament plan, [that] started in 1939, which [and] involved building ten battleships, four aircraft carriers, twelve battlecruisers, three pocket battleships, five heavy cruisers, forty-four light cruisers, sixty-eight destroyers, and 249 submarines.
  • Done.
  • re-armament -> rearmament
  • Consider the above suggested changes
  • Done.
  • These ships were to [form] be split into two battle fleets: a "Home Fleet", to tie down the British war fleet in the North Sea, and a "Raiding Fleet", to wage war upon British convoys.[4]
  • Consider the above suggested changes
  • Done.
  • "tie down" is usually hyphenated?
As a noun it is hyphenated, as a verb I don't think so. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Tie-down is a noun, period, but tie is a verb. Pendright (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tie-down is used as its meaning related to literal tying down using ropes, but usage to mean a metaphorical restriction is largely unhyphenated, such as in articles like Operation Mars, and Rolls-Royce 40mm Cannon.
<-> I used the meaning given in the New Oxford Engrlsh Dictionary, but we have kicked this around enough so I yield to your preference.Pendright (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erich Raeder, the Grand Admiral of the Kriegsmarine, was assured by Hitler that war would not start until at least 1945.
This seems to be the first mention of Hilter, so give his full name and title.
Not done, accomplished above.
<>Sorry for this duplication! Pendright (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War Two began in 1939, meaning that very few of Germany's heavy ships were finished at that point
  • World War two -> World War II or the Second World War
  • Done.
  • "were finished -> would be finished
  • Done.
  • Compared to the number [of ships] Germany had upon entry [into the war,] (in parentheses) they had: 22 battleships (two), seven carriers (none), 22 heavy cruisers (four), 61 light cruisers (six), 255 destroyers (34), 135 submarines (57, of which less than half could actually serve in the Atlantic or the North Sea).
Consider the above suggested changes?
Done.

Destroyer function:

  • During World War Two, destroyers served three basic functions: to act as screening ships to defend their fleets from those of an enemy; to attack an enemy's screening ships; and to defend their fleet from submarines.[8]
  • During World War Two-> same as above
  • Done.
  • In other lists commas were used, in this one it's semicolons?
 Fixed I will attribute this strangeness to my evolution as a writer.
Since this is about the role of destroyers in general, could it be beefed-up a bit giving a reader a sense of the value of these fast, maunverabe, and long-endurance warships
Done
  • Germany relied on a massive fleet of trawlers which had been requisitioned and re-fitted as minelayers instead.
  • change which to that
  • Done.
  • re-fitted -> refitted
  • Done.
  • requisitioned from ...?
The source doesn't say, but, being Nazi Germany, likely whoever they wanted it from.
  • The role of the destroyer began to vary more widely as the war progressed.
Could the role change be briefly described?
Done.

Design and armament:

  • Before her Project Barbara modifications to improve the anti-aircraft capabilities of German ships, she was armed with: seven 2 cm (0.8 in) anti-aircraft (AA) guns, two twin 3.7 cm SK C/303.7 cm (1.5 in) anti-aircraft guns,[a] a twin 15-centimetre (5.9 in) L/48 gun on a forward turret,[b] two single 15-centimetre (5.9 in) L/48 guns in a gunhouse aft, two quadruple 53.3 cm (21 in) torpedo tubes, and 60 mines.
  • Drop the word her
  • Done.
  • Anti-aircraft -> misspelled twice
  • Not dohne.
<>Same as above - Pendright (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She had the Greek coat of arms on either side of her 15-centimetre (6 in) twin turret.[12]
Anything new here?
Not sure what this means? No, it's not a new gun, if that's what you're asking.
<>Is there a reason why a Greek phrase is on a German warship?
No one is really sure why they slapped the Greek coat of arms on it; sources don't even bother to speculate. It may be related to the Greek royal family being vaguely German by way of relation to Danish royal family, but I cant find a source to say that.
  • Her propulsion system consisted of six Wagner water-tube boilers [that generated and feed] feeding high-pressure superheated steam (at 70 atm (1,029 psi; 7,093 kPa) and 450 °C (842 °F)) to two sets of Wagner geared steam turbines.[16][17]
Consider the above suggested changes
Done.
  • Z39's sensor suite (housing) included a FuMO 21 radar [that] , which, was placed on the ship's bridge, and four FuMB4 Sumatra aerials on the foremast searchlights.[c]
Consider the above suggested changes
Done.
  • She also had several other radars and radar detectors, including a FuMB 3 Bali and FuMO 81 Berlin-S on her masthead, and a FuMO 63 Hohentweil K.[20]
Drop the comma after masthead.
Done.
  • She also had a degaussing cable which [that] wrapped around the entire ship, but was covered by her spray deflector.
Consider the above suggested change
Done.

Service history:

  • Z39 was ordered on 26 June 1939, laid down by Germaniawerft in Yard G629 in Kiel on 15 August 1940, launched on 2 December 1941, and was commissioned on 21 August 1943.
  • Change the first in to at
  • Done.
  • Drop the comma after 1941
  • Done.
  • At some point between her launching and commissioning, she was modified under Project Barbara, with the addition of three pairs of 3.7 cm (1.5 in) anti-aircraft guns, one pair forward of her bridge, one pair abreast after her funnel, and one pair abreast forward of her funnel.
ant-aircraft -> sp?
<>Same as above - Pendright (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this means.
<>? Pendright (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't sure what the "sp" means, was it a suggestion to remove the hyphen as before?
<-> Yes - Pendright (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She had a pair of quadruple 2 cm (0.8 in) guns and a pair of single 2 cm (0.8 in) guns added to an extended deckhouse in her No. 3 gun position.[13]
"at the" No, 3 gun position
Done.

German service:

  • After this move, she served in the 6th Destroyer Flotilla, alongside German destroyers Z25, Z28, and Z35.[2
  • After the move to Reval,
  • Done.
  • Add the definite article after alongside
Done.
  • Between 12 and 13 February Z39 laid mines in the "Dorothea A" barrage, alongside two other destroyers and three minelayers.[28
Change alonside to along with
Done.
  • While [in] at port [at] in Kiel on 24 July, she was hit by a bomb when the British [Royal Air Force] air force bombed Kiel [Harbor] Harbour, causing damage to ]the] her quarterdeck and [was required] leading to her having to be towed back to Swinemünde.
Consider the above suggested changes
Done.
  • Z44 [was] had been damaged in an air raid on 29 July while in [at] Bremen and sunk [yet] so that only her superstructure remained above water and Z45 was being built.[34]
  • Consider the above changes
  • Done.
  • "and Z45 was being built" -> How does this relate?
They stole parts off of her to rebuild Z39; it's a status on the two that got eaten to fix Z39.
  • Z39 [was] had been repaired enough to be seaworthy on 28 February 1945 and was ordered to sail to Copenhagen for more extensive repairs, however, due to Nazi Germany's [shortage] lack of fuel, she sailed to Sassnitz instead.[29]
    Done.
  • During [At] this time, the Kriegsmarine, which had always dealt with shortages in [of] oil, reached critically low levels of oil supply.
Consider the above suggested changes
Done.
  • On 25 March, [the] repairs on Z39 [were] finished while she was in Swinemünde; she resumed operations on 1 April.
    Done.
  • From 5 April to 7 April, she escorted transports and [some] parts of Task Force Thiele around the Bay of Danzig.[29]
    Done.
  • On 10 April she and T33 [(torpedo boat)] escorted the German destroyer Z43, which had sustained damage from both mines and bombs,[36] to Warnemünde and Swinemünde.[37]
  • From 1944, German surface ships were called upon to provide support for the Army Group [located] North along the Baltic Sea coast.
Consider the above suggested changes
Torpedo boat added, [located] not added, the actual name of the Army Group was Army Group North.
  • This tactical use of cruisers, destroyers, and torpedo boats was difficult in the restrictive waterways of the Baltic, but despite these difficulties, it justified the continued existence of the surface fleet.
"restrictive waterways of the Baltic" -> in what way?
I don't think I could find a related source to mention this, but presumably, because the Baltic isn't very deep, has random unexpected storms, and a host of other problems.
  • On 15 April[,] Z39, [with] two other destroyers, and four torpedo boats escorted [the] German steamships Matthias Stinnes, Eberhart Essberger, Pretoria and Askari to Copenhagen, with a total of 20,000 refugees.[36]
Consider the above suggested changes
Done
  • On 2 May, she shelled [the] Soviet Army forces from the Oder estuary.
    Not done; Soviet Army forces works better grammatically than "the" Soviet Army forces, because the forces aren't specified nor their location.
  • On 3 May, she, alongside [and] the battleship Schlesien, moved to protect the bridge across the Peene river at Wolgast.
  • A day later, Z39, three other destroyers, one torpedo boat, one ship's tender, one auxiliary cruiser, one anti-aircraft ship, and five steamer ships, sailed for Copenhagen, taking 35,000 wounded soldiers and refugees with them.
  • Consider the above changes
    All done but change to anti-aircraft.
  • antiarcraft ship?
A ship whose sole job in life is to attack enemy aircraft; the Atlanta-class cruiser were one such type; although in this case it was probably just a rinky-dink boat with some Flaks mounted on it, hence the lack of name.

This might be an appropriate place in the text to tell readers that the German armed forces surrendered unconditionally on 7 & 9 May 1945.

Done; I used the date of 8th May because that's the technical date of the first surrender, and the 7 and 9 dates aren't entirely important enough to dwell on.
  • On 8 May, Z39, six other destroyers, and five torpedo boats set sail with 20,000 soldiers and civilians from Hela to Glücksburg, and [they] arrived on 9 May.[37][41]
    Done.
  • Following the German [armed forces] surrender, she was decommissioned [at Kiel] from the Kriegsmarine on 10 May 1945 at Kiel.[37]
Consider the above suggested changes
at Keil done, armed forces not done; technically a good portion of the military held out. The last Germans surrender in September.

This section chroicles the many operations undertaken by Z39 and other ships, but it does not describe, for the most part, the efforts envolved, enemy reactions to them, or the results of these operations.

That's largely because it was a destroyer, and therefore most of what it did was quite routine. "Destroyer did some things, a group of ships responded, destroyer when home" is the general routine they had, and hence its hard to find details because probably even primary sources didn't bother to gather them. Rarely would any reaction or strong result come from just one destroyer or even a group of them, outside of battle. The Von Bismarck paralyzed two days of Allied sea traffic just by sailing west, no one really cares about destroyers until they sink you.
<->Much of the activity mentioned in the section is about minelaying, so one might expect that some of the activity could have been eventful. Showing how things happen is usually better than telling readers - a writing axim of long-standing. Your view on destroyer service during wartime is interesting, but it differs from my experiences serving aboard two U.S. destroyers. Pendright (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American and French service:

  • At some [unknown] point after the war [in Europe] ended, Z39 was sailed [with] by a mixed German and British crew to Wilhelmshaven, and then [to Plymouth, Englad, on 6 July 1945., to Plymouth
    Done.
  • She left England on 30 July, and arrived in Boston on 7 August, where, on 14 September, after extensive trials, she was commissioned into the US Navy as DD-939.[37]
  • Consider the above-suggested changes
Done.
  • Could you elaborate a bit on the extensive trials?
Unfortunately no, "where she was subjected to extensive trials" is the beginning and end of what sources will say.
  • She was used by the US Navy to test her equipment, namely her high-pressure steam propulsion plant.[43]
If this is one of the sea trails, then it should be woven in elsewhere?
I don't believe these were one of the trials, or at least sources won't say so and it doesn't really make sense. The trials were largely to ensure she wasn't going to randomly sink from the damage of two bombs being overlooked because of desperate times.
  • After arriving in Casablanca in January 1948, she sailed to Toulon, [where Z39 was] redesignated [as] Q-128, and was [later cannibalized] cannibalised for her parts, which were used to repair the French destroyers Kléber (ex-Z6 Theodor Riedel), Hoche (ex-Z25), and Marceau (ex-Z31).[37]
    Partly done,
  • She [Q-128] served as a pontoon for minesweepers near Brest until she was broken up in 1964.[45]
    Done
Consider the above suggested changes

Overused words:

The dictionary defines overused simply as "used too much". The case in point here is the word choice of "she" that is habitually used throughout the article. Suggest mixing it up a bit with Z39, the ship, or the destroyer.
Done.

Images:

  • The article would benefit from a few more images, I should think that any image that is relevant to the story would be appropriate.
    Unfortunately virtually all copyright-free images are from the US' time with her, so I have about 40 images of her near Boston, and nowhere else. A map of her service is currently in the works.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: Believe I have responded to everything. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: responded to suggestions/comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Iazyges: I'll Ping you whe I have finished! Pendright (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pendright: Didn't want to edit within your userspace, but in regards to the usage of antiaircraft in Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and other books, I will mention that the main sources used, the three Whitley books, and Koope and Schmolke, make usage of anti-aircraft, rather than antiaircraft; additionally, Oxford and Merriam Webster are both either British or British owned dictionaries. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<->To the case in point, when the word antiaircraft is used particularily in connection with guns or armaments the word is unhyphenated in publications authored by Norman Freeman, U.S. Destroyers - 2004 and John C. Reilly, Jr., U.S. Navy Destroyers of World War II - 1983. In the scheme of things the hyphen is insignificant, so I yield to your preference, but without necessarily agreeing with it. Pendright (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Supporting - Thank you for your prompt and forthright rsponses. Pendright (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: Thank you for your review! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 29 September 2021 (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) 9 October 2021 [94].

Frederick the Great edit

Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...

  • King Frederick II of Prussia (Frederick the Great), a monarch whose influence on European history has been substantial. His reign is seen as the exemplification of a rulership when early enlightenment ideology was pervasive. He is seen one of the key figures in the rise of Prussia, which eventually led to the rise of Germany. In addition, he is seen as unique because his individual characteristics are seen as putting a stamp on how Prussia, and to a lesser extent, Germany is seen to this day.
  • This page should be featured because it is one of the more visible on Wikipedia, averaging 1,800 page views/day. Thus, it would serve the Wikipedia community to ensure that this oft-viewed article displays the best Wikipedia has to offer.
  • Status as a Featured Article would also provide guidance for the article's future evolution. In the past two decades, it has also been a relatively controversial page, with many different interests and perspectives on Frederick being negotiated and renegotiated, with issues previously causing the article to become diffuse with inordinate focus on one aspect of Frederick II's life. In the last few months, it has reached a state of relative stability in terms of content. (You will see many recent edits. But most are mine: the majority of those being focused on finding verifiable references for most of the points made by the various editors, aligning what is stated with the references, formatting, and prose editing attempting narrative unity.) As information about and perceptions of Frederick II continue to change and unfold, Featured Article status provides the suggested standard for future content editors to aim for, ensuring the article serves the greater community.
  • Though the process can be grueling, a Featured Article nomination- if appropriate- will help polish the article as well.

Thank you for your consideration. Wtfiv (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from Chidgk1 edit

  • If he had no significant achievements before becoming king remove "during his reign".
"during his reign" removed
  • Do we need "subjects" in "Catholic subjects"?
"Catholic subjects" changed to "Catholics"
  • "Angered by the idea of the effete Frederick's ...." - you mean Frederick or Fredericks?
"Frederick's" changed to "Frederick"
  • If the potato guarding story has been debunked or has no evidence maybe say that in a footnote to prevent future editors adding it without a reliable source?
Your comment points out the inadequacy of the NYT article as reference. It is a very short blog presented as a ditty with little context (and it is behind a paywall.) I updated it with a German-language article from Welt that addresses the issue in context of a 2012 Potdam exhibit, which interviews the curator. The new reference addresses the legend and where it may have come from, and more importantly the focus of the citation more closely matches the point being supported in the Frederick article that Frederick promoted the use of the potato in Prussia. (I added a translation of relevant sentences in the citation.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that the article cites several bachelors theses. How do these meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These bachelor theses meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP as peer-reviewed, secondary sources. Beyond functioning as citations that support a point made in the Frederick article, each focuses in depth on an issue that is often addressed by one sentence in the article. The theses are reviewed by their academic advisors from established universities, approved by the university who publically maintains them on their website, and each article has elaborate references within them to support their argumentation. Most importantly, functioning as references each is fully accessible to the interested reader, who can read them as further reading to explore the topic the theses address in depth, and allowing readers to evaluate and verify the quality and interpretation of the sources for themselves. Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supervisor review of Bachelor theses is not technically a peer review. And what does indicate that these have been reviewed in the first place? They surely have been evaluated in their final form by the advisors, but that does not necessarily mean they also have been corrected prior publication. A university is usually required to publish all theses at least in their local libraries, so their published state does not necessarily say much about their quality. One indication for their importance would be their citation count: If they are widely cited, they are certainly considered important contributions to the field. However, at least the "The Invention of Frederick the Great" thesis does not have any citation at all, according to Google Scholar. I would recommend to replace them with better sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are not on par with peer-review journals, and in a sense, students are not peers, but mentees. So my intention is to imply they have been vetted by professionals in the field. These theses have been approved as meeting requirements in their field. I would agree that they do not have a high citation count, but I would like to suggest that many of these articles make their point using academic standards- particularly adequately documenting their case with academic citation. This can be directly verified by accessing the articles via one or two clicks. (as they can be accessed) with additional citations.
Over the years, this article has collected a wide variety of citations from a wide variety of sources. Many of variable quality, and a goodly number are not academic at all. I would suggest that these theses are strong in their own right and are available to the reader to make her or his own evaluation of the sources and had to meet a minimum academic standard. For example, if these sources were replaced, they may end up being replaced by works by professional biographers, which are often have a weaker standard of verification. Wtfiv (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly get rid of the Theses if that is the consensus.
  • Curry's (2019) and Munn's (2019) detailed analyses of the changing perceptions of Frederick in postwar-Germany can replaced with a citation from Clark (2006), who has a few sentences scattered in his text in his treatment of post-war Brandenburg.
  • Weeds' (2015) detailed analysis of the Hohenzollern claims can be replaced by one of the standard biographers such as Asprey, MacDonogh, or Gooch, an older source that they used, such as Carlyle or Kruger. Each has a sentence or two that should serve as a citation for the point made.
From my perspective, I feel it is a loss to lose the opportunity to allow a reader to explore the implications of those single sentences in the article in more detail. (Perhaps a compromise would be to have a standard biographical source with a single line, and allow these sources to stand as a backup reference. That way their materials- particularly their treatment of the details and additional sources- don't get lost.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Me must understand that a Bachelor thesis is an exam. If it was approved by the supervisor, it just means the student did not fail. Bachelor theses can be very good, but are not necessarily so. For us here, this is very difficult to evaluate, that's why we need to rely on external indicators such as publisher credibility. But that is not really possible here.
The question is also: If they are not being cited by the academic community, why are they relevant? A reader would expect to see the key sources cited, the most widely established ones, rather than marginal ones like these.
If they can be replaced, I think that would be the best way to go. Citing them in addition – sounds acceptable from my side, but I can't speak for others. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I like the idea of using them as additional sources. I'll move in that direction. However, if the consensus is to delete them totally, I'll do so. Wtfiv (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made to citations with theses as per discussion above:
  • The citations from standard biographies by MacDonogh (2000) and Schieder (1983) are added to sentence on Frederick II's claims to Silesia. Weeds (2015) is still available in citation as resource for details.
  • MacDonogh (2000) added to point about downgrading Frederick II's reputation as it is in a one-click paragraph. Munn (2014) is still available in citation as resource for details.
  • Clark (2006) used as source about Frederick II's reputation on post-70s reputation rebound. Curry (2019) is still available in citation as resource for details.
Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Just booking my place for now. Back with substantive comments later, but meanwhile two points of spelling caught my eye on a first skim through: Robert Citino spells the word "maneuvring" thus and not "manovering" as you have him say, and "unharmonious" seems odd: the OED gives no instances of the use of the word after 1876, and "inharmonious" is the usual modern form, I think. More anon. Looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 17:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

both spellings corrected. Wtfiv (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article for GA, and it is a pleasure to see it again. It seems to me admirably proportioned, balanced, well written, and splendidly illustrated. A few minor quibbles and suggestions for bringing the article from GA to FA standard:

  • Info-box
  • Is "Calvinist" quite right for "Religion" in the info-box? Something like "Agnostic Christian" seems more the mark – or possibly omit the "Religion" line altogether? I just mention the point and am not sure about it. Pray ponder.
I agree. I left this as is, trying to respect the editors' choice. I figured it worked as his baptised religion, though his work makes it clear that the greatest degree of religion he has is a kind of deism. His baptism is mentioned in the text and his more cynical attitudes toward religion are too, so I'll delete.
  • Lead
  • In the third paragraph ""Frederick was… Frederick also… Frederick was… Frederick is…"." – The prose would flow more smoothly with fewer "Frederick"s and more "he"s.
Done. Three "Fredericks" are now "He's".
The rhythm of sentence subject reference now works like a kind of waltz meter: Frederick...He....He...;Frederick...(subordinate clause he)...he; Frederick...He....(subordinate clause he)...He...Frederick. Kept "Frederick" for claim about homosexuality- it fell into the pattern anyway- as ensuring this is clearly stated has been a ongoing issue with this article for years and a recent commentator on the talk page wanted to ensure that this fact was not easily missed by readers.
  • Early life
  • "Frederick and Wilhelmine formed a close relationship at this time" – do we need the last three words?
deleted
Thanks! "At this time", though emphasizing when the relationship was formed, undermines that fact that it was life long. Her death was one of the few times that the older Frederick (as opposed to the younger Frederick) was caught crying.
  • Katte affair
  • "Soon after his affair with Keith" – but you've just said we don't know if they had an affair. Safer to say something like "Soon after his relationship with Keith ended…"
done
This is an artifact of editor's concern about Frederick's sexuality. An editor chose "affair", as it too can have neutral connotations, but it does connote too much, given that- as with all things related to Frederick's sexuality, it remains murky. "Relationship" is a clearly more neutral word in this case and distinguishes it from the "Katte affair", in which "affair" has a different definition and set of conotations altogether.
  • War of the Austrian Succession
  • There Are An Awful Lot of Capital Letters in your caption to the excellent map of Frederick's battles.
Fixed
I'm glad you like it! The map was a recent addition by an editor who added it to many Frederick II related articles. I requested the editor to make minor changes and I made a few. The title capitalization was my doing, however.
  • Seven Years' War
  • "Frederick forcibly incorporated … brought Frederick … also provided Frederick" – another lot of Fredericks that might advantageously be leavened with a "him" or two.
done
three or for replacements, maintaining the analogical waltz rhythm.
  • "a Prussian title from Frederick, which Frederick naturally obliged" – is there a "with" missing before "which"? And there is possibly a hint of WP:EDITORIAL about the "naturally".
Fixed
I think this may have been an artifact of an editor who was focused in ensuring readers knew that Peter II was Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. Most of the artifact of this extended focus was removed, but I think you caught the remainder. Thanks!

It might be safest to redraw on the lines of "…a Prussian title; Frederick obliged", which has the incidental advantage of being shorter.

  • First Partition of Poland
  • "Poland was vulnerable to partition due to poor governance, in part due to the interference of foreign powers" – two "due to"s in a row. And I'm not entirely clear whether the foreign interference was the part cause of the vulnerability or of the poor governance.
replaced the second "due to" with "as well as"
  • "an enlightened civilizing mission that emphasized … barbaric and uncivilized" – sudden outbreak of "ize" endings instead of the "ise" form elsewhere in the article. Better to be consistent.
Fixed
Most certainly this was my edit. Probably in response to helping address an editor's concern to ensure that Frederick II's impact on the people of Polish Prussia was acknowledged. (The consensus of the editors in this article to use British English is training me to be more careful, but lapses are my hallmark.)
  • Administrative modernisation
  • "fixing rates that depreciated coins would be accepted" – seems to need "at which" rather than "that"
fixed
  • "However, the functionality and stability" – not sure why "However" here.
"However" deleted
  • "Frederick modernised the Prussian bureaucracy and civil service" – don't "bureaucracy" and "civil service" mean the same thing?
"civil service" deleted
  • Religion
  • "Roman Catholic Church's goods and property" – it's been the ungeographical Catholic Church up to now, and I wonder if we need the "Roman" here.
updated "Roman Catholic" throughout article. Out of 13 occurrences of "Catholic; six are "Roman Catholic".
  • "Frederick's religious views were sometimes the subject of criticism" – rather a long-winded way of saying they were sometimes criticised.
Changed to "Frederick's religious views were sometimes criticized."
  • "About a decade after his death, Frederick's views" – perhaps just "his views"?
Done
  • Environment and agriculture
  • "colonizers" – another unexpected z.
Fixed. (Those American-trained editors with their orthographical lapses!)
  • "Oderbruch marsh-land" – the OED doesn't hyphenate "marshland".
fixed.
  • "He was also close to nature and issued decrees to protect plants." – this doesn't altogether square with your statement, just above, that he considered nature in its wild form "useless".
The art of combining two editorial views (Frederick enlightenment exploiter vs. Frederick enlightened animal-lover). As the Blackbourn (2006) citation refers to land, I made the following change: "taming and "conquering" of nature...which, in its wild form, was considered "useless"" to ""taming" and "conquering" of nature...considering uncultivated land "useless"". I believe this captures the sense of Blackbourn's (2006) point, which is focused on draining swamps, not the flora. Then, it no longer contradicts the point you mentioned, which is supported by Das Gupta (2013). Das Gupta is focused on tamed animals, and mentions legislation in passing, though the focus is on "cultivated" plants like cherries and melons. Does that work? If not, I'll keep at it.
  • Arts and education
  • unharmonious and awkward – as above, I think the usual modern spelling is "inharmonious": we still have "unharmonious" at the moment.
My apologies. I'm certain I typed the changes, but may not have saved due to having multiple windows open (or saving an open old save over the new save). I just made a specific edit to address this, as well as the misspelling (i.e., manouvering) in the Citino quote you mentioned above. (They had both been addressed in the same edit, so if one wasn't saved the other wasn't.) I'll spot check the changes here to make sure that indeed, these are saved and addressed.
  • "believing that German it had been hindered" – this doesn't make sense. Some words seem to be missing.
deleted "German", hopefully it is clear that the referent of "it" is "German culture of his time".
  • Science and the Berlin Academy
  • "However the Academy" – if you must have yet another "however" here (it is the tenth of fourteen Howevers) you need a comma after it.
comma added here. "However" was kept in this instance.
However, (please excuse the attempt at humor), as per optional, implicit suggestion, "howevers" were reduced. There are now five of them, two of which are embedded in quotations. Changes include:
  • "his relationship with Keith may have been homoerotic. However, although the extent..."
  • "Frederick set out on campaign...However, h He was surprised by.." to "Frederick set out on campaign. He was surprised by..."
  • "Frederick's troops immediately continued marching...However," But,Saxony "had" now joined the war against Prussia. to "Frederick's troops immediately continued marching... , but Saxony now joined the war against Prussia."
  • "...which forced him to abandon his invasion of Bohemia. However, wWhen the French and the Austrians pursued..."
  • "He allowed the association to be titled "royal" and have its seat at the Königsberg Castle However, but he does not seem..."
  • "he was nicknamed Der Alte Fritz (The Old Fritz) ... However,Frederick evinced little pleasure from his popularity ..."
  • "Frederick's reputation was downgraded... However, sSince the 1970s, Frederick's reputation"
  • "However, h}}{{xt|He remained critical of Christianity..."
  • "director 1746–59" – the MoS (don't ask me why!) insists on the full years in a date range like this, so "1746–1759".
done
  • Military theory
  • "Clausewitz' On War" – strange form of possessive: one would expect an s after the apostrophe.
's added.
  • "Frederick the Great's most notable" – do we need "the Great" here? We already know which Frederick we're talking about.
"the Great" deleted. My guess is that it is a residuum of the military puffery that was part of this article's legacy.
  • "Austrian co-ruler Emperor Joseph II" – that's piling a lot on one title: better to distinguish between the false title and the real one by calling him "The Austrian co-ruler, Emperor Joseph II".
  • "Historian Dennis Showalter" – another false title, easily remedied with a definite article before it.
done
  • Later years and death
  • "due to his enlightened reforms and military glory" – another "due to" that would be better as "because of"
done
  • "However, Frederick evinced little pleasure" – there really have been an awful lot of Howevers in this article, and this is surely one we could do without. Removing it will not damage the meaning of the sentence. I'm not sure about "evinced little pleasure from" – the verb seems oddly chosen, and something like "derived" might be clearer. If "evinced" is essential, I think you want a different preposition with it – probably "in".
"However" removed as per previous suggestion to reconsider "Howevers."
"Evinced" replaced with "derived"
  • "Frederick's casket" – curiously American term in a BrE article: "coffin" would the BrE form.
Replaced. It seems to be an older artifact of this article. It's interesting though: I would've guessed that "casket" with its ties to French-Norman roots would be closer to BrE than "coffin".
"Casket" is certainly a long-established word in BrE – see the casket scenes in The Merchant of Venice – but they didn't and don't tend to have corpses in them. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historiography and legacy
  • "Historian Leopold von Ranke" – another false title calling out for a "the" in front of it.
fixed. I agree. The false title always risk an authority that is not present.
  • "the role of Prussia in German history was minimized" – another unexpected z.
Fixed (Those Americanisms! I think I just added this while trying to address another FA concern.)
  • "However, since the 1970s, Frederick's reputation in Germany has rebounded" – this really doesn't benefit from the "However", which would, I think, be better removed.
Done as per previous "However" purge.
  • "Historians continue to debate the issue of Frederick's achievements, discussing how much of the king's achievement was based…" – repetitious: perhaps something like " … discussing how much they were based…"? (and deleting "of it" later in the sentence)
Done...
  • Finally, you need to prune all the duplicate blue-links, of which there are quite a few. There are three links to German language in the lead, and in the main text Frederick William and the Battle of Hohenfriedberg each have two duplicate links, and Age of Enlightenment, Battle of Leuthen, Battle of Rossbach, Berlin State Opera, Bohemia, Charles VII, d'Argens, East Prussia, Eugene of Savoy, Farther Pomerania, Generalfeldmarschall, Holy Roman Empire, Jesuit, King in Prussia, Saxony, and St. Hedwig's Cathedral all have one duplicate link each.

Those are my few points. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 11:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all the changes suggested. In my opinion they all strengthen the article. A few gave pause for some more thought on the issues in the article, which I appreciate more. Based on your comment regarding the enduring legacy of the inharmonious "unharmonius", I may need to go through the last round of edits again to spot check to ensure they've been properly saved.
I haven't addressed the duplicate blue links yet, as I'll research a tool to find them, which I'm sure exists. Previously I attempted to take care of them manually, but that degree of fine-combing is not my forte. Once I take care of them, I'll return here and mentioned that I've addressed it.
Thank you so much for your in-depth comments. The careful, positive critical reading of this article is very much appreciated! Wtfiv (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates removed. (Found User:Evad37/duplinks-alt script.) The three duplicates in the first paragraph of the lead, which were artifacts of the lang-de template, have been addressed as well. Wtfiv (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks pretty good to me now. One last read-through tomorrow and I confidently expect to add my support here. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last two gleanings on the text and one on the citations from final read-through:

  • Early life
  • Is Benjamin Ursinus von Bär particularly notable? Does the name of the cleric doing the baptism matter?
In my opinion, it is not particularly. An editor who felt it was important added this within the last month, and seems to have stayed. I'd prefer to just leave it, though I too don't see the significance. (It did get me to read about von Bär) I modified it within an interlanguage link to his article in German wikipedia, though it adds another ugly red link to the article. If you think it would still be better to remove it, let me know.
Not for me to pontificate. If you're content (even reluctantly) to leave it there, I'm not going to object. Tim riley talk 19:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My preference is to leave the small details in, if someone feels strongly, as long as it doesn't add unduly to the length of the article or take it off on a tangent. Wtfiv (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alliance with England … England would no longer subsidise Russia" – Britain, not just England, by this stage of the 18th century. (Two of your sources fail to make the distinction in their titles. Rose can perhaps be forgiven, as in the early 20th century "England" and "Britain" were all too often used interchangeably – Asquith's tombstone records that he was "Prime Minister of England", and see also Nancy Mitford's Noblesse Oblige – but what can Schweizer have been thinking of in 1989?)
I'll fix the reference to England. And, I'm glad you shared the issue so that I know its not just Americans who continue to confuse England and Britain. At least there's a venerable tradition behind the confusion and not merely an American inability to distinguish all things Brittannic.
  • Citations
  • You refer to Blanning variously as "Tim" and "Timothy". As his name appears on his books as T. C. W. Blanning, it might be best to refer to him thus.
Fixed. He is now consistently T. C. W.

I leave those three small points with you, and am pleased to add my support for the promotion of the article to FA. Some of the sources are fairly vintage, but there are plenty of modern sources as well, and the facts of Frederick's life and reign are well documented. The references have a few ISBNs and OCLCs missing: arguably this falls foul of FA criterion 2c, and though equally arguably it doesn't, it would be as well to add them. They are not hard to find: WorldCat will oblige. The text of the article seems to me balanced, comprehensive (without excessive detail), well written and admirably illustrated. I enjoyed reviewing this article and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course.

I'm less a fan of OCLCs and ISBNs, particularly with editions. But if it helps, We'll get them added. It may take me a bit of time, but I'll come back here and note when I've covered the one's I caught. Wtfiv (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs and OCLC completed for all cited book references. Wtfiv (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to see my excellent colleague Aza24's comments below, on the music. I agree that brevity would be the key here. Music was only a sideline, after all, and the Oxford Dictionary of Music polishes Frederick off in 83 words; in a general encylopaedia article like this one, that can probably be reduced a bit. The ODM's entry (ref: "Frederick the Great", The Oxford Dictionary of Music. Eds. Kennedy, Joyce, Michael Kennedy, and Tim Rutherford-Johnson, Oxford University Press, 2012. (subscription required)) reads: "German sovereign (reigned 1740–86) who was also composer, flautist, and patron of music. Pupil of Hayne and Quantz. Est. court orch Berlin 1740, and opera house 1742. Employed C. P. E. Bach as harpsichordist from 1740, and J. S. Bach visited the court at Potsdam, 1747, the Musical Offering being the result (based on theme supplied by Frederick). Other notable musicians in Frederick's service incl. the Graun brothers and Quantz. Comp. syms., opera, marches, arias, etc. Wrote libs. for K. H. Graun." – Tim riley talk 08:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley Thank you for the summary. I appreciate it so much, as I'm on the other side of a paywall, and my in my effort to get this to featured article status, rather not expend the quantitative resources to breach the wall. Your summary gives me guidance for addressing Aza24's concerns.
Now that both my brain cells seem to be working simultaneously, I have remembered that you can see the print version of the ODM at the indispensable Internet Library: here. Tim riley talk 15:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ODM added as reference for statement stating that Frederick was a patron of music. It's good to know it is there! Wtfiv (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 edit

I don't know that I'll do a full review, but given his strong connection to the music of the time, I thought I'd point out a few things. Relevant information on the points below can be found in these articles: Grove 1,Grove 2, and potentially here, though I've not looked closely at the latter. McCulloch (1995). "A lesson on the King of Prussia: a New Look at the Compositions of Frederick the Great" German Life and Letters 48, seems a rather relevant article, though I cannot find access to it.

Aza24, the Grove citations are behind a paywall, so I (and many of the interested readers) don't have access to the resources. McCulloch (1995) has the same issue, and it seems that even when we want to find it, it is inaccessible. One of my goals has been as much as possible to make sure that all sources can be accessed without a paywall by a single click. However, in this case, if you feel it is most accurate to present Grove as the authority, I will do so. I am grateful for Tim riley's summary as it guides my responses to your following concerns. Hopefully, they address the concerns you raised below. If not, please let me know.
  • As far as I can tell, there is currently no information on his operatic contributions. In Montezuma, Frederick wrote the libretto, and it seems he had further (seemingly lesser) contributions to other Graun opera librettos.
Fortunately, we have an available source through JSTOR (registration, but not pay) that covers the ground. The wonderful article by Forment (2012) covers Frederick's contribution in a single accessible table, which I cite (and is linked). Here's the prose, based on Forment (2012) as it stands: "Frederick also wrote sketches, outlines and libretti for opera that were included as part of the repertoire for the Berlin Opera House. These works, which were often completed in collaboration with Graun, included the operas, Coriolano (1749), Silla (1753), Montezuma (1755), and Il tempio d'Amore (1756)." I don't attribute authorship to Frederick directly, because as a king, Frederick could ensure his work was of top quality through careful editing by his assistants, in this case Graun, and most likely the librettists, who include Leopoldo de Villati (who has no entry even in Italian Wikipedia, though he gets honorable but unlinked mention in some opera pages mentioning his libretto), Pietro Metastasio, and Giampetro Tagliazucchi (apparently, another "unsung"- in the posthumous sense- librettist). But then, how many English speakers know the brilliance of the more contemporary librettists like Hugo von Hofmannsthal? (As to Frederick vetting his work through editors, you most likely know the snarky comment that Voltaire was alleged to complained about this role as Frederick II's editor, stating to the effect: "Will he never tire of sending me his dirty linen to wash?")
  • Graun seems to have included some arias by Frederick in his operas (Grove 2)
Is this adequately covered in the citation above?
  • A brief line should be included on the style of Frederick's music; though a political leader first and foremost, he wrote quite a bit of music. It seems that his operatic style was remarkably similar to Carl Heinrich Graun, and he did not venture far from the classical approach over a solo voice over a simple accompaniment (Grove 1/2). His works for flute seem influenced primarily by Quantz, who was also (a detail that might be added) his teacher (Grove 1).
Quantz is given credit for collaborating with Frederick: "His flute sonatas were often composed in collaboration with Quantz," Citation goes to Reilly's Preface to Quantz's "On Playing the Flute", which readers can read via archive.org. Mention of Frederick's baroque style in flute compositions is given with citation from Oleskiewicz (2012).
More added on Quantz. He is mentioned as his music tutor in clause. Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence added detailing Frederick's compositional style for the flute sonatas. Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two editions of his musical works in Grove 1 should likely be added to the "Works by Frederick the Great" section
I do not have access to the resources behind the paywall. The list of his musical works should not be copyrighted, so could you post them here, and I will copy. If you could link them for readers, that'd be great. If not, I'll see what I can do as primary FA editor. By the way, at the end of the article, IMSLP has a nice, though abbreviated collections of a number of his scores.(updated) The music section of "works" now focuses just on written works. The music section has currently been deleted. but it can be put back if that is best. Wtfiv (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure on the benefits on including the Recording of compositions by Frederick the Great section, particularly if only a single recording is listed
Though I cannot take credit for adding the Oleskiewicz recordings, I thought this was an editors' gift for the casual reader, who is most likely not a music aficionado of 18th century music. I think these are great insofar as the casual listener can at least hear an interpretation of Frederick's compositional style (as edited by Quantz) done using a replica of his flute and with the aura of being recorded in Sanscouci. My role was primarily to ensure the link was accessible, valid and followed format. I agree, it is only one interpretation, so if we have others to share, I think editors could add. I appreciate that readers can get a sense of the "ear" of his composition, rather than the intellectual description of it. Oleskiewicz also published the score of her edit of four (out of seven) compositions. I deleted the reference, as it was a purchase-based source, and two of the four scores are available for free on IMSLP for people who want to follow along comparing Oleskiewicz's performance to the score and determining for themselves the success of her interpretation. However, if you feel that one sample is worse than no sample, we can delete this. (updated) The link was a licensed YouTube recording it. now has been moved to external links. As per our discussion and your help, the opera Montezuma has been moved to external links.Wtfiv (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though touched on earlier in the article, it might be added that Frederick's art patronage was a rather extreme contrast from his father. Though I haven't looked at the article thoroughly enough to see if this is already included.
You are right that there is not an explicit focus in the Arts and Education section, but Frederick's cultural interests and the clash with Frederick Wilhelm first has been laid out in the Early life section. If the contrast bears repeating in the music section, it will be done.
Regarding patronage: I some additional lines along with an additional source, emphasizing that Frederick used opera to make philosophical points, and that he tried to make the opera more accessible.
  • Just to clarify, I do recognize this is a rather large article already—I imagine the above points can easily be addressed by no more than single sentence each, which I hope is acceptable. This is just a brief run through, I'll attempt to look closer later, but probably mostly at music related matters. Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much of the beginning of the Arts and Education section of the article should address your concerns. Please take a look. If more is needed let me know, but I think we are close to the quality of description that Tim riley quoted from the Oxford Dictionary of Music. The major caveat is that I hope I was nuanced in authorship, focusing on the fact his works were collaborative. (The same for Anti-Machiavel, which was edited; or his architectural work, which was done in collaboration with Knobelsdorff.) I'd also like to keep the sources freely accessible and verifiable by people lacking access to subscriptions, but that concern is secondary to ensuring adequate coverage. Wtfiv (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added footnote of quote from Pulver (1912) illustrating importance of Graun to Frederick. Wtfiv (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Aza24, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gog, since my feedback and focus was rather narrow—subject wise—I feel any support from me would be somewhat improper, but I can certainly see no issues with this article as it stands. Wtfiv, I can see you've made honest efforts to address my concerns, and the updated Arts section looks wonderful. I've just gone ahead and added the two editions of Frederick's music that Grove lists myself—by the way, you likely do have access to Grove through the Wikipedia libary; your account should automatically qualify for the default setting. As an unrelated aside in this hodgepodge of a comment, I found this page on the German WP, should you find any use in it or reason to link to it. Interesting article here as well, but presumably nothing that needs including. Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 Thank you for adding the two editions of Frederick's music, as well as your comments on the Arts section. I particularly appreciated learning about how he used the flute within the operatic genre. I didn't add the note on finding copies of Frederick's work in the article, as I'm not sure how to work it in. I did enjoy seeing it though. In exploring what is known on Frederick's musical manuscripts, one of the things I was pleasantly surprised to learn is that although his music was corrected, some of the works are less heavily edited by his musicians than I would've thought. Wtfiv (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens edit

  • the young Frederick developed a preference for music, literature, French culture – "and" missing?
Fixed. (That was a recent artifact)
  • such as "securing Prussia's rights to the principalities of Jülich-Berg", and after 1728, only Berg, – I'm a bit at a loss here. I think this either needs background for context, or could be removed for easier reading (seems to be just a detail), at least the part "and after 1728, only Berg", which is especially mysterious to me. A footnote is an option as well.
deleted final clause. I agree, that is a bit esoteric for the typical reader. (And for me!)
  • The pair slandered the British and Prussian courts in the eyes of the two kings. Angered by the idea of the effete Frederick being so honoured by Britain, – I found this a bit hard to follow. The second sentence only implies the content of the slandering mentioned in the first. Ideally both could be in the same sentence. Not sure how it could be formulated better though.
This was not only difficult to follow, but not quite correctly described. Is this clearer: "The pair undermined the relationship between the British and Prussian courts using bribery and slander. Eventually Frederick William became angered by the idea of the effete Frederick being married to an English wife and under the influence of the British court. Instead, he signed a treaty with Austria, which vaguely promised to acknowledge Prussia's rights to the principalities of Jülich-Berg, which lead to the collapse of the marriage proposal."? Each of the sentences are now better supported and an error in one of the references has been corrected.
  • Robert Keith, Peter Keith's brother, had an attack of conscience – Don't understand, was Robert Keith one of the army officers plotting? That should be made clear.
Changed to this: "Robert Keith, who was Peter Keith's brother and also one of Frederick's companions, had an attack of conscience...". Ended phrase with period instead of semi-colon.
  • where she played an active social role. – What does that mean? I don't see how it is surprising that somebody has an active social role (most people have?).
Elisabeth Christine was sidelined from Frederick's life once he became king. What's interesting, is that while Frederick Wilhelm I was alive, she was part of his social scene. Does this change reflect this: "where at this time she played an active role in his social life"?
  • Frederick studied under Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall Prince Eugene of Savoy during the campaign against France on the Rhine; he noted the weakness of the Imperial Army under the command of the Archduchy of Austria – Sentence is complicated and difficult to read. The Prince, the Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall, and the Archduchy are the same person? If so, it would be easier to just use one title.
Is this clearer: "Frederick studied under Prince Eugene of Savoy during the campaign against France on the Rhine; he noted the weakness of the Austrian Imperial Army under Eugene's command"? Eugene of Savoy was linked earlier, so an interested reader can catch the details there.
  • candidacy of his ally Charles of Bavaria to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. Charles was crowned on 2 February 1742 – this somehow sounds as if he was crowed as Holy Roman Emperor, but apparently he was only crowned as King of Bavaria?
A badly written version of very twisted politics. He was crowned as King of Bohemia and then elected as Holy Roman Emperor. I changed the description to elected, with the change of date to the time of his election, instead of saying "crowned" and giving the date of his coronation. Does this work? "In late November, the Franco-Bavarian forces took Prague and Charles was crowned King of Bohemia. Subsequently, he was elected as the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VII in 24 January 1742."?
  • Throughout the article, there are spaces missing in many locations:
    • against this coalition,[91]on 29 August 1756
    • Poland,and
got these. The pattern search I used found two more, which were fixed. (Not to say others can't be missed.)
  • Also, you sometimes have a space in front of citations where non should be:
    • army preemptively invaded Saxony. [92]
These were easier to check using pattern search. Corrected this and six others. (Not to say others can't be missed.)
  • and the Holy Roman Empire. and he – This doesn't seem to be a complete sentence.
addressed: "and the Holy Roman Empire, supported only by"
  • He suffered some severe defeats and his kingdom suffered repeated invasions, but he always managed to recover. – This seems a bit unbalanced. The victories (and especially the praise associated with them) are discussed in great detail but the defeats are covered by merely one sentence
This may be one of the harder ones to address. The original editors of this section focused on the first couple of years of the Seven Years War, in which Frederick was still able to offensively maneuver. Then, the final years of see-saw attrition wound up in summary in a sentence or two. My guess is because at this point, the war was less driven by Frederick's initiative, as he was mainly reacting. Any suggestions without increasing the length too much?
  • in Frederick received – "which"?
changed to "which gave Frederick an annual..."
  • Although dissenters still had substantial rights. – Not a proper complete sentence?
"Although dissenters still had substantial rights, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth..."
  • his brother Prince Henry – Shouldn't all siblings be mentioned under "Early life"? This mention seems to come out of nothing.
The siblings who play a notable role in Frederick's life are Wilhelmina, Henry who served as his ambassador and general, and perhaps (though unmentioned in the article) Augustus William, who was father to Frederick II's successor, Frederick Wilhelm II. There are ten altogether, I think, who lived and became nobles in their own right My own preference is to not list them, but if you feel it improves the article, I will.
  • Iroquois – link?
Now linked- missed from a fairly recent series of back and forth edits to ensure that Frederick's view of the Polish Prussia was properly describe.
  • In the process of checking Joseph II's attempts to acquire Bavaria, Frederick enlisted two very important players, the Electors of Hanover and Saxony along with several other minor German princes. – Not sure, but this and the following seems a bit overly detailed and wordy in proportion to the rest of the article.
How does this sound: "To stop Joseph II's attempts to acquire Bavaria, Frederick enlisted two the help of the Electors of Hanover and Saxony along with several other minor German princes"?
  • Frederick followed his recommendations in the field of toll levies – It took me a while to understand to whom "his" refers. Maybe repeating the name would allow for easier reading.
"his" replaced with "Gotzkowsky's"
  • The Works of a Sans-Souci Philosopher Frederick – Misses dot and has excessive space.
fixed
  • and awkward, He once – dot?
fixed
  • of the Thirty Years' War He – dot?
fixed
  • close friends- a – what is the - doing there?
changed to comma
  • He suggested that it could eventually equal or even surpass its rivals, but this would require a complete codification of the German language with the help of official academies, the emergence of talented classical German authors and extensive patronage of the arts from Germanic rulers, a project of a century or more. – To me personally, this sounds like excessive detail and overly wordy, but this is only my opinion.
Split into two sentences, the first shortened: "He suggested that it could eventually equal its rivals, but this would require a complete codification of the German language, the emergence of talented German authors and extensive patronage of the arts by Germanic rulers. This was a project he believed would take a century or more."
  • in his work Des Mœurs, des Coutumes, de L'industrie, des progrès de l'esprit humain dans les arts et dans les sciences (Of Manners, Customs, Industry, and the Progress of the Human Understanding in the Arts and Sciences) – again, quite much detail for a general article, maybe move the title to a footnote?
Deleted. It's in works
  • and the renovation Rheinsburg – "of the" missing?
of added
  • the director 1746–1759 – "in" missing?
expanded to: "director of the Berlin Academy from 1746 to 1759"
  • Frederick and Napoleon are perhaps the most admiringly quoted military leaders in Clausewitz On War. – The book needs a date of publication, otherwise it is without context (one could assume it is a scholary work published in 2020).
Larger edit here. Deleted entire sentence, as paragraph is about Napoleon, not Clausewitz. Moved cited Clausewitz sentence to the end of the first paragraph, as it addresses Frederick II's speed of maneuver.
  • Frederick the Great. and he kept – not a complete sentence.
Changed to comma.
  • I got the impression that the article praises Frederick subject quite a bit, while his defeats are very poorly covered.
I definitely see your point. Through time, much of the lionizing of Frederick II as great warrior has been substantially reduced. But arguably, it still their. I think much of this now is due to the narrative focusing on the years when Frederick held the initiative, the First and Second Silesian Wars, and the first two years of the Third (or Seven Years wars). The significant early defeats in this time are mentioned. (And Mollwitz was a "victory" that shamed Frederick.) The major defeats were more in the last years, as his army deteriorated and he found himself reacting to Russian and Austrian moves.

In addition, as the article evolved, the section on military theory has moved toward the back of the article. It used to be in first place after the section now called called "Reign" (which had been called "Wars" for years).

  • Very solid and well-written article, most of the above are only minor nitpicks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking your time. The last year or so has been a collaborative effort by a number of editors to get it in decent shape. Let me know if the changes made address the issues you've pointed out.. Please let me know if you have any suggestions regarding the additional concerns you raised. Wtfiv (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


further comments edit
  • Thanks for addressing the above. I will list some further comments below, including explaining some of my earlier points that I think still need work.
For many of these, I will need to tread carefully between the concerns you raise and the perspective of various editors, but hey that's what a Featured Article Review is for!
  • I would indeed mention the fact that he had 10 siblings, and briefly mention the most important ones (those mentioned later in the article) early-on. This seems to be standard information.
Done. Please see the first paragraph in Early life. I named only the three siblings who play a role in the article's narrative. Interestingly, rare is the source mentioning that he was one of ten siblings. His early life is depicted as if only Wilhelmine was in the picture. The brothers usually don't show up until Frederick is king, and the remaining sisters, with the possible exception of Anna Amalia generally get no mention at all. Wtfiv (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The historian Leopold von Ranke was unstinting in his praise of Frederick's "heroic life, – This needs a date I think to make clear from the start that this is an historical work.
Deleted second paragraph of final section, except for last sentence, which is now the last sentence of the first paragraph. This continues the idea that the lionization of Frederick in Germany was not stopped by the defeat of WWI. Though not mentioned, I deleted much of the commentary on Ritter in the third paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would still argue that the article disproportionately praises Frederick, which seems not to be in agreement with WP:NPOV. Suggestions below.
I see that, in the Historiography and legacy section, there is a whole paragraph on the opinions of early historians (many from the 19th century). On the other hand, modern historians are not cited directly, but some views are summarised, in the last paragraph of the article. I would suggest to focus more on views of modern historians, to bring those historic praises into perspective and to contrast them. For example, the German article has a quote from German historian de:Karl Otmar von Aretin, which translates to: "The Mainz historian Karl Otmar von Aretin denies that Frederick ruled in the manner of enlightened absolutism and sees him as the founder of an irresponsible and Machiavellian tradition in German foreign policy." I think this is an interesting point of view that could be added.
In progress. The previous change addresses much of the concern. I will rework last paragraph slightly using some sources I had already lined up. When I'm done, I'll strike this out, report back and request further comments.Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, added clause citing that aspects of Frederick's generalship are questioned. Cited Blanning and Showalter.
I didn't add Aretin's point. With Ranke, Droysen, and Ritter gone, along with their quotes and issues, hopefully we have the needed balance. In addition two accessible, English-language sources, Fraser 2001 p. 5-6 and Clark 2006, p. 196 suggest that contemporary views comparing Frederick's actions through WWII is inappropriate, as both argue that Frederick operated within the contemporary power politics of his time.
  • Johann Gustav Droysen was even more favourable. – I would recommend to remove this. It doesn't seem to add anything except that there is another early historian praising Frederick. This makes sense if you aim to give mention to every such important historian.
Deleted. See previous comment on deleted paragraph.
  • Clausewitz praised particularly the quick and skilful movement of his troops – You are mixing historical notes like this one with those of modern historians, but this does not become clear to the reader as you didn't add dates. I would suggest to simply remove the historical assessments like this one in the "Military theory" section, also to reduce the praise count.
Deleted. My main purpose in trying to find a home for this was trying to honor an editor's mention of Clausewitz, but otherwise, I don't think the article loses much.
  • I still think there is a huge imbalance as the defeats are not properly described. The late defeats, where Prussia was close to collapse, of course played a highly important role in Frederick's life, and they are as important for this article as his victories. The German Wikipedia has a whole screen page on them. I think this aspect needs to be much expanded.
  • This "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg" – This looks to be a mistake. The "Miracle" does not seem to describe the sudden death of the Russian Empress, which is a later event. The actual Miracle (the troops did not march on Berlin) is not described in the article at all.
Deleted. And yes, the link is wrong. It appears to have been called the "second Miracle of the House of Brandenburg", But without mention of the first and with a misleading link, it makes no sense. And I don't think it is needed anyway.
  • The psychological consequences of the near-defeat for Frederick could be covered as well.
In progress. To address the imbalance, I'll write a couple of paragraphs summarizing the final years of the Seven Years War, and when I'm done, I'll strike this out and report back to see if it addresses your concerns. Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft of narrative laid down and put into article in the middle of Seven Years War. If you can take a look and see if this addresses your main concerns, that would be great. Note that the original "Miracle" has shown up. I think Frederick's psychological state of mind due to near defeat is seen in his 1762 letter to Finckenstein, which the article quotes. If you are good with this, I'll put in the citations. I'll return here and note when I've got the citations in.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except for adding citations to the Seven Years War, which is time consuming, but not onerous, have I addressed your concerns?

Thank you, again! Wtfiv (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, all looks very good now! Once the new paragraphs have received references and a copy edit, I'm happy to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point on a recent addition: though aspects of his generalship remain open to question – I'm not sure if this helps, as it is unclear what aspects this might be. None seem to be mentioned in the "Military theory" section. So as it currently is, I think it raises more questions than it answers. Maybe remove this here, and instead add these aspects to the "Military theory" section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If it is okay with you, I just prefer to delete, as both reference links are not of the best quality, both being Google book snips. Blanning argues that Frederick was an outstanding "warlord" and less a great general; Blanning also makes the point in the cited podcast. Showalter argues he's is just a general in his milieu. But the arguments for each are spread throughout their respective books. I'll be getting to work on the citations and reporting back. Thank you for your support! Wtfiv (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citations done. added a few more details. Hopefully, these address the final concerns! Wtfiv (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review + spot-check (support contained therein) edit

All images are well placed but I don't see ALT text anywhere. The maps need some explanation of where the information comes from. File:Battle rossbach trap.png has a broken link. Licences and copyright seem OK to me.

I've added an archived copy of the source URL to the Commons page for the Rossbach tactical map, and (I think) I've added alt-text to all the images in the article. The Commons pages for the maps say that they are based on a map of Europe in Putzger's Historischer Weltatlas, 1990 edition, with the details recolored to reflect changes in territorial control between various dates. So, you could compare with e.g. this Putzger map of 1740 to verify details? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems largely OK as a source - probably want to ask someone at the graphics labs to correct Circassia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now onto source spot check:

  • 25: OK.
  • 55: I take that the information on Frederick's goals is on p.18?
  • 62: OK.
  • 64: Can I get a copy of the page that this is sourced to?
  • 81: OK.
  • 90: OK.
  • 112: JSTOR does not seem to have a p.85?
  • 121: OK.
  • 145: Can I have a copy of p.216?
  • 152: OK.
  • 185: It seems like the source emphasizes the contradictions more than the balance.
  • 186: The mint and northern Germany claims seem to be on a different page.
  • 199: OK.
  • 217: OK.
  • 233: OK.
  • 249: OK.
  • 262: OK.
  • 280: The source notes that this battle was a bit more tactical than strategic win.
  • 291: OK.
  • 307: OK.

Sources are consistently formatted, but is it just my impression that they are heavily tilted towards the English language? his is mainly a German topic.

Yes, the article is intentionally focused toward English, as the goal is to create an accessible article for English readers. I edit under the following assumptions, which I strive to accomodate:
  • most readers can't speak the languages in the article
  • most readers don't have access to the sources of another language

Sometimes German sources were all that were available, so I tried to adhere to the following rules to keep the article readable and verifiable for English readers, particularly those without access to paywalled sources. All citations for German sources followed the following rules:

  • Must be accessible via link
  • Relevant text is quoted in original and then translated in footnote. That way, readers without access to an automated translator (i.e., on a mobile device) can understand what is said but at least verify the words were there. Speakers of the original language can decided for themselves the nuance of what is said, and as editors improve the translation (which was done by a non-native speaker.)
This follows the WP:NOENG guidelines mentioned by Gog the Mild (I didn't know them, but I'm glad my intuitions and preferences align with Wikipedia's larger goals). I imagine the typical person clicking the Frederick II article is an English-only speaker, who I wanted to respect by giving them the sources directly rather than trusting the source is correct. In my editing, I keep learning that many of the sources don't say what they are taken to say. That was particularly the case in this article when we started the project, so allowing public and shared verifiability when at all possible allows for proper correction. Yet, I aim to ensure there is enough there to pique the specialist as well.

I like the way more specialized sources are taken up to discuss the king when his relation to the specialized topic comes up. With respect to the books, I cannot vouch for the reliability of most but are Princess Helena of the United Kingdom, Norman Davies, William Arthur Shaw, Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, Gerhard Ritter and especially Theodor Schieder reliable sources? Some things in their biographies give me reason for doubt.

Here's my sense on the "doubtful sources":
  • Princess Helena of the United Kingdom: edited and translated Wilhelmine's memoirs into English. (Wilhelmine being one of her ancestors.) Given her intimacy with Wilhelmine's diary and history, plus her knowledge of Carlyle's work, she seems a reliable source regarding Wilhelmine for the one citation of her forward.
  • Norman Davies: He's an established academic historian, and I was unaware of any controversies. Looking at the article on him, I see he didn't get tenure at Stanford. I'm unaware of his views and what caused tenure problems, but his work seems well-researched and well-cited. His sole contribution to the article is from a citation that's been around for more than a decade, I think, that Frederick bombarded the Vistula.
  • William Arthur Shaw: From what I understand, Shaw may have made some incorrect conclusions based on the financial data he used, but this article just reflects two of his statements of fact about the finances of Prussia. As an expert on finances, who wrote about Prussian finances in English, he seems a reliable source.
  • Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve: As a literary critic, Beuve seems ideal here. Beuve's one citation focuses on how Frederick's writing relates to Frederick II's way of proceeding in caring for the country. Beuve's point is supported by the Administrative Policies section of the article.
  • Gerhard Ritter Ritter was a professional historian with direct access to the original German documents. This makes him ideal as a historian of a German topic. That said, Ritter is no doubt one of the most controversial of the sources. There was a section on him in the article I removed (see dialogue with Jen in this FA review process above), and the talk archives in this article have three rather large discussions on him spanning decades! However, the debate is less about credentials, but his inferences given his background. There is no doubt that he was a conservative German Nationalist of the old school type, like Ranke and Droysen, but his famous pre-WWII (1936) biography of Frederick II daringly made the strong argument that the Nazi regime was not an extension of Frederick the Great's policies. If you look at the German language Ritter, you will see that he was allowed to remain at Frieburg until 1956, in part because his work did not serve as Nazi apologetic. He did remain a political conservative, however. Additional reasons to keep him:
  • Ritter's research is respected. If his conclusions are challenged, his facts are less so. Most citations here reference Ritter's corroboration of facts.
  • This biography is a historically recognized work (see Paret, 2012, cited in the article, more difficult to access, unfortunately, it is one of the handful of paywalled sources that seemed important enough to keep.) by a traditionally trained German historian with access to primary sources available and directly verifiable with an accessibly translated work in English.
  • 16 out of 22 citations (72%) are corroborated by one or two additional sources.
  • Of the remaining 6, a number make points critical of Frederick, in spite of Ritter's nationalist reputation. For example,
  • Two regarding the Polish Partition actually make points that reflect poorly on Frederick II's impact on Polish Prussia.
  • What mentions Frederick's invasion of Saxony brought international criticism
  • The remaining "stand alones" are statement of facts, such as a listing of the coalition aligned against Frederick II, the battle of Torgau securing Berlin from further raids, Prussian immigration policy allowing a relatively quick recovery of population, Frederick II's preference for Greyhounds over people.
  • Theodor Schieder He was recognized as a historian whose role in Germany enabled him to continue his career in post-war Germany. He worked for the the West German government and the University of Cologne. I was unaware of Schieder's views or political background when editing the article. I see that he was associated with the Nazi party, but though he remained controversial after the war, Points in favor of keeping Schieder:
Respected post-war German historian with access to primary sources. According to his article, his Nazi background may have impacted his language use but in this article:
  • Work is relatively contemporary in the Frederick II biography continuum (1983; second half of 20th century). The work is English, accessible, and from a scholar who could access primary sources in the original language
  • 9 out of 15 citations (60%) are corraborated by one or two additional sources.
  • Of the remainder, most are statement of facts. Schieder does infer the Prussian law code balanced various factors and in another, he implies the purpose of giro discount an bank credit were to stabilize the economy, which seems a reasonable inference.

The specialized journal sources seem OK, while the online sources are so-so.

My feeling is that online sources provide decent, accessible summaries to non-specialist readers, particularly those without access to paywalled resources. Most of the points made are also supported by the journals and books cited in the article.
I won't be able to update the article changes until next week, When I get back, I'll:
  • Add Alt tags to images
  • Update the battle of Rossbach image
  • Get citations for the two maps on the change of Frederick's kingdom. (The recently added map of Frederick's II's major battles is self-documented with links, and each battle is listed in the article.
  • Fix the links problems you caught on your spot check. (All links should be freely accessible, though you may be need a jstor or archive.org account to get them.)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have first three have been addressed to sufficiently address your concerns? (Thank you so much @Bryanrutherford0:!) I think another editor is currently addressing the spot check issues! :I've reached out to some of the other dedicated editors to make the changes while I'm unable to do sustained edits. You may hear from them here about addressing the issues.Wtfiv (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Regardless, we should have them addressed by early-mid next week at the latest.[reply]

Thanks particularly for the link spot check! The links are critical. One of my goals is to ensure the article is accessible to a wide variety of people who read English, giving them- as much as possible- the opportunity to verify each point for themselves by directly accessing the sources- rather than having to trust the sources are reliable. At the same time, I think it serves the goal of minimizing the impact of access barriers (e.g., paywalls; ability to access books via purchase or library), allowing readers to actively interact with the sources if they are inclined.
I appreciate the time and effort you took to look over this article. When I fix the issues next week, I will ping Jo-Jo Eumerus. Wtfiv (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking that everyone is aware of WP:NOENG: "... English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance ...". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! Concerning the source list, here's what I've found/changed

  • 55 - No it's not, pg. 18 citation is for the Habsburg dynasty claim. "Frederick's goal" claim may warrant an addition citation.
  • 64 - Due to copyright I cannot provide a copy, but I can provide a link to the archive.org page where you can view it yourself. The citation for the surprise is on page 206, with the rest of the pages simply providing additional context. Here you are!
  • 112 - This is true, a replacement source may be necessary and I'll try looking.
  • 145 - Source confirms the villages but not the 300,000 immigrants, this has now been removed from the article. Once again cannot provide a copy, heres the link!
  • 185 - Emphasis never negates statements made, the citation confirms that despite its contradictions The General Law Code of the Prussian Territories did mirror and was akin to Frederican Prussia. This citation is fine.
  • 186 - The information crosses from 92-93 about financial reform but as I cannot access the full book; the mint claim is disputable.
  • 280 - Article has been corrected to mention it was a tactical victory

This is just what I could tidy up a bit, I have no idea what to do with 112 I'm afraid, Wtfiv is far better at this than I am so maybe she could help out. Cheers! Chariotsacha (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chariotsacha! I followed up a bit on the work you did with the three outstanding items, 55; 112, 186.
  • 55. This one struck me as the biggest issue. The first half of the sentence preceding the semi-colon was unsupported. I broke the sentence into two. The second half was about the Hapburg empire, so that citation worked fine. The first half needed it's own citation, which is now, Fraser 2001, pp. 55-56, which discusses the strategic situation Frederick confronted. The sentence is rewritten to better reflect the citation. (Fortunately, all archive.org books are available. Usually for one-hour viewing, but registration is required. That's how I navigate the sources.)
  • 112 Rose 1914a p. 85 is available for viewing via JSTOR, but the reader will have to register (for free). For now, JSTOR is allowing 100 free article views per month for anybody who signs in. (I think in the past it was 6/month) Of course, they have institutional accounts as well, for readers fortunate enough to have them.
  • 186. I moved the final 186 reference to a new one as the comment about Northern Germany was on page 93. Fortunately, it too was accessible by Google Books. It mentions northern Germany explicitly.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: With the changes made by Bryan Rutherford, Chariotsacha, and myself, have we addressed the concerns?

Well, emphasis may not negate a statement but it casts doubt on it in this case. So I think a small rewrite to emphasize that the reception is mixed would be necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A small rewrite seems perfectly suitable! I'll do it right away, thanks to everyone here who's been tying up loose ends. Chariotsacha (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Chariotsacha has made the change regarding the reception of the legal code. Please take a look and see if it sufficiently addresses your concern. Wtfiv (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are you comfortable supporting the article for FA at this point, or is there more needed? Wtfiv (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with it. Thus, support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and again thank you also for taking the time to thoughtfully review!
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) 9 October 2021 [95].

El Tatio edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the highest geothermal area in the world, and the largest of the Southern Hemisphere with over 100 geothermal manifestations such as geysers. It is today mainly a tourism destination, and also a research object for scientists analyzing microbial life in extreme habitats comparable to Mars. In the past it was also prospected for geothermal power generation but a major incident in 2009, which had major implications both for regional geothermal power politics and natives-government relations, has probably terminated this prospecting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Comments from Chidgk1 edit

  • Suggest swapping 2nd and 3rd sentences as size more important than meaning of name
    Done, seems reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The vents are sites of populations of extremophile microorganisms and have been studied as analogs for the early Earth and possible past life on Mars." implies that there were/are similar vents on Mars - if that is right could you say a bit more in the body - if wrong suggest splitting into 2 sentences to clarify
    Went with the second option as I couldn't find anything readily usable to source an expanded description of the Mars analogy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2010, about 10.9 gigawatt geothermal energy are produced on Earth, not all of it linked to active volcanism." could be deleted unless you are comparing it with the potential of this field in which case it should be updated and might be better to be put closer to the potential for this field.
    Deleted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "(130,000–540,000 hp)"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 hereChidgk1 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, they were useful. I'll see about that FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

While this has passed the important image review the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Put some notices on the FAC talk page and my own, as well as on the two wikiprojects. I am wondering if Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy may also be interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The internet for my PC has been out for two days and I was busy prior to that so I haven't been able to take a good look at this article. I will try to review it in a bit. Volcanoguy 15:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jo-Jo Eumerus, this is liable to be archived very soon. Perhaps you could contact some of the editors you have recently done source reviews for with a neutrally phrased request for a review here? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see, pinging @ZKang123, Wtfiv, Serendipodous, Kusma, Ippantekina, Mr rnddude, Lee Vilenski, and Ceoil: to see if they want to review this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Will review. No knowledge of geology, I'll probably ask some naive questions for clarification. —Kusma (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got back to a stable place where I can usefully help out. Like Kusma, I'm not sure how much I can contribute in terms of the topic. But I'll certainly try and review to the best of my abilities in the next couple of days. Wtfiv (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Volcanoguy edit

Geomorphology and geography

  • "The field is located 89 kilometres (55 mi)-80 kilometres (50 mi) north". Should probably use 80–89 kilometres (50–55 mi).
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From north to south the andesitic stratovolcanoes include the 5,651-metre 18,540 ft)[20][7][21] or 5,696 metres (18,688 ft) high". 5,696 metres should be 5,696-metre. Also citation error.
    I think I got it, but I don't see a citation error? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, and they collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group.[20][7][21][b]" should be "and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, which collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group." Also citation error.
    Done, but I don't see the citation error? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geothermal field

  • "and is the largest geyser field in the southern hemisphere". Shouldn't southern hemisphere be capitalized?
    Yes; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the highest geyser field in the world.[45][13]" Citation error.
  • "and their geysers are taller than these at El Tatio". Replace these with those.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents known as soffioni and steaming soil" would read better as "and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents and steaming soil" with "steam vents" piped to the soffioni article.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stronger geothermal activity is located within three discrete areas covering a total of 10 square kilometres (3.9 sq mi) surface, and includes boiling water fountains, hot springs, geysers, mudpots, mud volcanoes and sinter terraces;[47][13]" Citation error.
  • "Many vents are linked to fractures that run northwest-southeast or southwest-northeast across the field." En dashes.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Small scale features include cones, crusts, mollusc-shaped formations, waterfall-like surfaces and very small terraces." Small-scale.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Geysers and also water fountains discharge from up to 3-metre (9.8 ft) high cones[70][66]" Citation error.
  • "The activity of geysers is not stable over time, changes in water supply or in the properties of the conduit that supplies them can cause changes in their eruptive activity." A semicolon would probably be better than a comma.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

  • "The region was dominated by andesitic volcanism producing lava flows until the late Miocene, then large scale ignimbrite activity took place between 10 and 1 million years ago." Large-scale.
  • "The APVC is underpinned by a large magma chamber with the shape of a sill, the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body; a number of volcanoes and geothermal system including El Tatio are geographically associated with the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body." Geothermal systems.
  • "The terrain at El Tatio is formed by Jurassic–Cretaceous sediments of marine and volcanic origin, Tertiary–Holocene volcanic formations that were emplaced in various episodes, and recent sediments formed by glaciers, alluvium, colluvium and material formed by the geothermal field, such as sinter.[78][21]" Citation error.
  • "Hydrothermal alteration of country rock has occurred at El Tatio, it has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite." would probably read better as "Hydrothermal alteration of country rock at El Tatio has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The summit parts of several volcanoes of the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity." I would reword this to "The summits of several volcanoes comprising the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity."
    Hmm, I think that that reads a little odd - a summit is an one-dimensional point not a three-dimensional structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "summit parts"? I understood that as parts of a summit. Volcanoguy 05:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology

  • "The source of heat of the whole complex appears to be the Laguna Colorada caldera,[84][21][85] the El Tatio volcanic group,[41][47] the Cerro Guacha and Pastos Grandes calderas[86][15] or the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body.[87]" Citation errors.
  • "The water travels through a number of aquifers that correspond to permeable rock formations, such as the Salado and Puripicar ignimbrites,[92][90] as well as through faults and fractures in the rock." Citation error.
  • "Arsenic concentrations in waters at El Tatio can reach 40 milligrams per litre (2.3×10−5 oz/cu in)[99]-50 milligrams per litre (2.9×10−5 oz/cu in)". I would use 40–50 milligrams per litre (2.3×10−5–2.9×10−5 oz/cu in).
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fumaroles

  • "Carbon dioxide is the most important fumarole gas, followed by hydrogen sulfide.[107][85][53]" Citation errors.

Composition of spring deposits

  • "Volcanic rock fragments such as plagioclase and quartz are found within cavities of the sinter." Plagioclase and quartz are minerals, not rock fragments.
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microorganisms

  • "Biofilms and microbial mats are omnipresent at El Tatio,[133] including Calothrix,[70][65] Leptolyngbya,[134] Lyngbya and Phormidium[e] cyanobacteria, which form mats within the hot springs covering the solid surfaces, including oncoids and the sinter.[70][65]" Citation errors.

Geological history

  • "The intersection between northwest-southeast trending and northnorthwest-southsoutheast-trending lineaments at El Tatio has been correlated with the occurrence of geothermal activity." Northwest–southwest trending, north-northwest–south-southeast trending.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first was the 10.5–9.3 million years old[f] Rio Salado ignimbrite". Grammar.
  • "It was followed by the 8.3 million years old voluminous Sifon ignimbrite". Grammar.
    I think I got both? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced dacite dominated large volume ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene." I would reword this to "This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced large volume dacite ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene."
    Yeah, that's better; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Petrological data suggest that over time the erupted lavas of the El Tatio volcanic group have become more mafic, with older products being andesitic and later ones basaltic-andesitic." Is this implying the later lavas are both basaltic and andesitic or is it referring to basaltic andesite?
    Both basaltic and andesitic, not basaltic andesite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no recorded historical volcanism in the El Tatio area[47] and volcanism has not directly affected it since about 27,000 years." I'm thinking "for about 27,000 years" might be better wording.
    Yes, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Research published in 2020 suggests that the geothermal activity commenced in the southern part of the field about 27,000 - 20,000 years ago and spread northwards, reaching the western part of the field last less than 4,900 years ago." Is "last" an extra word? Seems out of place.
    It wasn't an extra word, but it doesn't add anything so it's gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Human exploitation

  • "Feasibility studies in northern Chile identified El Tatio as a potential site for geothermal power generation, with large scale prospecting taking place in the 1960s and 1970s." Large-scale.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1973 and 1974, wells were drilled and it was estimated that if the geothermal resources were fully exploited, about 100–400 megawatts electric power could be produced." 100–400 megawatts of electric power.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

  • "the incident triggered a major controversy about geothermal power, with ramifications beyond Chile." I would replace "about" with "over".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All this from my first pass. Volcanoguy 00:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Volcanoguy:Done so far but I don't see what the "citation error"s are about? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought citations had to be in order. Volcanoguy 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volcanoguy:Hmm, yeah. I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has my support. Volcanoguy 16:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • FN20: why no retrieval date?
    I just forgot it; now it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN50: page formatting. Ditto FN119, check for others
    I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still issues here, eg 151. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, I missed some of them. Now they should be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some journals include ISSN and others not?
    I don't think that the tools always include ISSN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean by that - are you suggesting the works without it don't have one? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I've been checking some and I can't find the ISSN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN178 is missing italics on work title. Ditto 184, check for others
    Remind me, "work" here is the title of the article, or of the newspaper? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Newspaper. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN179 is missing language
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN185 is a broken link - what kind of source is this?. Ditto 186, 187
    It's a newspaper which I guess decided to go for paywalls. Added archives. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when location is included
    Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering multiples Sources entries with the same first author?
    Went for "last names, then year". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Nikkimaria, is this up to scratch now? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like there have been substantial formatting changes since my review... would be good to have the new short footnotes be spaced normally, as the existing ones were. Alphabetization of Sources is off now as well. Some of the works missing ISSNs definitely have them, eg Geochemical Journal. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria:I admit I am not sure what "spaced normally" means. I've handled the alphabetization with a first author>work/title>year priority rule. Got all the ISSNs I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the previous set of short cites, they all have spaces between authors and dates (and so are easier to scan), whereas the newer set have no spaces. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria:Ah, these ones. I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma edit

  • Lead: three short paragraphs all starting with "El Tatio", looks a bit odd.
    Changed the first word, but I am not sure that they should be made longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more wondering whether they could be combined.
    I'd think that having one big block is a little less readable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging the first two paragraphs wouldn't lead to one big block yet.
    OK, tried something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is El Tatio a "geyser field" or a "geothermal field with many geysers"? This way of presenting it would be ok if a "geothermal field" is a special case of a "geyser field", not so much the other way around.
    Second; changed the first mention but I am not sure that the second mention can be changed without a rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • El Tatio lies at the western foot of a series of stratovolcanoes, which run along the border between Chile and Bolivia. This series of volcanoes is I don't quite know what the "western foot" is. Also, shouldn't it be "the series runs"?
    "Western foot" means that the field lies at the western base of the mountains. I am concerned that "the series" might sound like TV series or something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was unclear in what I meant. I would prefer "series of stratovolcanoes, which runs" to "which run".
    Ah, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • supereruptions: when?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name: The term "tatio" is Kunza maybe explain that "Kunza" is a language, and who speaks it? Does "Copacoya" mean anything?
    Rewritten. I don't think there are any speakers left and I couldn't find any etymology for Copacoya. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You could mention the mountain (you talk about it later). eswiki has "the grandfather who cries" as translation of "el tatio", but I can't comment on the reliability of their sources. —Kusma (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I am unsure on whether these sources are good for a toponym etymology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geomorphology and geography: You start with geography?
    Swapped terms around. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The worker's camp is not a town. Better to split it into its own sentence.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • all parts of the field are easily accessible walking? by road? with a wheelchair?
    Good question. I did look for an official website or something and all I got was a rock. The Rough Guide and Lonely Planet could be used but I am not sure that they would qualify as "high-quality reliable sources". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "easily accessible" still doesn't work without context. While we're at this point, is Siloli the same as Silala River? (es:Silala makes me think so).
    From the source it seems like "on foot" is correct so that's in. Regarding Siloli, the source isn't clear if it's meant to be the river or a town of the same name, but the maps indicate that the places coincide, so that's in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inka sanctuary: any information when that was?
    Only that it exists and (presumably) that it was operated during the Inka time, i.e 12-14th century. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • who and how far away is "Lascar"? (Apparently a volcano, but a gloss would help). Why is this relevant here?
    Glossed; it's the most active volcano in the region and 1993 its largest eruption during the past 20,000+ years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • East of the field andesitic stratovolcanoes reach A comma would help to explain whether this is "east of the field andesitic, stratovolcanoes ..." or "east of the field, andesitic stratovolcanoes..." This is probably easier for those who know what "andesitic" means without clicking the link. Next sentence would also be easier to parse with a comma after "south".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 4,570–4,690-metre Alto Ojo del Cablor: what do these numbers mean? Is the height variable or unknown? As we don't have a link for the mountain, maybe footnote?
    Elevation, it's a mountain range. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps gloss it "Alto Ojo del Cablor range"? Also, some of this description would be much aided by a map. The one at es:El Tatio isn't great, but helps me understand this better (and has the Copacoya). (BTW the only entries on a Wikipedia about many of these mountains seems to be the Lsjbot articles, compare ceb:Cerro Copacoya and ceb:Alto Ojo de Cáblor. Not sure they are worth an {{ill}}).
    Glossed, and made a crop at File:03-tocopilla-calama (El Tatio).jpg; how does it look? I don't see any ILLs, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think including the map could be helpful. ILL: I meant that I'm not sure whether adding {{ill}}'s to the Cebuano bot articles is worth doing, but that's probably my anti-robot prejudice speaking. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking Nikkimaria whether File:03-tocopilla-calama (El Tatio).jpg is fine for inclusion. I wouldn't bother adding the ill's in this case for the same reasons as you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Risopatrón died in 1930, I can't find the dates for the other two mapmakers involved. Either way in the US they are public domain as the 1910 publication, corrected in 1913, is no longer copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    US status is fine, but the image also has a life+70 tag - if we can't confirm that to be the case, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, yeah, and upon checking this would create problems for Commons. I've nominated the maps for deletion here but since we only care about US copyrights on enwiki I think we could upload local copies and add them to the wiki here. What say you, Nikkimaria? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is done. I am wondering if there is a way to mass-transfer Commons images to enwiki in cases such as these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dacitic volcanism: is this volcanism from the Dacitic Age, or volcanism producing dacite stones?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this volcanism was known as the "liparitic formation" and it covers large areas in the region I have difficulties parsing this sentence.
    I see but I am not sure how to reword it. It means that there are volcanic rocks which form a group called the "liparitic formation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later. Interesting article, but not so easy to read. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geothermal field: About 110 documented geothermal manifestations occur at El Tatio, and a total number of 400 has been estimated. This sentence seems a bit out of place here; doesn't this work much better together with the 67 geysers and 300 hot springs and their names? (Or am I misunderstanding something here?) It is odd that some of the names are in English.
    Hmm, yeah. Moved it down. I think the English names are informal terms used by researchers, English being the most common language in science. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unclear here whether these are the local names used by tourists, scientists' nicknames, or a mixture of both.
    Probably mostly scientists' nicknames but the problem is that in the absence of a dedicated discussion we only have probablyies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some geyser fountains reached heights greater than 10 metres tense? Do you mean "have occasionally reached" or "have in the past reached"?
    The latter; rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the bulleted list of features much. The subsection "Geothermal field" is very long compared to others; any chance of splitting it?
    I am kind of uneasy with the list too but I don't think that leaving them as paragraphs would be better; we are discussing them in list style after all. I don't think the section is too much longer nor that it could easily be split. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need three examples of "geyser cone" with identical caption?
    I think that, since we don't have many reliable sources that discuss the tourism aspects of what is after all a major tourist attraction, the images fill in some of that information. So I am tempted to say yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geology section: first sentence kind of explains why this was called "central volcanic zone" a few sections up?
    If you are asking why we need to discuss it twice, it's because here it's only as geological background while the details are discussed in the section before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hydrology: The water is precipitation originally, but no water from precipitation is mixed into it? This is confusing.
    Specified that it's local precipitation that doesn't matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three separate geothermal reservoirs sentence is a bit long and may suffer from a stray comma at the end. The names "A", "B", "C" do not seem to add much.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fumaroles: don't use "particularly" twice in one sentence. Split the final sentence?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate and biology: has led to scientists treat El Tatio as "has led scientists to treat" or "has led to scientists treating".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could generally consider illustrating the part of the article between "Geology" and "Human exploitation" more. eswiki has a few plants and animals that could be in the Biology section, for example.
    I'll add File:Vicuñas near el Tatio geysers - panoramio.jpg and File:Yareta near el Tatio geysers - panoramio.jpg, I think. Nikkimaria for the customary check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy with those. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are both appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And they are added, in gallery form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • biogenix typo
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • eswiki has quite a few birds living in the area.
    It does not have sources, however, and from searching I don't find any discussion on birds at El Tatio even though discussions of other waterbodies in the region (e.g Laguna Miscanti) mention plenty of them. So I am not sure how much of this is applicable to El Tatio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could mention which of the microorganisms are considered to be the extremophiles mentioned in the lead.
    In the lead itself or in the body? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the lead promises extremophiles, and then ctrl-f extremo doesn't find them in the body if you are too lazy to actually read. —Kusma (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geological history: later this volcano was reinterpreted to be of Pleistocene age I'm a bit confused here. What was it previously interpreted at, who did the reinterpretation and why do you mention that it was reinterpreted?
    The source does not go in much detail, but I know that many "Holocene" volcanoes in the central Andes were later reinterpreted as actually being of Pleistocene age. And even more recently of the opposite such as Purupuruni and Taapaca. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, previous scholarly consensus was Holocene, now it is Pleistocene? Or do some scholars (who?) say the one thing, some the other? Or is the consensus Holocene, but some people now think it is Pleistocene? —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if I would call this a "consensus" as there is very little research done on these volcanoes but I think the first is the most appropriate interpretation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human exploitation: do we really need all the possible reported yields? It is curious that source 179 has two very different numbers.
    No, I've cut some. 179 is collating other people's research, which has come to differential conclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100 UTM: would prefer use of {{ill}} to a direct eswiki link and/or an explanation what the acronym means without having to read Spanish.
    Ill cannot handle plurals as far as I can see. Added a parenthetical
    UTM [es] ?
    That seems to work; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tourism: It seems likely that there is information from pre-2009 (what's the history of tourism in this area?) and from post-2010. eswiki has some discussion of security measures and accidents. There also has apparently been some back and forth in declaring it a zona de interés turístico nacional.
    I couldn't find any good source on the tourism history, sorry. I'll see about whether this has more information on tourism but I am kind of dubious about whether most of the eswiki article sources meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I correct to assume that most tourists stay in San Pedro de Atacama and take day trips to El Tatio?
    Probably yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it from Lonely Planet. [96]
  • Sources: It is not obvious which sources use {{sfn}} and which sources use references directly, and it looks messy. For some citations, like the frog reference 149, a page number would be nice, and moving it ti {{sfn}} would make that easier.
    The rule is that sfn is for sources where I use more than one page, and direct when only one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is thoroughly researched, especially the science parts, which are great if a bit technical. I think the tourism/administration/protection part looks short compared to the rest of the article, given that it seems to be a major tourist attraction. I'd love to have some more maps/schematics/illustrations to aid my understanding. If Zeil 1959 is really CC-BY as claimed, it might be possible to use/adapt the maps? (At least mention that there are useful maps in that reference?) I'd probably use more commas and/or try to use shorter sentences overall, but I'll leave discussing that to the native speakers. —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll see to get some images from the Zeil source. I'll check about expanding the non-technical aspects but I don't promise anything - it seems like much of the tourism information is on private websites and such and thus doesn't meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a mini expansion and I've listed and annotated some additional sources here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And here's a map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that map would be very helpful. For the tourism information, I don't think we need the same level of scholarly sources as for the other information. I tried to look for sources by G-searching site:gob.cl for "El Tatio", which gives some candidates, but then remembered that I don't actually know enough Spanish. (The Yellowstone FA does cite US government pages extensively). —Kusma (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where I looked as well but it's pretty sparse overall. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly close to supporting now (especially if the Zeil map drawing goes in that is more clear about where the geysers are than the larger map), there's just a few layout/style issues: the bulleted list really doesn't fit in well with the rest, the images could be more evenly distributed in the article (and the two galleries behave differently on resizing, especially noticeable on wide screens). I'd prefer the APVC abbreviation to be introduced in the body instead of the lead, but that's minor and I won't insist on that. I'd still like more about tourism but I see your point about high quality sources. Thank you for switching to uniform {{sfn}}: it looks much cleaner now. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another choice for the maps would be to export a piece of the OpenStreetMap display. I didn't manage to get <mapframe> to produce a similarly nice interactive map (test at my sandbox has only roads and rivers), but perhaps there are some experts for Wikipedia:Maplink who know what to do. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just my opinion, but that OSM map is a little too bare bones for my liking. As I've noted below regarding Doctor Who, I think the bulleted list is better than some other presentations that could be done. I've tried something about the galleries, I think that moving the images around may even their distribution but would reduce their pertinence to the sections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OpenStreetMap seems much better for human geography questions than for physical geography, I agree (and you already have the mapframe map at a different zoom level). The Zeil map doesn't look nearly as empty as the OSM one (mostly thanks to the contour lines). Either would be very useful in addition to the 1910 topographical map because they show the location and extent of the geyser field.
The bulleted list is kind of lacking a title telling us what is being listed, or an intro sentence ending in a colon. Without those, it just looks like you're suddenly changing from unbulleted paragraphs to bulleted paragraphs. (Compare examples at MOS:LIST).
The larger images look much better for the second gallery, thanks. I think we disagree on our image placement preferences, but that's fine. You could consider linking vicuña and yareta in the captions. —Kusma (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Zeil map. Added an intro for the list. Also linked the terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brill. Supporting. —Kusma (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from wtfiv edit

Knowing next to nothing about the topic, I found this article to be well-written with the links quite informative in explaining the geology. Most of my comments are minor.

Also, I'd like to note that I very much appreciate that there appeared to be an effort in this article to use a good number of accessible articles that didn't require a paywall to verify. (Though I didn't spot-check references, I clicked to a number to get more information about a point.)

  • Moraine needs a link.
    I see that the first mention is linked? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes...missed this one too. Started heading into the weeds of the article at that point.
  • Sheetflow is red linked, but take a look at sheet erosion and see if that can be meaningfully linked (reducing one red link).
    Checked it, but I don't think it would work - that article only discusses the consequences of sheet flow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It then leaves the article with a dangling, undefined term. Anything to help a less technical reader would be good.
  • Would "sheet-like flow" be clearer? I think people know what "sheet" is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text around FN38 mentions Western Cordilla. This confused me, as Wikipedia articles point toward the North American Western Cordilla. Citation at FN38 mentions Eastern Cordilla drainage, but not Western.
    I think a better term would be Cordillera Occidental but would that be less clear? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Western Cordilla is unclear, so anything to disambiguate the term would be useful. At least the use of Spanish differentiates it from Western Cordilla in North America. And again, the reference mentions the Eastern drainage. Can these elements be brought into line?
  • Well, the source is just wrong if it mentions the Eastern Cordillera - that one's hundred of kilometres east of El Tatio. I've rewritten this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does sinster terrace need to be redlinked? Sinster is defined via a link, and a reader who looks up sinster the first time should be able to understand that a terrace is a terrace of sinster. If there are interesting and unusual aspects to sinster terraces that are notable and need to be explored, then maybe an article is needed?
    I think one could write an interesting topic about sinter terraces, so yes. But I don't think I have the stamina to do so at the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is an unnecessary redlink. My own feeling is that featured articles minimize redlinks to a handful of necessary terms , and when a term is missing defines it in context. (Seeing a highway redlinked was also odd, but maybe its worthy of a historical review?) but I'm just trying help out here and I can see there is already a lot work in the article.
    I don't think we treat redlinks differently in FAs than in regular articles? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to change anything with these. I just think too many redlinks just don't look good and leave the article with undefined terms. But it is clearly a matter of preference, so this is set.
  • First two sentences beginning Geothermal field are a bit odd. Would it help to break sentences thematically? Sentence 1) Well known thermal field? 2) Largest and highest (mention in altitude). The comparison with Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov might be stronger reworded. "taller" initially seems synonymous with the previous sentences "higher", but higher is altitude, and "taller" could be incorporated into a dependent clause, as the "height" of geysers was not a topic in the previous two sentences. It's just a bit of additional information on Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov.
    I've done a rewrite but I'm afraid that I am not sure how to rewrite it further. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited the section and then reverted. Take a look, to see what I'm saying. The comparison of size betwee El Tatio, Yellostone and Dolina Geizerov, should adjacent. Height of geyser is not a directly relevant comparison, so subordinated, the world "altitude" added to remove confusion of high and tall. No need to keep edits, just illustrating the point and hopefully making clear the issue. Wtfiv (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, your rewrite is better than the current. I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
    Great! My main point for adding it was just to illustrate the issue I saw (very minor.) It's nice the edit will work.
  • There's a great many duplicate links that could be reduced: (e.g., fumoroles, glaciers, Lake Tauca, Altiplano-Puna Magma body, to just name a few.) (In pruning my own, I found this script you may want to consider using, which helps immensely: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt)
    I'll take them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*::Does that mean that they're not going to be addressed or they will be addressed? My thought is that they should be cleaned up, as that's part of the featured article process. Looks like they are addressed.

  • In Geology: "recent" is linked to Holocene. Is there a non-awkward way to say "during the Holocene" rather than linking Holocene to recent? Again, I'll go either way, as I'm trying to just help shepherd the article to closure.
    Tried something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think the attempt to more precisely define what was intended by "recent" without relying on the link to do the work is helpful to the casual reader.
    "Recent" here is "last 11,700 years", would that need a source if we stated it in text? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Geology, the abbreviation APVC occurs without warning or definition. I saw in FN74 that it most likely stands for Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex, but this is not defined and the abbreviation is not forwarned (e.g., following full-name with abbreviation in parenthesis.) And Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex can be linked as well.
    Er, it is defined in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I see it. That's what I get for reading the article without the lead. Easy to miss as it pops up much later in the article, but it was defined early.
  • In human exploitation, would it be worthwhile to slightly expand on the incident that caused the geothermic project to stall (i.e., uncontrolled well discharge)? (Following up, I think this does need to be mentioned in more detail in the article- maybe just a sentence or an expansion with a dependent clause- as you mention it in the introduction of the Featured Article Review as part of the article's notability.)
    See, my thinking is that currently it is adequately covered in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see it. Following in the next section. The section break conceptually separated them for me, a more casual reader. So I didn't connect the "incident" with the following description of the other incident I'm sure a more technical reader wouldn't make that error, and reference to 2009 links them too, though it could still be mistaken for two different incidents.
    Thinking about this further, I think this would be just a bit clearer if the sentence It progressed until 2009, when an incident at the site along with environmental issues caused it to stall again. was slightly rewritten and integrated as the first sentence of the next subheading. The incident and its effect is, after all, the topic for this section. It's minor, but I think, helpful to the casual reader. Wtfiv (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been wondering about the structure here myself. The sequence is first research->trial drillings->2009 accident->resulting controversy. The sentence you quote was meant to be a lead-over to the focus change. Perhaps cutting that sentence would be better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think cutting it may work, as the subheading functions as its own lead over. Again, its very minor, but if it snagged me, I'm sure a handful of others would be snagged for it. But if the subheading jumps right into the incident and its subsequent stalling of the geothermal incident, that strikes me as a bit cleaner.
    I've cut it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest issue I see is the citations. The article remains a hybrid of ⟨ref⟩ and sfn. I wouldn't make support for this article conditional on this consistency, as it is a lot of work to fix. But isn't such consistency in citation style on of the hallmarks of a featured article? Does it seem like an issue from your perspective? Wtfiv (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I perhaps started off from a wrong premise, but back in the day I thought that this combination of sfn+ref was acceptable. Some of my more recent ones such as Lake Estancia are now standardized on only one, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to citation formatting, as I was under a different impression. During the citation spot check and image check, it seemed the FAR regulars did not address this issue, so it most likely it doesn't matter. But if we could, I'd like to get perhaps a word from one of people who monitor the FAR. Again, it's not something that stands or falls for me- I'm just trying to help out and beyond eventually give this article some support, as the responses make clear, there is really little of use I've had to offer except in terms of the misunderstandings a more casual reader may make. But perhaps this review can be useful for personal clarification: I thought a consistent citation style property of featured articles I thought was important- and one of the distinguishing characteristics of a GA from an FA. If not, that's good information to know. @Gog the Mild:, I know you've been helping the articles here move forward toward successfully completing the FAR process, are there any trends or guidelines one way or the other on this? (As mentioned, I'm not going to lay any support conditions on this article based on your- or any FA regulars- input, I just want to know the general guidelines.) Wtfiv (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking further on this. I think WP:CITE and WP:CITEVAR are clear that a consistent reference system should be in an article. Definitely, this is not as enforced in GAs (thank goodness), but I think FAs should aim reflect these values. My purpose for jumping into this particular review was mainly to answer the call for reviewers to support the hard work done on this article and help it get to FA, but I think this consistency is an important aspect of an FA article. For me to effectively support the it and to help the article with a bit more FA polish, it needs the consistency. Since my original goal was to help, I can offer this: If it does not disrupt the committed editors to the article, I'll gladly collaborate with others with the editing required out getting the remaining ref items in this article into sfn format. If you rather leave the article as is, I more than understand. It's a lot of work. Wtfiv (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the main problem I see with changing the citation format from ref to sfn is that it'd be a lot of work. If someone wants to do it anyway, they can I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wtfiv and Jo-Jo Eumerus:, FAC criteria 2c requires "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Thank you for replying. Last thing I want to do is hold up an article due to a personal preference, but I do want to help it meet FA criteria. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Where are you with the citations? Do you want some help making them consistent, or do you think you'll be able to get them done on your own? Wtfiv (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I was planning to pen up Salar Ignorado today and tomorrow, but I'll try. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wtfiv: I've begun the transformation of ref to sfn, but feel free to add some help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, did this myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just checked in to see if I need to help, but its done and it looks great! Just the consistent formatting gives it that FA aura! I put "support" up in the header of this section.
Incidentally, not really important but I didn't make any effort at avoiding paywalls. It must have arisen by chance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good serendipity, as it allows the casual reader some opportunity to not take all the citations on faith alone. I certainly appreciated it when I could actually look at the citations to verify and understand.

Support from Femke edit

I'm leaning support, a few comments. Happy to see only few midsentence cites, and illustrations are beautiful. I'm editing from phone, so made prose suggestions directly. More to come. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've condensed some sentences for ease. Keep an eye out for more sentences that can be simplified.
  • Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, it is not necessary to convert standard units to US units in purely scientific context. It clutters up the prose. As far as I'm aware, power production is never given in horsepower and irradiation never per square feet.
    I think I got these, are there any other units that need changing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    River discharge and (arsenic) concentrations are also (almost) entirely reported in metric. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's metricized now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is full of Spanish words. If their pronunciations in English is meant to follow Spanish, use the lang template to help screen readers. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to confess that I don't know about which pronunciation would be correct for any of them. Does it make a difference for the lang template? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, everything is pronounced in English, so Taytio. I'm would guess the a in Tatio should rather be pronounced as the a in Chicago, not as in the a of the alphabet. If you wrap it in the lang template, the pronunciation would be Spanish. I do always underestimate how much English native speakers anglify pronunciation. Maybe a native speaker can enlighten us. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Heartfox:, who seems to have a lot of experience in accessibility reviewing. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presence of microorganisms in sinter has been implicated in their tolerance to UV radiation, as sinter absorbs much of this incoming harmful radiation I don't understand this sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded that completely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't quite make sense to me; the microorganism are protected against UV by sinter, but have nonetheless built up their own tolerance against it? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think such traits are ever mutually exclusive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of the source (only read page 26), is that it's only about physical protection from sinter, not about tolerance from the microorganisms. I've reworded, do you agree? FemkeMilene (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two elements of see also are names that may be unfamiliar: could you put a short description after them per MOS:ALSO FemkeMilene (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Human exploitation is only about geothermal. Arguably, tourism is also exploitation. You could rename to Geothermal potential, or geothermal energy potential.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the fields at Yellowstone in the United States and Dolina Geizerov, which also have taller geysers than at El Tatio,[43] where geyser fountains are on average only 75 centimetres (30 in) high,[44] are larger.[45] -> sentence needs to be split in two. Not quite clear that 75 cm refers to El Tatio, and the words "are larger" are too far away from the word "Geizerov".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 110 documented geothermal manifestations occur at El Tatio, and a total number of 400 has been estimated. -> About 110 geothermal manifestations have been documented at El Tatio, but the total has been estimated at 400, seems to flow better.
    I've put that in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • to be preconditioned by smaller ones -> bit vague. occur more often after small ones? occur only after small ones?
    Attempted a rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sinter is mentioned quite often. Per WP:EXPLAINLEAD, could you add something like (mineral deposit with small cavities) after the first mention. Or something more accurate. I also do not know the word ignimbrite, but it seems less important. Maybe omit in the lede?
    Added a footnote, if ignimbrite is less important a link would suffice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, the porousness was vital in understanding the sentences about microorganisms. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in 1974 a desalination facility was built at El Tatio and can still be seen there today -> rm "and can still be seen there today" or find a newer source. A lot can happen in 18 years.
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • during the Tatio controversy power generation[192] and relations between the Chilean government and native communities also gained prominence among the disputed issues -> I believe the and after 192 should be removed. the word also also not necessary.
    I think that would be quite misleading, "power generation relations" are not the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the sentence now. Added a comma instead. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the tourism industry of the region had been opposed to the project for a while -> Not quite clear if this is El Tatio's tourism industry of NZ/US. If the former, the phrase can be omitted, because it's already stated differently before. In the later cases, clarify. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Femkemilene, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll support. I think the remaining open comment should be dealt with more generally, and it would be unfair to withhold a support for this we'll-researched article. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho edit

  • I'm a little concerned about the bullet list, I see it was mentioned above; however, MOS:BULLETLIST states that "Bullets are used to discern, at a glance, the individual items in a list, usually when each item in the list is a simple word, phrase or single line of text, [...]. They are not appropriate for large paragraphs." which is what it is being used for here. As that guideline states there are always exceptions but I'm not sure that this necessarily is one.
    I think that as a sequence it is more readable in list form than in separate paragraphs, which give no clear indication of a logical sequence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed MOS:EMBED so this should actually be alright.TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as concerned with this one but have you considered adding something like {{Infobox spring}} or {{Infobox landform}} to the article?
    Eh, I think that for such a complex topic infoboxes would be unduly reductive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chile Route B-245 has been a red link for over two years now. I'm not knowledgeable enough on Chile Route's to know if this particular route is "notable and verifiable" but if its not it should [probably] be removed.
  • Scrolling through the rest of the article there's actually quite a few red links so same goes for any of those, unless their particularly notable or they're going to be created soon they should all be removed.
    See, I am pretty sure that all of these redlinks can have articles created for them. I don't think we remove redlinks just because the article doesn't exist yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REDLINK specifically says that unless the subjects article is likely to be created soon OR unless its notable and verifiable to remove them. This isn't particularly a deal breaker for me, I'm just wanting your opinion on whether or not they meet those requirements. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they all meet the "notable and verifiable", myself. Granted, being busy with other projects I don't intend to do a lot of work with these redlinks, but still. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case they're fine, just to clear up my comments you're not obligated to work on any of the red links if you don't want to, I was just trying to make sure the article followed appropriate guidelines, which according to you, they do. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really have much to say other than this, with the comments above most people have addressed everything else. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the above was addressed this article has my support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (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) 9 October 2021 [97].

Schichau-class torpedo boat edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a class of 22 dinky little Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats that were constructed in the late 19th century and were effectively obsolete by the time World War I broke out. They were used mainly as minesweepers and as part of local defence forces for Adriatic ports during the war, but some saw action. After the war, most were quickly broken up, but a few were handed over to the Yugoslavs (hence my interest), and one was a training vessel for the Yugoslav Naval Academy for more than fifteen years. Captured by the Italians and then the Germans, she wasn't much use for anything by that stage and was lost around the time of the German withdrawal from the Bay of Kotor. The article went through GAN in 2016, Milhist ACR a couple of years ago, and I have expanded it and more closely cited it using new sources in the last month. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be supported in the text - eg the preceded/succeeded by fields
deleted the first (not sure where I got that from), cited the second in the body. Everything else there seems to be cited in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations/publishers for periodicals
Added to the one that didn't have a location. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Location added, but still no publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide any details on the reliability of Despot Infinitus as a publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I now have three books published by them, while they have some weak spots (English grammar copy-editing is not perfect and they lack indexes), they are well fact-checked and corroborated by other sources. Where there are variations it seems likely that Freivogel, being a specialist and able to read relevant languages, has actually accessed better sources than generalist English-only sources. Freivogel himself is reliably published in naval history journals like Warship International. Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take Freivogel as an expert under SPS, but just a head's up that we'd need more details on fact-checking to cite other authors, if that comes up in future noms. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass edit

  • Only one image. US Navy photograph, taken before 1921 (probably about 1911). Properly licensed.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye!

Support Comments from Iazyges edit

Lede
  • Apart from one that was discarded in 1911, all boats suggest Although one was discarded in 1911, the remaining boats...
Re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • during the World War II April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, suggest during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia as a part of World War II...
Re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • One of the innovations that supported the Jeune École school of thought was the development of the seems somewhat awkward to put (French) school and school back to back; perhaps One of the innovations that supported the Jeune École doctrine was the development of the
Good point, re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Service history
  • On 23 August 1914, No. 26 was mined off Pola is it known if she hit one mine or multiple? If singular, suggest On 23 August 1914, No. 26 hit a mine off Pola ; if multiple, are there any guesses to the number of mines she hit from sources?
A single mine, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the World War II Axis invasion of Yugoslavia commenced in April 1941 suggest When the Axis invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941 as a part of World War II
Re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for taking a look, Iazyges. See what you think of my edits? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

A heads up that this could do with more indications that a consensus to promote is forming by the three week mark if it is to avoid being archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. I’m away from the computer until Friday, but will crack on with this then and seek further reviews. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy edit

  • The 37 mm guns were the Hotchkiss gun if you want to link it - any idea if they were the revolver cannon or single-barrel guns?
Single-barrel guns AFAIK, haven't seen a source that says they were the revolver version. Linked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth adding to the background section that the Whitehead torpedo was developed in Austria-Hungary.
Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may also be worth detailing the significant budgetary problems the Austro-Hungarian Navy had in securing funding for new capital ships after Tegetthoff died - that was one of the main reasons Pöck and then Sterneck opted to go for torpedo vessels.
Another good point. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd make the point a bit more clearly, that the Austrian and Hungarian parliaments repeatedly rejected Pöck's request for new ironclads in the early 1880s, so he turned to cheaper torpedo vessels to counter Italy's growing strength (see Sondhaus pp 51-53, for instance). I'd probably also mention Sterneck by name, since he was the Marinekommandant who ordered this class. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done Parsecboy. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While there is general mention of torpedo boats in the bay, and several boats of other classes are named in Freivogel, none of this class are mentioned by number. Given they were in secondary/local defence roles, that isn't terribly surprising, I suppose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's all from me. Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Parsecboy! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright edit

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings PM - I leave you with a few nitpickers? Pendright (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The class was one of the first torpedo boat classes built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy, and they were initially powered by steam from a single locomotive boiler, and armed with two 37 mm (1.5 in) guns and two 356 mm (14 in) torpedo tubes.
Drop the comma after boiler or add a subject to the last clause?
  • After the war, sixteen were allocated to Italy and four were allocated to the navy of the newly created Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).
Sixteen "what" was allocated?
  • After capture during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia of World War II, the remaining boat saw service with the Italians and then the Germans.
Suggest replacing the second "of" wi in World War II
  • She was lost in German hands sometime after September 1943.
Suggest adding "while" in German hands?
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • During the 1880s, the Austro-Hungarian Navy became aligned with the French Jeune École (Young School) of naval strategy, which [advocated], among other things, advocated the use of [using] small but powerfully-armed ships to defeat the larger capital ships of [an] the enemy.
See what you think?

Design:

  • The Schichau-class boats were flush-decked and had a raised bridge, with a short stepped foremast positioned just forward of the bridge.
While ofter referred to as "flush-deckers",I believe they were properly identified as flush-ceck destroyers or of a flush-deck design?
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Service:

Nos. 21, 24, 32 and 39 formed the 13th Torpedo Boat Group of the 7th Torpedo Division at Pola on the southern tip of the Istrian peninsula in the northern Adriatic, with Nos. 27, 30, 33–34, 37 and 40 forming part of the local minesweeping flotilla.
  • Think about changing "in" to "of"
Didn't do this. I think it is usual to describe a port as being "in" rather than "of" the relevant sea. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "local" -> could this be more specfic?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her captain Linienschiffsleutnant Josef Konic and six crew were rescued, but one officer and ten crew were lost.[15]
Think about adding "of the" between six & crew, and
adding members after the last crew?
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the torpedo boats suffered any damage.
Should "damage" be plural?
I don't think so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - @Peacemaker67: Pendright (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Pendright. Your eagle eyes always improve my grammar! See what you think of my responses? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: All good, supporting. Regards, and thanks for your kind words. BTW, do you have a favorite Australian dictionary? Pendright (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, the Macquarie is really the Australian standard. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Z1720 edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "at 10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph)." Does kn refer to knots? As a non-boat expert, I am unsure about this. Perhaps introduce this abbreviation the first time knots is introduced earlier in this paragraph?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information about why they started numbering at 19 when they were redesignated numbers the boats?
It actually isn't very clear in the sources, which focus in boats used in WWI. They started off numbering when the first ever torpedo boat was commissioned by the A-H Navy, and at the time of WWI there was the Cobra class still in commission with Nos. 13 to 16 (but they were actually constructed after these (I know, confusing)), and two stand-alones, No. 17 and No. 18. Presumably the earlier numbers had been decommissioned before WWI? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is information in the sources that can explain this, then add it in. If not, don't worry about it as we can only include what can be verified. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will have another look, but I haven't seen a source explaining this comprehensively enough for me to be confident in adding anything. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Italy not included as an operator in the infobox, when five of this class of boats was used as customs vessels by this country?
Good point. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Seearsenal Pola notable enough to be wikilinked (even if it's red at the moment)?
Probably. Linked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. I checked the infobox and the lede as well to ensure their information is sourced in the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at another of my noms, Z1720! See what you think of my responses? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically reviewed this article because of the numerous FAC reviews you have completed in the past. I hope editors continue reviewing to help reduce this FAC backlog. I responded to a point above, but regardless of how that resolves I can support. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: this now has four supports (one non-Milhist), source and image reviews. Could I have dispensation to get another started please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I'm Goin' Down/archive1

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/October_2021&oldid=1054807770"