Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2021

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 30 April 2021 [1].

Delaware Tercentenary half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another of the 1936 crop of commemorative coins, which was the largest in US history due to the boom (and subsequent bust) in their values that year. This one wasn't struck until 1937, and escaped the scandals and recriminations for some of them, since the goal was worthy and the profits went to a legitimate cause. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—provisional pass
Both replaced with two that are OTRS pending.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This proves publication not later than March 1924 (page 59).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional pass with the understanding that this article should not be promoted until the OTRS is confirmed. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Buidhe, OTRS has come through.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Looks interesting, will review. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 01:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There seems to be something wrong with note a. I don't think starting off with "In addition to the Bridgeport piece," was meant for this article; it looks like you want "In addition to the Delaware piece,"
  • Why did the Treasury Department oppose the bill?
  • "The original coin holder in which up to five Delaware half dollars were sent to purchasers are worth from $75 to $125," holder --> are; tense mismatch
  • Some infobox stuff not directly cited - mass, diameter, thickness, composition, amount of silver
  • While someone familiar with US coins from this time period (I'm reasonably familiar) would be aware that a US silver coin at this time would be reeded, and that the Philadelphia Mint didn't place a mint mark on coins at this time (with the exception of those wartime silver-content nickels), I would recommend citing reeding and lack of mint mark in the infobox as well, since those aren't going to be common knowledge for everyone.

Interesting article, anticipating supporting. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've gotten those things. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability; did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • Could first successful European settlement in Delaware be linked to an appropriate article?
  • Is there any other viable lede photo? The white plastic tabs (NGC I assume?) detract from the images imo.
  • "A first attempt" to "The first attempt". First seems to suggest multiple "first attempts". Bit of a nitpick.
  • "The bill was signed despite the fact that the Treasury Department and prepared a draft veto message" Missing something.
  • Change "make things easy" to something like "embolden" or "aid".
  • "who more usually picked an artist by other means." What means?
  • I would link Kalmar Nyckel in the image caption.
  • "The design of this coin is effective and simple. The legends are particularly clear, and the coin as a whole is very tastefully wrought". Should the period be before the quotation mark? Don't know myself.
  • Source/referencing looks good.

That's all I got. Terrific work. ~ HAL333 21:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done. The two images are OTRS pending, so I will post again when that's done..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 23:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

  • destroyed by the Native Americans.—very vague, do we know what tribe?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • acting though its president
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edge is ridged.—is that what we would call milled, with ridges across the edge, or does it mean the edgs of each face is raised? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • No spot checks of the sourcing were made
  • Cites #4, 21, 33 need to be put in title case
  • The Congressional reports also need to be put in title case
  • Spot checks on ISBNs and OCLC #s verified
  • The Commons link should not be the only entry in external links section. Move it to another section like sources or references and delete the external links section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 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) 30 April 2021 [2].

Berlin to Kitchener name change[edit]

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about how a small German-Canadian city in Ontario, Canada went from being named Berlin to Kitchener and the context surrounding that change. Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Image review—pass, see talk. (t · c) buidhe 17:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many quoteboxes. These give excessive weight to certain quotes or opinions above others, and should usually be minimized. Try instead, axing or integrating into the main text. (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I see you have removed one – do you think any others ought to be removed? Tkbrett (✉) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the diary entry as that seemed to give undue emphasis to a single person. The remaining two quoteboxes are quoting historians. Tkbrett (✉) 17:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many notes. Work on axing and/or integrating some of them into the text. (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why so much further reading? If they are not a unique resource on the article's topic, they should not be there (possibly moved to another article where they are more relevant); if they do give unique info on this article's topic, they should probably be cited. (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the further reading deals with the the event tangentially and only accent the information provided in the article, so I've gone ahead and cut most of it. Tkbrett (✉) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

In general, it looks good. I'm slightly concerned however by some phrasings that look a bit odd to me, which may be ENGVAR.
  • "Sergeant-Major Blood" Do we have a link or a first name? Or is this the same as the Sergeant Blood arrested later on in the article?
  • They are indeed the same person (Sergeant-Major Granville Blood). Unfortunately there's no page and my sources have no information on his life besides the mentions in this article. I've fixed the naming so they are both the same. Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blockquote by Lt Dacey seems to be missing an internal close quotation mark.
  • "In January 1916, members of the local 118th Battalion campaigned in the streets of Berlin, harassing men who had not signed up for service.[45] " Is campaigned the proper term here?
  • Good point. There are really two thoughts being teased in this sentence – the unsuccessful recruiting campaign and the harsh tactics the recruiters pivoted towards. I've split the sentence and expanded each to further explain. It now reads: "In January 1916, members of the local 118th Battalion campaigned for new recruits but – like most battalions in Canada – found little success. Recruiters resorted to harassing men in the streets who had not signed up for service and forcing them into the recruiting office.[59]" Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The result of the vote elicited celebrations in the streets from supporters." Elicited seems a bit of an odd word here.
  • Changed to "The result of the vote prompted supporters to celebrate in the streets." Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In early 1916, Canada's Militia Minister Sam Hughes made a speech in the House of Commons" Shouldn't there by commas surrounding "Sam Hughes"?
  • "Tappert was threatened to leave the country by 1 March.[64]" This reads oddly.
  • Changed to "Tappert ignored threats to leave the country by 1 March; ..." Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "Ontario's legislature", "the Legislature" and "the Ontario Legislature" within a short passage, and you link later to Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dnllnd[edit]

Overall the page is a huge improvement from earlier versions and I appreciate how much you've accomplished - well done. I have a few general comments to offer:

  • Several paragraphs are way too long, impacting how browsable the page is despite the use of subheadings. One aspect of a topic doesn't need to be completely covered in one paragraph. The information the longer paragraphs contain is interesting and useful but they'd benefit from being broken up, where appropriate.
  • That's fair. I've split several. Let me know if you think it is needed anywhere else. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks and reads a lot better! I made a few additional splits.--Dnllnd (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I agree. I rejoined one where the information is better served as one paragraph. Tkbrett (✉) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reaction and aftermath section doesn't address more recent media coverage about changing the name as it relates to discussion of anti-racism. There doesn't need to be extensive coverage about this, but acknowledging that aspect of things would add some additional depth to the page with regards to the 'why' the name was changed and what the long-term impact of that decision has been.
  • This was an area I was unsure about including. John Allemang's piece from 2016 is flowery in prose but light on substance regarding any push for renaming the city Berlin. If you look up more recent articles regarding this you find there were several in the immediate aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, mostly popping up in June 2020. The city council shrugged it off and things don't seem to have gone anywhere. The petition had fewer than 400 signatures when mentioned in the Record, so I don't think the movement is especially notable or relevant to this page. I worry that mentioning it would veer into editorializing by placing undue emphasis on it. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't editorializing more of a concern if recent questioniong of the name is omitted? You're right, council did generally dismiss the 2020 calls to revisit the name but in doing so they also said the following: “We acknowledge that the legacy of our namesake, Horatio Herbert Kitchener, a decorated British Earl who established concentration camps during the Boer War, is not one to be celebrated,” [3]. That's relevant to the topic. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appealing to WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, it would be inappropriate to include the 2020 story (or any others, like the 2016 piece) given that no notable movement to change the name back to Berlin has materialized since 1919. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't notable why did the city respond to it? And why is there more than one news item, across multiple years, about it? This isn't breaking news or an idea I pulled out the air. It's been repeatedly documented in the news and engaged with by city officials. Since you've pointed to specific guideline as reasons not to include relevant info I'll use the same guidelines to explain why it should be included:
  • WP:NOTADVOCACY point #2 sates: "Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." Acknowledging the more recent criticism aligns with this guideline.
  • WP:NOTNEWS point #1 states: "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." Acknowledging the more recent criticism aligns with this guideline.
  • WP:UNDUE states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Acknowledging the more recent criticism in a sentence or two doesn't given it undue attention and aligns with this guideline.--Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To move this discussion forward I added in a short paragraph to the bottom of the Reaction and aftermath section. It seems more productive to discuss actual text than debate hypotheticals. The text I've added focuses on the facts and is relevant to the discussion. Feel free to edit the text as needed. Thanks again for your work on the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are fair points. I have added two sentences mentioning the issues raised by Outhit's Record article to the end of the Reaction and aftermath section. (I overrode the edits you made there accidentally b/c we were making edits at the same time) Tkbrett (✉) 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd personally like to see a sentence or two acknowledging how awful Herbert Kitchener was. The quote about him being a war martyr doesn't really cut it. He was a scorched earth-er who relied on concentration camps - that's pretty relevant to the decision to have his name on the change ballot and to the current discussions about racism in the Region.
  • No doubt that when judged by the standards of today Lord Kitchener was awful, but I think this may be a bit outside the scope of this page and going beyond WP:NPOV. All of the sources I've used mention that he was well known but don't go much further than that. Moyer calls him "the famous British General" who "won fame during the Boer War in Africa and in the early years of the Great War." Crerar calls him an "English field marshal" who "was lost in the North Sea just prior to the vote". McLaughlin & Jaeger call him "the recently deceased British secretary of state for war". Wilson calls him, "the popular British Secretary of War". English & McLaughlin don't say much of anything about him. My phrasing is closest to Hayes, who mentions that he was the British Secretary of State for War and that the name became popular among the business community despite the Stratford Herald' complaints. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not up for debating if there was ever a time concentration camps were good based on the standards of any era - I'm an archivist and I'm well versed in the questionable (to me) logic of that discussion. That said, thank you for explaining why you approached mention of Kitchener the way that you did. The unsavory side of his legacy can be reasonably be addressed in the reaction and aftermath section with regards to more recent calls for a reconsideration of the name. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The changing reception of his legacy would be better placed on the Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener page. Including it here would contravene WP:SOAPBOX given that none of the sources discuss it. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a more robust discussion about Kitchener belongs on his page. The sources you're pointing to as not mentioning criticism about his legacy, however, were written in 1979 (Moyer), 1983 (English), 2006 (McLaughlin), and so on, making the suggestion that adding a sentence about the recent push back about the city's name as soapboxing confusing. You appear to be treating WP guidelines like rules. Each of the WP references you've pointed to, here and in responses to other comments, are intentionally open for interpretation. I left comments in good faith with the goal of making the page as complete and accurate as possible. I pointed to specific examples of how the guidelines can be interpreted as supporting a mention of the criticism about the name as it related to Kitchener's legacy above. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(This point addressed above) Tkbrett (✉) 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a huge fan of info being cited mid-sentence and try to phrase things so that it's not necessary. I recognize this is a personal preference. Not sure if there's a way to minimize instances of it or if anyone other than me is concerned about it.
  • WP:CITEDENSE talks about this a little bit and doesn't say to avoid it. I agree that it can sometimes be unsightly so I merged some into single citations. Others – like the opening sentence of the body – have a lot of information already packed into both citations. I worry about packing too much information into a single one at the end of a sentence lest it becomes difficult to verify what information is coming from where. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:INTEGRITY is more important than looks :) (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me! Thanks again for all the hard work you've put into the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Glad to see this topic get the page quality it deserves! --Dnllnd (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN103: if you're going to cite the updated article, then you should credit the update author; also the encyclopedia title should be italicized
  • Where are the Bassler stats from?
  • Lawson, quoting Bassler, doesn't say the origin. I'll get back to you on this one. I have to go get Bassler back from the library and they're not open until Tuesday (they're closed for Easter weekend.) Tkbrett (✉) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't feel like waiting until Tuesday; looking at Avery (2005), he indicates there were 393,320 people of German origin listed in the 1911 census. Lawson says "By 1911, almost half a million people of German ancestry were disperssed across Canada." I've updated it with the more precise figure from Avery. Tkbrett (✉) 00:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Leibbrandt a high-quality reliable source? Moyer? Lefcourt?
  • Here's what English & McLaughlin have to say about Leibbrandt: "A recent and unusual work deserve special mention: Dr. Gottlieb Leibbrandt has written a valuable history of the Germans of Waterloo County. Trained as a scholar, Dr. Leibbrandt reveals a thorough command of his sources and a sensitive appreciation of the experience of his own ethnic group in this area" (p. 229).
  • English & McLaughlin describe Moyer's earlier work as "folksy and interesting popular histories", adding that Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited "follows the style and level of research in Moyer's other publications" (p. 229). They cite him throughout their endnotes.
  • The German Quarterly included Lefcourt in a recommended reading list. Tkbrett (✉) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems to be a bibliography rather than specifically a recommended reading list - anything more on that source? Regarding Moyer, I'm not convinced that being a "folksy and interesting popular histor[y]" recommends a source as being high-quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are fair points. I have removed Moyer and Lefcourt as sources and used others in their place. Nothing much was lost as both were mostly corroborated in other sources. I think the only notable loss of content are the names of the two women who suggested "Kitchener" and "Brock"; Lefcourt got that claim from a March 1963 article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. It's difficult to get into archives during the pandemic but I've reached out to the Kitchener Public Library to see if I can get a copy of the article. I don't plan on citing it, I'm just curious if it indicates where the claim originates. Tkbrett (✉) 13:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I managed to get a hold of the column Lefcourt cited ("City's Name Story Contradicted," Kitchener-Waterloo Record, March 23, 1963. p. 3). As the title suggests, local stories are somewhat contradictory as to who suggested the name, which is perhaps why none of the other sources I have mention it. Given the silence on the issue from reliable sources, I think I'll just avoid mentioning it in the article. Also, re:Bassler numbers, it was the 1911 census, just as Avery 2005 mentions. I also see the same numbers used in Granatstein 2005 and McKegney 1991. The page has been updated to reflect this. Tkbrett (✉) 14:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date ranges should use endashes, including in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

I'm vaguely aware of the name change debate, but here's what I have to add:

  • Have you considered adding the date the name Berlin was adopted to the lead? Not necessary of course, but I think it may be worth including it in the clause about where the name comes from: "Berlin adopted the name in 1833, after the capital of the German Empire..." or something like that.
  • Good idea. (further address on next point below). I've also included the official switch date of 1 September 1916 in a sentence added to the second paragraph since that seems another important date. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same sentence; it notes the name came from the capital of the German Empire, but if the name was adopted in 1833 then that isn't true, as the Empire wasn't established until 1871. It would be more accurate to either say the capital of Prussia, or even future capital of the Empire. I see this is actually noted later in the article (via a letter to the Berlin News Record and a couple other mentions as well).
  • "In early 1916 business and community leaders began pushing for Berlin to either seek a new name or amalgamate with Waterloo." I think adding a reference to Waterloo being close ("amalgamate with neighbouring Waterloo", for example) would be useful, as people aren't going to know the cities are effectively twinned.
  • Waterloo is mentioned as neighbouring Berlin in the first sentence of that paragraph so I didn't want to repeat it unnecessarily. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Towns across the English speaking world..." Should be "English-speaking", no?
  • "In the months following the outbreak of the war, Berlin's Board of Education voted to end the use of German in schools." Does this mean German was the language of instruction, or one of the topics taught?
  • The former. I'm not sure how to phrase it better since "German instruction" or "instruction in German" would seem to imply the opposite. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Sir Wilfred Laurier and Sir Robert Borden are noted without the honorific; is that a deliberate omission?
  • Whoops! Not intentional. I've fixed the instances when they're first mentioned. Do I have to use it when not using their full name? For example, I initially write "On 24 November 1917, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden visited Kitchener ...". When I next mention him I simply say, " ... a group of disgruntled citizens heckled Borden." Is this sufficient? Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Young German men were harassed in the street if they had not signed up for military service." This was not exclusive to German-Canadians; were they targeted even more so than others?
  • That's certainly true. I suppose it's more that most of the men expected to enlist were German. McKegney clarifies: "Many of the young men who were expected to enlist in the 118th Battalion had studied the German language and literature in Berlin and Waterloo schools, the majority of them were members of German-language churches that were either neutral or opposed to war with Germany, and most of them were Canadian rather than British born." (McKegney p. 169). I've changed it to, "Young men, many of them German, were harassed ..." Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tappert became a controversial figure locally after several of his actions, including his continued use of German in religious services, telling his children to avoid saluting the Union Jack and to not sing "God Save the King", his refusal to contribute to the Patriotic Fund and his public doubting of anti-German propaganda." This needs to be fixed grammatically: the "after several of his actions" implies something is coming after the list there, but it doesn't. Instead go with something like "Tappert became a controversial figure locally for several controversial actions, including..." It has a more definitive result that way.
  • Ironic that one of the two soldiers who assaulted Tappert was named Schaefer, a decidedly German name. Have to wonder if that influenced his actions.
  • I looked through my sources and didn't find anything regarding Schaefer's German heritage, but I did stumble upon a very interesting nugget. "Blood and Schaefer, let off with suspended sentences, were warned by Magistrate Weir that he remembered Schaefer, who had been connected in 1914 with throwing the bust of Kaiser Wilhelm I in the park lake ..." (McKegney p. 160). That's too interesting a factoid to leave out. It's also all I can really find about Schaefer. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did L. J. Breithaupt elaborate on why he opposed the name change? If so it would be good to have that, but I understand if that's not available.
  • Yes! He opposed the resolution because he thought the name change would have no effect on British success in the war and that any change should be voted on by the entire city, not simply the 12 alderman council. I've added this to the article. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Adam Crerar's full name on his first mention in the article (at the start of the "Voting and results" section).

Solid article overall. Once the above are addressed I'll be happy to support

Thank you! I'm especially happy to have someone named Kaiser reviewing this article. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to review it, and happy to offer my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:45, 12 April 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) 30 April 2021 [4].

Ring ouzel[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This, the fourth thrush article I've brought to FAC, is a bit shorter than its predecessors. As one of the earlier migrants, it's a sign that spring is on the way, but its wild mountain breeding habitat means that the ring ouzel has failed to acquire the cultural and literary associations of its lowland cousins. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe, an ip editor has kindly switched some of the images and added a sound file. There appear to be no significantly better images of the Alpine or Caucasian sunbspecies, so we are stuck with those Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. (t · c) buidhe 14:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

Oppose. As someone who isn't an animal expert, I can't speak of how reliable the animal literature cited here is or how complete this article. However, what makes me lean oppose is the prose problems starting in the lead.

  • Animal jargon such as "breast band," "pale crescent," "northernmost part of its range" is either not linked or not explained for the casual reader to understand.
  • HumanxAnthro I'm not clear which of the six words above (excluding "of" and "its", and presumably "part") you consider not to be standard English. To me, linking common words like "pale" and "crescent" seems to be overlinking. Do I really need to say where the breast is, or what a crescent looks like? I've inserted "geographical" before "range" thoughJimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with HA, I'm totally lost as to what does it mean for a bird to have a pale crescent? What is a breast band on a bird? This needs de-jargoning. (t · c) buidhe 13:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rejigged, including linking crescent and breast, although I suspect that someone who doesn't know where the breast of a bird is might find the link unhelpfulJimfbleak - talk to me? 11:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add links to the bird glossary? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the sentence "Its habitat is open uplands with some trees or shrubs including heather, conifers, beech, Rhododendron hirsutum or juniper" sounds awkward. At least the types of places are linked, but is there more terminology I'm not understanding?
  • Again, I wouldn't think "habitat" was technical, but I've linked it and inserted an "often" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what I'm referring. I'm talking about how the structure of the sentence. What does it mean for a habitat to be open uplands? Are you trying to say they're located in the mountains? If, as someone who is not versed in animal terminology, is confused by the sentence, that means it is not comprehensible to other casual readers wanting to learn more about the subject. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first lead's para, why are some continents not linked yet North Africa is? Also, we're hastily introduced into "The 3–6 eggs," are these the typical amount of eggs that hatch from these birds?
  • At FAC we don't link countries or continents, but we do link regions, since they are less obvious. I've inserted typical clutch and tweaked a bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "strawberry,cherry hawthorn," needs a space between them
  • "The ring ouzel has an extensive range and a large population," Extensive range in what? Subspecies?
  • I just noticed most of the second paragraph spoils a majority of the "Diet section." The lead is meant to be a simple summary of most of the article's sections, not giving extremely unfair weight to one section or another.
  • The long description sentences in "Subspecies" are difficult to read comfortably, as they feel random in structure. I also see zero need to bullet-point list only three items.
  • Removed bullet points in the "Subspecies" section and made sentences shorter. I've done the same in the next section too, although you haven't suggested that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Voice" has more jargon not linked or explained.
  • "(5,900–7,200 ft)1800–2200|m}}" I think this is an imcompletely-programmed template.

The article needs a copyedit. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In the Alps, breeding densities can reach 60–80 pairs/km², but are generally much lower with 37 pairs/km² in Haute-Savoie, 22 pairs/km² in the Jura Mountains, and 8 pairs/km² in more open habitats in Britain" Use convert template, rather than a note (it may be necessary to rephrase, i.e. "the density of pairs can reach 60–80 per km2 ..." (t · c) buidhe 07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • buidhe, thanks for your tweaks to the text. I've added the population estimate date and followed your suggestion for the the convert template the density of breeding pairs can reach... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HumanxAnthro, have the changes to date been sufficient to effect your oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, there, and great work on the prose changes. I just noticed "genus" isn't linked or described, but otherwise it's going towards the right direction in regards of that. I reason I can't make a definitive Support or Oppose comment here is because I am no bird expert, plus I have some other things on my plate and can't determine how fully researched this article is since I'm not to researching sources about animals. I can notice when something is understandable or not, however, and the article is getting better on that regard. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

  • spell out IUCN in lead

Taxonomy

  • About 65 species of medium to large thrushes are in the genus Turdus - there are now 85 species in the genus Turdus (see IOC)
  • the ring ouzel is descended from thrush populations that had colonised the Caribbean islands from Africa, and subsequently reached Europe from there. This is probably not the case. A large molecular phylogenetic study (using ultra-conserved elements) by Batista et al was published in 2020. The results are compatible with a simpler model in which thrushes only crossed the Atlantic once.
  • The reference: Batista, Romina; Olsson, Urban; Andermann, Tobias; Aleixo, Alexandre; Ribas, Camila Cherem; Antonelli, Alexandre (2020). "Phylogenomics and biogeography of the world's thrushes (Aves, Turdus): new evidence for a more parsimonious evolutionary history". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 287 (1919): 20192400. doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.2400.
The results of this study are complicated - and unsatisfactory. Some of the importatnt nodes in the phylogeny are poorly supported which makes the interpretation difficult. I've looked at the supplementary material but I don't understand enough to make any judgment. Clearly more DNA sequence data are required before a solid phylogeny can be calculated. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten and simplified taxonomy in the light of Batista Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2007 mitochondrial cytochrome b gene analysis - out of date?
  • Details of the study suggests that the ring ouzel ... - Batista et al confirm that the ring ouzel is sister to a clade containing the closely related dusky and Naumann's thrushes.

Breeding

  • Territories may be strung out along streams, 160–200 metres (520–660 ft) and ranges may overlap - words missing? "Territories may be strung out along streams, 160–200 metres (520–660 ft) apart and the ranges may overlap."
  • and built on the ground or in a small tree or scrub, at an average height of 3.5 metres (11 ft). - perhaps worth mentioning that the nest is very rarely in a tree in the west of the range (see Clement and Hathway p.349). Flegg and Glue, 1975 here of 297 sites in BTO study only 2% were in trees. Not the case elsewhere (not recommending that you use the ref but see here).
  • Mention that the nest is built by the female. See Clement and Hathway p.349 and BWP/Cramp (vol 5 published 1988) p. 947
  • Incubation is by both parents - as per BTO source - but probably better to state "mostly by the female". BWP p. 947 has either "mostly by female" or "by female only". p 943 has "Both sexes recorded brooding and caring for young but female usually performs most." p 944 has "When female off nest, male often sat on rim but did not incubate" Clement and Hathway p. 349 have "mostly by the female but also apparently sometimes by the male".
  • average lifespan is two years, although nine years has been recorded. - I cannot see this in the cited source - hbw/bow - but the numbers are on the BTO page.
  • Appears to be philopatric - birds return to very near the birth location to breed - but I cannot see this explicitly stated in the sources. (In one study by Sim et al used coloured rings and recorded breeding attempts in consecutive years - see here)

References

  • Ref 16: Bacht et al 2013 - needs doi-access=free
  • Ref 23: Sim et al 2013 - a subscription is needed for the url provided. (but pdf is available from researchgate)

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz I think it's the other way around, the url goes to the pdf, and the doi, taken from the researchgate page, goes to the abstract. I don't know how to fix it, we are required to give the doi, and sooner or later someone will remove the url on the basis that we don't need both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Buidhe has removed the urls as a copyright violation, which makes sense Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz, thanks for comments. Some unexpected RL means it's going to be a bit stop-start over the next fe days, but I'll respond when I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz, all above done, I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • and weighing 90–138 grams (3.2–4.9 oz) - perhaps "and weighs ..."
  • They are incubated by both parents... - usually by the female

Description

  • Adult ring ouzels undergo complete moult... missing article - "undergo a complete moult."

Distribution and habitat

  • In the n the west of the range ... - this whole sentence is garbled
  • , actually under Breeding, but still a mess. I promise I hadn't been drinking }: Fixed now, I hope Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An observation: Drawing the distribution map must have been a challenge - I've looked at 5 maps and no two agree. Svensson (Collins) doesn't indicate any areas in France where the birds are resident.

- Aa77zz (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the changes all look good. Well done. -Aa77zz (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aa77zz, this article is awaiting a source review for reliability and formatting, do you think you might be able to undertake that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose I'll do the source review tomorrow. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Marking my spot until I get more time for a proper review. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To solve some of the issues mentioned above, perhaps link to the bird glossary instead of unrelated articles?
  • The right side of the article is a bit of a wall of images now. Perhaps group some of the related ones in double images, such as the male and female of one subspecies?
  • The only female we have is of T. t. torquatus, which would have to join the male of the nominate ssp in the infobox. However, I can't work out how to do that without losing the sound file there, making that image3 doesn't seem to work. In the meantime, I've shrunk the female image with the upright parameter Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the female to the speciesbox and cropped both images to make them more similar. Please revert if you think this is a mistake. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Aa77zz Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ring ouzel was first described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae under its current scientific name." Shouldn't this be first in the taxonomy section then?
  • There are some geographical duplinks.
  • Link Francis Willughby somewhere? I think you could spell out his name under taxonomy, even if it's mentioned earlier in a book title.
  • Link thrush in the article body.
  • I'm not sure how to solve this, but it seems there's duplication between the subspecies and habitat sections.
  • I think that the subspecies section has to spell out where they occur, the distribution just summaries the overall picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many very short paragraphs under description (and other places), I think there's a MOS guideline against this...
  • I thought it made sense to give each ssp a separate para, but I've rolled them together, plus a couple of other places where there may not be a clear change of topic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "form a distinctive formed whitish panel" Double form?
  • "through Scandinavia to northwest Russia, and in mountains across and central southern Europe from the Pyrenees through the Alps" Comma after across? A bit difficult to follow now.
  • A stray "and" seemed to have crept in on last revision to that para, removed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with unimproved short grass" What does unimproved mean?
  • Anything on how the subspecies are interrelated? Has there been any attempts to merge them into a single species, or split them into distinct species?
  • I guess you mean merge them into a single subspecies. They differ significantly in appearance, and it's hard to see any basis for making them a single subspecies. Similarly, they are all obviously variants of ring ouzel, even Willughby accepted that alpestris and torquatus were different forms of the same species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, usually there are a lot of strange historical revisions, but might just not be the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There may be two broods, especially in the south of the range." Is stated twice in the breeding section.
  • "is 3–6 pale blue or greenish-blue eggs" What determines whether they're pale blue or greenish? Area? Subspecies? Or is this just different ways of describing the same colour?
  • As far as I can ascertain, it's just natural variation. There may be environmental or genetic factors, but I can't find anything on these. The eggs in the image are so alike, however, I'd guess that they come from the same clutch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are some subspecies more threatened than others?
  • Again, we are largely dependent on where recent studies have been done, but there doesn't appear to be any thing obvious Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images used are a bit samey. How about this[5] image that shows alpestris with bugs instead of the one used (could be cropped)?
  • Support - looking very nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help with this and the support. I actually saw two male ring ouzels this morning, a good bird for Leicestershire since they are just passing through on their way to the uplands further north Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever seen one, appears they mainly visit Jutland, whereas I live on Zealand... FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Placeholder for later. Looking a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

....an extensive geographical range and a large population... - in lead, is "geographical" redundant here?
The survival rate for juveniles in their first year is 36%, and the annual survival rate for adults is 47% for males and 37% for females. - bit repetitive, why not "Around 36% of juveniles survive their first year, while the annual survival rate for adults is 47% for males and 37% for females." or somesuch
Sorry -was AFK for most of weekend. Will look properly in a few hours Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, was gonna list some quibbles but ended up just doing them meself...looks fine comprehensiveness and prosewise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood[edit]

I can review this soon. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are signs of decline in several countries, suspected causes including climate change, human disturbance, hunting and outdoor leisure activities. perhaps a semi-colon in exchange for the first comma here
  • "Ring Ouzel" was first used by John Ray in his 1674 Collection of English words not generally used should "Collection of English words not generally used" be title case while The Ornithology of Francis Willughby of Middleton in the County of Warwick is?
  • When I click ref 18 it doesn't go down to the reference.
  • The plumage of the male of the nominate race can you explain what "nominate race" means in parenthesis?
  • Males of T. t. alpestris have broader white scalloping can you link "scalloping" somewhere?
  • There isn't really an appropriate link, scalloping doesn't help, so I've glossed instead. As is often the case, the images are abetter demonstration than words can convey Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The species is migratory, with birds leaving the breeding areas in September and October.Birds of the nominate subspecies space
  • In the Atlantic, it is regular winter visitor missing an "a", I believe.
  • The eggs are 30 x 22 mm convert
  • You're missing spaces in several of the page references, compare refs 2, 3, 4 to ref 5. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh... spacing and full stops in this type of short ref is normally one of the first things I check, fixed ref 8 too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support. Looks good. Just a few things.

  • "The ring ouzel was first described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae under its current scientific name" I might move the final five words of the sentence to after "Linnaeus".
  • Why is hairy alpenrose given its Latin name on second mention?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Ian Rose This is the review that I agreed to undertake yesterday - see above. The cited sources are consistently formatted and they are all suitably reliable. I haven't systematically checked whether the sources support the text. I have a few comments:

  • Ref. 5. Ray 1674: A link to the Google scan may be more reliable in this instance: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=njdWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT8
  • Ref 9. Harvie-Brown & Cordeaux 1880: the final page in range should be 204
  • Ref. 14. Reilly 2018 pp 221-225: cited to support they are characterised by rounded heads, longish, pointed wings, and usually melodious songs. I cannot see a mention of heads and wings within this page range. (but it is possible that I missed it)
You have retained the same reference but removed the mention of the head. I cannot see support for they are characterised by longish, pointed wings and why do you cite 6 pages for this simple statement? - Aa77zz (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. On p.36 of Clement and Hathway (2000). "with rounded heads, medium or long, pointed wings..." - Aa77zz (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aa77zz Thanks for that, I've now moved Clement and Hathway to cited texts, and re-reffed that bit to p. 36 thereof Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 16. Brehm 1831: page range 377-378
  • Ref. 17. Hartert 1923: page range 663-664
  • Ref. 19. Mullarney et al 1999: The isbn is for the hardback 2nd edition published in 2010. The isbn for the 1st edition is 9780002197281 or 9780007113323. I have the paperback 2nd edition and the ring ouzel is on the cited page (p. 296). For the 2nd edition the first author is Lars Svensson.
  • (Ref. 21. Leverton 1993: I was walking on the South Downs yesterday but didn't see a ring ouzel)
  • Ref. 22. Snow and Perrins 1998: This is in Volume 2 Passerines.
  • Ref. 28. Sim et al 2013: The doi links to the journal and is open access but the title links to BioOne and requires a subscription. I suggest that the url is changed to the journal https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01798.x

- Aa77zz (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aa77zz, many thanks, all changes made as suggested. My Collins is second edition hardback for which data is, I think, correct now Svennson is lead author. Sorry Leverton let you down, there is still time! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^Aa77zz: Is that a support/pass on the source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild - A pass for the source review. I'm sorry that this was unclear. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz, no worries; thank you for doing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 26 April 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) 28 April 2021 [6].

Morningside Park (Manhattan)[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a park in Upper Manhattan, New York City. It is built on a cliff that was deemed too steep to develop upon when Manhattan's grid system was executed. It was first proposed in 1867 but, due to various delays, took three decades to complete. Morningside Park then went through various ups and downs over the years. Besides its topography, the park has some nice art, a waterfall, some paths and plantings, and several fields and playgrounds used by residents of Harlem and Morningside Heights. Morningside Park was designated as a scenic landmark in 2008. If this passes FAC, this will be the second FA about a scenic landmark in NYC, after Riegelmann Boardwalk.

This was promoted as a Good Article a year ago thanks to an excellent GA review from Lee Vilenski. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - a bit trivial, but the image in the "Columbia athletic complex" section is almost precisely the same shot as the one in the "Bordering streets" section, just taken in a different season and a lot less sharp. It just feels like a lower-quality duplicate. Guettarda (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Morningside_retainer_116_jeh.JPG is missing a caption, and why include two very similar pictures of the retaining wall?
    • @Guettarda and Nikkimaria: Thanks for pointing this out (both of you pointed this out similarly). I swapped the image in the athletic complex section with one of brick arches. Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up File:Morningside_Park,_New_York,_N._Y_(NYPL_b12647398-69897).tiff
    • Done. I also cropped the image to a 16:9 ratio.
  • File:Morningside_Park_Aug_2019_57.jpg: what is the copyright status of the monument? Ditto File:Carl_Schurz_Morningside_116_jeh.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lafayette and Washington (1900) and Carl Schurz Monument (1913) are public domain in the United States. I will tag them accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Guettarda[edit]

Lead
  • The lead seems short to me, given the length of the article
  • sentence 4: "several rock outcroppings" - isn't the cliff a rock outcropping, and if so, shouldn't this be other rock outcroppings?
  • The mention of protests in response to the construction of the gym seems to be missing a "why".
    • I've added some explanation as to the protests. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Site: sentence 2: "smoothed during glacial periods" seeks overly vague, given that there have several over the last 3 billion or so years
    • I've specified these glacial periods specifically applied to the last million years. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • para 2, sentence 4: "Johannes de la Montagne, who was among the first settlers". Given that you refer to the Lenape as the initial settlers, should this be "Dutch settlers" (or whatever ethnicity he was)
    • I think he was of Huguenot descent, per this link, or a Protestant from France per this link. However, neither are although it's not exactly an FA quality source. I instead clarified that he was among the first European settlers, as his ancestry is not too important to the narrative of the park. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • para 3, sentence 6: the juxtaposition of "owned by several families...several of whom also owned slaves" feels a little weird to me. The idea ownership of land and of people put so matter-of-factly alongside each other. Something like "occupied by several families and their slaves" or "occupied by several families...several of whom were slaveholders" or better yet, "enslaved Africans" or African Americans (assuming that's verifiable)
    • Done.
Design and construction
  • At the least first time that $ is mentioned, I think you should specify US$
    • Done.
Beginning of construction
  • These three paragraphs are too long, wordy, and blow by blow. The writing could be tighter - some of the language in there is just filler. (TBH, the language could be tightened up throughout)
    • Apparently, the paragraphs were supposed to be four paragraphs. Nonetheless, I've reworded unnecessary wording throughout. Epicgenius (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Early and mid-20th centuries & 1950s and 1960s controversies
  • I think there's an undertone of race here that leaves me wondering whether this attitude to the park and its proximity to Harlem is reasonable, racist, or some combination of both. I'm not saying that we need to delve into that in the article itself, but I do think that we need to at least include a link, a reference or a note acknowledging this.
  • This is even more true when you get to the discussion of segregation and sit-ins.
Recreational features
  • Plant family names (Magnoliaceae, Ranunculaeae, Berberidaceae) are not italicised
    • Removed.
Art
  • Carl Schurz Monument and Seligman fountain are italicised in the text, but not in the photo caption. It should be consistent
    • Done.
Bordering streets
  • "All of the sidewalks were asphalt until 1911, but today they consist of Belgian blocks and concrete" - "now" isn't time-bounded, and should be, especially when it's supported by a 2008-vintage source
    • Fixed.

Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda: Thanks for the comments. I've addressed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It looks good enough for me to support. Nice work! Guettarda (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

More than two weeks in and no non-image comments on the article. If this has not changed significantly by the time it hits three weeks the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of doing a broken record imitation, a lack of significant further indication of a consensus to promote forming by the four week mark may have unfortunate results. If you can call in a favour or two, now is the time to do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 8 April 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
  • A cliff of Manhattan schist - There's something missing here, or I'm reading this wrong. Maybe it's "off"? Still doesn't read right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A cliff made of Manhattan schist" is what I was going for. I have
  • although a nonprofit group, Friends of Morningside Park, helps maintain it. - I'm not sure how it being nonprofit makes any difference? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed.
  • facilities such as softball diamonds, - maybe we could just say "softball facilities" or similar? Diamonds is pretty indepth if someone's never heard of softball; and we aren't linking to softball the game Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would ordinarily agree with your assessment. However, it is part of a longer quote ("recreational facilities such as softball diamonds, basketball courts, and playgrounds"). In this case, these are three examples of sporting fields or play areas that were installed in the park. I have rephrased it to "sporting fields and playgrounds". Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that's fine. I was just attempting to avoid the "diamond" aspect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cathedral Parkway–110th Street in infobox has a slighly different wording in the linked article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox links to "Bus", but it's a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
Prose
  • (Part of this creek in modern Central Park, dubbed Montayne's Rivulet, was also named after de la Montagne.[8][10]) - should this be a note instead, rather than brackets?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first such fort - the link here has an unnecessary disambig. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • "Path in Morningside Park", could we maybe get a slightly better caption? It's not very descriptive,and doesn't show why the picture is in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with "the south end of the park", and "park entrance". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note, unless I'm reading it wrong (understandably, it's quite long), isn't there quite a few different entrances? 11 in total were suggested and approved, but later it is mentioned there is another one - I lost count. How many in total? Might be worth mentioning the total when you discuss this later in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are at least 17 entrances: seven each on the western and eastern borders, as well as one each at the northwestern, southwestern, and southeastern corners. This calculation was made per WP:CALC, since the source did not say directly. This map may imply there are more, but the source counted each intersection as a single entrance, regardless of whether it contained one or two paths. If each ramp and stair is counted separately, there may be as many as 22. Unlike Central Park, Morningside Park doesn't name its entrances, so it's very hard to tell for sure. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would be nice to add the amount somewhere, as we do mention the amount planned at several places, so CALC is fine, but I do think it needs to be in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 April 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..

Favour called in. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Happy to support. I just have one question, but it's not enough to oppose a great article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Willbb234[edit]

  • several athletic fields to 'several atheltics fields' (see below for some more comments on this).
    • I believe this may be a case of WP:ENGVAR. As far as I know, "athletic field" (singular) appears to be the common American usage. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the introduction, you wikilink the second mention of 'playgrounds', but not the first.
    • Fixed.
  • Who or what is 'Columbia'? If it refers to Columbia University, then you should use this name and wikilink as it is the first time it is mentioned.
    • Added - thanks for pointing it out. This refers to Columbia University, but I had thought this was mentioned earlier. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manhattan was settled initially by the Lenape Native Americans do we have an approximate time period for this? The paragraph previously talks about glacial movements that happened millions of years ago so this could be confusing to a reader.
    • I'm not sure when exactly the Lenape arrived, though it is likely they would have arrived no earlier than 9,000 years ago. I just clarified that it was several thousand years ago. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • between 109th and 124th Street. did these streets exist in 1658? If not, then you could say 'between what is now 109th and 124th Street' for clarification.
  • Colonial forces used... wikilink to the appropriate article, I suggest British Army.
    • Done.
  • You should wikilink to the first mention of Central Park instead of the mention under 'Initial plans'.
    • Fixed.
  • under which 31.238 acres (12.642 ha) was acquired for Morningside Park and 0.018 acres (73 m2) were condemned at a cost of US$1.33 million not sure what is being said here, maybe I'm just not reading it right. I'm confused by the use of the word 'condemned' here as I can't see how it fits.
  • The Times should the 'The' be in italics as well?

More to come. I need a break first. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Morningside Park would be designed to emphasize scenery and its proximity to Central Park not sure how it can be designed "to emphasize... its proximity to Central Park"? This might need explaining.
    • The southern part of Morningside Park is one block from the northern side of Central Park. I have clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • overlook bays what is this? Do you mean 'overlooking bays' or something along the lines of Scenic viewpoint?
    • The latter, as the current design contains terraces that overlook Harlem. I've added a link. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July, a group of Civil War veterans stayed in the park during the Independence Day weekend, firing cannons and pretending to storm the blockhouse walls you could include that this was a reenactment (Historical reenactment) if the sources imply or say this.
    • Done.
  • though this did not come to pass this wording strikes me as overly formal or somewhat dated.
    • Fixed.
  • In 1913, Carl Schurz Memorial to "In 1913, the Carl Schurz Memorial".
    • Done.
  • Other issues were caused by a large Independence Day celebration in 1912, this is quite vague. You should try to say what issues and how, if that information is available.
    • Done. The celebration was not the only cause of the erosion and decay, but I've added this. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its annual report of 1929, NYC Parks you haven't already introduced NYC Parks. It looks as if it is the same thing as New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, in which case NYC Parks should be placed in parentheses the first time the organisation is mentioned.
    • Done. This is indeed the NYC Parks Department's abbreviation. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as signs of a racial problem. quite vague here.
    • Clarified.
  • reported that Teachers College of Columbia University should this read "reported that the Teachers College of Columbia University"?
    • Done.
  • You say 113th and 114th Streets where 'Streets' is plural, but earlier you say 109th and 124th Street where 'Street' is singular. Some consistency is needed.
    • Fixed.
  • Wikilink to softball.
    • Done.

More to come. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the park was virtually off-bounds to [Columbia University] students and faculty as "too dangerous'.” not sure what's going on with the speech marks here. One is curly and the others don't add up (single and double mixed).
    • Fixed. I'm not sure why there was a curly quote. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further on from my mention of 'athletic' to 'athletics' in the lede, in the section 'Columbia athletic complex', my understanding is that 'athletics' is a noun that refers to sports as a whole (in some cases to track and field), while 'athletic' is an adjective. See Sport of athletics and [7]. At this point, I think both make perfect sense in the context, but it's just a question of what you think would be best. I also could be completely wrong and be talking about British-English instead of American-English.
    • Yeah. I think this may be an American-specific usage, like I mentioned earlier. However, in regard to this specific issue, "athletic" is indeed being used as an adjective. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: Thanks for the comments. I really appreciate these, and I have addressed or replied to all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • of which alumnus Francis S. Levien donated $1 million in May 1962. I suggest changing this to $1 million of which was donated by alumnus Francis S. Levien in May 1962.
    • Done.
  • that it was given the nickname "Muggingside Park" by whom?
    • Added.
  • The abbreviation 'LPC' needs to be placed in parentheses next to New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.
    • Done.
  • drew up plans for a $12-million why does '12' and 'million' have a dash between?
    • Removed.
  • who died in 1996 to "who had died in 1996".
    • Done.
  • Going back to the 'Final plans and completion' section, you should add a wikilink to Riverside Park (Manhattan).
    • Done.
  • Since then, additional improvements have taken place within the park. Additional trees were planted in the park in 2009, including a sequoia tree these two sentences can likely be combined into one. The phrase "within the park" can be removed as this is implied given the previous sentences. A semi-colon can be placed between the two statements.
    • Done.
  • Two years later, NYC Parks presented a plan to restore the northern section and add a playground there. do we have any details on whether this went ahead. I can't tell if you are implying this in the next sentence.
    • Done. I have added a few sources about when it was completed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morningside Dog Run is an enclosed space for dog owners to bring their dogs to play. happy doggies!
    • Yep. A lot of parks have these, and they're generally nice to play around in. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should wikilink the first mention of arboretum.
    • Done.
  • was built in 1903–1904 and destroyed in 1952. why was it 'destroyed'. This implies some kind of vandalism/incident. If this isn't the case, how about 'removed' or 'dismantled'?
    • Done. I sometimes use "destroyed" and "demolished" interchangeably, but it may be just me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink to Marcus Garvey Park.
    • Added.
  • A tablet was placed on the site by the Women's Auxiliary of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society in 1904; part of the cliff was destroyed in 1915 I can't tell if these two statements are supposed to be linked.
  • Residents and visitors to the pond these two terms I would associate with humans. Are there more appropriate terms you can think of?
    • I have rephrased the sentence.
  • both in uniform and holding hands 'holding hands' struck me as an odd phrase here. The source [8] says "clasping hands", perhaps implying they're shaking hands, also implied by the image [9]. I don't know what phrasing you want to use, but 'holding hands' doesn't seem quite right.
    • I reworded it to shaking hands. This is largely synonymous with "clasping", based on the context, but doesn't copy directly. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The group is atop there are only two of them, so how about 'the pair'?
    • Done.
  • The Marcus Garvey Park is wikilinked in the 'Management' section. This should be removed per my above comment about wikilinking earlier on.
    • Removed.
  • Alright, so I'm confused about some of the organisations here. The MAA was set up and attempted to reorganize the Friends group (A portion was used to assess what the park needed done most urgently, while a second portion went to reorganize the largely dismantled Friends volunteer group.). In the management section you say that the park is maintained by the Friends group, implying that the group didn't really dismantle (or if it did, it was able to reorganize successfully). However, there is no mention of the MAA in the management section. So I'm confused about the role of the MAA. Were they simply a temporary organisation to help the failing Friends group, were they a separate organisation which at some point ceased to exist, or are they still about but are not mentioned in the management section?
    • Basically, the Morningside Area Alliance still exists, but it is a neighborhood group, not a park-specific group. This is why it's not mentioned in "Management", as its focus is largely on the neighborhood rather than the park. As for the Friends group, it was "largely" dismantled, but a better wording would probably be "disorganized" or something similar. It didn't cease to exist at the time, but had shrunken from its largest extent. I have made that change. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the New York Post, I see it is considered unreliable at WP:RSP although I did see your comment at the RFC ([10]) saying that it is good for real estate articles. I will presume it is fine here, especially as there is very little, if anything, relating to politics

That's all I have to say. I'm happy to support once said comments are addressed. If an in depth source review is conducted and issues are found, I may change this decision, but I doubt that will happen. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: Thanks again for the comments. I have addressed all the comments you've left above. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

I see this needs a source review. Will contribute one soon, might claim for wikicup points. Hog Farm Talk 02:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Location needed for Kadinsky 2016
    • Done.
  • "Olmsted, Frederick Law; Vaux, Calvert; New York (N.Y.). (1887). General plan for the improvement of Morningside Park. New York?: s.n.] Archived from the original on August 1, 2019. Retrieved July 30, 2019." - I think you can drop the ]
    • Done.
  • Need publisher and location for Bolton
    • Done.
  • Need location for Dolkart, Pierce, Pirsson, and Stokes
    • Done.
  • drop the p. 175 from Stokes, as you also cite other pages in the short citations
    • Done.
  • Worldcat has OCLCs for Bolton, Hall, Pierce, and Pirsson
    • Done.

Sources all look reliable for what they are citing. Will put spot checks on the FAC talk page. Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks have been posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Morningside Park (Manhattan)/archive1#Spot checks. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks. I have fixed all of these and have responded on this nomination's talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 26 April 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) 28 April 2021 [11].

The Thankful Poor[edit]

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1894 painting The Thankful Poor by Henry Ossawa Tanner. GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass, see talk for details (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, now there is another issue: the current version has introduced a lot of sandwiching of images contrary to MOS:IMAGELOC in the Description and Background sections. That needs to be fixed before the article is promoted. (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Buidhe: By sandwiching images, I assumed images on both sides of text? I just aligned all the images to the right, and moved the detail crops to Interpretations. The current layout seems to work in my opinion. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that works. (t · c) buidhe 00:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

On 1a-e and 3. (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the proposal of an unusual topic! I'll look at the lead last.

Background

  • "photographed models which Tanner shot" sounds a bit violent ;)
I didn't realize that until now! The wording has been changed. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

  • We talked (in the peer review) about the average reader perhaps not being familiar with Annunciation, - what do you think of creating short articles on those two paintings? It would help understanding without blowing up this article.
I feel like that writing up articles for the two shouldn't be that hard, especially since there are images of both paintings on WikiMedia Commons. I'll see what I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a certain contradiction in "ritual experience" here and "ordinary moment" there, for the same scene. Perhaps I misunderstand "ordinary" - English is not my first language.
Ritual means that it is a religious ceremony done in a "prescribed order" according to Google. I believe praying a table would satisfy being both "ritual" for its religiosity and rigidity as well as "ordinary" for its frequency. However, I do agree that using "ordinary" does undermine the specialness of the moment (I even use a quote in the next sentence describing the scene as "extraordinary", so definitely a contradiction!). I replaced "ordinary moment" with "African-American religious custom" since I feel its more descriptive that way. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider to move the Banjo lesson from the gallery to above, where it's mentioned, - it gets a bit lost next to the large lighter one.
I think that's a good idea. Done GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could imagine his parents' beliefs and school founding in the background section, - and if in Analysis, then perhaps sooner?
Reading it over again, I have to agree with the rather awkward structuring of the article there. I rearranged some of the content concerning Tanner's upbringing. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next round: Thank you for moving passages, and creating a new article! I shuffled the images a bit, to context, and we should not "sandwich" text between images. One thing wanted for featured articles - and actually all articles - is that we provide an "alt" parameter for each image, describing what's to be seen for someone who can't see it, - imagine someone blind. Not too detailed! Perhaps compare FAs about images. Otherwise, I'm pleased, but will wait with a support because when others will comment, things may change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I finished adding alt texts. How do they look? I hope I got them right the first time. GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, they look good, but I'd expand the very first one because it's the subject, - "opposite", "African American" and the modesty of the food should be mentioned, I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerda Arendt are you ready to support now? Coords say the nom may be archived soon without support. (t · c) buidhe 13:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the ping. I looked again. While I am happy with the second half, I'd prefer to see Background more in chronological order: first his parents, upbringing, and beliefs, then the rather specific Banjo. If I am the only one with such a concern I can support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the current organization of background, except that I think the last paragraph should be moved up. Also, I still think that the background length is too long compared to the article and I would be looking for ways to trim nonessential info. (t · c) buidhe 19:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda Arendt and Buidhe, I made changes to the Background section as best I could. Please let me know what you think. GeneralPoxter (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the new order much better. I'll look again tomorrow, please check the section once more. First we hear religious - which could be any religion, later specifically which Methodist. Not every sentence there needs to connect to the painting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The current first sentence (!) reads: "The Christian religious education observed in the The Thankful Poor's depiction of a young boy imitating his elder praying can be traced to the educational values of Tanner's parents, who both graduated from Avery College and went on to found schools."
    1. I think it's too complicated, whatever the content.
    2. "Christian" is still very broad, and a link distracting.
    3. The "the The" is to be avoided.
    4. I am not sure "educational values" is a good expression, - it could have too many meanings.
    5. "can be traced" sounds like something hardly visible (traces) while I think it's the core thing.
    How about trying to not even mention the painting in the first (!) sentence. We know already that the artivcle is about that painting. This section is Background: parents, education, values, when and where painted, how old was he, in which situation, - that's what I'd like to know in the section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Gerda Arendt, thank you for the detailed comments! I made changes as best I could; let me know what you think. GeneralPoxter (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it much better. Two little things: In "the denomination encouraged education among African Americans and founded colleges." I think it needs at least a comma after Americans, ot that would still be "among", no? Also, in the sentence about Tanner and the bishop, can we avoid the repetition of Tanner in that they agree? I trust that you will find solutions and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support and suggestions. I'm not sure which sentence you refer to "about Tanner and the bishop", but I assumed it was referring to the one in Background about race and Bishop Tanner's lectures and sermons? GeneralPoxter (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my memory ... - no, "Tanner was also influenced by family friend and educator Booker T. Washington, with whom Tanner shared the belief that skills should be communicated from one generation to another". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Buidhe[edit]

  • Background section has grown quite long, it seems some of this info is not directly related to the painting. For instance, I think much of the material in the paragraph starting "Tanner's first major work of this sort was the The Banjo Lesson" belongs in The Banjo Lesson article but not this one. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello buidhe, yes I would have to say the Background section is getting quite bloated. I cut one irrelevant detail and moved another to a footnote, but I'm not sure if I should go any further. I want to keep the stereotyped criticism there because it sets the social context for The Thankful Poor. Scholars like Professor Woods argue that such comments may have contributed to Tanner's departure from African American subjects following The Thankful Poor, and this idea is alluded to in the History section. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would still say that the background section is longer than ideal, but I'll defer to you as to what is essential information. Whenever writing (esp. background sections), consider "Does this help the reader understand the topic (The Thankful Poor in this case)? If it does not, axe it. With Wikipedia articles, sometimes "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." (t · c) buidhe 22:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naurice Frank Woods believes..." Whenever you introduce an attributed statement like this, always explain (very briefly) what the credentials are and why the reader should care. For example, "Art historian Naurice Frank Woods..." (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right I added Woods' credentials. I believe Woods is the only source I mentioned by name without including credentials—unless I'm mistaken. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, thanks for the *partial* support! However, I'm having trouble trimming and restructuring the Background section down any further. I was wondering whether you could offer any suggestions on which particular sentences could be considered for deletion or rearrangement? GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Source for dimensions?
  • Etinde-Crompton appears to be a children's book - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Missing publisher for Wilson
  • White House Historical Association is a publisher, not a work. Ditto Smithsonian American Art Museum, check others
  • The Princeton University 'Commons' site appears to host student work - who is the author of the specific source cited?
  • How does Baker meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hello! I added a ref for the dimensions; cut Etinde-Crompton, Princeton, and Baker from the sources and replaced them with pre-existing sources along with a biography on Tanner for one quote; and I had the website parameters changed to publisher whenever applicable (i.e. every time I used it). Let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ARTNews and International Review are both work titles so should still use website (the latter can split out Hampton as publisher). The detail added for Wilson is a website, not a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made the appropriate changes for ArtNews and International Review, but on the pdf for Wilson, it says "Published by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 1992" in the lower left. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You already cut it by a good amount. If that's all that can give it's ok. (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Do we have a final verdict on the source review? Also @Buidhe: I think the above comment may be misplaced. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing some inconsistency still regarding publisher display: why for example is it included for Black Enterprise but not American Heritage? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: All right, I added publisher information for American Heritage. Is there anything else that needs attending to? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are you deciding which refs include publisher, location, or neither? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I missed publisher for the ArtNews source and added that in. Though all of the references now have publisher information, I also only added location information for sources where that information is readily available. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
University of California Press for example has a readily available location. To be clear, it's absolutely fine if you don't add both of these details to every source - we just need consistency, and at the moment I'm having trouble identifying when they should be there and when they shouldn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not too sure either over what should be the standard for location vs. no location. For now, I just removed all the location parameters. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

  • Have been following the expansion over the last several weeks. Comments to follow. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ceoil following up... (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also wondering whether Johnbod could take a look if they have time (Theramin referred me to them)? The review process sort of slowed down this last week. GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're getting to decision time here I think, can I just get an indication from Ceoil and Johnbod if they'll be commenting soon, or at all? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ian Rose: Can you give us a rough estimate on how much time we have left? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no hard-and-fast rule for a nom's timing, but after six weeks you expect consensus to have formed and there to be no outstanding concerns. It's looking positive right now, but I'd like another comprehensive review before considering promotion, and I'm prepared to wait a few more days at least for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ian Rose: Some loose ends could still be tidied up, but we seem to have the review + support from Ceoil now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies for not picking it sooner but this would be your first FAC, GeneralPoxter? If so I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. One of the present reviewers might be able to undertake that, or you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This is nearly three weeks in with no indications of support for promotion. Unless this changes in the next two or three days, the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I have started looking at this. Apart from a copyedit, it is looking good so far. --15:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time I have been able to review an article at FAC without any substantial comments. This is how FAC is supposed to be. I review in particular for quality of prose and flow, lack of inconsistencies and lack of sentences that raise more questions than they answer. If only to prove I did in fact read through the article I have a couple of minor comments:

  • As a purely stylistic matter, I think lower-case alpha notes are clearer in the callout superscripts than upper-case alpha: that is the author's choice though.
  • In note D, British idiom would say that a price established in the past "was" rather than "is". Not sure about American idiom which would clearly be more appropriate in this case.

--Mirokado (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions Mirokado! I'm not sure if American idiom has rules on this, but it makes logical sense for the verb to be in the past tense. However, I didn't change the notelist letter casing since it seems many of the featured art articles also use upper case (then again, those articles all seem to have been nominated and/or written by the same editor). GeneralPoxter (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)h[reply]
Thank you for the response. Support. --Mirokado (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

Apologies for being so late with this. Overall very good, leaning support with some quibbles:

  • Can we say in the lead who, what and where is Art Bridges. Also give physical location in the infobox. A stub for Art Bridges would be lovely, but no pressure :)
I will consider adding an article soon and I did add further details about Art Bridges in the lead, but I'm not sure about the "where" detail. Even their LinkedIn does not include a location, and there doesn't seem to be a headquarters. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure they own it? I see a "request to borrow"!! link at the top of their collection page on the website, but am lost to who or what they actually are Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to their credit line under "Provenance" in the catalog. I assume the "request to borrow" is part of the foundation's purpose of loaning artwork to exhibitions. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I owned a fancy painting like this, wouldn't be advertising it for loan on the internet of all places. Do any of the other sources mention them? Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, but that's also because all of them were written prior to the acquisition in 2020. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't find anything strange about a nonprofit offering to loan artwork, especially one founded by a notable art philanthropist. I also wouldn't really call this advertising since it's on their own website. (clicking on the request to borrow button does actually lead to a form for a loan inquiry) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'd be cautious here. Who handled the acquisition. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to Art Bridges, the purchase was made via the M. Hanks Gallery in Fullerton, CA. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • beliefs on education and race - "views on..." (or convictions), especially as the next sentence starts with "These beliefs were in turn".
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Thankful Poor has been described as a milestone in African-American art, notably for its subject treatment that counters racial stereotypes. - "notably for its countering of racial stereotypes".
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite its critical support, The Thankful Poor would prove to be - "critical success"; "would prove to be" -> was
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After being considered lost for years - considered lost is not quite right; why not just lost
Even the use of "lost" is kind of misleading in this case, so I reworded the entire sentence to better match the cited source. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • before entering the private collection of Camille and Bill Cosby in 1981 maybe just purchased by...for their private collection
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • would split the lead into 3 paragraphs: Intro (as is), themes, provenance (ie split the current para from "After being considered".
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a study of the painting by Tanner is held by... - "a preparatory study is held by"?
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tanner's parents valued education, and their views went on to shape Tanner's art - Which views...only on education?
Not necessarily only their views on education, but in the context of this sentence, yes. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both graduated from Avery College, ran schools - "ran" schools?
By "ran", I meant that they both managed/headed schools. Wording has been changed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, Tanner's father
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • skills should be communicated from one generation to another - "passed" from. but which skills?
In the source, it seems these skills regard any that help one support a living, so I added that in. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tanner was also influenced by family friend and educator Booker T. Washington, with whom he shared the belief that skills should be communicated from one generation to another.[5] Race was another factor that impacted Tanner. Is that all he really took from Booker T. It reads odd that the next sentence says that otherwise, seemingly apart from Booker T., be became racically aware
The source from which I got this information (Taylor) does not make further connections between Tanner and Washington as far as I know. Though it does say Washington's own beliefs on race were influenced by Tanner, it does not say so explicitly vice versa. It does however, draw a mutual connection with respect to African-American education, but the passage (page 30) doesn't hint at any racial awareness in Tanner evoked by Washington. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which incorporated a sense of racial injustice - "incorporated a sense" is not right here..."highlighted" or "drew attention to racial injustice and inequality."
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • photographed models which Tanner made in that period - same people Tanner had photographed
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • after Tanner returned temporarily to the United States - as we say shortly that he then returned to Paris
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Particularly moved by the increasing number of lynchings against African Americans, - surely more outraged or distressed, rather than "moved".
The wording on page 72 of Woods 2017 uses "particularly moved Tanner". I agree that the response surely would have been more impassioned than just "moved", but no other content in the source suggests so as far as I know. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the appearance of The Banjo Lesson, many... - "Following the showing of..." Paintings don't just "appear", they are displayed...
Fact. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tanner turned away from painting African Americans - Moved away from would be better, as "turned" implies disapproval or something
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have more to say but it might be later in the week if that's fine with Ian re keeping open; I do expect to end up supporting. Ceoil (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: No need to apologize for the lateness, and thank you for these detailed comments. I have applied them as best I could to the article. Please let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses, General. Largely happy with the replies.

  • The construct "Thankful Poor" appears 40 times in the text, and makes for somewhat repetitive reading. Can you vary please.
Usage of "The Thankful Poor" reduced to 24 in the prose. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • African American or African-American...you use both.
This was addressed on the peer review incorrectly. Per User:Buidhe and MOS:HYPHEN on compound modifiers, when used as an adjective, this article hyphenates. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition: Rather, the genre painting depicts a daily ritual for lower-class African Americans. In The Thankful Poor, Tanner chose to capture the hardships of African-American life through a realistic scene. - suggest you chose one phrasing and cut the number of words in half - maybe "...daily ritual for lower-class African Americans through a realistic scene" and "then" explain of what of
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reduced image in the infobox doesn't give justice to his painterly skills and technique. Maybe some crops later on? Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "crops". When comparing the Wikimedia image to the catalog entry on ArtBridges, the painting does not appear to be cropped. However, the resolution is quite low, so I increased the scaling to 1.75 in the infobox. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I mean can you add a few crops/details at higher res in sections were you discuss the paintings style. Like here. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, high-resolution versions of The Thankful Poor are hard to come by online. I guess the existing image is suitable enough for cropping, but I'd rather wait until someone finds a better resolution version of the painting. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that likely though? Even having larger views of sections would be helpful in showing the detail and skill not apparent in the infobox img. Not a deal breaker though. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Do you think cropped sections of the elder and the boy's faces would be sufficient? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what was thinking too. Would put both in portrait format, while including the boys hand. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right I added them to the article. This is my first time adding cropped details of paintings, so any feedback is appreciated. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they look great! Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I pinged one of the coordinators, and hopefully Nikkimaria is satisfied with my removal of the location parameters, so hopefully this nomination is ready to go now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great. But with these image additions, I wonder if the two paras from that beginning with "Tanner's stylistic choice for...." would be better in "description" rather than "analysis" (a section I would anyway retitle as "interpretation"). This is a choice for you to make...does not effect the support below. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm I'm not sure about the paragraph beginning with "Tanner's stylistic choice", since it seems to go deeper than a surface-level observation of the composition, especially with Woods' quote at the end. However, I did move the comparisons with Nourse and Steen to Description and retitled the Analysis section. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's better again. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, am happy to Support at this stage, as mentioned above this is an excellent survey of the painting. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Johnbod[edit]

  • Support (on a quickish read-through, I admit). Nothing much to say - I don't suppose we know the latest price? Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This somewhat relates to the lack of Art Bridges information that Ceoil and I were discussing above. So far, the most up-to-date source I could find on the painting's credit line is from Art Bridges themselves, and they don't specify how much they purchased it for. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It recently came from Bill Cosby's private collection, which I imagine somewhat taints it, so knock down I'm supposing, which fits in with its new owners lack of transparency. I'm guessing "Art Bridges" is a foundation for a private collection that wishes to remain anonymous, but haven't really looked. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says on Art Bridge's website as well as in the Greenberger source that it is a nonprofit that loans artwork it has collected to travel shows, exhibitions, etc. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. You might have mentioned the Greenberger source earlier here, when I specifically asked for non Art Bridge back-up, rather than leaving us wondering. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I thought when you asked "Do any of the other sources mention them?", you meant whether they mentioned the acquisition in particular. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get it now, thanks. Interesting stuff. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's Walton (Walmart) money, & foundations/owners with no public display facility of their own are often readier to loan for various periods. Some charge these days, I think, but the Waltons hardly need the money, & loans can enhance the value of a work (which is one reason the National Gallery has so many). Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks. Art bridges so could be linked to here.[12] Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe wait for the actual article, since that section of Walton's article does not even mention Art Bridges. Also wondering if Art Bridges satisfies notability to be an article? Apart from the ArtNews article, I was not able to find any significant mentions of the foundation in media. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
any mention could be just confined to the section in her bio. Ceoil (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Aza24[edit]

I don't think I'll get around to doing a proper review but two comments:

  • "The work is based on photographs which Tanner himself took and is influenced by Tanner's views on education and race. These beliefs were influenced by Tanner's father and the African Methodist Episcopal Church." reads awkwardly and a bit choppy. Try avoid using "influence" twice in a row and I almost wonder if these sentences could be combined, say "Based on photographs which Tanner himself took, the work is influenced by his views on education and race, which are intern derived from those of his father and the African Methodist Episcopal Church" or something
Sounds good. Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ordering of sections perplexes me. I would think that the history section should follow the background, to keep chronology. Additionally, the "interpretations" sections feels like it should be the last section, as its other commentators giving their views on Tanner's work. I also wonder if the description section could be first, as the work is first and foremost a painting, so it might make sense to describe the painting itself to the reader, before delving into its history and such. Maybe Description > Background > History > Interpretations? Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: All right I reordered the sections as specified above, and the flow seems to have improved. I did have to reorder some of the pictures around to minimize white space and bleeding into other sections, so maybe Ceoil take a look to check if the new layout looks fine? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you have quite a bit of text squash and white space now between and around the images. Ceoil (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I've always seemed to struggle at image formatting. Honestly, I'm not sure if the new arrangement is better than the old one, but I think at least the gallery should be moved into Descriptions in this new content ordering. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you, in the end. For the images, some are discussed in detail in the interpretation section, perhaps moving one or two of these there would help lighten up the description section. Aza24 (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'm satisfied with the current arrangement tweaked by Ceoil, so I guess we'll just keep it like that for now. Problem is, the Interpretation section isn't that big either, so moving some images down there may cause them to bleed into the Footnotes and References. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks[edit]

Will do on talk soon. Pass, no issues found (t · c) buidhe 20:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks for the prompt review. Did this review include a plagiarism check, or is plagiarism a separate review? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism check[edit]

I ran a plagiarism check on this article using Earwig's copyvio tool, and the only major "violation" appears to be a page clearly lifted from the Wikipedia article. Does the plagiarism check necessarily have to be done by a third party, especially if the tools being used are the same? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's good to check the offline sources as well, but I did check some and found no plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues. (t · c) buidhe 00:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need one as I would consider the checks I did to be sufficient. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity I agree the Earwig check is clean. (t · c) buidhe 00:42, 28 April 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 April 2021 [13].

All About That Bass[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ and Lips are movin 16:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "All About That Bass", which she initially offered to other artists but decided to record herself. It reached number one in 58 countries and became the best-selling song by a female artist in the 2010s in the United States, earning two Grammy nominations. Over the past few days, I started rewriting it "from the bottom to the top". After a copyedit from Baffle gab1978 and peer review comments by Aoba47 and SandyGeorgia, I am confident about this article. It is quite large so thanks to everyone who will take the time to offer their feedback here.--NØ 16:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/All About That Bass/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

♫ Guess who's back, back again? ♫ Wait a moment, wrong track :P. On a more serious note, I'll start by assessing the files used here:

Other details will follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review! I removed the Minaj and Lopez pics and added a screenshot that would be more beneficial for readers' understanding. Looking forward to your other comments ;)--NØ 17:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and this portion of the article now passes when the critical commentary focused on File:All About That Bass screenshot.png is definitely a better inclusion that the previous video screenshot. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • July 2013 is actually when the song was written, not necessarily recorded (all I can say for sure from the given link is how recording took place in between that month and January 2014)
  • Kadish says he finished the demo two to three days after the session and confirms it is the version that was released: "what I sent her is what you hear on the radio", this is also confirmed by Reid here.
  • Not sure why the US of all places is being singled out within the lead among the many charts it topped. Perhaps you could rework this so it says something along the lines of "These included ________, where it also received multi-platinum certifications" after mentioning how it went number one in 58 nations?
  • I changed it to a mention of its US sales record.
  • Is "played an important role in the song's rise to prominence" based on the subsequent "rock star in two days" bit regarding the music video?
  • That and its viewcount.
  • Since "attractive" is an inherently subjective description (people's tastes widely vary on what does/doesn't look good), I'd scrap "conventionally attractive"
  • Removed.
  • Two reviews on their own don't seem like much to substiantiate "Some" from "Some music critics viewed 'All About That Bass' as a novelty song"
  • Added more.
  • For the accolades it only got nominated for, let's mention who won instead
  • I guess this is considered out-of-scope, since the FAs I was looking at—Shake It Off and Blank Space—do not include it.
  • Is it known when the video was filmed?
  • I don't think so.
  • Try to avoid having super short paragraphs like the first and third ones from "Background and concept"; that makes the text flow seem choppy
  • Fixed that one.
  • Something about the tone of "essential" from "Social media was an essential factor" doesn't feel optimal
  • Rephrased.
  • Done.
  • "2014–16" from "Live performances" should be "2014–2016"
  • Fixed.
  • "Cover versions" is better off being its own section instead of a subsection of "Cultural impact"
  • Split.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • I can't say for certain whether Stereogum or Idolator are supposed to be italicized
  • Salon isn't the strongest of sources to use
  • Removed.
  • Fixed.
  • Done.

Once these are resolved, I'm sure the article will be closer to FA-material. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, SNUGGUMS. :) I made the changes and have responded above.--NØ 04:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, and I now support the nomination. My bad on recording time (I initially misunderstood the demo part when reading about it). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am less certain about the music video screenshot. I understand SNUGGUMS' comment about the original screenshot, and I do understand the purpose of it as it does illustrate a common point of criticism directed at the video. I just have not seen a screenshot used to emphasize negative reviews, and I would like to hear @SNUGGUMS:'s perspective on this as they are far more experienced than I am. I was just under the impression that images were not used to focus on negative reviews, but avoiding that completely may cause some NPOV issues. If the current screenshot is kept, I would move it down to the "Reception" subsection as it is more about the critical response to the video.
  • In the "Critical reception" section, the first sentence of the first paragraph has four citations. I understand why the citations are there to support that information, but to prevent citation overkill, I would encourage you to bundle the citations instead.

Thankfully, I was able to get around my current computer issues by figuring out how to connect my wireless keyboard to my computer. I had participated in the last peer review for this article, and all of my comments were addressed there. I just have two quick comments (i.e. a question about the music video screenshot and a recommendation about citation bundling), and once both are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion #8 of WP:Non-free content criteria is Contextual significance, requiring that files such as these help illustrate a point more easily for viewers when text alone wouldn't be helpful enough. I've seen other pages use screenshots featuring aspects of videos that get criticized by reviewers, especially during instances where it sparked controversy. In this case, I feel the image of twerking helps give readers a better sense of what the complaints were about. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the very quick response. That makes sense to me so the image seems appropriate to me now. I have moved it down to the "Reception" subsection per my suggestion above as I think it is a better fit there, but feel free to revert if you disagree. Thank you again for the help. It is always nice to learn something new about Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments, Aoba47. I removed the AllMusic ref. The other three are cited multiple times so bundling them could cause confusion. And as for the music video screenshot, I do agree it looks more relevant in the reception section :)--NØ 06:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Buidhe[edit]

I am also not convinced about the screenshot. The description already in the text of the scene is sufficient to understand why critics objected, I am not convinced that its "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" as required by WP:NFCC. It is not the specific action of twerking that is significant here but its cultural identification with a specific group of people, so I don't think the visual is necessary. Likewise, I am concerned that it highlights a negative aspect of reception that barely gets 2 sentences in the article, thus potentially being a POV issue especially considering BLP implications. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe, I will remove it if you insist. However, I think the screenshot is demonstrating a number of things in this section—the pastel pink backdrop, the "retro pop world" comment, Trainor's size (which resulted in a debate), the dance sequence and colorful sets being designed to attain online popularity, the "Baby Got Back" influence, finally the accusations of cultural appropriation—the latter is just the one I considered the most worthy of being the caption. So I do see its omission being detrimental to readers' understanding of this section.--NØ 09:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can see that, but if it's being retained for other uses, I would change the caption to reflect that, rather than giving undue prominence to cultural appropriation claims by repeating them in the caption. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you for the comment!--NØ 09:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Is fn 11, 153, 163 necessary?
  • None were, so I removed them.
  • I am not exactly certain of this, but I believe titles/references are supposed to be converted as if they were prose. For example, All About That Bass would be "All About That Bass" and Billboard would be Billboard in a title parameter.
  • Done.
  • fn 24 is not the Cape Cod Times; unsure of its reliability too.
  • I removed its usage for the musical elements. I hope it's fine to keep the interview-sourced details since its video is linked at the bottom of the article, and no replacements were found.
  • Is it the only source for the music video elements like director and filming period? If you want to keep her quote maybe I'd just cite a timestamp from the audio interview on YouTube, so we can be certain the quotes are correct. Also "Trainor described Robinson as "the best of the best" and credited her for making Trainor" doesn't really make sense; Trainor credited her for making Trainor?
  • For the filming period, yes. Retargeted this to the video itself.--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stereogum is italicized in prose but not citations?
  • All italicized now.
  • fn 54/165 are not a Vogue article
  • They aren't but they confirm the claim they are used to cite, since the Vogue article itself seems to have been deleted.
  • I would suggest removing the New York Post ref given the sentiment surrounding it in general (WP:NYPOST).
  • Removed.
  • fn 80 url is dead
  • Archive added.
  • the music video really premiered on Idolator?!
  • I was shocked too, lol. The YouTube upload date is the following day.
  • Added.--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the reliability of The Fader?
  • fn 177 is HuffPost Canada, not HuffPost
  • Fixed.
  • fn 190 Billboard Brasil should be italicized
  • Done.
  • fn 199 dead
  • Marked dead, archive already present.
  • suggest changing itunes links that redirect to apple music to apple music links
  • Amended.
  • fn 87 doesn't reflect the figure cited; looks like it's for "On The Floor".
  • Fixed.
  • should be clear in the certifications table that 10 million US figure is units not sales? (currently no symbol is listed)
  • Done.
  • for Spain, platinum streaming certification = 8 million units?
  • The template automatically generates 8 million streams for a Plat cert, while Promusicae states it is 10 million streams; for now I am trusting the former. Please feel free to suggest otherwise.
  • Template:Certification Table Entry cites the Wikipedia article as the source... maybe add refs that indicate the threshold amount/definition of all the certifications too? (I realize that's a lot, but Meghan Trainor required refs for the discography section, and that's for something with an article, bu this is via a template). For the sake of accuracy I would prefer to rely on a direct source rather than a template that apparently cites Wikipedia articles. It appears the Spain certification threshold is here, so the 8 million looks correct. Heartfox (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized that the PDF that opens from the reference link includes the streams. There is only one asterisk in front of "All About That Bass" and if you scroll down they confirm it is just "Disco de oro" (Gold) = "4 million escuchas" (4M streams).--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • didn't do text–source spot checks
  • sources not noted above are suitable for their usage, Heartfox (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicize the second instance of "X Factor UK" in prose
  • Done.--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a better source for South Africa certification than a Sony tweet (it should be template:cite tweet either way, not web)?
  • No, removed.--NØ 14:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 246 url-access=subscription. Maybe re-check the other Billboard ones as well.
  • Done.--NØ 06:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recheck the non-English refs and add language= parameter to those without it.
  • Done. Please let me know about any specific one I may have still missed.--NØ 06:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 238, 243
  • It appears the Hungarian chart ref live links have changed. Heartfox (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.--NØ 06:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think fn 93 title would be 03.11.2014 - 09.11.2014
  • the trans-title parameter should be added for those with non-English language titles (e.g., fn 98, 109, 125, 192) (some have them already, but some don't)
  • Not sure where fn 87, 102, 112 publisher are coming from. What companies are "Top 40 Singles", "Top Digital Download", "Canciones Top 50"? These seem to be chart names but are used as the publisher?
  • fn 122 website title looks to be El Portal de Música Heartfox (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heartfox, most of these are what is automatically transcluded through the singlechart templates. Their use is recommended, and can be seen on longstanding featured articles like Diamonds (Rihanna song) and Blank Space. With all due respect, it is not fair to task me to change them all manually for a song that charted in, like, 200 countries. If you want to change them on a large scale, start a discussion at Template talk:Single chart. I have fixed some of these out of courtesy.--NØ 05:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 104 is dead.
  • fn 196 missing trans-title.
  • fn 208 missing language
  • fn 202 "Adult Pop Songs" is not on the page.
  • Adult Top 40 is Adult Pop Songs.--NØ 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 224, 238 is not in English
  • weekly Hungary Radios Top 40: there are two consecutive parentheses. Heartfox (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed, Heartfox.--NØ 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heartfox, does the source review pass now? It will make the coords' work easier if this is stated explicitly.--NØ 11:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 128 does not seem to indicate filming occurred over a two day period. Also url-status=live. Heartfox (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed. Note that Heartfox indicated this was the last of their concerns, on their talk page, so this concludes the source review.--NØ 04:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noted issues to the people at the certifications template, and Template:Singlechart's code is fully protected, so major overhauls which I believe are necessary would unlikely be completed in a timely matter. I will say this source review passes as I would not oppose when certain things are out of the contributor's reasonable control. MaranoFan, I know you want to nominate other articles but telling the coords "this concludes the source review" yourself feels a bit over-the-top to me. It's not like I'm going on vacation tomorrow... I tried to be as thorough as possible and would hope proper citation formatting and taking advantage of appropriate parameters is in the best interest of an article, especially one to exemplify "Wikipedia's very best work ". Heartfox (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. After reading the article (twice) I could not find any grammar mistakes. It is a well-written, extensive, and well-detailed article about an essential commercially-succesful song. The sources seem to be reliable and images well-used as well. Congratulations! — Tom(T2ME) 11:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Gog the Mild, this is far enough down the queue that I will have to directly approach someone to get another reviewer. Will that be necessary?--NØ 16:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be several thorough reviews here, and I am inclined to believe that once they are all completed there will be sufficient indication of whether a consensus to promote has formed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, this is just to let you know Serial concluded his review and now supports. Sorry I just really want this to be promoted in under a month (since the nomination) haha.--NØ 20:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would want to leave it for four or five days to see if it attracted ant further comments, but I have made a note to go through it some time prior to 17:16, 27 April to see what I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. If my math is correct everything should be in order. I will just note that buidhe, above, does not plan on posting a full review.—NØ 02:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, Gog, but I'm on a roll and might appropriate the close just a bit before your own deadline... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial Number 5-4-1-2-9[edit]

Not my cup of tea at all. Let's dooooo it  :)

Bround
  • "After independently releasing three albums as a recording artist": would we lose anything by simply saying "three albums herself", as that would eliminate a degree of repetition with "artist" (used later in the sentence?
  • (On that, I don't really understand what's being implied: she released albums herself, and then wrote for other people because she didn't think she could ever release albums herself? Had they tanked? If so, please say so.)
  • No reliable sources offer commentary about the albums' commercial performance. From what I understand, they weren't commercial pursuits at all, just Trainor playing with Garageband. She never considered being a serious recording artist herself due to her chubbiness, which I think is already being sufficiently implied.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can a date be inserted in this section to anchor it in the chronology?
  • Potential song titles: do we know what the others were? (Perhaps a footnote if it would burgeon the text.)
  • Unfortunately not.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "and suggested these as a basis for the lyrics" (or something), to remove repetition of "themes".
  • "and wrote lyrics criticizing...": for this song? In which case, that they're lyrics is probably self-evident by now; how about something like
  • "while Trainor started singing sang the hook" (because, yes she started, but she also carried on).
  • "Acc. to Kadish...three days later". Could merge these two short sentences? E.g. "contributed to the lyrics and melody,[5] and Kadish finished the demo..." (removing repetition of "Kadish").
  • Concision: "Although both were satisfied with the song"?
  • Could probably link record label.
  • "and wanted to record it": Would we say '"rerecord it", since it's already been recorded the first time?
  • So did they record it with synths, etc? The next thing we hear, she's singing it with a ukelele! The two instruments aren't mutually exclusive, of course, but could this be clarified?
  • "Speaking in 2015, he said..." (repetition of Reid).
Comp & Lyr. int.
  • Could tighten the first sentence: "The song was produced, engineered, programmed, sound designed, and mixed by Kadish—also played drums, electric guitar, and bass guitar—at the Carriage House studio in Nolensville, Tennessee."
  • In its first sentence, the second section uses the word £song" three times in less than thirty words: repetition.
  • Link Syncopation.
  • It gets a bit technical here, for us WP:RANDYs. E.g. "bass instrumentation across its beats" (what is that?) and are the adlibs wordless if she's saying "bass bass" etc?
  • I tried to clarify this.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Scat singing? (Notwithstanding SEAOFBLUE of course)
  • "shimmying melody",[20] which has been compared..." is tighter, and gets rid of both the stubby sentence and a repetitive "melody".
  • "promote a positive body image": I think removing the indefinite article makes the point a more general one. I admit, though, that I may now be diving the caves of minutiae!
  • "In the song, Trainor": "In her song, Trainor...", as the previous song mentioned was Timberlakes'.
  • "She addresses the listeners and...": don't all singers do this?
  • "if they are only enticed...": I know what you mean; the premise could be simplified, perhaps "if they are only attracted by thin women"?
  • (Aside: it's probably an ironic comment on popular culture that a song from 2002 is no longer "modern". Guess Andy was right!)
  • Actually, I thought it unlikely that The Grauniad would propagate postmodernism; sure enough it doesn't. The actual quote is ...the song speaks to people as a 2014 version of Christina Aguilera’s self-empowerment classic Beautiful. I assume all the other quotes used are accurate.
  • Correct, and yes they are!--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rel
  • "debut extended play (EP) Title in 2014 and her studio album of the same name the following year", reduces parentheticals.
  • "and serviced it to contemporary hit radio": Lose the industry slang, no one knows what it means.
  • "n August 14, 2014, and for download on September 28". The year's implicitly the same.
  • Personally I think these specific days of the month could be safely removed; per summary style, surely it's unnecessary detail. Gets kinda repetitive too.
  • These are typical in song FAs. It is my opinion that they should be kept to establish a proper timeline of the song's release in different territories.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason an EP was released called 'AATB' when we have just been told an EP called 'Title' has already been released?
  • Probably to push sales for the single. That's too WP:OR to be stated in the article, though.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that, what are these German-speaking European countries—all six of them?—and why did they get different treatment?
  • Specified.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • VP: should be spelt out in full as first (and indeed only) usage.
Crit. rec.
  • "worried the misuse of the word "treble" in its lyrics might ruin the word's meaning for a whole generation": why?
  • The author really doesn't give a good idea why. They do draw a parallel between it and Alanis Morissette's "Ironic", the inclusion of which probably won't help clarify anything for the layperson.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thin women": the three references after this are out of order.
  • Match the tense between "imitated body standards" and "appropriating colloquialisms". (You could also lose the 'that'.)
  • "criticized the lyrics for encouraging": "criticized Trainor" would be less repetitive.
  • "writer Yomi Adegoke said the song": Let's have it that she argued rather than said (again).
  • "is insulting": To whom? Women, or men and women?
  • "Shah said critics": "Shah suggested critics", or something, as someone has already said (again).
Accol.
  • "was placed at number": Easier to say, "reached number"?
Chart. perf.
  • Don't suppose its slow rise in popularity has been attributed to anything?
  • No, other than Trainor being a new artist which is a fact prior sections already communicate.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mus. vid.
  • Suggest inserting the sentence "Music website Idolator premiered it..." before "Social media played..", where it would fit neatly. Then the first two sentences—both about Fatima Robinson—aren't broken up by something that happens later.
  • "according to her" is superfluous: suggest "as 'the best of the best' and that Robinson made her 'a rock star in two days'".
  • "reflect the fun nature of 'All About That Bass'": Tighten to "reflect the fun nature of the song". I think we know what song you're talking about by now!
  • Add "To that end, Robinson suggested..."
  • Tighten: "which would popularize the video during summer".
  • Remove "to which Trainor agreed".
  • If "a cartoon" is a quote, it should be cited per WP:MINREF.
  • Suggest recasting that sentence: suggesting sth like "Trainor told The Boston Globe she considered the caricature "a cartoon" that she only ever intended to portray in the video. However, she said she felt pressurized to retain the look after the video became popular".
  • I'll go with your wording but omit "However", some users in the FAC space have strongly deterred me from using that word, lol.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would inspire viewers to dance, even while seated": suggest a direct quote here, as you don't quite manage to capture the meaning behind the idiom. (Not your fault; that's the nature of idioms.)
  • "Grein said the video...": Grein suggested the video...
  • Suggest "Emma Garland of Vice found the video enjoyable"
  • " in its music video": just "video".
  • Unlink cultural appropriation.
Live perf.
  • Stray ' after Entertainment Tonight.
  • "posted to their website on September 2, 2014": honestly, "the following month" will do.
  • More dates than a Walnut Loaf, in fact!  :)
  • Two "finale"s v close together.
  • This sentence ("On the finale...on December 13.") needs tweaking.
  • H'mmm, fours "tours" together. Tricky.
  • I know! Tried really hard and managed to reduce one repetition, let me know if you have any ideas.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any particular significance of the no.22 position? (To either the Cowboys or the Redsjins, perhaps?)
  • No. I will remove the jersey number.--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also performed it "
  • "BBC Radio 1's game 'Your Lyrics Different Song', which Billboard's Glenn Rowley considered a successful rendition"? (In any case, atm you've a stray space before the semi-colon.)
Cult. imp.
  • A single word ("curves") needed be quoted.
  • Might be worth linking to Basting (cooking) in "Baste" (even though it is a title).
  • "ardent delivery"?
  • "million views on Bradlee's": the latter's?
All these are mostly suggestions (although, naturally, I know them to be best!), and nothing's non-negotiable. (Forgot to say, anything I get wrong wrt to AmEng can just be ignored, although it's always a useful lesson.)
I look forward to seeing this promoted. It's ironic that, while Wikipedia has a reputation for being full of fancruft and pop-culture trivia, it's actually pretty hard to get that kind of thing to FA status: the sources rarely allow it. Although you don't seem to have any trouble: congratulations are in order at doing so...again. ——Serial 16:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your very helpful comments, Serial Number 54129. Regarding the date concerns, I consulted some FAs—"Diamonds" (Rihanna song) and "Style" (Taylor Swift song)—while they do not omit dates entirely, they do avoid repetition of the years, which I have now done here. Please do let me know if you find the changes satisfactory. Greets!--NØ 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for disturbing again, Serial, but I understand coords will promote this nomination once we have your approval; do you believe your concerns have been addressed? ;) --NØ 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now then, now then MaranoFan, I haven't received my brown envelope from the Guv'nor yet.
I am hunting for an appropriately coloured envelope even as I type. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that, with this edit you dealt with almost every prose nitpick and that with subsequent edits you removed repetition etc? ——Serial 12:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I explained the few things that couldn't be done due to lack of available information above :) --NØ 13:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Indeed you did, MaranoFan. ——Serial 13:16, 23 April 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 April 2021 [14].

2017 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest association football cup in the world, and 2017 was a veritable Clash of the Titans. An enjoyable read hopefully, full of lovey descriptive prose. Fingers crossed you can make both heads and tails of it. As always, I'll be my ever-diligent self when it comes to addressing all reasonable comments. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:04, 27 March 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
  • London rivals Arsenal and Chelsea - do we need "London rivals" here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why not. It might not even be clear to some people that both clubs are based in London. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also a weird sea of blue, I think it wouldn't be too bad, but there are a lot of top end London rivals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there other other rivalries, but given there's even an article specifically about this one, I don't see it's harmful in any way, indeed it gives context to the perhaps edginess of the match. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the 136th FA Cup final overall and was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup), organised by the Football Association (FA) - I feel the bit about it being the final of the FA Cup is a little more relevant than it being the 136th edition of it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really follow. These are all relevant facts, it says it's the final, acknowledging that it's the 136th edition of it demonstrates the provenance of the competition. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I mean the order. So, mention the match is the final of the competition, and then that it was the 136th edition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • first final since 2003 in which both sides split the league games against each other during the course of the season, with a 3–0 victory by Arsenal in September 2016, and a 3–1 win by Chelsea in February 2017. - I think we could re-write this in such a way that would mean you don't need to know about the premier league. Maybe "The two sides had met twice in the Premier League in the season, with a 3–0 victory by Arsenal in September 2016, and a 3–1 win by Chelsea in February 2017, the first time since 2003 the sides had won once against each other coming into the final." or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor reword. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game was broadcast live in the United Kingdom by both BBC and BT Sport. BBC One provided the free-to-air coverage and BT Sport 2 was the pay-TV alternative - I don't think we should mention "free-to-air" or "pay-TV", as arguably you have to pay to watch either. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think "free to air" is common usage for broadcast on things like ITV and BBC, it means that no additional fees have to be paid to see it. In any case, we all know it's possible to watch the BBC without paying anything at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chested it down", whilst I don't want to stifle regular wordings, this doesn't add much to "recieve the ball".Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, for the lead I've removed that detail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goal by Ramsey should really mention that he was an Arsenal player, as we've just talked about Chelsea scoring.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • champions for the 2017 FA Community Shield. - in the 2017.... I know technically it is for the Shield, but we are saying they qualified to play in a match.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow, sorry, they earned the right to play for the Shield. That's what they did and that's what it says? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 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) 19:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski thanks, I've taken a stab at your comments. Cheers for the review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, although I would say that I'm not the biggest fan of the links for the (H) and (A) in the table to the stadiums. Not enough to cause a fuss, but I'd say it probably is a question needing to be asked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and only one general support. Just a heads up that if there is not a fair bit of further activity over the next three or four days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted before, I have been warned not to solicit reviews from others by a co-ord so I guess this one is destined to fail for no good reason. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Ceoil[edit]

About half ways through reading, comments to follow shortly. Ceoil (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil that's very kind, thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • before Mertesacker denied Costa - Should "denied" be blocked or took possession from or something
  • as Chelsea increased the pressure – players moved forward?
  • Moses fell in the Arsenal area under pressure - "under pressure" again vague
  • saved by Courtois low down to his left Not sure what "low down to his left" means
  • beating him before shooting wide of the Chelsea goal before Costa's strike - remove one "before"
  • More later Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil I've edited all of those to hopefully make more sense! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Paul Merson
  • Would remain as Arsenal manager come the season's end - "until"
    Not sure, this implies he would leave at the end of the season, whereas the current text simply states that he was sure he would still be manager at the end of the season, not making any claims other than that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • distributed to volunteers involved in the FA's work - FA volunteers
  • Finalists stood to receive £900,000 minimum, the winners earned £1.8 million - is this 1.8m for the winners, 0.9m for the loosers
  • Security at Wembley Stadium was tightened in the wake of the Manchester Arena bombing; as a security measure Arsenal cancelled a screening - no big deal by "security" x 2...maybe "as a precaution"
  • More later, but leaning support Ceoil (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil addressed/responded to those points above. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the 136th FA Cup final overall and the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup), organised by the Football Association (FA). - This needs to be split as the tense is strange: The 136th bit gives the game's lineage, while the "showpiece match" presumably applies to every FA final...ie it somehow impies that the 135th final was not a showpiece. Either way, would the whole showpiece thing not be better for the article body than lead, as FA Cup is already blue.
    I removed that. Never been keen, just sticking to fact. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We say "match" and "game" alternatively, a bit like band and group for music articles. Personally prefer match, but not my call.
    I work hard to avoid repetition (and thanks for picking up on one I missed above!) so this works just fine for me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "on x minutes" construct appears frequently, and though I dont read sports pages or books, reads odd. Should On 68 minutes, Victor Moses fell in the Arsenal penalty area be eg "Victor Moses fell in the Arsenal penalty area during the 68th minute"? Not a deal breaker.
    On X minutes is the same as In the Xth minute, and once again it's just to provide varied prose. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources all seem RS, and citations are consistently formatted.
  • The breath of sources implies that the article is comprehensive, and I can't think of any gaps in coverage. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil cheers, I appreciate the review very much. I've addressed those final points. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grand. On the basis of the above, am happy to Support. Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Amakuru[edit]

I am going to do a review of this in the next couple of days, but somewhat busy at this precise moment. So please don't close it just yet!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, like buses! Perhaps the co-oords should make these ominous threats earlier and more frequently! Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm a bus that was stuck at the bus-stop for two days, but time to set off now. Structure, sourcing and completeness all seem to be there as usual, just a few minor points:

Route to the final:

  • "to see Arsenal win 5–0" - people do say this, obviously, but it sounds very slightly odd here; was it Walcott who saw them winning? Could rephrase to something like "completing a 5–0 win for Arsenal"
  • "they faced fellow Premier League Southampton" - we can say "Premier League Southampton" as a title, but sounds odd with the "fellow" in front; maybe insert "club" or "team" after Premier League?
  • "at St Mary's Stadium." - technically haven't been told Arsenal's home ground yet, so unless you follow the link you wouldn't know immediately that Arsenal were the away team here.
  • "At Gander Green Lane" - venue of infamy 😎
Fo sho. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quarter-finals" ... "semi-final" - is there a singular/plural mismatch here?
  • "The home side took the lead through Pedro" - maybe a comma after Pedro to help it scan? At first I thought "Pedro and Michy Batshuayi" were a pair of brothers...
  • "Three minutes later Tom Nicholls" - add a comma after later, for consistency with other phrases of this type
  • Should we put "no wrap" around the scores? I just noticed 2–0 straddling two lines and it looked a bit odd
  • Link to Header (association football) on first usage

Pre-match:

  • "and were beaten seven times" - perhaps insert "in the final", to be sure this doesn't refer to elimination in earlier rounds
  • "Wenger admitted his team were outsiders for the final" - this doesn't seem consistent with what he said in the next sentence, "it's quite even or maybe Chelsea are ahead"; "outsiders" seems more extreme than that.
  • "Chelsea and Arsenal were expected to line up in a 3–4–3 formation" - it seems a bit superfluous to say what they were expected to do beforehand. Maybe instead say what the actual formations were at the start of the match summary.
  • "distributed to the "football family which..." - maybe attribute this to the FA?
  • "BBC One provided the free-to-air coverage and BT Sport 2 was the pay-TV alternative" - was there any difference between the two offerings? e.g. Would one get more features by within it on BT?
Different commentators I expect... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Match summary:

  • "due to Ramsey ... due to Ramsey" - repetition
  • "Ramsey was shown the first yellow card of the match" - do we know what for?
Doesn't say... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-match:

  • "Due to the circumstances surrounding his appearance" - I was initially confused by this sentence as to whom it was referring, given that the name of the player is in the italicised title; it might not be repetitious to include "Mertesacker's" instead of "his", but up to you.

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Amakuru, I'll get to these presently. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru all addressed (I hope). Let me know what you think. Cheers for the comments! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thanks for the quick turnaround. Happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 25 April 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 April 2021 [15].

Ambulocetus[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an amphibious whale from Pakistan about 50 million years ago which swam like an otter and behaved like a crocodile. It's one of the best known and iconic ancient whales.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing appears OK. (t · c) buidhe 20:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "novel by James Rollins featuring Ambulocetus" - source?
should I cite the novel?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the novel name the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DOI in FN1 is returning an error. What kind of source is this?
it's a jstor id not a doi   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6: "Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg" appears to be a series name rather than a journal name. What is the publisher? Is this an authorized republication?
it says it was uploaded to researchgate by Thewissen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the publisher, and is Thewissen legally able to upload this to Researchgate? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
on researchgate it lists the publisher as E. Schweizerbar, but on worldcat it gives Frankfurt am Main: Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft. I always just assume if one of the authors uploads it to researchgate it must be legal, otherwise they'd be breaching some kind of contract with the publisher   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to trust Worldcat over Researchgate. And yes, people breach contracts. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
added publisher   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I'll add as I go along Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed you commented right now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • modern river otter— You put "river", but link to otter, which includes the sea otter. Either the "river" or the link is wrong
there is no river otter article, it's just a disamb page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sea lion, palaeontology — link?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eocene cetaceans did not preserve limbs very well.—I assume you mean that the limbs did not preserve well, slightly odd sentence structure as is suggesting their active involvement. Also, some indication of why cetacean bones didn't fossilise well would be good
fixed wording. As for the fossil gap, no real explanation put forward for specifically cetaceans, but I'd assume it's because they evolved in a tropical region and tropics aren't exactly conducive for fossilization considering how efficient they are at recycling nutrients   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should I also change "The holotype preserved seven neck vertebrae" and similar prose?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also estimated a length of roughly 300 cm (10 ft) long—"long" is redundant
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, they also —"also" is redundant
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the rest of the text, and I couldn't see any other issues. As for the holotype preserved..., I can see that you are avoiding the passive construction, but I'm not so bothered with the more abstract subject. With the one I commented on, I just had this image of these whales getting out their preserving pans... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An excellent article, thorough and comprehensive. Well worthy of FA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I still support the nomination, I have a concern that the license for the Eocene map in the last section of the article is not valid. Blakey's maps have been previously deleted from commons because they are under an incompatible license, and I don't think the word of the guy who runs "thearmchairexplorer.com" is an authoritative source to say otherwise. I don't think that removing the image would detract much from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the ResearchGate link as it is probably copyvio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Maps © Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, Colorado Plateau Geosystems" but specifically makes the exception "Bottom map courtesy of Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, CCA-by-SA 4.0 License"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and only one support; this does not indicate a gathering consensus for promotion. Unless further general reviews are forthcoming in the next few days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Weasel[edit]

  • "from the Early Eocene (Lutetian) Kuldana Formation in Pakistan roughly 48 or 47 million years ago" - This feels a little confusing - perhaps change to "from roughly 48 or 47 million years ago, in the Early Eocene (Lutetian) Kuldana Formation in Pakistan".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It contains one species" -> "It contains of one species"?
what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I misread "contains" as "consist". Sorry about that, the wording in the article is indeed correct. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was the first cetacean postulated to have preserved a suite of adaptations consistent with an amphibious lifestyle" - "postulated to have preserved" feels a little odd here, perhaps change to "postulated to have had"?
"...was the first cetacean discovered preserving a suite of adaptations consistent..."
Excellent! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambulocetus is classified in the group Archaeoceti" - Is Archaeoceti still in common usage despite its paraphyly?
it's common convention to split cetaceans into Neoceti (Mysticeti+Odontoceti) and Archaeoceti (all other more basal cetaceans)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "the family Ambulocetidae, which includes" -> "the family Ambulocetidae, which also includes"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of these" Perhaps it would be better to change this to something like "Because of these features" to clarify that this is not just about the eyes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth it to gloss pachyostoic in the lead.
that's the point of the word "heavy"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My one concern about that is its placement, as "heavy, pachyostoic" doesn't necessarily indicate that they're referring to the same thing (like "narrow, streamlined" immediately before this). However, my perspective may be somewhat skewed as I'm relatively familiar with the jargon (and perhaps overly worried about explanations), so I'm fine with just letting this be unless anyone else raises an objection. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments all are about the article's lead. I look forward to continuing to read this article (also, it's cool to see a taxon as iconic as Ambulocetus at FAC)! I hope to go through the discovery section later in the day or sometime tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "proximal tibia" Perhaps change to "proximal portion of a tibia"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An hour later, Arif discovered the limbs" I don't entirely understand this, as the femur and tibia are part of the limbs, as far as I know. Perhaps "discovered more of the limbs"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "HGSP" stand for?
Howard–Geological Survey of Pakistan (i.e., the funders)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thoracolumbar series" - Might be good to explain what this is
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales), and Neoceti descended from the ancient Archaeoceti, whose members span the transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic." -> "Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales). Neoceti is descended from the ancient Archaeoceti, whose members span the transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After discovery," - What does this refer to? The discovery of archaeocetes, the discovery of Ambulocetus, or something else?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are also closely allied with the hoofed even-toed ungulates (Cetartiodactyla)." - The way this is said makes it sound like cetaceans and hippos don't belong in this group. Perhaps this could be changed to "Both lineages are members of the hoofed even-toed ungulates (Cetartiodactyla)."?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have access to the publication cited for the cladogram, but if the relationships of the three ambulocetid genera are shown in the source cladogram (and assuming they're not just in a polytomy), it could be interesting to show this on the cladogram.
they're only known from jaw fragments and date to about the same time, so I don't think there're any cladogram relating the members of Ambulocetidae with each other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that I have for the Taxonomy section! The Description section will be next (I may also review part of it later today). (I've also also clarified some of my points regarding the lead.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Define falcate, postglenoid foramen, paranasal sinuses, trigonid and talonid cusps, protocone, paracone, metacone
falcate is already described by where it is, added postglenoid, and paranasal sinus literally glosses itself in its own name. As for the cusps, it's better if they click on the hyperlink and go to the article and see this picture rather than me explaining it all in words   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't falcate mean sickle-shaped, though? Or is "falcate process" here the actual name of the structure (as opposed to it just being a process that is falcate)? The rationale for the tooth cusps makes sense, and the added definition (for the postglenoid foramen) looks good. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"...have a falcate (sickle-shaped) process..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike Pakicetus but like later archaeocetes," - Not sure if another comma's needed after "Pakicetus" there
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The snouts for Basilosaurus" -> "The snouts of Basilosaurus"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mandibular symphysis of most mammals is at the midline of the jaw, but it extends much farther in archaeocetes;" - I think that I understand what this is getting at, but the two phrases don't seem to be talking about the same thing (presumably the mandibular symphysis is still located along the jaw's midline in archaeocetes unless they've got asymmetrical mandibles). Perhaps rephrase as "The mandibular symphysis of archaeocetes extends farther back in the the jaw than in other mammals"? Might also be worth it to gloss mandibular symphysis
that is the gloss   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the mandibular symphysis where the mandibles fuse, though? I can't find mention of this in the paragraph. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that's why it encompasses the midline of the jaw   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coronoid process of the mandible (where the lower jaw connects with the skull)" - Does the coronoid process actually connect to the cranium? This kind of makes it sound like the coronoid process is the jaw joint (although I might just be incorrectly applying reptilian anatomy to mammals here...)
well it forms part of it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the review of the first two parts of the description section, sorry that it's a little later than I planned on doing it. I should be able to go through the rest of the description tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "spinous and transverse processes (which jut upwards and obliquely from the centrum)" - I'd replace "centrum" with "vertebral body" in this instance, as that's more understandable to the average reader. Centrum should probably be glossed on the next mention
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gloss "capitular facets"
that's the point of "on the top margin of both the frontward and tailward side to join with the ribs"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The holotype preserves 26 ribs, though it is thought to have had 32 in life" On each side, or in total?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the four preserved sacral vertebrae, the transverse processes of S1 are smaller than those of L8, and form a robust sacroiliac joint with the hip." I think that this should be split into two sentences in some way, as the second part doesn't seem to have much relevance to the other three sacrals.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "longer-than-broad" Are hyphens used in this phrase?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there measurements for the radius and ulna, if they're complete?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dorsolaterally (from left to right, and leaning towards the head)" Doesn't dorsolaterally refer to left to right and upwards (as opposed to forwards)?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The widening of the ischial width" This feels a little redundant, perhaps "The widening of the ischium"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The femur measures 29 cm (11 in), which is similar to the presumably cursorial mesonychid Pachyaena." In shape or size?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got for the Description section. I'll go over Paleobiology tomorrow, and, with any luck, Paleoecology on Thursday. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "though probably did not have the agility to commonly consume them." Might be better to use "catch" instead of "consume", as that seems to be what agility would be needed for.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: "much like modern river otters including the Pteronura, Lontra, and Lutra." -> "much like modern river otters including the giant otter, Lontra, and Lutra." This is more consistent, though perhaps less readable, so feel free not to do this.
  • Optional: "So, using river otters as a model" - Remove "so"
  • "So, using river otters as a model, Ambulocetus was possibly a pelvic paddler—swimming with alternating beats of the hindlimbs (without engaging the forelimbs)—and also undulated (move up and down) its tail while swimming.[9] Like otters, swimming was probably powered by undulation of both the tail and the torso." I find this a bit confusing. This paragraph seems to be noting that the hindlimbs were a major force of propulsion, coupled with movement of the axial column, but the last sentence seems to imply that movement of the axial column was the only means of propulsion used.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pelvis and robust forelimbs could indicate Ambulocetus was capable of weight transfer (walking) on land" Why not just use the simpler term ("walking") here?
does a sea lion walk persay?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see what you mean (they sort of can, but definitely not very expertly). Perhaps something like "movement" or "locomotion" might work better for glossing weight transfer then. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"capable of venturing onto land"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "use their heavy, osteosclerotic ribs as ballasts." I'm pretty sure that "ballast" is uncountable (not needing the "s", though I might be wrong about this)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nonetheless, a lot of the change to the external auditory apparatus occurred between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus." Not sure if "Nonetheless" is needed here, as nothing that would seem to contradict this was stated before.
contrasted with "but is smaller than later archaeocetes and toothed whales"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just realized that I somewhat misunderstood this (I misread it as just being about the changes between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, not the overall change in whale evolution as a whole). On account of that, "nonetheless" does indeed make sense. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some comments on the Paleobiology section above. One other thing I've thought of: the "Torso" section of the Description also discusses the neck and tail, which are not part of the torso. Perhaps it should be renamed? I'm struggling to think of what it could be changed to and still reference ribs, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as opposed to the icehouse climate of today, so, in general, areas were much warmer than today" Not sure if the "than today" is needed at the end
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum" It should be explained what this is
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The waters off the western coast seem to have featured upwelling and low-oxygen." Not sure if "low oxygen" needs to be hyphenated
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These beds alternate with showing marine deposits." As opposed to terrestrial deposits? It might be clearer to phrase it as "These beds alternate between showing marine deposits and" the other type of deposits.
it is as opposed to terrestrial deposits   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A redbed underlies this layer, followed by grey, green, and purple freshwater mud, silts, sandstones, and limestone. These beds alternate with showing marine deposits. The formation begins with 10 m (33 ft) of grey and green mud, silt, and sandstone, containing two bivalve beds near this locality." I find this a little confusing - is the lowest part of the formation part of the series of beds described by the previous sentence, or is it located above/below them?
the key words are "near the locality"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first often stretches only one shell" What exactly does this mean?
the first shell bed is usually 1 shell deep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as in there's only room for one shell between the top and bottom boundaries? I was wondering if this had something to do with index fossils. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As in the shell bed is usually a shell thick, as opposed to 20 shells thick. Much like how xyz mineral layer is a meter deep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The upper Kuldana Formation may be contemporaneous with the Subathu Formation." Are Ambulocetus or other archaeocetes also found in the Subathu Formation? This feels a little random.
Subathu is terrestrial so it has a lot of rodents   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm failing to grasp how it's connected to Ambulocetus, though. Is it directly connected to the Kuldana Formation, or just laid down at the same time? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it was laid down at the same time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there multiple formations with Lutetian deposits, though? Why mention this one in particular? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fish Stephanodus," Might be nice to add a more specific group in front of "fish"
"pycnodontid fish" isn't that elucidating   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link crocodiles. Turtle should be linked on first mention as well (which is under Hearing)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps clarify that Anthracobune is an anthracobunid?
not the most helpful descriptor   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been explained what anthracobunids are further up in the article though, though not Anthracobune itself. Currently there's no descriptor in front of it, and while the reader could draw the connection between the two terms, I think that it's probably safest to clarify it here (as taxonomic names can be misleading). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other archaeocetes are:" Might be nice to specify that these archaeocetes are from the same geological unit. I'd also use "include" instead of "are:" but this latter part is just preference and therefore totally optional.
include implies it's an incomplete list   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I should probably remember that for the future in my own writing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if the novel listed under See Also really needs to be there, as it doesn't have an article and the single paragraph devoted to it on the author's page doesn't mention Ambulocetus.
Ambulocetus is central to the plot, and there's not enough other material for a pop culture section, so See also seems perfect   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has it had a major impact on the perception of Ambulocetus in popular culture though? Unless its impact has been mentioned in a reliable source, I'd be inclined to remove it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
if it had a significant impact then there'd be a pop culture section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But if the novel doesn't have a significant impact, then why add it at all? While Ambulocetus may not have a huge presence in fiction, there definitely are other works of fiction that feature other taxa in just as great prominence, and with some (such as house mice or Tyrannosaurus) listing these would effectively flood their articles with single line mentions of books. Since we wouldn't do that there, I don't see why we would do it differently here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have to take into account scope, like you wouldn't talk about the molar cusps of Smilodon but you would for a taxon only known by teeth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still would disagree here. I won't deny that dental anatomy carries much more weight for, say Pectinodon than Gobivenator, as that is the sole basis for the former's existence as a distinct genus, but I'm unconvinced that such reasoning applies to pop culture stuff (instead, I see it more as why we wouldn't go into specific details of troodontid postcranial anatomy in Pectinodon). Elasmosaurus and Allosaurus, for instance, have been featured multiple times in popular culture but do not have popular culture sections or any appearances in fiction listed, simply because, presumably, there just isn't enough on this topic in published sources to warrant this. However, I think that this may be more of an issue of editing philosophy, and am willing to let it drop unless other editors bring it up (though this general topic of pop culture stuff could, perhaps, warrant discussion at the project page sometime). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all from me! This has been an interesting read. Hopefully these comments have been helpful! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've responded to some of the above comments. Additionally, I found one more minor thing: Mangroves should be linked in the article body. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slate Weasel, I believe that your comments have now been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will support now (sorry for my belatedness, life got rather busy over the past few days)! One thing that I meant to mention before but forgot to is the reference to the orange crates in Discovery. I find that little details like these can really make the article quite memorable and enjoyable! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Marking my spot until I get more time to review. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit odd that there's a section called "head", when it is only about the skull, and all other palaeontology articles call it skull.
  • Perhaps a photo of just the skull would be better in the section about it:[16]
added
  • A bunch of terms (excluding the cladogram) are duplinked.
I found 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tibia and femur is still duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other specimens initially found" Have others been found since?
none that I can see   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this[17] another specimen or a cast of the holotype? It shows the bones in the position they were found, which may be interesting to show.
there's copyrighted artwork behind it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it:[18] FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it's actually showing because that's not the complete holotype (maybe all that was known by the time it was described?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The German text on the window says the bottom is the skeleton as it was found and the hanging is in swimming posture. It is interesting to show how the bones were found. FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mohammad Arif and Hans Thewissen" Occupations andn nationalities? You give it for people mentioned further down.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to recover land mammal fossils in the Kala Chitta Hills" Any background to this? Why there, and why specifically land mammals?
  • Explain femur at first mention (thigh bone).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tibia (at the knee joint)" I think you also need to specify this is a lower leg bone.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found the teeth near the end of the field season, which are characteristically" since the story is told in past tense, you would say "which were". I know they still exist, but it doesn't flow as well.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the rest skeleton" missing "of the".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the species name natans "swimming" The way this is written, you need "means" in there.
no it doesn't "The genus name comes from Latin... and the species name..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The formation is constrained" Name the formation again, this is long after your first mention.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the Lutetian stage" State it is Eocene too.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other specimens initially found were HGSP 18473 (a second premolar), HGSP 18497 (a third premolar), HGSP 18472 (a tail vertebra), and HGSP 18476 (lower portion of a femur)." This is written as if they belonged to different individuals, are they from the holotype specimen, just with different numbers?
those were listed under "referred materials", separate from holotype   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so there are more than one individual involved after all. But the intro still says "It is known primarily from a single skeleton which is about 80% complete". FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this is still a true statement, it is primarily known from the 80% complete skeleton and not these 4 other isolated elements   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2009, some more elements of the holotype's jawbone were identified." Discovered in the field, or among the already collected fossils?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a partial skeleton initially discovered preserving a partial skull" One "partial" could be replaced by "incomplete" to avoid repetition.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the only evidence of this in the fossil record was the 52-million-year-old (fully terrestrial) Pakicetus" Add "prior to the discovery of Ambulocetus" for clarity.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a hypothesised link between cetaceans and the Paleocene mesonychids" This is not evidence, so you should state it on its own like "and a link between x and y had been hypothesised".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either" What is the first citation mark for?
typo   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image[19] that shows Ambulocetus from a new angle (front) along with another primitive whale could nicely fill the white space next to the cladogram.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph under Discovery is entirely about evolution. I think it could either be moved under classification, or there could be a subsection called evolution.
it's more about significance than evolution   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales). Neoceti is descended from the ancient Archaeoceti" Link these clade names.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paraphyletic" Add it is an unnatural group.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon species description, Ambulocetus was" You could say original description instead to make it clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and their somewhat similar physiology" I think what you mean is morphology.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The oldest identified cetacean is the ambulocetid Himalayacetus" You should make it clear this was named after Ambulocetus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no available cladogram that shows the genera within its family? What is its closest relative?
no since the other 2 are only known from fragments   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the holotype of Pakicetus attocki" Why full binomial once?
there are multiple species of Pakicetus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or comparison, the holotype of Pakicetus attocki may have been 140 cm (4 ft 7 in) long.[4] In 1996, they estimated weight" Since the last genus you mention is Pakicetus, it is unclear whose weight you mention afterwards.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2013, Gingerich estimated a weight of 720 kg (1,590 lb), similar to modern cetaceans, based on vertebral size." Not sure what this means. By comparing with modern cetaceans?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems extremely WP:trivial to have a book without an article under see also, whose summary doesn't even mention this genus.
Ambulocetus is important to the book   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like other archaeocetes which preserve this aspect" Aspect is a bit odd to use, element or part would be clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the base of the skull undulates both towards the front and the back of the head" It's a bit difficult to envision what this means. How does the source phrase it?
better?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remingtonocetid snouts are quite narrow, which was clearly not the case for Ambulocetus." How is this known?
I don't understand the question, that's like asking how do we know 'Smilodon had saber teeth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it known the snout of Ambulocetus was not narrow if it is not preserved? I assume it is because the back of the jaws are wide, but could be stated. It could perhaps be helped by adding "The known part of the snout was quite broad, but the end of the holotype's snout is missing". FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we know a large portion of the snout, and it's effectively impossible that the very tip would have shrunk down and extended some more   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " by wider gaps (diastema)" Since gaps is plural, you should use the plural of diastema, which would be diastemata.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambulocetus skeleton reconstructed with incisors" Why is it necessary to point this out in particular, when the whole snout is reconstructed? Is there any reason to believe it didn't have incisors?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one caption of artwork you say reconstruction, in another you say restoration. Both can be used, but it looks better to be consistent. You can also pipelink paleoaert, as some reviewers have trouble understanding those terms sometimes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some more answers left to earlier comments above I'd like responses to before continuing.
  • "Giant otter swimming at Tierpark Hagenbeck" Captions should establish their relevance to the text if it isn't apparent.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Map of the Earth 50 million years ago" Likewise, you could add something like "around the time Ambulocetus lived".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have supported strong longissimus which" Add "muscles" after longissimus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by T8" A bit esoteric, I think at first mention of these abbreviations, you could state "the eighth thoracic vertebra" in parenthesis, then the reader will know what it means henceforward.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though it is thought to have had 32 total in life" Why?
I'd assume comparison with mammals of similar size? It only says "A total of 26 separate ribs of the presumed 32 are preserved"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the side view" The is superfluous.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • State where the lumbar vertebrae are.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are bulbous on the tailward size" Side?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The surface where the vertebrae join" You could add "join each other" for clarity. Technically, it could also be where they join the ribs.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the four preserved sacral vertebra" Sate these are part of the sacrum, and where this is located.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now it says "at the sacrum, just before the pelvis", but since the sacrum is actually between the pelvic bones, this should probably be reworded.
fixed
  • "In life, Ambulocetus possibly had upwards of 20 tail vertebrae." How do we know?
It doesn't exactly specify, but I'd assume it's because C8 looks like what we'd expect a mid-series caudal vertebra to look like   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "semi-pronated position" Could be explained.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambulocetus hindlimbs at the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, Paris" Isn't it a single hindlimb?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only have "Ribs and vertebrae" and "Limbs" sections, yet dicussion of the limb girldes is artbitrarily distributed across them. Instead, you could rename the last section to "limbs and girdles" and move the sternum info there. Or just have a single "postcranial skeleton" section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which may have precluded the ability to break a bone" A bit unclear, break its own bone or bone of another animal?
"precluded the ability to crush bone"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, it most likely that" It is.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicates Ambulocetus required a large area for crushing (probably because it was crushing large items)" Reads like repetition/stating the obvious, could be rephrased?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rather common on the Indian subcontinent" on or around? If they lived in coastal areas?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in river deltas which were preserved in the Kuldana Formation" The deltas weren't preserved there, the formation was deposited by them, so it can be said to represent river deltas.
"which were recorded"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nasal canal has bony walls extending into the throat, used in crocodiles to keep the nasal airways open" Whose nasal canals? The rest of the text is about crocodiles, so if it's the canals of Ambulocetus, could be clarified.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ambulocetus probably went after fish and reptiles when given the opportunity, though probably did not have the agility to commonly catch them." Double probably could be varied somehow.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we be told who has proposed the various ideas discussede under Palaeobiology? You only do this for "In 2016, Japanese biologists Konami Ando and Shin‐ichi Fujiwara" now.
it's all Thewissen (et al) to my knowledge   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could be stated at the beginning of paleobiology then, afterwards the reader will be able to infer it's the same citation following. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the giant otter, Lontra, and Lutra" A bit confusing that you use a common name, then to generic names, you could say "the giant otter, and the species in the genera Lontra and Lutra" or similar.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and also undulated (move up and down)" You could be consistent in tense, "moved up and down".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on the length of the known tail vertebrae, Ambulocetus may have had a long tail" Their length or the amount? The individual bones don't look particularly long.
Thewissen noticed the mid-tail vertebra is proportionally similar to mesonychians, and assumed Ambulocetus probably also had a mesonychian tail with a few long vertebrae in a rigid tail rather than a lot of short vertebrae in a flexible tail   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They then concluded Ambulocetus could not walk on land, but that the study was limited by" seems like a connecting word is missing, you could say "but cautioned that the study was limited by".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is speculated to be related to the increasing size of the malleus bone in the middle ear." For the benefit of what function?
didn't specify, but it does show Ambulocetus had characteristically cetacean modifications to the ear   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Locality 9209" This could get more context. Designated by who and when? During the 1992 exzcavation?
it didn't specify the naming convention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "silts, sandstones, and limestone Link these terms.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first often stretches only one shell" What does this mean?
it's one shell deep, like how a layer of (for example) limestone can be 1 meter deep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transitioning to the Kohat Formation" State if this is younger or older.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group Archaeoceti—the ancient forerunners of modern cetaceans" Is this really correct to say, considering that group is now considered unnatural? The cladogram used here makes Archaeoceti contain modern whales, so if that is the currently accepted stance, it should be specified. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeoceti specifically includes the ancient forerunners of Neoceti, all modern cetaceans. No one would call a bowhead whale an archaeocete, but it's unavoidable in the case of a cladogram when you're handling non-natural groupings   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case Archaeoceti isn't an unnatural group. If the name is still used for a clade that includes modern whales, what is unnatural about it? It would be unnatural if it only included the ancestors, but not the descendants. It is possible that there are different uses of the term y different authors, but this should be determined. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No you misunderstood. Archaeoceti excludes all modern cetaceans. All modern cetaceans are classified into Neoceti. Neoceti is most commonly understood to have evolved from Archaeoceti. It's like how Homo evolved from Australopithecus, leaving Australopithecus by convention paraphyletic.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the included 2010 cladogram indicates, though. I'll have a look at the source. Paraphyletic groups are often redefined or synonymised these days, as happened with for example Prosauropoda or Pseudosuchia. FunkMonk (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, it looks like the cladogram here misrepresents what the cladogram in the papers actually show. Uhen 2010 for example does not show a clade called Archaeoceti, he ownly indicates where Archaeoceti and Crown Cetacea are placed in the cladogram. Same with this[20] paper. So the cladogram here needs to be modified to reflect that, only using the clade names used in the paper. By the current logic, "Crown Cetacea" would also have to be shown as a clade, when it is just a label shown above the cladogram in the paper. It may be possible to colour code clades in the cladigram with labels, as in the paper, but I don't know how, perhaps Jts1882 or Lythronaxargestes does. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But if you want it resolved quickly, just remove Archaeoceti as a clade. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
is this what you were looking for?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put |bar1 for the intervening clades for the bracket to continue. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! There seems to be some error, as I can see "{{cladogram|title=Ungulata|align=left|width=800|caption=Family tree according to American vertebrate palaeontologist Mark Uhen, 2010[7]|cladogram=" in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain hyperflexion and cursorial.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tibia and femur are still duplinked.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Hi FunkMonk, I believe that your comments have now been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the relatively serious cladogram issue mentoned last, maybe my ping to Jts1882 or Lythronaxargestes didn't work, so trying again... FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get an earlier ping (you can't edit them in and there are a few other restrictions). It's not exactly clear what is wanted as the cladogram has changed during the discussion. I've added a couple of |state1=double for paraphyletic groups and can colour the crown cretaceas or crown mysticeti and odcntoceti separately as desired. Looking at Uhen et al (2010) there should also be stem Neocetis as well as the crown groups so I've added that and labelled crown Cetacea. The label could be replaced by a bracket on the right if preferred, which would compare Archaeocetes and crown cetaceans as in Fig 1 of the paper. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue seems to have been fixed, as per the comments above, so I'll leave it up to Dunkleosteus77 if they want further changes to make it more in line with the paper. I wonder if there should be a "Crown Cetacea" label too. FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neoceti is more or less "crown cetacea" barring hypothetical basal Neoceti depending on your classification schemes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has all come together nicely, but since you ask, I have one question; the two life restorations show the nostrils in two different places, one at the front of the snout, and one at the sides further back. Which do we think is more accurate, if any, and should one be adjusted accordingly? FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the nostrils weren't preserved in Ambulocetus. The 1st reconstruction plays off Pakicetus/similar and the second off Rhodocetus/similar, so in this instance, to each their own   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 24 April 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 April 2021 [21].

Seattle Center Monorail[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempt at bringing Seattle's other space age icon to FA status. What's not to love about a functional monorail with only one stop in each direction, using the original 1960s trains, and prone to accidents every now and then? Since the last FAC, the article has gone through a fresh copyedit and some minor work. SounderBruce 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renovations and preservation" section is too long. Can it be split into subsections? (As for what's wrong with the monorail, I can tell you: colossal waste of taxpayer money.) (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • All but the first and last two paragraphs of the section cover the renovation project, which I would rather keep together. I'll look into how I can balance it (maybe by spinning out a station article, if it meets notability), but it'll take a while. Maybe we should use those funds to fix up Main Street. SounderBruce 06:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I reviewed the previous nomination and all my comments were addressed. I was waiting to see how the other reviews played out before declaring support but by then it had been open for a while and was archived. Hopefully it'll get its star on the second attempt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Truflip99[edit]

Thought I would provide my comments as I did the previous one. Hoping you have some time to provide comments on my candidate below as well. I had two points in the previous fac that doesn't appear to have been addressed yet.

  • An emergency repair to the Westlake terminal was made in 1974 at a cost of $100,000 to replace metal shields under the platforms that caught debris. -- debris from what?
    • Seems to have been for stuff dropped from the platform by passengers.
  • Expansion proposals -- worth mentioning anywhere here that the proposed service expansions of the monorail (e.g. to Sea-Tac Airport) were ultimately fulfilled by Link light rail

Will do a full read of the article soon. --truflip99 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added two lines for the Ballard/West Seattle project, but trying to fit in the earlier proposals is a bit of a stretch due to the lack of available sources. SounderBruce 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Truflip99: Would you like to continue the review? This nomination hasn't attracted all that many comments as of late. SounderBruce 06:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting based on my previous one, and the changes made here. --truflip99 (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Be consistent on whether you include location and/or publisher for periodicals
    • Removed from the two citations where they were used.
  • Was this source considered for inclusion? Can you speak to the approach to searching for sources?
    • I don't have access to this paper through any of my database credentials, but based on the summary it seems to only cover a minor refurbishment that was already covered by local newspapers.
      • What was your approach to searching for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Generally, I skimmed through the local newspaper archives for all hits of "monorail" from 1957 onward, adding supplemental materials where I found them necessary. I also used two books that I have in my personal collection, but both had broader scopes and only mentioned the monorail for a few pages at most. The local library has dozens of results for "monorail" in the catalog, but most pertain to the 2000s expansion program or are not available for in-library viewing due to the pandemic. SounderBruce 06:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how the service's website is cited. (Personally I would argue for the simpler, publisher-only version). There seem to be quite a lot of references to this site - could any be replaced by independent sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dropped SMS from those citations. They mostly cover basic information like schedules and ticketing that would not be updated by a secondary source in a timely manner, so I think it should be fine for uncontroversial and basic information. SounderBruce 06:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This nomination has been open for five weeks and so far has just the one support. Unless it attracts more interest in the next couple of days it s liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: This nomination has three supports, but another reviewer has not responded to several requests to continue their review. Is it in danger of being archived again? SounderBruce 00:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say so, despite it being long in the tooth now -- will take a proper look shortly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the article and the review have been stable for a couple of weeks now, I see no reason not to promote. FWIW I couldn't find anything to tweak in the lead, nor anything serious in my list of words to watch ("however", "in order", "various", etc) so well done there too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Same-old method. Comments resolved, support. AGF on the sources, so just gonna focus on prose, infobox, image.

  • (LEAD) Link straddle beam monorail instead of simply monorail. Is the hyphen needed?
    • Don't think we need to confuse readers by linking to a redirect in the lead sentence, as the basic concept of a monorail needs to be covered first.
  • (LEAD) I believe Seattle and Washington (state) should be linked per relevance.
    • WP:OLINK discourages secondary links to the state when the city is already linked and is the main subject.
  • (LEAD) "The system retains its original fleet of two Alweg trains"-- what original? Is the predecessor the King County? If so, the King County should be mentioned prior.
    • As in the trains used from opening day; added a mention but using the year would be repetitive.
  • (LEAD) "The city designated them"-- the trains, or the monorail?
    • Fixed.
  • (SERVICE AND FARES) "and closed entirely on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas." Omit "Day", probably gotta link Thanksgiving.
    • The link was originally removed via the first FAC per WP:OLINK, as it is a common concept for NorAm readers, as si the use of "Day".
  • (SERVICE AND FARES) "Children four and under ride free." Poor wording. Perhaps "Children four and under are able to ride free."
    • Fixed.
  • (OPERATIONS) "In 2018, the Seattle Center Monorail carried approximately 2.022 million passengers, averaging 4,780 passengers on weekdays and 7,536 passengers on weekends. The service generated $4.3 million in fare revenue and received approximately $883,000 in capital funds from local and federal governments." Duplicate citation.
    • This isn't an issue. Citations can be duplicated between different sentences for clarity in verification.
  • (OPERATIONS) "90 percent of World's Fair visitors"-- perhaps link to the relevant "World's Fair"?
    • Not appropriate in this context, as it refers to the already-linked Century 21 Exposition and not the general concept.
  • (ROLLING STOCK AND GUIDEWAY) "named the "Blue Train" (originally Spirit of Seattle) and "Red Train" (originally Spirit of Century 21)". Why is the current name quoted, but the former's italicized?
    • The current names are common monikers, while the original names were proper names, hence the treatment. SounderBruce 06:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will put more later. GeraldWL 05:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Are you planning to continue the review? SounderBruce 10:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from A. Parrot[edit]

Seems comprehensive, but I spot a few problems.

  • As pointed out in the previous FAC, the article says a trip takes about two minutes, but the video takes three. A minute is a sizable discrepancy in so short a route. But if the cited source is the only one you can dig up for the travel time, I suppose it makes sense to let "about" take care of the discrepancy.
    • The two-minute figure seems to be the most common.
  • The name of the company is sometimes given as Alweg and sometimes as Alwac or Alwec.
    • Fixed use of Alwac (the company name; Alwec was a typo), and am attempting to clear up the confusion with Alweg (the product line).
  • The sentence about the 5-mile loop proposal would be clearer if it started out by saying it was one of two competing proposals, rather than putting the "competing carveyor" on the end as almost an afterthought.
    • Fleshed it out a bit and split the sentence.
  • "…was closed again over the weekend because of protests in Downtown Seattle". The sources say nothing about the closure or the protests. I assume these were the George Floyd protests, which should be linked if mentioned.
    • The archived version of the second citation mentions the protests, which I have linked.
  • The first two sentences about the 1971 accident seem like they could be combined in a more intuitive order: state that the brakes failed, then that the train struck a girder, then list the injuries. A. Parrot (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A. Parrot (talk) 14:53, 3 April 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) 22 April 2021 [22].

SMS Nymphe (1863)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first screw corvette built for the small Prussian Navy in the early 1860s; the ship saw action during the wars of German unification, most notably at the Battle of Jasmund in 1864. I wrote this article in 2018, it passed an A-class review in 2019, and it has now arrived at FAC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Truflip99[edit]

Providing a review, hoping you could reciprocate with my candidate below.

Lead

  • "armed with a battery of sixteen guns" -- link artillery battery?
    • Good idea
  • "Nymphe was laid down in January 1862, she was launched in April 1863, and she was completed in October that year." -- use of pronouns here feels redundant
    • Removed
  • "She was heavily engaged by a Danish frigate in the battle, and she received around 70 hits, mostly to her rigging, though she was not seriously damaged." -- slight ce; "battle; she received"
    • Done
  • link Mediterranean Sea (there's a later instance of this in the third paragraph that needs to be unlinked)
    • Good catch
  • "but she did see battle with French warships during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870." -- this would be better combined with the following sentence; something like: "During the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, a French squadron..."
    • Done
  • link blockade
    • Done

Design

  • "The ship's crew consisted of 14 officers and 176 enlisted men" -- link Officer (armed forces) and Sailor?
    • Done
  • "Nymphe was armed with a battery of ten 36-pounder guns and six" -- link artillery battery again
    • Done
  • "In 1869, these guns were replaced with seventeen, and later nineteen, rifled 12 cm (4.7 in) 23-caliber guns. Later in her career, these were reduced to nine guns." -- WP:NUM
    • This is fine as is per MOS:NUMERAL, and probably better left as words to avoid difficulty parsing "later 19, rifled 12 cm (4.7 in) 23-caliber"
      • Meant to delete this bullet, you are correct.
  • "rifled 12 cm (4.7 in)" -- adj=on
    • That won't do anything - the template only adds the hyphen for non-abbreviated units. Parsecboy (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also not sure why I included this bullet lol.

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Service history

  • "Nymphe was transferred to Swinemünde to spend the winter months on 25 November, since the port would not remain frozen over as long as Danzig." -- slight reword: Nymphe was transferred on 25 November to spend the winter months in Swinemünde, since that port would not remain frozen over as long as Danzig.
    • Done
  • "In addition, as tensions rose between Denmark and Prussia over the Schleswig-Holstein Question" -- is there a reason why Prussia is linked here and not anywhere else nor any other nation?
    • Per WP:OLINK, countries should generally not be linked, but the general consensus I've observed over the years is that countries that no longer exist should generally be linked.
  • "The Danish fleet, which was much more powerful than the Prussian fleet, immediately proclaimed a blockade of the Baltic" -- link blockade again
    • Done
  • "but the weather was very poor, with snow showers hampering visibility." -- suggest omitting "very" here..
    • Done
  • "Dockum turned his flagship to starboard and began firing broadsides at Arcona." -- link Port and starboard
    • Done
  • "by which time the Austro-Prussian War had broken out and been decided at the Battle of Königgrätz." -- odd wording here... probably "and had been decided"
    • Fixed
  • "she turned to port and engaged the French squadron." -- you can probably omit the wikilink here...
    • Done
  • "reported in an 1899 account that Nymphe fired two broadsides at Bouët-Willaumez's flagship" -- dup link
    • Removed

Will finish this review off today. --truflip99 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas deployment/Later career

  • doesn't linking Fiji, Samoa, and Singapore kinda breaks your rule?
    • Yes and no - there are of course exceptions to any rule, and the general preference to avoid linking modern countries breaks down when you're talking about city-states or small island countries
  • "where Sultan Jamal ul-Azam requested that Germany sign a protectorate agreement" -- link protectorate
    • Done
  • "ship traveled overland to Bangkok, Siam" -- link Bangkok
    • Done
  • "She was replaced by the ironclad Hansa, allowing her to continue her training cruise." -- She was later or then replaced...
    • Done
  • "On 1 April 1882, she was reactivated for another training cruise, which this year went to" -- which for that year went...
    • Done
  • "and had to go to Malta since a number of her crew were sick" -- after a number of her crew had gotten sick
    • Done
  • "She then began the voyage back to Germany, and on the way she stopped in Lisbon, Portugal, where she was visited by the King of Portugal, Luís I." -- omit
    • Done

Everything else looks good. --truflip99 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Truflip99, just checking that you are indicating your support for promoting this article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • The two Nymphe-class corvettes were ordered in the early 1860s as part of a program to strengthen the Prussian Navy as the likelihood of a conflict with Denmark over the Schleswig-Holstein Question became increasingly likely "As" seems slightly overused.
    • Done
  • tensions with rose between Denmark and Prussia
    • Fixed
  • Link snow showers. Never heard this in the context of snow before.
    • Done
  • The captions could use a few more links imo.
    • Added a couple to the lead image, but I don't know that the others warrant any
  • Sources look good.

More later. ~ HAL333 14:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the North Sea Flotilla? Should it be redlinked, uncapitalized, explained, etc?
    • A short-lived naval unit; I don't know that it warrants an article. Somewhere down the road, I may get around to an article on the Prussian naval activities during the war, which would have a section header to link to, but that's probably some way off.
  • Link Sortie.
    • Done
  • Link Rio like you did with other cities. Same thing with SF, Lisbon.
    • Done
  • Link coaling station.
    • Done
  • In the last two captions, I would insert a comma: , 1872
    • Done

That's all. ~ HAL333 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done
  • File:Loading_gun_on_the_Nymphe_1872_SLV.jpeg needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Balloon_gun_on_Prussian_corvette_Nymphe_1872_NLV.jpeg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amusingly, I had looked at those two before I nominated the article to confirm they were fine to use, but apparently forgot to add the US tags. Per the description page, they were donated by the Victorian Patents Office in 1908, which demonstrates a pre-1923 publication. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The infobox says she was commissioned in November 1863, but the text says she "was commissioned for the first time on 20 February 1864". Which is correct?
    • The text, good catch
  • Stenzel: what's the page range for this chapter? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will review soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • " At midnight on 22 August, he sortied and began a slow approach to the French squadron, which remained at anchor overnight. At 01:15, Nymphe came within sight of the French ships" - So is the 01:15 on the 22? Maybe I'm just dense and use English wrong, but at least to me it seems like "midnight" could technically refer to 21 or 22.
    • It is a bit ambiguous, but in re-reading it, I realized I forgot to date the arrival of Bouët-Willaumez's squadron - that should give us the necessary clarity.
  • "fired two broadsides at Bouët-Willaumez's flagship, the ironclad Surveillante before turning to flee with Thétis" - Should be a comma after Surveillante, I believe.
    • Good catch
  • "Bouët-Willaumez decided that the attack demonstrated that the large ironclads couldn't be effectively used close to shore," - Don't use contractions
    • Fixed
  • So Nymphe went from England, to Brazil, to South Africa? Any rationale behind the seemingly unnecessary cut across the Atlantic?
    • Nothing specific in the sources, though if you look at eastern South America and western Africa, they aren't all that far apart. There weren't many well-developed ports in Africa before Cape Town at that time, and I'd assume the Germans didn't want to sail all the way to South Africa in one go.
  • " she was reactivated for another training cruise, which for year went to the Mediterranean" - Something seems wrong with "which for year" to me.
    • A missing "that" should fix it
  • Optional - split up the two images in the Later career section and move one up, for a more balanced use of images.
    • Done - and since the photos were taken in 1872, theoretically they make more sense to be in the section above anyway.

Looks good, anticipate supporting. I couldn't find much to even nitpick here. Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Gog - everything should be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 16:55, 16 April 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 April 2021 [23].

Union of Bulgaria and Romania[edit]

Nominator(s): Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a proposed union between Bulgaria and Romania. There were several proposals to achieve this union but they were never applied in the end. When I found that such proposals existed, I found them very interesting and simply felt like working on an article about this proposed union. This article is one of those in which I have been the most motivated to work on and one of the few in which I feel like everything is near the most perfect state it could be. For this reason, I am nominating this article to FA. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Union of Bulgaria and Romania/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making a comment to inform the two reviewers that have appeared that I have seen their points, but I will address them later, as I don't have too much time now. I'll also finally end with the image review as well, which I delayed for so long because it was somewhat difficult for me. Super Ψ Dro 10:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take as much time as you need; I'm in no rush. Please ping me when you are ready to continue the review. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Don't use fixed px size. You can scale up images relative to preferences using |upright=. Would suggest doing that to increase the relative sizes of the maps in Background, Bulgarian crisis, and Bulgarian northwest controversy
Done, I think. I am not sure how does this parameter work or what does it exactly do. Super Ψ Dro 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|upright=1 will produce an image that is as wide as default per user preferences - ie no different from setting no size at all. |upright=1.2 would produce an image that is 120% as wide as user preference default, so if for example you had set a default preference of 200px it would display at 240px. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've restored the sizes of the images prior to the nomination with the upright parameter. Super Ψ Dro 22:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Georgi-Rakovski.jpg is tagged as lacking author and source information, and needs a US tag
I've replaced the picture by one that has an author, source and now a US tag. Super Ψ Dro 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Carol_I_King_of_Romania.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
Replaced as well. Super Ψ Dro 19:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stefan_Stambolov_by_Georgi_Danchov_Zografina.jpg needs a US tag
Done. Super Ψ Dro 18:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When/where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the cited website at the file's description is enough. It was first published before 1908 as it is the year in which the author Georgi Danchov died, but I don't know if that is a valid thing to do. Super Ψ Dro 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We know it was created before the author died, but created doesn't necessarily mean published. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the year 1894 on the file's description and linked a website that stated this date. Is this valid? Super Ψ Dro 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the date we're looking for is publication, not creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After some extensive research, I couldn't find any clue that might talk about the origin of the image other than it was made in 1894. I might say something extremely ignorant, but isn't the date of creation the same as that of publication for artists? Super Ψ Dro 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - see this source for the official definition of "publication" for graphic works under US law. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Georgi_Dimitrow.png: when/where was this first published and what is the original source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Georgi-Rakovski-Blegrade-1862.png: source link is dead, when/where was this first published?
  • Regarding this edit. It doesn't make sense to have Bibliography as a heading, and then a subheading of "cited bibliography" - the whole thing is a bibliography that is cited. Also using semicolon markup in this case is inappropriate per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD - you could alternatively use regular heading markup and limit the depth of your TOC. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added subsections and limited the TOC. "Cited bibliography" is now called "Cited books and journals". Super Ψ Dro 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, sorry for this seriously delayed answer. I'm having some problems with the images that are left. I've requested help from the uploader of File:Georgi-Rakovski-Blegrade-1862.png (the only one that's still active) to find a new link, and I've researched as in depth as possible about Stefan_Stambolov_by_Georgi_Danchov_Zografina.jpg. I can't find much of Georgi_Dimitrow.png, although I have found a possible replacement from Encyclopedia Britannica (at here, I don't know why but now it asks me to subscribe to show the full article, something that didn't happen to me when I first visited the page, I don't know if it will show up to you), but I don't know if I can just take it from there under a free license or not. Do you know any trick or method to be able to find information about files or some possible replacements? Super Ψ Dro 22:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can try using a reverse image search to see if any sources have additional information. Go to Google Images and click the camera icon next to the search bar, or use a dedicated search like TinEye. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything new. I think the oldest websites that used them are now dead. Super Ψ Dro 10:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Super Dro and Nikki... Can I get an update on where we're at with the images -- I'm not sure if everything's resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the images are missing details of first publication yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I just cannot find data, I've been thinking of removing some images (right now I am waiting to see if Dudley decides to support this article or not, my plan is to end before this review is 3 months old). Is Georgi-Rakovski-Blegrade-1862.png okay? I managed to talk to the uploader and they gave me so help ([24], I actually pinged you but I guess something wrong happened). Super Ψ Dro 08:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one is still missing details of original publication - it has a tag requiring it to have been published before 1926. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was planning to address it yesterday but I had to get myself involved in a discussion with an editor. It will take me some time as I wanna do a last exhaustive search of data, which I'll do most likely tomorrow, before the 3 month timestamp no matter what. Super Ψ Dro 13:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria:
I can't find anything about File:Georgi_Dimitrow.png, so I've removed it.
I corrected the license of Georgi-Rakovski-Blegrade-1862.png, but I don't know if it's valid for Commons. Is the image good now?
I can't find the publication date of File:Stefan Stambolov by Georgi Danchov Zografina.jpg so I've removed it too. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the claim for the Blegrade image that Europeana is the copyright holder, or that the image is PD for some other reason? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do I see whether they hold the copyright or not? Super Ψ Dro 12:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally it would say on the description page there... I doubt this is the case here, because the image was originally from a national library, but I don't read the language in which the description is written on either site. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are unsure I removed it too. I guess I'll restore it in 2025 if I am still around so that PD-old applies (Paskov died in 1954). I guess we are done here. Super Ψ Dro 12:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this image review over? Super Ψ Dro 11:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kaiser matias[edit]

I had reviewed this article at the Peer Review, and offered some extensive comments there. I'm glad to see it brought here, and am happy to support it for FA. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Super Ψ Dro 22:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

Done (it looks better!). Super Ψ Dro 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding something like "Statistics" to the first column in the table; it's kind of odd to have an empty column and probably not accessible. Heartfox (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

Please consider me a non-expert in this topic.

Prose review - Lede

In general, the lede feels too long. There were places where I could say the same information in fewer words, and other places went into too much detail for the lede, which should summarize the most important points of the article's body. Please copyedit the lede and consider places where you can use fewer words or remove details. Some examples are listed below:

  • "This idea had its historical precedents" Remove its
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which defeated the Second Bulgarian Empire and conquered and ruled territories populated by Bulgarians and Romanians for centuries." Too many ands, replace with "Second Bulgarian Empire to conquer and rule territories populated by Bulgarians and Romanians for centuries."
I think it ends a bit strangely written this way but done. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the end I disagree with this, it looks strange, I restored the old text but I agree to rewriting it if a new proposal appears. Super Ψ Dro 11:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notably, Georgi Sava Rakovski made one of the several proposals there were." This sentence seems really out of place, the grammar is dubious, and I felt confused by it. Why was it notable? Who is this person? I think you should delete it from the lede.
I think Georgi Sava Rakovski should remain mentioned somewhere, I rewrote that part. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relations between both were enhanced. In fact, during the search for candidates for the Bulgarian throne, several Romanian nominees emerged." Replace with, "relations between the countries were enhanced and there were several Romanian nominees for the Bulgarian throne". This says what you want to say in fewer words.
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though he had good relations with Romania, after a period of political turmoil in Bulgaria caused by Russia, which attempted to extend its influence over the country, Alexander was forced to abdicate in 1886." Too many commas. Replace with "Although Alexander had good relations with Romania following a period of political turmoil in Bulgaria, he was forced to abdicate in 1886."
I added abother version that just keeps one comma. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While this crisis was taking place, Stefan Stambolov, politically a Russophobe, ended up taking power as regent." Replace with "Stefan Stambolov, who was politically anti-Russian, became regent."
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph has the tone of an essay instead of an encyclopedic entry. This paragraph should focus on why the union lost popularity in the twentieth century, proposals to unite the countries (if any) and the future possibility of a union (keep the last sentence about the EU). Be explicit in saying what time period you are talking about and why the proposal lost popularity/was not considered. It might also be merged with the previous paragraph.

I think this is a lot, so I will pause the review here. Once this is complete I will take a second look at the lede and continue the review. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that most of my comments for the lede have been addressed. For the lede's last paragraph I read through it again and the "essay" feeling might have been caused by the list in the second sentence and the beginning of the third (delete besides.) See if you can modify the phrasing to read more like a disinterested observer, rather than trying to prove a thesis. If you need help I can post some suggestions below.

I'd prefer some help as I am not sure how exactly should I rewrite it. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the lede's last paragraph, I don't think I have "essay" concerns anymore. I will doublecheck during my readthrough tonight. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "This state was nevertheless defeated in 1018." Delete nevertheless
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Vlachs (Romanians) counted with numerous participants" Do you mean countered? If not, I do not know what you are trying to say.
A Spanglish error, fixed. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "being described as Vlachs by primary (contemporaneous) sources." delete being
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact, Kaloyan was" Delete "in fact"
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additionally, Moesia, the region where the rebellion began" Delete additionally.
Disagree on this one. I think there should be a word like that to be able to go from talking about a particular person (Kaloyan) to talking about the Vlachs again. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial proposals

  • "Greeks and even Turks" replace "and even" with "or"
Mentioning "even" in this case makes sense since the Turks, who ruled over Bulgarians, weren't very liked by them, so it's a strange proposal. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Balkans to confront and liberate themselves from the Ottoman Empire" Delete "confront and" A reader can assume that people trying to liberate themselves will involve a confrontation, and thus doesn't need to be said.
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, in 1864, in the bilingual newspaper Badushtnost (Viitorulŭ in Romanian)," Delete therefore
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "full of "brotherly love and union" and that cooperation between the two was necessary." Direct quotations should be cited, even if the citation is in the next sentence. The same goes for the quotes in the following sentence. If you can, remove the direct quotes so that you don't need to cite a source repeatedly
This is unnecessary. Is there a policy stating this? Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supported a "Bulgarian-Vlach dualism" model. Why is Bulgarian-Vlach dualism in quotes?
It is in quotes on the original source. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deposed by a so-called "monstrous coalition" of conservatives and radical liberals" MOS:DOUBT has so-called on its list of words to avoid. It should be removed
Done, I have rewriten the sentence as well. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so they began searching for allies." replace with "so they searched for allies"
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kasabov proposed Romania support a" Add "that" after proposed
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kasabov proposed Romania support a Bulgarian rebellion in the Ottoman Empire (since a Bulgarian entity did not yet exist)" Are you saying that a Bulgarian entity did not exist in the Ottoman Empire? I'm confused what you are talking about here.
Yes, there was no province or anything like it particularly made for Bulgarians, just the region where the two empires used to be, but readers would not think of Bulgaria as a region if they only saw the name without that note. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One document entitled the Act for Sacred Coalition between Romanians and Bulgarians was drafted for settling this." Document titles should be italisised
Disagree, I have not seen something like that in many other articles and it does not look too good in the preview. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Ottoman Empire's defeat, "autonomous and independent states" that would unite as one "confederation" were to be established." Are you quoting something, or are there MOS:SCAREQUOTES?
Those are quotes, used by the original source as well. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The use of quotes for a couple words makes it seem like you are using scarequotes. Also, the terms in quotation marks (autonomous, independent, confederation) are common political descriptors and not specialised to this article, so don't require the quotations. Either use a larger quote from the original document (and cite that document) or remove the quotation marks as it is quoting Nyagulov, a scholar, and doesn't require quotes (and with the later solution, you can take out autonomous as it is redundant to independent.) If you are worried about too-close phrasing you can always use alternative terms, which I can suggest later if you need them. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quotes, it looks better this way and is less complicated. Super Ψ Dro 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was that of the Bulgarian writer Lyuben Karavelov." replace with "was proposed by Bulgarian writer Lyuben Karavelov."
I would like to avoid using the word "proposal" and the like as much as possible as they are already used many times throughout the article. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and with Constantinople as a "free city"." Again, are you quoting something, or is it MOS:SCAREQUOTES and should be removed?
That's a quote too. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "free city" is a political term, and doesn't require quotes. I would either remove the quotes (and possibly wikilink to city-state) or spend a sentence defining what a free city means in this context.
Removed quotes. I think Independent city is the best option for linking the text. Super Ψ Dro 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with an "equal population" made up" I don't think equal population needs to be in quotes.
Done, although I am not sure how to emphasize that he meant that all those peoples (not simply the population) were to be equal to each other. Is it enough by leaving it like that? Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I rewrote the sentence. Super Ψ Dro 11:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and state questions." I don't think state needs to be wikilinked here.
It is a link to a past political and intellectual problem about the establishment of a Bulgarian state, similar to the Eastern Question. It has potential for an article so it should be kept. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " They were encouraged by the Russian Empire, the Western powers and other movements (such as certain anti-Russian Polish emigrants)." Name and describe these movements.
The source does not mention another movement. I have rewrotten the text in the parentheses a bit and added a person as example. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an action that Bulgaria later appreciated." Remove that.
I don't think it's necessary. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify that I'll continue the review once the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search for a Bulgarian prince

  • "Some had already viewed Prince Carol I of Romania" Remove "had already"
Done. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which say Carol I, "had wanted to be elected in Bulgaria"" remove "had"
It is a quote, so I don't think I can. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not "which say Carol I "wanted to be elected in Bulgaria""? Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed on second thought. Super Ψ Dro 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the sentence to "notes published by Ignatyev himself which say Carol I wanted to be elected in Bulgaria and that Prime Minister Ion C. Brătianu supported him in this". I feel like "that" is wrong or doesn't fit for some reason, do you have any other suggestion? Super Ψ Dro 19:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was Prince Alexander chosen over the Romanian options? A one-sentence explanation would suffice
There is no particular part that explains this in the original source, but I have added that both found opposition. The sentence's prose can probably be improved. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote it, I think it's good now. Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian crisis of 1886–1887

  • "Russia and Austria-Hungary again disapproved of this" What does "this" refer to?
The candidates of neighbouring countries of Bulgaria to become the Bulgarian prince. It is now more specified. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communist period

  • "over Romania, Greece and even Turkey" Delete "even"
Done. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November 1946, the Romanian journalist Gheorghe Zaharia interviewed the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Georgi Dimitrov. The Balkans' situation eventually came up and Dimitrov said Romania could join a possible future Balkan Federation." Combine the sentences to, "In an interview with Romanian journalist Gheorghe Zaharia in November 1946, Bulgarian Prime Minister Georgi Dimitrov said Romania could join a possible future Balkan Federation."
Done, I finally got rid off a problematic sentence... Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under these[59] circumstances," The footnote is in a weird spot, can it go after the comma?
Yes, done. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • I agree with CMD that aftermath is a weird title because the union didn't happen, so what is considered "after"? Some suggested names are "Post-communist relationship" or "Legacy".
I will consider this. I don't see "Legacy" as a bad idea, but I'd want something that fits more, so I'll search a possible better name. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some other ideas: "Post-Cold War and European Union", "Yogoslavia and EU influence" "Union within EU". The name of this section will not cause me to oppose, but I do want to brainstorm alternatives. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've googled some synonyms for "Aftermath" to see if I could find a better option and haven't found anything except "outcome", which could perhaps work. I think that these long titles that you have proposed are a bit ineffective and do not fit with the simple names of the other sections ("Background" and "History"). "Legacy" could work, but doesn't it give the same problem as "Aftermath"? Using "legacy" implies that the idea was realized and that it has consequences that still exist today. I think "Aftermath" or "Outcome" are the best option. Super Ψ Dro 19:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe "Aftermath of the proposals/idea" or "Proposal/idea aftermath" would be a good idea. Super Ψ Dro 19:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when this is finished. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I ended replying your points. Notice that I have not addressed some points, I have disagreed with some or in others I have asked questions, saying this just in case you want to answer them. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to some points above (the lede's last paragraph, the scarequotes, and alternative names for aftermath) Let me know if I missed something. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to the rest. The only pending point is the Aftermath section one. Super Ψ Dro 19:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All my concerns are addressed, so I will support. As for the Aftermath section, my preference is "Outcome". Z1720 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, many thanks for your review! I will ask the reviewer below about this option. Super Ψ Dro 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments by Chipmunkdavis[edit]

  • The way the first line is structured makes it seem like the title is a formal name, but it seems more like a descriptive title. The line should be restructured per MOS:REDUNDANCY due to this, and the translations are probably not needed.
The first line was rewritten in the last few days, how is it now? And I agree that translations are not totally necessary, but I think it isn't harmful to keep them. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the translations of a descriptive title are to be kept they need to be sourced. The first sentence still feels warped around trying to squeeze in the article title, especially talking about it as a singular when the article covers multiple proposals. CMD (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I removed the translations. Is the first line better? I do not know what exactly should I put to improve it. Do you have any suggestions? Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Currently it attempts to fit the title in as a singular, which doesn't match the article, and is a bit redundant. I would tentatively suggest, "Several failed proposals were made during the 19th and 20th centuries to unify Bulgaria and Romania into a common state, under either a federation, a personal union or a confederation." If you want to keep the article title, "Several failed proposals were made during the 19th and 20th centuries to create a union of Bulgaria and Romania', under either a federation, a personal union or a confederation." CMD (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of removing the bold title, but it really is the best solution, good idea! I went with the first suggestion. Do you have any other one for the short description? It currently is "Unsuccessful historical proposal to unite Bulgaria and Romania". Super Ψ Dro 11:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shortdesc should be a plural too, but otherwise seems fine to me. I'm not too familiar with the shortdesc process and what they're meant to have. CMD (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the end I changed it, I think it is now closer to the best version possible. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be useful if the two maps in the lead had the same base, it's odd one has lakes the other doesn't.
Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth considering separating the historiography (eg. "Stoenescu thought this powerful Bulgarian–Romanian state...") from the History section and the Failure section into its own section.
Disagree, I don't think there is much to say from the few historians who have spoken about the proposal. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aftermath" doesn't seem to work as a section title, as no proposal happened. Much of the text currently in "Failure" seems redundant to prior text in the article.
The proposals did happen, but they were never applied. I can't think of a better, more precise and shorter name than "Aftermath" for the section. The text in "Failure" intends to give a brief summary of the reasons why a union between Bulgaria and Romania were not made, so it is expected that some parts are redundant and have already been mentioned in the History section. I emphasize that the section is not OR, Nyagulov dedicated the last pages of his work to do this. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a comparison of the two current states and a controversy in Vrasta province are "Aftermaths" of any of the union proposals covered in this article. Two paragraphs in "Failure" are coverage of the European Union which reads as quite tangential to the failure of previous proposals, and don't seem to be Aftermaths of the proposals either. CMD (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the controversy part is not too needed, this was discussed in the previous GA and peer reviews, I can remove it if needed but I would like to hear the opinion of the other reviewers first. However, I think a comparison section between both countries makes sense in this article. Lastly, those two last two paragraphs at the "Failure" section are not that related to the article's and section's topic but they speak of a possible collaboration between Romania and Bulgaria or the resurgence of the federations in the Balkans, so I think they are needed too. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, in the end I did remove the Bulgarian northwest controversy. Super Ψ Dro 21:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, what do you think about "Outcome" as a better name for the Aftermath section? Other options are "Aftermath of the proposals" or similar, or any that you might think of as well. Super Ψ Dro 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if there's a wider sectioning issue, regarding putting most of the article into a history section. On Aftermath however, I'd suggest slitting the two subsections apart into their own level 2 sections. I'd call Aftermath/Failure "Hinderances" perhaps, to remove the specific temporal aspect. CMD (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with that most of the article is in the history section. Trying to make more sections or making the sections with a similar length would be a lot of unnecessary work and the result would be worse in the end in my opinion. I am not very convinced with using "Hinderances" because I did not know that word until now and a large part of the readers of this article (which I expect to be Romanians and Bulgarians) probably won't either. And I don't know about splitting the section into two. Maybe I could connect the Comparison subsection with the Failure one instead? By this I mean adding at the Comparison subsection something like "In case the union had happened" or "to show what the union would have looked/been like" (these are just some examples I just thought of). Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, now "Aftermath" is called "Conclusion". Super Ψ Dro 13:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Background section feels a bit anachronistic regarding ethnogenesis and concepts of nationalism.
What do you mean exactly? Not much detail is put into some disputed theories such as the Daco-Roman continuity one. Although the last paragraph is admittedly somewhat problematic. It could be rewritten but I would like to keep the main ideas there. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"They assimilated with the Slavic culture brought there a century earlier, giving rise to the modern Bulgarian people" feels quite immediate for a process the source notes wasn't really complete until the 10th century. Romanian ethnogenesis is thought to have occurred at about the same timeframe (page 19 same source). Thus it's a bit misleading to use the terms before that period, as the words mean something different to their current usage. Perhaps mentioning the ethnogenesis events would help clarify the meanings in this regard. Later, it seems a bit odd to note a debate about whether the Second Bulgarian Empire was of Bulgarian or Romanian heritage, and then in the next sentence refer to it as a "Bulgarian state". CMD (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CMD (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I thought the article said "eventually" regarding the appearance of the Bulgarians when I first wrote it or at least at some point of its edit history. Fixed. When talking about the First Bulgarian Empire, the article mentions "the Romanians' ancestors", not the Romanians, so there is no problem with that I believe. And about the last thing, you're right, I removed "Bulgarian". Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, I'm trying to end all stuff I have to do fast, I might have a few free hours tomorrow, but if not, it is likely that on Friday I'll address these points. Super Ψ Dro 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has now been open for over seven weeks and has only attracted a single support - and that based on its PR - and has yet to attract source reviewer. Unless there is significant progress with this over the next couple of days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis and Z1720, pinging just so you're aware that I already replied or addressed your points. I am aware that I delayed on doing it so I don't blame you for having forgotten to take a look to this review. Super Ψ Dro 19:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Super Dro, I'll take a look at this later today. If I don't respond in 24 hours, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Gog the Mild, I remember there was a place where users could request source reviews for FAs (or just common articles, I think) but I can't find it now. Do you know how is it called? Super Ψ Dro 19:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's here - Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests, but read the header in bold before posting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah alright, thank you, I'll wait until the reviewers above are done then. Super Ψ Dro 21:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now listed. It could also do with another general review or two, in case you are owed any favours by experienced reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for listing it. I didn't understand what you meant with the second sentence. Do you mean for it to pass? Super Ψ Dro 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The minimum needed for an article to be promoted is three reasonably comprehensive general reviews followed by supports. (Plus source and image reviews.) This nomination currently has two supports. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. In how much time could this review be archived? Just to know how much time do I have left to attract a new reviewer. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

  • Hi Aza24, just checking to see if this is still pending? If so, could the nominator please respond to any unaddressed comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're close, wrapping things up below. Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    'Tis now passed. Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 23:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aza24, sorry for bothering again, but I've added another source (called A concise history of Bulgaria) to address a couple of details. Could you check it to see if it has any problem? By the way, the "Aftermath" section was renamed to "Conclusion", what do you think about it? Super Ψ Dro 14:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No bother at all; the new source looks good. I don't immediately prefer either aftermath or conclusion over one or the other, though aftermath does sound more fitting for the context of a war or revolution, so perhaps conclusion is ideal here, but again, no preference really. Aza24 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I reviewed this article for GAN and found it extremely thorough, comprehensibility-wise. I've not looked closely at the prose (which I'm assuming has changed from the PR and FAC). Doing the source review now. Aza24 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, a question, in the only note of the article, it is stated that the number of people in Romania whose ethnicity was registered in the 2011 census is of "around 18,884,800". I've found that the exact number is 18.884.831. Am I allowed to simply add the number or do I have to cite another source for these few numbers? Note that the linked census right now is a general overview of its more detailed results, and they say that the number was of 18,884.8 thousand people. Super Ψ Dro 11:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly prefer that you cite the specific source if you want to include the specific number, mainly for verifiability's sake. But it may be worth keeping the general number, as this is a broad article and not about population or ethnicity really Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it's appropriate to add another source just for that number, so I think I'll keep it that way unless I find a more appropriate source that includes the information from the census currently cited and the number. Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting

Citations

  • Looks good

Bibliography

  • Is there a point in the Anghel link? It's not free so it's like linking to amazon IMO
I don't think it's better to remove the link. It would look strange if it was the only reference without it. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Aza24 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hitchins, Nandriș, Nyagulov refs should be in title case
Is this mandatory? I think they look ugly with the original capitalization. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed this wasn't a concious decision on your part—because Madgearu is in title case—but I don't think it's required. I would suggest it (as the de facto standard for FACs), but will certainly not delay the passing of a source review because of it. Aza24 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would then prefer not to. Super Ψ Dro 14:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized you meant I didn't do the same with Madgearu... I removed the upper cases, now the names of the sources are consistent. Super Ψ Dro 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackwell Publishing could use a link
Done. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • including Iași as a location creates an inconsistency with the rest of the refs; I recommend removing. Alternatively, you could add locations to the other refs
Removed Iași. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the page ranges are unnecessary and quite odd; the ones for book like Petcu are unneeded, it kind of defeats the purpose of a page range to simply site more or less the entire book. I would stick to only using ones for journals, we're there actually given in the links
Do I remove them then? Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the ones which are unuseful (e.g. ones that have ranges of 100 pages like Madgearu and Hitchins) and keep for journals, since the entire journal is not being cited, just the article from that journal, which is the point of them. Aza24 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up for doing this as I agree it's odd, but first I'd like to know what exactly am I supposed to put when citing a book. Do you have an example of FA (or GA) with "ideal" citations? I'd like to know what the best and most standard version of citing pages is as this has always been a problem for me through my time in Wikipedia. By the way, I think you didn't realize, but I left a question above, right below your message at the start of your source review's subsection name. Super Ψ Dro 14:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have addressed the above comment now; there are certainly many options in citations, so finding an "ideal" can be hard. I will (shamelessly) recommend the formatting of my Portrait of a Musician, and two recent TFAs, Greek case and United States war plans (1945–1950). Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for the examples. I see that pages are not actually mentioned often. I removed them from the sources you told me and also from Stoenescu. Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • retrieval date for Bâtcă?
Added. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • No doubts here, all reputable publishers or subject-matter scholarly journals
  • Ok, thank you for your work here, congrats on a thorough and unique article! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability

Spotchecks below:

Spotchecks – Pass[edit]
  • Doing spot checks now. Aza24 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 4 - Y
  • ref 5 - y
  • ref 8 - y
  • ref 9 - y
  • ref 13 - y
  • checked some of 74 & 75 and found no issues. Aza24 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Proposals usually came from the Bulgarians, but it was the Romanians who were supposed to govern." I am not sure what this means. A whole people does not govern. Do you mean Romanian kings?
Not necessarily, it was just ethnic Romanian people. Perhaps I could rewrite the sentence to something like "but it was the Romanians who were supposed to hold the power/leading positions" or similar. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "but it was Romanians who were to hold the leading positions". I would delete "the" from "the Romanians" as it implies the whole people rather than individual Romanians. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following a Russian-caused period of political turmoil in Bulgaria" This sounds clumsy. Maybe "following a period of political turmoil in Bulgaria caused by Russian interference"?
Done, although I changed the ending. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lack of actual interest or even opposition between each other prevented it" I am not sure what "between each other" means here.
Between the Bulgarians and Romanians. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "the differences in the Bulgarians' and the Romanians' national goals and their peoples' lack of actual interest or even opposition prevented it". Dudley Miles (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced "between each other" with "between these peoples". Super Ψ Dro 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the conflicts at the beginning of the 20th century and the violent breakup of Yugoslavia" Do you mean the end of the twentieth century?
No, that refers to the Balkan Wars and the First World War. I think it is now more clear. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This state was defeated in 1018." By who?
This problem already arose in the peer review. None of the used sources detail that the First Bulgarian Empire was defeated by the Byzantine one, just that it was defeated in 1018, so I can't say which country did. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I had problems with this since the peer review, I added another source to clarify this and other missing things. Super Ψ Dro 12:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covered large parts of Romania's present-day territories. As a result, the Bulgarians strongly enforced Slavic and Christian influences and cultural elements over the Romanians' ancestors". I would delete "As a result". It was not inevitable.
Replaced by "there" as it looks strange to be without a connecting word/phrase. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by primary (contemporaneous) sources" I would just write "contemporary sources".
Sure. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over time, the Vlachs lost their relevance, just like the Turkic Bulgars in the first empire" What does "lost their relevance" mean? Also, you did not say above that the Bulgars lost relevance in the first empire.
It is said that the Turkic Bulgars assimilated into the Slavs above. Maybe "lost their relevance" is not the most appropriate choice of words. You can read the cited page (62) of the book used as source to understand what was the text supposed to say and propose a better change. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "Over time, the Vlachs were assimilated by the Bulgars"
This is not too appropiate as there still are some in Bulgaria, unlike the old Turkic Bulgars which disappeared many centuries ago. Super Ψ Dro 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Supporters of a Bulgarian–Romanian union used the Second Bulgarian Empire as a common ground between the two" Supporters when? What does "common ground" mean here?
Supporters at any time. Common ground refers to something that both countries had in common (the empire). Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean "Supporters of a Bulgarian–Romanian union looked back to the Second Bulgarian Empire as a common heritage"? If so, this wording would be clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added "looked back to", but I think "common ground" is clear enough. Super Ψ Dro 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or the Bulgarian writer Lyuben Karavelov" This should be "and the Bulgarian writer Lyuben Karavelov".
Done. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Romanians wanted to accomplish the independence, liberation and unification of the Romanian nation. Notable supporters were Nicolae Bălcescu, Dimitrie Brătianu, Mihai Eminescu and Aurel Popovici, who either suggested the integration of Romania into a larger Balkan state or the federalization of the Austrian or Austro-Hungarian Empire in favor of the Transylvanian Romanians." This is unclear as you have not explained how Romania was ruled at that time. You refer to unification, implying that Romania was divided. Presumably Transylvania was part of Austria/Austro-Hungary, but who ruled the rest? Also, I think "devolving power to" would be clearer than "in favor of".
I have rewritten the sentence a bit, now it should be clearer. I have tried adding sentences to say between which empires the Romanians were divided (it was between the Ottoman, Austrian/Austro-Hungarian) and Russian ones), but there is no way to say this in a summarized way that fits with the rest of the context of that paragraph and I also can't find excerpts from the sources that specifically say "Romanians were under X empire". This point became much more troublesome than I expected. Regarding the last suggestion, I never heard something like "devolving power to". What does it mean? Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "devolving power" means passing power downwards, which is presumably what you mean. 'federalization in favor of' does not make sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure if its adquate. The fragment of the original source talking about this says the following: "Given the paramount importance of the problem of the significant Romanian community in Transylvania, which was included in the Hungarian part of the Habsburg Empire, the federalist visions were focused primarily there." Is it adequate to say from this text that federalism was made for the intention of devolving power to the Transylvanian Romanians? I'm still not sure in what circunstances would it be appropiate to use that word. Super Ψ Dro 16:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but it is also unclear that "in favor of" is correct. You need to find another wording. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about "who either suggested the integration of Romania into a larger Balkan state or the federalization of the Austrian or Austro-Hungarian Empire to benefit/in order to benefit/for the benefit/to favor (not sure if "favor" is a verb in English, it is in Spanish)/for helping out the Transylvanian Romanians."? I think "to benefit" is the best option in my opinion. I can't really think of ways of changing the prose beyond that part on a better way. Super Ψ Dro 17:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • federalising means devolving (passing down) power. The source could mean devolving power to the Romanians, or devolving it to the Hungarians as better able to deal with the problem, but that would not be in the Romanians' favor. My point is that if devolve is not a suitable word then neither is favor. I would just leave out any comment about who was to benefit. Alternatively, if you are satisfied that the source does mean devolving power to the Romanians, I think you should say so rather than using the vague "in favor". You could say "passing down" if you think the word "devolve" is too obscure. BTW "favor" is a verb in American English. In British English it is "favour". I am British but I use the American spelling here as the article is written in American English. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't say so in my earlier comments but I agree that "in favor of" can be replaced. I prefer the option "passing down", I rewrote the sentence as "in order to pass down power to the Transylvanian Romanians". Super Ψ Dro 11:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did find some information about between which empires were the Romanians divided and I added it. Super Ψ Dro 21:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After seeing the policies against the influence of the Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople" Perhaps "After seeing the resistance of the Romanian church to control by the Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople"
Done, but I rewrote it a bit. Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so they allied themselves with Ivan Kasabov [bg]. Being a former associate of Rakovski, Kasabov proposed that Romania support a Bulgarian rebellion in the Ottoman Empire" "Being a former associate" is not logical. I suggest "so they allied themselves with a former associate of Rakovski, Ivan Kasabov [bg]. Kasabov proposed that Romania support a Bulgarian rebellion in the Ottoman Empire"
Done. Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, the Bulgarians aimed to obtain a state, while the Romanians already had their own; the Bulgarians belonged to the Slavic group while the Romanians identified as Latin; the Bulgarians intended to establish themselves in the Balkans while the Romanians had interests in Central Europe; and others." I would delete "and others". It sounds odd and it is already covered by "For example".
Done. Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prince Bibescu was not a Bulgarian prince, but he would hardly be honored even to be a head of stable of the future Bulgarian prince". I do not understand this.
Rewritten. Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Russia disapproved of these events, which made Alexander abdicate again on 25 August. Bulgaria, still controlled by Russophobes," This is not clear. Why did Alexander have to abdicate if Bulgaria was controlled by Russophobes?
The original source does not specify this, so I can't explain it. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is now explained with another source. Super Ψ Dro 14:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had Stefan Stambolov taking power as regent". You refer below to the regency as a collective body.
Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that Carol I was not among the leading candidate and then that it was agreed that the country would be under his rule?
It was agreed by the regents that made the negotiations, but I imagine the people favored more others. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As it was an epoch when countries were fueled with nationalism" This sounds odd to me. Maybe "As people were very nationalistic in this period".
I rewrote it to "Due to the great presence nationalism had during this epoch". Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the Ottoman Sultan's rejection of a proposed Bulgarian–Turkish dual state" This needs expanding. If the Bulgarians proposed unity with Turkey, this should be explained.
The source once again does not specify much about this, but I added a bit more of info. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They first offered the Romanian consul in Ruse" This is ungrammatical. What does it mean?
Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the King of Romania would not want to "expose" Romania to the Triple Alliance for Bulgaria" I do not understand this.
My interpretation to that is that they considered Romania "siding" with Bulgaria could damage the country's relations with the Triple Alliance. Perhaps the text could be changed. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "he thought that the King of Romania would reject it for fear of offending the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy" Dudley Miles (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 16:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Russia, which saw the proposal of the Romanian monarch taking the Bulgarian throne as a violation of the Treaty of Berlin" This is unclear. You appear to say above that Stambolov did not make an offer as it would offend the Triple Alliance, but now you say that it was proposed.
There indeed wasn't, changed to "possibility". I'll change all the text in the article related to this issue once I can access once again the PC where is Stoenescu's paper. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got it back, Stoenescu did not say "offer", so changed (in the lead too). Super Ψ Dro 17:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he accepted the Bulgarian crown's offer" Presumably you mean the offer of the Bulgarian crown.
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was elected prince as Ferdinand I on 25 June 1887" Prince of Bulgaria?
Yes, specified now. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both countries were in conflict again between 1916 and 1918 during World War I". It would be clearer to say "The countries fought on opposite sides between 1916 and 1918 during World War I".
Not done, I want to stress the idea that they were in conflict again, your proposal states this but indirectly. Super Ψ Dro 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear what you are saying. Your wording could mean that they were both in the conflict on the same side. If you want to say that they were fighting each other, you need to say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten to "Both countries were in conflict again between 1916 and 1918 when they fought on opposite sides during World War I". Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 1930s, conferences and the creation of the Balkan Entente in 1934 between Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey reactivated the federation idea". The article on the Balkan Entente says that its purpose was partly to present a united front against Bulgaria, so how could it have been a continuation of the improved relations of the 1920s?
That part refers to the Balkans, not Bulgaria. Specified now. Super Ψ Dro 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Communist period'. I find this section confusing. The first two paragraphs should not be in this section as they cover 1887 to 1944. I think you should make clear that before the Soviet invasion of 1944 Bulgaria was ruled by a right-wing pro-Hitler government, so proposals were confined to a few intellectuals with no chance of success.
Yes, but there is nowhere else to put the first paragraph. Taking into account that it is only a paragraph in a section with seven of them, I think it can be kept as an introduction without making any changes (the second paragraph is related, I see no problem with it). And regarding the last point, I think you refer to "Some intellectuals and politicians continued to want Bulgarians and Romanians to establish a larger and more powerful state". This is before Bulgarian or Romanian involvement in WW2, so it's unneccesary. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still confusing for readers to put the whole period between 1890 and 1945 in a section headed Communist period. If I understand correctly, this was fundamentally different from the periods before and after when union was a serious proposal of government figures, whereas in this period it was only advocated by fringe intellectuals with no chance of power. This needs to be made clear in a separate section even if a short one. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it would be strange to place a subsection of a paragraph after one of 7 and before one of 6. Maybe we can change the wording in a way that makes a transition between that paragraph and the ones before and after it so it looks better placed, although not I'm sure how to do this. Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording. Super Ψ Dro 20:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact, Bulgaria had already recovered Southern Dobruja earlier on 7 September 1940, when the Treaty of Craiova was signed.[49] During this period, both countries were diplomatically isolated, subordinated to the Soviet Union and occupied by its army." This is misleading as it implies that they were subordinated to the Soviet Union from 1940 whereas (as you will obviously know) this was not until 1944 and Southern Dobruja was handed to Bulgaria by Hitler.
I rewrote it. Is it better? I removed the Treaty of Craiova's signing date as it is uneccesary detail. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was probably because of the war waged by Romania on the side of Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1944.[51][52][53] The Bulgarians' priorities were regarded as more important" But both countries sided with Nazi Germany.
Yes, but Romania had a much more notable participation and made much more damage to the USSR than Bulgaria. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote that part, but couldn't find anything in the sources saying Bulgaria had a much minor role. Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found information in the recently added source, now it's in the article. Super Ψ Dro 12:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole discussion of the period between 1918 and 1944 seems to me confusing and misleading.
In which parts exactly? Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This situation was common between Bulgaria and Romania." This sentence does not make sense. Maybe "There were similar problems with proposals for union between Bulgaria and Romania."
Rewritten to "Problems regarding the idea of federation also arose between Bulgaria and Romania". Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The European Union and its democratic values impose common visions for the development of its various societies, which may also include a future federation proposal." This comment seems over-optimistic in view of the rise of regimes which reject democratic values in Poland and Hungary.
Something similar is said on the cited source. It doesn't state it directly, but I image the author meant federation ideas in the Balkans, so that excludes Poland and Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while economic, geographic and military data originates from the CIA's reference resource The World Factbook" You should specify at what date.
Done. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did actually send the article to be copyedited by the GOCE, but I guess it wasn't enough. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article name is misleading. 'Proposals for the union of Bulgaria and Romania' would be a bit clunky but would make the subject clear to readers.
There is no need to do this. Other articles have titles such as Unification of Romania and Moldova or Unification of Albania and Kosovo that imply that these countries have already united, but readers can then see that this is only a proposal when reading the article. Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Map of a Bulgarian–Romanian union in case it succeeded in 1887 (top) and in modern days (bottom)" I think "Map of a proposed Bulgarian–Romanian union in 1887 (top) and 2021 (bottom)" would be better.
I think keeping "in case it succeeded" is better as it implies that there had to be a proposal in 1887 (since at that point, the reader has just started reading the article). If we add "Map of a proposed Bulgarian–Romanian union in 1887", readers might wonder why 1887 was chosen as a year and only find out later. I also prefer not to cite in an article the exact year we are in and I do not see that this is a common pracice in other articles. Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that other reviewers have pointed out that the 'Aftermath' heading does not reflect the content. The last two paragraphs of 'Failure' belong in a short section after 'Communist period' labelled 'Later history' and I suggest changing the 'Aftermath' heading to 'Conclusion' or 'Summary'. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Conclusion, it has convinced me, so changed. Again, I think the first two paragraphs serve as an introduction to the section and there is no need to separate them into another one. After all, those paragraphs have little to do with the proposal to unite Bulgaria and Romania, so it would not fit into the History section. Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one outstanding issue, the 'Communist period' section. The heading is confusing for a section covering 1887 to 1949 as the Communist period was only the last four years. I also think that it should be made clear that in the inter-war years Bulgaria was ruled for most of the time by right wing authoritarian governments. It should be made clear in these circumstances whether the intellectuals and socialists discussed were fringe actors with no chance of putting their ideas into effect, unlike the powerful figures discussed in the rest of the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten that part of the section. Hopefully the text now looks more integrated and appropiate for the section. The third suggestion is indirectly addressed now through "However, the only advances were made under communism". I think that there now is no place in the text where it could be included whether the interwar governments of Bulgaria were authoritarian or not or where this question could arise to the reader. Super Ψ Dro 12:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review. Super Ψ Dro 11:19, 11 April 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 April 2021 [25].

Huey Long[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 21:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Huey Long, the governor of Louisiana and a US Senator. A proponent of radical solutions to end the Great Depression, he was assassinated in 1935. After prose and length issues were raised in the last nomination, I split off or removed much of the content and put in a GoCE request. ~ HAL333 21:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ovinus[edit]

I'll take this one on. The article is definitely more manageable than it was for the previous nomination. I do think the lead section is still a bit long. Ovinus (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should File:Round_Robin_image.jpg be PD-US-expired? Ovinus (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Image copyright is my weak point. ~ HAL333 00:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this, it's not a US image so PD-old-100 should do it. (t · c) buidhe 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the topic, so I can only comment on prose and summary style, not comprehensiveness, et cetera.

  • Love the opening paragraph and lead in general! Efficient and communicative.
  • Poised for a 1936 presidential bid, a lone assassin mortally wounded Long in 1935. Literally, means the assassin was gonna run for president, so how about Poised for a 1936 presidential bid, Long was killed by a lone assassin in 1935. (I'm not sure if "mortally wounded" is needed over "killed", unless you want to make clear it was a shooting, in which case you can do "was shot and killed". But that's not a big deal)
  • ("shortening") Why in quotes here? Probably should do (a brand of shortening)
  • Early life section is great, especially the last quote. :P

Will get to more later! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The shortening clarification should be added back; I had no clue what Cottolene was, nor its relation to baking
  • In 1918, Long invested $1,050 Could we add {{Inflation}} ?
  • In the Democratic primary Primary for the railroad commission? Does this mean there was only one seat up for grabs? Some clarification would be appreciated
At the time, Democratic primaries were the de-facto elections. A win against the Republicans in the general was guaranteed. I'm pretty sure the primary was just for one seat, but I unfortunately don't possess White's book anymore... ~ HAL333 18:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, alright.
  • Cite #33 seems to be a dead link? Also wanted to check that the "most brilliant lawyer" quote does include the full name "United States Supreme Court"
  • states: it had "it" should be capitalized since it's the start of a complete sentence
  • He launched his formal campaign in 1927 Can we make clear that he's running for the same race? For example, He formally launched his second campaign for governor in 1927
  • a phrase adopted from Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan Maybe a footnote here stating what Bryan's slogan was? On second consideration, I don't think this is necessary
  • Footnote #3 had me laughing out loud
Long was quite the character. It's a shame that I couldn't wedge the other ridiculous anecdotes (ranging from his greeting of the German ambassador while in pajamas or being assaulted after urinating on a man) in this article. ~ HAL333 04:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's just glorious.
  • It has been alleged By whom? (If known)
Unfortunately, I don't have those books anymore... ~ HAL333 19:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Ovinus (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The charges were Could we clarify saying these were the charges he was ultimately impeached on? You could just say "The eight charges"
It's included in note 6. ~ HAL333 04:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's what I meant; to put "The eight charges were: ..." in note 6. It's just that the note is rather long, so my instinct was to expect all nineteen charges. Ovinus (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. I'll get at it. ~ HAL333 04:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle, if you still have Harris' book, would it be possible to add the 11 other charges to note 6. No worries if you can't or don't have the time/energy. Thanks! ~ HAL333 19:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find them. Some of the charges (like supposedly ordering a hit on a state rep) were absolutely spurious, which is why I listed out only the ones on which Long was convicted. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, the full list of charges isn't so pertinent. Maybe we can keep the remaining 11 charges very concise and nonspecific; the note is already rather plump. Ovinus (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not having any luck accessing the book. Though if you'd like to, it does list all of the charges there. If they were incorporated I'd also agree to be brief, many of the additional charges were meritless - Harris actually makes the distinction that some of the misappropriation charges that Long was charged with were actually those with the most merit. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ye. If anything we could say what you just said, Indy: "Harris notes that some of the remaining 11 charges were absolutely spurious/patently false, and that Long was charged on accusations with the most merit." Ovinus (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious editor comment: is there a particular reason you use {{sfn}} for only some refs and not others?
Indy Beetle, who reviewed this at the GAN level and has helped fill in some of my blind spots, added those. I just removed them. ~ HAL333 18:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 72 years old, Ransdell had been in the Senate since Long was age four.
I'm missing something here. ~ HAL333 04:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point!! In all seriousness, no clue what I was thinking here; totally fine
  • in which cotton production would be banned Just wanted you to check; I tried to make clear the holiday applies to the whole year.
Looks good to me. ~ HAL333 04:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which at 450 feet (140 m) tall is the tallest capitol, state or federal, in the United States I kind of like "remains" instead of "is" here
  • Long's night schools Link night school?
  • His provision of free textbooks resulted in a 20 percent increase in school enrollment. How do we know this causal relationship is true?
That's T. Harry Williams for you. Should I keep it, attribute it to Williams, or change it to something more neutral and hedged? ~ HAL333 01:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... up to you, but I'd say it's just uncontentious enough to not require attribution. I guess it depends on whether Williams' work is completely hagiographic or just rather biased. Edit: As a sort of compromise you could probably say "contributed to" instead of "resulted in". The meaning is very similar but less absolute. Ovinus (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Franklin Delano Roosevelt I think a middle initial "D." is sufficient
  • who later claimed he was I'd prefer "said" here since it isn't a contentious claim; it's a purely subjective thing
  • Though he had no constitutional authority, Long continued to draft and press bills through the This confused me. Is Long violating the constitution here? Or is he just skirting around it as a technicality?
Basically just skirting. He wasn't violating anything, but the Constitution obviously never explicitly said that one of its Senators should serve as de-facto governor. ~ HAL333 00:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, nothing needs to be changed Ovinus (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • live ammunition were fired Can "live" can be removed? I'm not familiar with firearm terminology Never mind, realized that "blank ammunition" is a thing
  • In summer 1935, Long called two special legislative sessions could we tack on "in Louisiana" ? Just to keep track, since he is still US Senator. Also nice because you refer to "the state" later in the paragraph
  • State Board of Censors What is this? Never mind, I thought it was some weird dysphemism. That's pretty crazy
  • widow, Rose Long Wikilink Rose Long?
She is already linked in a prior section. I also realized that Russell was linked twice (now removed). ~ HAL333 00:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks Ovinus (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little confused about the true title of "The Great State – I" citation
Very strange. I have no idea. ~ HAL333 00:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't have access to their complete archive and there's no point paying $12 for a title. Quickly emailed them though. Ovinus (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. I once asked Vanity Fair if I could use a caricature of Long and Mussolini: they told it me it would cost a few hundred. Figure I'll just wait until 2030 when it's in the PD. ~ HAL333 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope you've set your alarm then. Ovinus (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • won the National Book Award in 1983 for Voices of Protest Could we clarify inline what type of book it is?

That's it for now! I might read Long's American National Biography entry just to see if there's any particularly salient info I'd want us to include. I must say, one of the best Wikipedia articles I've ever completely read through—certainly the best biography. It really captures (what I imagine to be) Long's voice and personality, while remaining neutral and Wikipedia-like. Thank you for your hard work! Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also, could we mention the "The Kingfish" nickname somewhere in the body? Its origins and such? Ovinus (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates on this point? Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 18:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on comprehensiveness[edit]

I read the American National Biography Online article on Long by Alan Brinkley—for those reading along, also the author of Voices of Protest. Some things it included:

  • "Long himself seems never to have decided to be a candidate for president that year, but he clearly intended to support a third-party challenge... To that end, he began a modest public flirtation with other national dissident leaders such as Father Charles Coughlin and Dr. Francis Townsend, perhaps as a prelude to an election-year alliance." Do you think his relationship with Coughlin and Townsend is worth a mention? In any case, I think it's important to note in Presidential ambitions that, although he gave conflicting public opinions regarding whether he'd be president, Long in any case wanted a third party?
I added a note about Coughlin and Long: Brinkley actually gives little credence to a joint campaign in Voices of Protest. There is little concrete evidence about Long's plans for 1936 - at one point he even explicitly shot down a third party run. Given that, I tried to avoid stating in wiki voice about what Long would have done and instead just discuss speculation of others. ~ HAL333 20:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good Ovinus (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exactly how much financial corruption there was in the Long organization is difficult to determine, but it was substantial." You note that "some of his lieutenants were charged with income tax evasion", but it wasn't so explicit. Is this just Brinkley's opinion or is it borne out by your sources? Food for thought, anyway
Yeah, Brinkley tends to be very critical of Long; on the opposite side of the spectrum, T. Harry William's Pulitzer Prize winner is almost doting. The fact that the IRS couldn't find anything says a lot imo. However, I do touch on some of his corrupt behavior with an oil company, and I'll dive back into my sources and see if I can find more information about his financial corruption. ~ HAL333 00:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thx! And yeah, he does seem pretty harsh. Ovinus (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Went back through Voices of Protest. Brinkley doesn't really elucidate any corruption. ~ HAL333 19:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it Ovinus (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brinkley states: "After Long’s death, his frail national movement quickly evaporated, and his Louisiana organization soon made its peace with the Roosevelt administration". You state that "Long's policies continued to be enacted in Louisiana by his political machine ... until the election of 1960". We should probably note that his national movement died quickly? Also, the second part of Brinkley's statement seems to contradict yours?
I note in the lede that Although Long's movement faded.... On the second bit, The Long machine continued to exist in Louisiana and execute state-policies, but didn't interfere with Roosevelt or the New Deal. ~ HAL333 19:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I see what you mean. Shouldn't we include that info in the body though? (that he no longer interfered with national policy)
Done. ~ HAL333 18:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also read "The Big Sleazy" from The New Yorker, which I should note is used as a source in the article. So after all my comments are addressed I'm ready to weakly support on comprehensiveness—weakly, because I'm not sure what confidence and degree of familiarity is expected from such a support. Perhaps someone can explain that. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting[edit]
  • All harv-like citations use the same formatting of linking to the book and adding a page number, looks good
  • Cite 116 can also include the location of publication, Baton Rouge
  • Cite 131 was missing some info, so I replaced with {{cite book}}
  • Ref containing Thomas Andrae,"The Legacy of Al Taliaferro," in Disney's Four Color Adventures vol. 1 (2011). needs formatting and more information
I've hidden the material for now. I'll try to get my hands on the book. ~ HAL333 18:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, the title of "The Great State – I" is rather unclear. I'm guessing it's The Great State Waiting for the Imam, so maybe just put that. Not a big deal though.
Done. ~ HAL333 18:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 33 should be Comberland [sic], which I did
  • With regards to Cite 33, should it be attributed to Cornell or to the Supreme Court? (not sure)
I lean Cornell - publisher rather than author. I might be wrong though... ~ HAL333 18:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Ovinus (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 78 needs an author
  • Cite 94 should remove "The"
I'm confused. Which "The"? ~ HAL333 18:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did it myself, just wanted consistency with the other citation to the U.S. Senate.
  • I made some hands-on changes. One thing I'd like to know is whether it's always good practice to link the work (New York Times) or whether it's unnecessary. Again, not a big deal. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked NYT in refs. ~ HAL333 18:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Sounds good, I was just curious whether that was an FAC requirement but I've harmonized the rest of them. Ovinus (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose/organization, comprehensiveness, and consistent citation style. The article seems relatively stable so I don't think I'll have to reassess. Great work. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thorough review. :) ~ HAL333 22:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Louisiana State Capitol Building
  • File:Huey Long as a child.jpg No indication of publication before 1926 as claimed
  • File:Huey Long traveling salesman.jpg Ditto
Should I just remove these or is there some way to make them fair use?
Probably not since NFCC#8 is unlikely to be met here. (t · c) buidhe 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:BatonRougeNewCapitolNight1932.jpg Too low contrast. Many modern color photographs exist and would be higher encyclopedic value here.
Could I keep this one? I like that it is a contemporary photograph and I find the reflections on the pond to be quite attractive. Most of the modern color images also include Long's grave and statue, which I think would be better to reveal in the Assassination section.
I think accessibility is a consideration here as not all readers have equal vision ability. The image at right is a featured picture, has better contrast, and would provide greater encyclopedic value by showing colors. The underlying structure doesn't seem to have been altered significantly in the interim, and I don't see Long's statue there unless I'm missing something. (t · c) buidhe 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Huey Long speaking.png You can get a higher resolution version at the source
I just tried doing it, bit it says it can't be overwritten?...
It's not necessary for FAC but you're right, it would need to be uploaded as a separate file since the format is different. I think there are Commons tools that would transfer the files directly from Library of Commons website but IDK how to use them. (t · c) buidhe 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up just uploading another one. ~ HAL333 00:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Paraguayos en alihuatá.jpg Needs more documentation to show PD status, missing PD-US tag, photographer's death date (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed File:Paraguayos en alihuatá.jpg
  • T. Harry Williams is wikilinked earlier in the article. He was probably Long's most notable biographer and neither of the sources explicity explain who he was. Is the wikilink enough or should I find a second source to support who he was? ~ HAL333 03:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, if he's already mentioned then you should probably just use the bare surname per MOS:SURNAME. (t · c) buidhe 23:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I've made hands-on edits, feel free to revert what you don't like.
They all look like improvements to me. ~ HAL333 19:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention Standard Oil in the lede (and in the body). The links are to a corporation that was broken up after 1911.
This is something that has always bugged me. The sources and Long himself always called it simply "Standard Oil". I assume he was sometimes talking about Standard Oil of Louisiana, a subsidiary of what is now Exxon. But RS never name it as that and (from my reading) Long never distinguished between any of the companies. I guess it was an easier target than listing a dozen different companies. It is similar to the way certain politicians complain about Google when Alphabet may be more relevant. I don't really know what to do here. I feel like the current link is more helpful to the reader than the sparse Standard Oil of Louisiana. ~ HAL333 19:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Noticed this too. None of the sources state that Long attacked Standard Oil's descendants? Wish I could do more research here, but this article cites the company of New Jersey specifically, and this article notes that Standard Oil of New Jersey operated a lot of stuff in his home state. Ovinus (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around this time, Long evaded fighting in World War I, claiming, "I was not mad at anybody over there," ..." I would cut "Around this time" since we know when the US was in the war.
  • "and alleged he had made corrupt dealings with a Texan oil company." You can make corrupt deals or have corrupt dealings, I'm not sure you can make corrupt dealings.
  • It might be worth noting that, as a practical matter, Long's delay in taking his Senate seat meant he missed only a few weeks of the Senate as (pre-20th Amendment) it did not convene until December of 1931.
I just looked through the book I have on hand but it didn't mention that. I found some sources to support it, but without mentioning Long I worry that it might be a little too close to synthesis. ~ HAL333 20:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Long was unique among southern populists in that he achieved tangible progress. " This seems a very broad statement. Say what you will about someone like Benjamin Tillman, he got his colleges founded.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Senate registrar" Are you sure on the title of this officer? Never heard of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite an overwhelming Democratic majority" Not until March 4, 1933. Until then, the Democrats did not have a majority.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roosevelt's son" He had more than one, all notable.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Philippines ... United States had occupied since 1899" while the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1899, the military occupation had begun in 1898, right?
  • "1936 presidential bid against incumbent Franklin D. Roosevelt.[177][21]" Do you mean to have the ref numbers out of order?
  • "Long biographers T. Harry Williams and William Ivy Hair and President Roosevelt, speculated that Long expected to lose in 1936," The ands lead to awkward phrasing.
  • "organizing themselves in militant companies " do you mean militia, not militant?
  • "Father Coughlin, Reno, Townsend," Links would be good. I know Coughlin is linked in a footnote, but the reader may not get there.
  • "Long was the namesake of Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party.[214][215]" Wasn't Newton Long's namesake, not the other way around?
  • "she often voted against her senior Arkansas Senator Robinson." perhaps ... Arkansas's senior senator, Robinson or ... her senior colleague from Arkansas, Robinson.
That's it. Most interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 14:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

You got me interested, I will look, skip the lead for now - will look at that last - and comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • I find it a bit repetitive to have the same image in the infobox and the sidebar.
Changed. ~ HAL333 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

  • English is not my native language, and politics stranger still. What is Historical reputation (vs. reputation)?
The inclusion of "historical" clarifies that it is retrospective and that it is the view held by historians/academics. I was inspired by what other editors did at the GA Franklin D. Roosevelt. ~ HAL333 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood

  • I find it a bit strange in chronology that Long embraced populist sentiments before he went to school ;)
I understand your point, but young children (under 11 in this instance) can still be heavily influenced by the political climate. ~ HAL333
"influenced", yes, but "he embraced" without any time? - We know nothing about him yet, - perhaps describe the political background without (yet) also his activity? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • antics in this context?
The secret society and ribbons. ~ HAL333 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we avoid the repetition of high school?
Done. ~ HAL333 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got to the beginning of Senat without problems, and need a break. Impressed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • In the image caption for his son, I could do without "seen", but would like a year, and perhaps an indication that he is the left person.
    Done. ~ HAL333 22:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

  • "His platform has been compared to everything from European Fascism, Stalinism, to the later McCarthyism." - I think "everything" is saying a bit too much/general. And where does Stalinism sit on the way from Fascism to McCathyism? - Perhaps rephrase completely. Or, if from a quote, perhaps quote? Or ignore me ;)
Rephrased. ~ HAL333 22:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media

  • Do we need the given name of Williams once more?
    Removed. ~ HAL333 22:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also

  • I'm not convinced we need that at all.
    I'm kind of fond of it, but if another editor agrees I'll remove it. ~ HAL333
    I should probably stop then ;) - I'd still try to integrate the links to the article, not as a list that looks like mixed leftovers (to me) at the end, after we just had the nice conclusion with a great quote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed two of the less important items. ~ HAL333 23:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. The sources look impressive and well formatted, but I'm not familiar with the field, so can't say much more. I'm ready to support, because none of the minor points is in the way of this being a features article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! ~ HAL333 22:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24[edit]

Just thought I'd reaffirm my support—I supported at the last FAC per my comments and review at PR. A first-class article that surely belong among our pantheon of FAs. Aza24 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Aza. ~ HAL333 02:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Doing soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Works cited

  • For sources by the same author (e.g. the three Haas refs), is there a rationale to their order? I would think ordering by year makes sense
Nice catch. Fixed. ~ HAL333 15:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The retrieval dates in Kurtz and Lowe seem out of place, as you're not including them for other books, I suggest removing
Done.
  • Pelican Publishing vs Pelican Publishing Company inconsistency
Done.
  • I'm taking your linking approach as only for the first mention of a publisher, this would mean Random House,
Linked.

References and citations

  • assuming ref 9 should be 122–123 not 122–23, based on how you treat other citations
  • American Heritage should be linked in ref 20 since you've been linking the New Yorker and NYT every time
  • Other missing links include Legal Information Institute, National Park Service, Reveille, Viking Press, The Guilford Press, Kirkus Reviews, WGNO ABC and (maybe) Department of the Treasury
  • You've linked Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association in 3 of the 4 refs, and none of the works cited, I suggest linking every time, to stay consistent with how you're treating NYT and New Yorker
  • New York vs New York City inconsistency between refs and works cited
  • Ref 59 should be p.
  • Refs 85, 144, 209 should be pp.
  • Rolling Stone should have a location—I'm assuming, based on your inclusion of locations for other news refs? Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All done. ~ HAL333 21:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • Not assessed yet
Verifiability
  • To increase verifiability, identifiers for Harris, Kane, Havard and Long would be nice; possible OCLCs? Aza24 (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would I do that? ~ HAL333 14:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look them up at Worldcat, and scroll down in their respective entries; there should be an oclc listed. Aza24 (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (Might want to check if I did that correctly.) ~ HAL333 21:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any page number for ref 231? Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~ HAL333 01:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 140 - y
  • 82a - y
  • 82b - not seeing any of Long tried to place a surtax on newspapers and forbid the publication of "slanderous material", but these efforts were defeated, perhaps wrong page number?
I remember writing this, but I don't think it came from Hamby... I'll keep looking. ~ HAL333 18:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partly removed/resourced. ~ HAL333 21:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 174 - y
  • 175 - not really seeing this
I tried to find the correct page bt had no luck. The Williams' references are not my work. I ended up removing this as very similar content can be found earlier. ~ HAL333 18:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 176 - not seeing this, particularly the "dictatorship" part
Ditto. ~ HAL333 18:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 169 - OK
  • 172 - not really seeing this
Does the page skip for you in the Internet Archive as well? ~ HAL333 18:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No..? :) Aza24 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 121 - y
  • 122 - y
  • 182 - y
  • 190 - y
  • I think I'll need to check more Williams refs, but I want to hear back on the ones I've found issue with first to see if I'm missing anything. Aza24 (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked some of Gillette and am seeing no real issues; I would advise, tedious as it is, that you go through the Williams refs (and let me know when you've done so). It's too risky to trust past editors on these things—I've learned this the hard way, as have others Aza24 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HAL333, this seems to have stalled. Would it be possible for you to respond to Aza24's comment immediately above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that Gog. I've been swamped with work irl and kept meaning to get to this. Aza24, I have addressed all of the issues with the Williams references. ~ HAL333 21:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK—Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Elli[edit]

So I commented on your talk a few weeks back but I got the time to read this article a bit more thoroughly and I have a few comments (I'd lean towards support but I don't feel confident in my FA-reviewing abilities yet).

Lead
I feel like the slight loss in clarity is worth it for the conciseness. ~ HAL333 15:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy -> politics
  • Perhaps mention why Long was no longer a powerful force after the 1960 election. Also "election of 1960" is kinda ambiguous, I wouldn't pipe the link at all and just do 1960 Louisiana gubernatorial election.
The source is referring to all of the elections statewide. I have unlinked and clarified it. ~ HAL333 14:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
External links
Removed Sinclair. I tried inserting the latter link into the "Assassination" section but it felt very choppy. ~ HAL333 15:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for writing this and sorry if I'm being nitpicky. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No - I appreciate it. The devil is in the detail, after all. ~ HAL333 15:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Elli, I was wondering if you were intending to either oppose or support this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: hey, following the guidelines for reviewing FAs I didn't want to !vote here since I haven't ever participated in the FA process before and didn't feel confident in my ability to assess articles to the criteria. However, if I had to pick, I would support it. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator[edit]

Hey Gog the Mild, this nomination has racked up a few supports, zero opposes, and has had its image and source reviews. Should I try to ask some editors to review it to get some more opinions? ~ HAL333 15:09, 14 April 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 April 2021 [26].

2019 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2019 running of the oldest association football cup competition in the world. Hopefully even non-experts will be able to negotiate their way through it and perhaps even learn something. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

I will be reviewing this shortly. I consider myself a stereotypical Canadian: hockey is the greatest sport in the world and soccer (or "football" as my European-ex will try to inform me) is boring (sorry). I think I am typical of Wikipedia's non-expert audience because I understand or can deduce the meaning of basic sports terms (penalty, shoot, goal etc.) but specialized terms will need more explanation for me. I mention this because I have been reading this non-expert terminology discussion for a couple of weeks (spread over many, many FACs and talk pages) and I want the nominator and the FAC coordinators to understand my knowledge and perspective for this review. My opinion is an article should define or explain uncommon terms so that a competent reader can figure out what the word means, and if the reader wants more specialized information they can click on the wikilink and go down a wiki rabbit hole. I am happy to clarify these thoughts or answer questions on the FAC's talk page.

For now, I'll only review the lede (mostly because I'm at work and should probably be doing my job.) TRM, can you look at my comments below and let me know if it is helpful for your nomination? If it is, I will continue reviewing. If TRM or anyone else has concerns I will pause the review and we can discuss on the talk page how best to proceed.

Lede

  • "English football's primary cup competition" What is a primary cup? Is this a British/European term for a tournament?
    Primary in the literal meaning, like "number one" or "first". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we change "primary" to "first"? Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's number one as in "of chief importance; principal." the first dictionary definition of "primary". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first yellow card of the game" Suggest changing to "first yellow penalty card" since the wikilink is to penalty card
    No, it's not called a penalty card in BritEng. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the wikilink is to the yellow card section in penalty card, so I'm OK leaving it where it is. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as David Silva from a Raheem Sterling header." Is there a verb missing? Also, suggest changing to "as David Silva scored a goal after receiving a pass from Raheem Sterling using a header."
    Yes "scoring" was missing, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who side-footed the ball" What does side-footed mean? Can we simplify this language? Maybe dribble?
    No, he hit it with the side of his foot. Nothing to do with dribbling. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we change "side-footed" to "kicked"? I know there are different ways of kicking the ball into the net but I don't think the lede needs info on how a player kicked a ball. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really because that reduces the prose to just "kicking" a ball around. There are lots of ways of kicking a ball around and using slighly rich yet still encyclopedic language shouldn't be prevented. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initial shot was saved onto the post" What does saved onto the post mean?
    He saved the ball and it went onto the goalpost. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it might mean that. Can it be changed to, "He stopped the shot and the ball bounced off the goalpost"? Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to be succinct here, especially in the lead. I'll replace "saved" with "pushed", that should make it crystal clear. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a domestic treble" This should be defined in the lede, maybe something like "The win allowed Manchester City to complete a domestic treble, where a team wins the FA Cup, the _____ and the ____ in a single season." (I don't know what the other awards are.) Then, the second part of the paragraph should be its own sentence.
    Expanded that a bit, but to be fair, the concept was already explained in more detail in the main part of the article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured it was explained further down the article, but I think a quick one-sentence explanation of this term is useful for the readers who will not read past the lede. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 you're welcome to continue to review the article, it looks like there's going to be a lot of wording issues, but hey ho. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 please also note that just today the 1987 FA Cup Final article was passed to FA, so if the standards which need to be applied are drastically different from that article, we might as well call it a day. As noted before, I got my seven-year-old son to read this and other such articles and they didn't need further explanations. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man Please feel free to disagree with my suggestions; it happens all the time! Just let me know why and we can figure out the best wording.
I do not know your son's knowledge about soccer, but I know that at seven-year-old I knew lots of hockey terms that a non-hockey adult would consider jargon (two-line pass, to deke, hat-trick, etc.) If I nominated a hockey article and said, "The player stickhandled the puck, deked the goalie and scored a hat-trick" I would probably be told to change it, even though seven-year-old me has said that exact sentence. All I can promise is that I will highlight terminology I do not understand and I will offer suggestions on alternative wording. I'll take a look at 1987 FA Cup Final later to help guide my review. I added some comments to your responses above. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm bemused as to why it always seems to be my FACs which are attracting so much attention of this nature. But I appreciate any time you spend looking at the article. I can't promise that I can agree to make your suggested changes simply because (as above) some of them just aren't going to work using correct football terminology. Problem is, if you're having difficulty with phrases like "side-footing the ball" which is simply using the side of one's foot to kick the ball, I'm concerned the article will be reduced to something which is more suited for Simple English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to reduce the language to Simple English either, that would be too far. I also want the language to be understandable to someone like me, an adult who has little interest in soccer. In other words, we need something in the middle of "simple language" and "technical language". I hope I will assess your article similarly to other FACs, and if I am not please call me out (however, you will see in other FACs that I leave LOTS of suggestions) I know I will make lots of mistakes in understanding terms, so please give a quick definition if I get it wrong. For example, with "side-footing the ball", I posted what I thought the word meant when I read it in the article. Hopefully, this will help you judge what a non-expert will think the word means and decide if the prose needs to be changed. If a word was accepted as non-technical in the 1987 FA Cup Final article, please let me know. I leave the ultimate judgment to you on what needs to be defined because you are the article's nominator (although I will say when I disagree with you if I strongly encourage a change).
As for why your FACs are attracting the attention of this nature: I agree, your articles have attracted lots of this attention and I will try to be mindful of that during this review. I'm not actively looking for terminology problems; I'm reviewing prose in general and will point out terminology problems as part of prose concerns. If I don't understand something, I will post it and we can discuss changes if they are needed. I will continue the review later, as I am still at work, but let me know if you have any questions or concerns before I continue. Z1720 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be my guest. It would be great if some of the highly technical legal or paleontological articles got this level of attention. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City

Watford

Background

  • "Watford had beaten Manchester City just once in the previous seventeen meetings" Remove just, it is redundant
    Sure. It's emphasising that their record was appalling but we can make the prose run free of description I guess. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "through the football family" What is a football family? Are these complimentary tickets?
    That very sentence explains what the "football family" is: " which included volunteers representing County FAs, FA-affiliated leagues, clubs and charities". The source says "distributed" and makes no claim as to whether they are distributed for free or not. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Watford left-back" Can this be changed to "Watford left-back defender" (I have never heard of a left-back, but I know what a defender is)
    No, in Brit Eng we never ever say "left back defender". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deulofeu had recovered from a dead leg" Maybe wikilink dead leg, I think it's referred to as a Charley horse in North America and I have never heard of this term. Alternatively, you could just say "recovered from a leg cramp"
    No, we don't call it "leg cramp" in Briteng, we call it a "dead leg", linked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First half

I will continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second half

Details and Statistics

  • No concerns

Post-match

  • "in the Community Shield in August; a match that they would go on to win on" The semi-colon and wording don't seem to match. Reword to, "in the Community Shield in August; City would win on..." or replace the semi-colon with a comma.
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my prose comments! After TRM's check I will do another prose readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I've addressed/responded to all your comments inline, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added non-breaking spaces to a couple dates. This makes the text easier to read for users on a smaller screen, like a smartphone, and was taught to me by a GOCE member. Please revert if it was unhelpful.
After reading the article again, I can give my support to this FAC based on prose. Congrats and let me know if you need anything. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No problem with the non-breaking spaces. MOS doesn't seem to give rigid guidance on it, it probably should because obviously where the spaces break will be different for absolutely everyone, so one imagines either all of them (in prose, at least) should be non-breaking, or none of them. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no MOS guidance, but I think it should be used if it is helpful. Its inclusion is never mandatory for my support and I'm happy to add it myself to improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

I don't think so - probably fine as is. ~ HAL333 13:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. Nice work. I hope you don't mind that I archived two of the sources. ~ HAL333 23:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 thanks for your comments, and of course archiving the two sources was helpful, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 13:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

A few minor points from an initial run through on my part. Kosack (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack cheers, all addressed bar Belle Voci, see above. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link at the first mention of Watford too as I missed that. All of my comments have been addressed, happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

TRM, I'm glad your disagreements with other users (on linking and such) has not prevented you from bringing you consistently high-quality work to FAC. I'm looking at this right now. Aza24 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
Reliability
  • No doubts here, all information is from reputable, high quality, news sources—otherwise it is statistical information from well established websites
Verifiability
  • I've spotchecked this nominator before and have no doubts. Happy to do so again if requested by coords.
  • Over all just a lot of small, mostly typographical, errors; nothing major. Aza24 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about those, a lot I inherited and clearly didn't check well enough. Thanks for picking them up. As for nominating again, well it's random isn't it? Last nom promoted with three supports, previous one "failed to gain consensus" with nine supports. And we wonder why this place is failing.... Never mind, cheers for the review, very much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the reliabillity and verifiability concerns are covered enough to make these minor in comparison—but yes, sometimes the process can be random, usually things go OK though, and I suppose that's the best we can ask for. Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

With that said, the image review passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. My second image review! Why remove the italics? Where's the guidance on that? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, that isn't common practice for "pictured in _____" bits and tends to be reserved for mentions for the titles of works like magazines, newspapers, TV shows, films, or anything else that has its name italicized. Either way, I somehow never noticed how buidhe assessed the licensing already. Oh well. Mine goes into further detail. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've always used italics, and I can't see any policy/guideline saying I shouldn't, right? (For an example of this usage, see the blurbs on the main page)... (see also: 2018 FA Cup Final promoted a few weeks back). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I also previously forgot to mention that I support this nomination and don't feel those captions are enough to keep the page from becoming FA regardless. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: this now has four supports and no outstanding comments to address, can I nominate another solo FAC please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, I think we had this conversation before and it was resolved but can you point me to where the national allegiances of the players are cited under Details? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question really should be "is the use of those flags compliant with MOS:FLAG?" before we even worry about sourcing, and I think the answer is no, so de-flagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This has been discussed a lot of times at WT:FOOTY, and considering the multinational nature of club football nowadays and that it is often brought up that "player X is the Nth Fooian to win competition Y", adding a flag to each player is no big deal. And if it helps, here's a source that adds flags with no context: https://www.11v11.com/matches/manchester-city-v-watford-18-may-2019-362301/ – PeeJay 19:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. There is no critical commentary in this article about the nationalities of those involved. There is no reliable source for the nationality of each player. That other websites use flags is of no relevance. These flags were being used purely decoratively. The place to include the flags is the club article or the season article where there may (but almost certainly is not) some critical commentary about the "multinational nature" of football. This article is most definitely not the place to do it. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, that link I provided is a reliable source for the nationality of each player, and who cares if there's no critical commentary about their nationalities? It proves that the national make-up of club sides is important enough to be noted by other sources, and hence by us too. The flags aren't decorative, they're informative. Cheers! – PeeJay 19:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no critical commentary, their nationalities is irrelevant to this particular article. Stop edit warring. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just leave them there because there doesn't need to be any critical commentary and your suggestion that there does is completely asinine? – PeeJay 19:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gross personal attack aside, have you read MOS:FLAG by the way? E.g. the bit which says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject officially represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." and the bit which says "The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag," and the section which is called "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason", e.g. in this example? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually know what a personal attack is? I didn't criticise you, I criticised your nonsense notion that we need to make a critical evaluation of each team's national make-up in order to even mention anyone's nationality. – PeeJay 20:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Describing my suggestion as "asinine" and now "nonsense" is a personal attack. Now, answer the question about compliance with MOS:FLAG please, that's what we're here for, not to just deal with yet more of your insults. And we need to make a critical evaluation of each team's national make-up in order to even mention anyone's nationality no, that's completely false. I said we didn't need flags. We can mention the nationalities in the prose, but since it has nothing to do with this match (i.e. it matters not one iota where the players are from unless it forms part of the critical commentary) and because the implementation currently breaches MOS, it shouldn't be done this way. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I really don't think you know what a personal attack is. Again, I was criticising your suggestion, not you yourself. Don't play the victim card, it's not necessary. – PeeJay 20:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer you to stop bullying me and directly labelling my words as "asinine" or "nonsense". You haven't responded to the MOS issue. This is a waste of my time, I'm done with you. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to derail the discussion with spurious accusations of personal attacks then. Good grief! – PeeJay 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose apologies for this. There's now a source indicating the nationalities of the players, as the user above edit-warred to restore the flags despite my belief that they contravene MOS:FLAG both in general and specifically in implementation. I'm not interested in continuing the interaction with said user and their personal attacks but the reference is there now. Let me know how you'd like to proceed? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a note which explains how the flags (which aren't explained) are decided upon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose that's been resolved now. Anything else? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, honestly thought I replied before but I see it didn't save. Away couple of days, check then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose another week goes by, I see you've looked at various other FACs, not this one? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was starting my efforts today from towards the bottom of the list and working up but it has been longer than I'd planned, yes... The new note seems helpful but dare I ask what the supporting source is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a bit absurd really, I'm chasing my tail. I'll remove the note, the flags are supported by flags in the reliable source. I'm not getting involved with that again. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
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 April 2021 [28].

Mysteries of Isis[edit]

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Greco-Roman mystery initiations dedicated to an ancient Egyptian goddess may be little-known today, but they seem to be indirectly responsible for the vague pop-cultural impression that ancient Egyptian religion was something secretive and mystical. And what other religious tradition has to be studied by reading a bawdy novel about a man who's been turned into a donkey?

This has been a GA since 2016, but I only considered it comprehensive enough to nominate for FAC after incorporating some German-language sources, translated by User:Ermenrich. There's also a French-language source, translated for me by User:Iry-Hor; many thanks to them both. A. Parrot (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly resolved comments from an absent editor
  • I would like to see more illustrations, more mentions of Serapis, and greater tie-in with the Egyptian Isis cult (no mention of Harpocrates?), both in the Roman and pre-Roman periods, including mention of the mystery cult's reimportation into Roman Egypt, an article not linked to anywhere here.
    2nd-century Isis-Aphrodite from Roman Egypt (Louvre)
    The picture at right might be suitable, though more motherly representations are available ... Otherwise it looks a good article! Perhaps Apaugasma can advise on whether mentions of the Hermetic aspects of Isis-cult would be appropriate to mention in this context? GPinkerton (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm quite ignorant about this stuff. I have a feeling A. Parrot know what they're writing about though. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 04:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but you seem to be under the impression that this article is about the Greco-Roman cult of Isis in general. That topic is covered at Isis, and the mysteries are only a particular set of rites that were performed at some of her cult centers. The sources don't seem to indicate that Serapis or Harpocrates played any role in the mysteries, and as the article says, it's not known whether the mysteries were ever performed in Egypt itself. As for illustrations, I'm not sure what would be appropriate to add. There are no ancient depictions of the mysteries, for obvious reasons, and the exact places where they were performed have not been identified. A. Parrot (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is some evidence of the Isis cult in Egypt being "mystified" by the influence of the reimported Greco-Roman cult, particularly in Late Antiquity, and especially when the ability to read and write hieroglyphic and demotic faded and became an antiquarian or esoteric concern. The worship of Isis happening not only in certain cult centres with mysteries is surely worth a mention, as are those features which distinguish the mystery cult's view of Isis from the more generalized cults of Isis in the empire and in Egypt itself. The Wiley Companion to Greco-Roman and Late Antique Egypt of 2019 has some mention of this. GPinkerton (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to that source, but unless it says something different from the sources that I drew on to write this article, you still seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding. "Mystery" is used here in the original Greek sense, of a secretive initiation rite, as in the Eleusinian mysteries, not in the sense of general mysticism. That usage is consistent with the scholarly sources. While there were mystical tendencies in the Greco-Roman cult of Isis, the "mystery cult of Isis" was not a separate entity from the general worship of the goddess; mystery initiations were just a feature of some of her local temples in certain areas. The "Spread of the Isis cult" section addresses this point; is it not sufficiently clear? A. Parrot (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it correct that Isis cult or Cult of Isis could be a valid article topic since it is broader than this article? (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It probably could, though the other aspects of the cult haven't been studied in as much detail as the mysteries. Such an article would run into problems of unclear scope when dealing with Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt—it's not clear how much of the Greco-Roman version of the cult filtered back into Isis's homeland or what relationship it had with the very traditional Egyptian temples that were still functioning at the time, and most sources don't even address the issue. A. Parrot (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might be misremembering, but isn't there a Harpocrates shown in the frescoes at the Temple of Isis in Pompeii. Surely if the mysteries were performed there then Harpocrates should feature in the article somehow. Similarly, Osiris is mentioned at the head of the article, but not his Graeco-Roman adaptation, Serapis. This holy family would have been well-known to the initiates of Isis. GPinkerton (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GPinkerton: They would have been known to all Isiacs, but that doesn't mean they were involved in the mystery rites, and the sources never assert that they were involved. Alvar actually points out (pp. 293–295) that there was a certain disjunction between the cult of Isis and that of Serapis, that we know less about the latter than the former, and that Serapis is only mentioned once in Apuleius's story and not in connection with the mysteries. I've added text to the article to clarify the distinction between the Isis cult in general and the mysteries in particular, and thus to clarify the scope of this article, but this FAC shouldn't be spent discussing subjects that are outside that scope. A. Parrot (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At present the article states in a caption to the lead image: The death of Osiris was a prominent motif in the cult of Isis. .... the emphasis on Osiris and the afterlife found in the mysteries dedicated to Isis. Is Osiris here specifically not to be interpreted as Serapis? Was a distinction maintained in the mysteries? GPinkerton (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. Alvar downplays Serapis's relevance, but others disagree; I've added to the article to clarify. A. Parrot (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: GPinkerton cannot participate further in this review because he is currently blocked. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ffranc[edit]

Very fascinating article! I'll start reviewing and hopefully that can inspire more people to join in.

Comments on talk page: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mysteries of Isis/archive1#Comments by Ffranc

Everything looks great as far as I can see. Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives some false positives from sites that have copied from Wikipedia, as is to be expected from an article like this. I'll leave the prose review to native English speakers, I haven't done spot checks and I know little about image license tags beyond "clearly free". But I support on everything else, including sources (only found a few minor issues there and fixed them myself). Ffranc (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been up for over three weeks now and has attracted little interest. If you can call in any favours from experienced reviewers I would suggest that you do so if the nomination is to avoid being archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intending to review this. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

Just a few things:

  • "The element of Greek mysteries that certainly did not exist in Egypt was the opportunity for ordinary individuals to undergo initiation" - one gets the impression that (perhaps unlike the Mithras mystery cult) the Isis mysteries were a rather posh affair - do the sources have anything to say about this?
  • Likewise on "gender balance".
I can't find anything on the demographics of initiation, unlike the demographics of Isis's priesthood. Bowden has a short section on "Who was initiated?", but it's mostly saying that our evidence is so sparse that we don't know.
  • Nothing about the "sacred knot" featured in both the statues illustrated (and here), which is often said to mark a devotee - or initiate?
Agh, I thought I had added something about it. Now I have, for real this time.
  • You should work Agape feast into the Xtian section i think - the usual term for Early Christian feasts.
I'm not sure; the sources on the mystery cults mention communion but not the agape feast.
  • The mysteries feature largely in Enemy of God (novel) by Bernard Cornwell, indeed a ceremony in Guinevere's Isis temple on the English South coast (c. 495) provides the climax. As usual he seems to research carefully, then riffs freely on that. Special "beds that were "forbidden to the laymen"" feature, as you might imagine. At the least there should link here - well, i've added one.
Are you suggesting mentioning the novel here? If secondary sources don't bring it up, I'd prefer not to.
  • "the evidence about Mithraism suggests the process of joining it was less mystical and more intellectual" - "less mystical" ok, but perhaps wrongly, I don't associate Mithraism with anything very intellectual. It seems rather more like modern Freemasonry, with a strong military tinge.
This is Bøgh's characterization of Mithraic conversion, so perhaps it should be attributed to her, but Mithraism was riddled with abstruse symbolism that seems to have meant something to its participants. Bøgh cites Richard Gordon, one of the foremost scholars of Mithraism, who says on the pages she cites, "The attainment of wisdom was an object of particular ambition in fact. Although the details of this lore escape us, it must have it must have comprised an account of Mithras's achievements, perhaps newly allegorized for each grade; an account of the human condition and the urgency of escape in the spirit; and a mass of symbols and correspondences".
  • Was there nothing relevant in Renaissance/Early Modern Neoplatonism/Rosicrucianism & such like - it sounds just like their sort of thing?
Not that I can tell. I haven't found any discussion of the influence of The Golden Ass (the only source for the mysteries that would have been available in that era) before Terrasson's time, except the existence of an English translation by William Adlington in 1566. A. Parrot (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally seems pretty exhaustive, given how little we know. Some intriguing possible echoes of Minoan religion, about which we know a good deal less.

Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

Comments to follow Ceoil (talk)}

  • Withdraw. @Ian Rose and Gog the Mild: I hope this isn't disruptive to anybody (causing Ceoil to waste effort, for example), but this article is now being criticized on the talk page by an editor who wants to strip it of its GA status. I consider these criticisms ill-founded and expect most experienced Wikipedians would agree, but between that and the breakdown that FAC seems to be having at the moment, it doesn't seem like the right time to continue this review. Hopefully these problems will prove to be temporary, and I expect to renominate at a more suitable time. A. Parrot (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hang on in there if you can - you have two supports, & User:Ceoil won't be too long. I wouldn't worry about the talk page guy. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where "breakdown in FAC" is coming from but if you really want to withdraw then I'll honour that. For now I'll hold off to allow time for any reconsideration. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the FAC talk page; hitting the template limit has become a chronic problem. I'd rather help figure out a way to prevent the swamping of FAC, and deal with whatever happens on the talk page, than drag this out. A. Parrot (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A, Parrot. Can I echo Ian's comment. Obviously you can withdraw a nomination whenever you want, but can I strongly advise you not to. The GAN nonsense is best ignored. If the article does lose its GA status, I am sure that any of the reviewers above, or myself, would be happy to promptly assess a subsequent renomination. And withdrawing a FAC nomination in order to reduce the FAC queue seems "cart before horse" to me; a logical extension would see a prohibition of any nominations, which would permanently prevent any "swamping". 14 FACs have been removed in the past two days - promoted or archived. I personally have an active FAC older than this one, and am not withdrawing it. This is a fine article which seems to me to be not far from achieving a deserved FA status, so I would urge you to stick with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FFIW, I still intend, and look forward to reviewing. Ceoil (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you've coaxed me. I'll hold off, pending Ceoil's review. A. Parrot (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Source review is below. No spot checks carried out.

  • Adams 2013 — Link Egypt Exploration Society? Publisher location not given. Looks like this is a part of a series, and you could add the series information to the citation parameters.
  • Alvar 2008 — There are specific translator last/first and editor last/first parameters, may as well use those. Given that this is the Spanish edition, is it in Spanish? Publisher location not given—I'll stop noting these as it seems to be a recurring theme, but I recommend adding them throughout.
  • Assmann 2015 — If this is the German edition, is it in German? Also, this is available (with free registration) from archive.org. May as well add a link.
  • Bøgh 2015 — May as well link to History of Religions (journal). Page numbers missing.
  • Bommas 2005 — Should "von" be capitalized?
  • Bowden 2015 — Available with free registration via archive.org, may as well add the link.
  • Bremmer 2014 — Ditto.
  • Burkert 1987 — Ditto.
  • DuQuesne 2002 — I'd link to Jan Assmann and Martin Bommas again.
  • Frankfurter 1998 — Needs "url-access=registration" parameter.
  • Gasparini 2011 — Link to Numen (journal)
  • Griffiths 1970 — Available via archive.org. Worth giving Plutarch as the author?
  • Hanson 1989 — Worth giving Apuleius as the author?
  • Harrison 2002 — Pages missing. Inconsistently uses author's initials rather than full name.
  • Hornung 2001 — Needs "url-access=registration" parameter.
  • Keulen et al. 2015 — Ditto re Harrison's name. Also, I'd add the link to him again. In general, I would add duplicate links to authors/editors in the bibliography unless they are directly under another link; otherwise, it's not obvious that the person is linked somewhere else.
  • Lefkowitz 1997 — Needs "url-access=registration" parameter. Link Basic Books?
  • MacMullen 1981 — Available via archive.org.
  • Macpherson 2004 — Page range missing.
  • O'Rourke 2001 — Available via archive.org.
  • Pachis 2012 — Page range missing.
  • Quack 2002 — I'd link to Jan Assmann and Martin Bommas again.
  • Roth 2001 — Available via archive.org.
  • Teeter 2001 — Available via archive.org.
  • Teeter 2011 — Available via archive.org.
  • Tiradritti 2005 — Even if you don't want to add publisher locations generally, for this one in particular I would.
  • Turcan 1996 — Needs "url-access=registration" parameter. The link is to a 1996 English version, so why are you mentioning a 1989 French edition?
  • Versluys 2013 — Page range missing.
  • Veymiers 2018 — Ditto.
  • Veymiers 2020 — Ditto.
  • Assmann & Ebeling 2011 — Needs "url-access=registration" parameter. I'd again link Assmann.
  • Baltrušaitis — I'd add publisher location. Also should have some sort of identifying number, such as an LCCN and/or OCLC.
  • Bricault 2013 — Link Les Belles Lettres/add location?
  • Dunand 1975 — Should have some sort of identifying number, such as an LCCN and/or OCLC.
  • Kleibl 2009 — Add location?
  • In general, I suggest using the "name-list-style = amp" parameter for works with multiple authors or editors. Your call though.
  • N.B. There are a number of double spaces in both the bibliography and the body of the article.

A. Parrot, see above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I'm not sure linking books to archives is required or desirable. Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I didn't say it was required. But how could it not be considered desirable? The guideline on this point instructs that "A citation ideally includes a link or ID number to help editors locate the source." And there is no better way "to help editors locate the source" than to link directly to a free copy of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the page ranges, URLs, OCLCs, and additional links. The notes about foreign-language editions are meant to indicate the date of the original edition, in keeping with the documentation for the origyear parameter, which says to supply specifics. E.g., Alvar 2008 was published in 2008, but the Spanish version on which it is based was published in 2001. Location of publication isn't required, I've never used it, and it seems a really outdated way to even think about publication (my serious writing as a Wikipedian began by using a book whose ostensible location is probably London but was actually printed in Singapore). A. Parrot (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

  • a fiery light and a shout from - "a fiery light", "shout"?
  • frenzy at night isn't very clear.
I've tried to clarify both of these passages; see what you think. Part of the problem with the passage about Eleusis is that the climax of the mysteries is so ambiguous that it's hard to talk about without going on a tangent. Also, while I specified what the hierophant shouted, the sources irritatingly don't explain that Ploutos is the son of Persephone (or of Demeter). Should I say so anyway?
  • I think you give too much coverage to Terrasson
  • If these are classical elements, why haven't we heard of them earlier: running over hot metal bars for fire, swimming a canal for water, and swinging through the air over a pit. These statements end a para and beg the question: why not please give us more of this. In fact, the lead could be enlived considerably by detailing or suggesting such trials.
I don't understand these points. Much of the influence of the mysteries runs through Terrasson, and I'm not sure what would make sense to cut. The trials were Terrasson's invention based on the ambiguous passage in Apuleius, so giving them more emphasis would mean giving Terrasson more coverage, not less.
  • One of them, Moses, learned this truth - "truth" seems to be mixing ancient belief and historical voice.
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have made some trivial c/e's mostly detailed in edit summaries, pls feel free to revert
  • Excellent use of sources, and the page reads great overall, a non specialist like me was easily able to get their bearings and understand form nearly every point. Support on prose and sources. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129[edit]

Support this article's promotion per User:Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena. It is a nuanced treatment of a niche area that makes a solid contribution to the canon. ——Serial 17:00, 5 April 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 April 2021 [29].

Death of Mark Saunders[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my occasional series of articles on British police shootings. This one is interesting because (unlike most such incidents), the person shot was not a career criminal or an armed robber pointing a gun at somebody's head, but an upper-middle-class lawyer with a drink problem and a legally owned shotgun. This incident didn't attract as much academic attention as some of the others, but The Guardian covered the investigation and the inquest in detail from start to finish. I think these are important stories to tell, and I'd like to think this article tells this one fairly. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thryduulf[edit]

  • Why is there no birth or age information in the infobox?
  • "He worked on several high-profile and complex cases, and wrote and lectured on his area of expertise." could be rewritten to reduce the number of "and"s.
    • Done.
  • "He had long suffered with alcoholism, and on one occasion neighbours found him sitting outside his flat in a distressed state, and had been diagnosed with depression." I think this should be two sentences, although simply splitting would result in a fragment so maybe add something more about the depression if there is anything?
    • Done.
  • "At the peak of the incident, 59 armed officers were at the scene." The number needs some context - e.g. how does it compare with other incidents? Has anyone commented that this was/was not a lot?
    • There was some suggestion in the media that it was a lot but not from experts. I included it more for context. It clearly developed into a significant operation, as opposed to just a handful of officers.
  • "The Saunders family applied for judicial review of the IPCC investigation,..." When? (i.e. at what point in proceedings?)
    • Added.
  • "The inquest did not resume fully until September 2010..." Why the year's delay after the CPS decision?
    • No idea. None of the sources say anything about it. It's not unusual for inquests to be adjourned for a long time.
  • Given how extraordinary the second sentence of the Inquest section is, I think it would be best if the citations following it were about that only, rather than also supporting the first sentence, i.e. move the sources supporting the first sentence to the end of that sentence.
    • Done.
  • "though the inquest heard that the decision to fire rests with each individual officer." This feels like it should come before discussion of who fired and why rather than as part of a sentence about why the third officer mentioned didn't.
    • Done.
  • "The inspector and the silver commander..." this is the first mention of a silver commander. I know "gold commander" is linked earlier and the article that redirects to explains the command structure, but it may be worth a separate link - especially as it is strongly implied the silver commander wasn't on the scene (it seems unbelievable that anyone on scene could be unaware of the powerful lights) but it feels odd for this to be the case (although reading the relevant article it seems it varies).
    • Linked (had to create a couple of redirects). He was at a police command post nearby, which I believe is fairly normal for a silver commander.
  • "De Menezes was shot dead in a case of mistaken identity in 2005..." don't need to repeat the date (given in the previous sentence) but a mention of the location might be due.
    • Done.
  • Have there been any subsequent events where learnings from this incident played a role? If so, mention them in the Impact section (or a new subsequent events section if it would overwhelm what's currently there). Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Thryduulf. I was wondering if you were intending to either support or oppose this nomination? (There is, of course, no obligation to do either.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sufficiently familiar with the FA criteria or FA review process to feel comfortable making a recommendation one way or the other. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Shotgun image is missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I struggle with alt text. Do you have a suggestion for what I could say that isn't conveyed by the caption?
      • As someone who doesn't spend a lot of time among guns, I don't think I would understand what "open position" means without being able to see it. Could we say something about the relative position of the parts, the angling, something like that? (I don't want to propose something concrete mostly because I'm not confident I actually know what the parts are all called). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be explicitly supported in the article - for example, that the area was cordoned off
    • While it would be trivial to source this, I try to aim for concision in the lead so removed.
  • FN8: there are several other authors listed at the provided link
    • Added.
  • Fn11 is missing author
    • Odd. BBC News doesn't normally name authors so I didn't look for it. Added.
  • FN17 has an incorrect date. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Willbb234[edit]

Hi there. This is my first FAC review. I've read all that I can on the instructions, but may still make some mistakes so please give any constructive criticism if necessary.

  • Wikilink for London? I don't think there's any danger of WP:SEAOFBLUE.
    • I'm ambivalent on this, but done.
  • I think it would be better if the date was sooner in the sentence, perhaps after "was shot dead by police".
    • Done.
  • "Saunders fired at their vehicle" with what? No previous mention of a gun and what gun did he use?
    • The shotgun is mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • The lede could do with a mention of the general time of the incident such as 'in the evening' or maybe even a specific time.
    • Done.
  • Would you be able to use a full image of Saunders? The top of his head is cut-off.
    • It's the only photo available and the one widely used in the media. I agree it's not great but it's better than nothing.
  • Perhaps a mention of what guns the police were using so the reader understands the comparison of firepower.
    • I'm reluctant to go too far into this because I don't want to turn it into a gun fetish piece, but I've added some details.
  • He spent three years as a reservist in the Territorial Army, and legally owned a shotgun. it is unclear whether these two statements are linked.
    • No, they're not. re-worded.
  • Saunders told a taxi driver "I'm going to die", I'm a little confused, because isn't he supposed to be in his house? Or did he talk to the driver before he got home?
    • Clarified.
  • On 6 May 2008, shortly before 17:00, Saunders fired several shots from his shotgun through a first-floor window and into the square, is there any reason given in the sources for why he did this? If not, it might be worth saying so.
    • That's the great mystery. He was drunk, but there's no way to know what possessed him to start firing his shotgun out of a kitchen window.
  • Per WP:TIMEZONE, you might want to add BST to the time.
    • Done.
  • Is the friend at the scene the same whom he messaged?
    • Yes. Can you think of a way to make this clear without naming the friend (which I've deliberately avoided)?
  • Seven police officers fired eleven shots and Saunders went silent. 'went silent' may be confused as a euphemism, especially as he hadn't been talking much anyway.
    • Perhaps. Replaced with "collapsed".
  • Three days after the shooting, Friday 9 May 2008, don't think day of the week is needed here.
    • Gone.
  • Among the witnesses were 12 police firearms officers a little vague. Presumably none of the officers shot? How involved were they?
    • That's just a summary of the people who gave evidence. I would guess that it was all the armed officers who were directly involved, including those who fired. I've clarified it a little bit.
  • It's hard to get a feeling of the geography of the area especially when you say that an officer was "on the opposite side of the street" so an image of Markham Square would help.
    • Stretching my technical skills to the limit, I've added a map of the are from OSM.

More to come. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The IPCC commissioned experts from other police forces to review the Metropolitan Police's handling of the siege, two of whom gave evidence at the inquest how many experts? Also, why did only two give evidence and what was the involvement of the rest of the experts?
    • Not known. I would imagine they got experts from other police forces to review various aspects of the operation, which was the IPCC's standard practice but only those two had relevant evidence to give.
  • "put emotion to one side to decide the issues dispassionately" but to "beware also of the advantage of hindsight" I'm not sure 'but' is the best word here as the two statements are not contrary to each other.
    • Changed to "and".
  • As for the details about Knapman writing to the Home Secretary and commissioner, is there anymore on this, such as responses to the letters or any comments from these people?
    • There's nothing in the sources. Under the Corners Rules, the coroner is entitled to make recommendations to anybody he feels is in a position to prevent a similar death but they're not required to respond, though there's some detail about improved police procedures in the impact section.
  • The incident was compared in the media to several other police shootings, including that of Jean Charles de Menezes (2005) and the Hackney siege (2002–2003) it might be good to state which media sites or papers made these comparisons.
    • Not sure this is necessary. I've tried to pick out general themes rather than have a blow-by-blow.
  • "Some journalists" is a little bit MOS:WEASELy
    • As above, I've picked out key themes, though it's notable that these comments came from journalists, not academics or police officers.
  • The Impact section contains quite a bit about general commentary and media coverage on the matter, rather than the impact. Consider splitting?
    • Splitting the section would create two short sections, which doesn't seem desirable. "Impact" seemed to fit, but I'm open to other names for the section.

I think I'll sit a source review out and observe as I fear I may get something wrong! Good read, especially as I didn't even know about this shooting beforehand. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: I'm glad you found it interesting. Thank you for your comments. For a first-time FAC review, you've provided some very useful feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: hello there. I came across WP:DEATHS and I remembered this article. I don't think "Death of..." is a suitable title for this article per the reasons outlined on the flow chart on the page linked. Let me know what you think. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Willbb234, thanks for your continues interest. I'd never come across that page before. I'm certainly not averse to moving the article to a different title, but I thought quite carefully about how to name it before settling on this one. As that page points out, Wikipedia lacks a consistent naming scheme for such articles; several British police shootings were recently moved to "shooting of" (eg Shooting of James Ashley), which I feel is imprecise and introduces further inconsistency with violent deaths not caused by shooting (eg Death of Ian Tomlinson) and WP:DEATHS would seem to prefer "killing of" (as at Killing of George Floyd) but that feels to me like a loaded term that implies some level of wrongdoing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Willbb234, that was an entirely respectable review. I wouldn't have guessed that it was your first. Do you feel able to support or oppose promotion of this article. Ie, so far as you can see, does it meet those criteria which you have examined? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: I wasn't intending to offer a support or oppose as it's my first, but seeing as you asked, I'll drop in and opine in a few hours when I have a clearer head. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so after taking another look, I'm happy that this meets the criteria. It covers the subject well and the sources are largely to reputable mainstream (British) sources. I'll support. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "The day of his death, he returned home from work early—before his wife, who worked at the same chambers—and began drinking large quantities of red wine.[2][5][6] In the hours before the shooting, Saunders told the taxi driver who took him home, "I'm going to die", and sent a text message to a friend". The chronology seems unclear here. The Guardian report says that he returned home at 4.30. If this is correct I think it is worth specifying, especially as it means that he began shooting almost immediately. You refer to the hours before the shooting, presumably meaning the fatal shooting by the police, not his shooting, but this is not made clear. I suggest a chronological account - returned home at 4.30 and told taxi driver going to die, almost immediately started drinking and shooting and sent friend text message.
    • Good point. A hazard of trying to create a coherent narrative from piecemeal sources. Hopefully now fixed.
  • "the lights were introduced after complaints from the firearms officers that they could not adequately see Saunders" Perhaps worth mentioning the time of sunset on that day or at least that it was dark by that time.
    • Added a little bit in the "shooting" section and tweaked this sentence as it's now the second mention if the lights.
  • baton round is linked to bean bag round but the source says rubber bullets.
    • Corrected.
  • I am not sure whether there is a rule, but the citations usually come before the bibliography and I think it is helpful to the reader to stick to that. Also, you have duplicate headings: 'References', If you want to have a heading and sub-heading, the sub-heading should be 'Citations'.
    • I'm aware that it's more "conventional" but I've always thought the list of works consulted is more interesting than the footnotes (though admittedly more so when an article is based almost entirely on book sources). You're absolutely right about the header though; not sure how that crept in but it's fixed now!
  • A first rate article. Just a few queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for dropping by, Dudley. Let me know if you think any more work needed on the chronology. Also, if you have a strong opinion on the title question raised above, I'd be interested to hear it. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - and I am happy with the title. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Four weeks in and no supports yet. Possibly time to call in some favours if this is to avoid being archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it wouldn't be frowned upon if I pinged the reviewers from my previous FACs on police shootings (Chandler's Ford shooting and Death of James Ashley), @Nick-D, Mike Christie, Mujinga, and Sarastro1: and of course yourself Gog. If any of you have time to read through another one and offer some feedback (pro or con), I'd be very grateful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Harry, normally I’d be happy to help but I’m busy IRL at the moment and haven’t been editing much. If I get some time I’ll take a look but I don’t expect to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, Mike! I know the feeling. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only not frowned upon, but positively encouraged. This is on my long list Harry, but to be frank I am not sure that I will get round to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nick-D[edit]

Responding to the ping above, and noting that I know exactly zero about this incident, I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The first para of the lead says that Saunders was shot when he waved the gun out a window, but the second para seems to say he was shot when the police entered the flat. I'd suggest tweaking the wording to clarify here.
    • Clarified.
  • "comparing it unfavourably to other incidents" - not sure about this wording. Something like 'contrasting it with how the police had successfully resolved other incidents' might work better.
    • Done, but minus "successful" as the other incidents mentioned also resulted in the subject's death.
  • "Saunders began drinking large quantities of red wine and sent a text message to a friend..." - did his friend doing anything here? (like call the police on Saunders' behalf?)
    • He went to the scene. Added.
  • "but the police refused to allow them to speak to Saunders" - which police? The trained negotiators, or non-specialists? (my understanding is that police negotiators have strategies they use in these cases)
    • The negotiators; added. Presumably it would have been approved by the gold commander, but the negotiators explained their thinking at the inquest.
  • Some background on police protocols for handling armed standoffs would be helpful in framing the discussion of this incident. For instance, what were the roles of the gold, silver and bronze commanders and what was the role of the negotiators, and how effective was this approach usually? (I was interested to learn a few years ago that Australian police often handle multiple armed standoffs daily across the country, the great majority of which are resolved peacefully, which suggests that such incidents can be successfully managed)
    • I'm not sure where I can go with this. There's some explanation of what the gold/silver/bronze commanders did in this incident in the article, and the titles are linked, which redirect to Gold–silver–bronze command structure for an overview of how the roles function in theory.
  • Have the 2010 reforms noted in the last para proved successful?
    • I haven't seen anything in the sources about it. But then I don't think there's been a comparable incident since then; these thing are quite rare and usually end quickly and peacefully without attracting much attention (the Hackney siege, mentioned in the article, was six years earlier and it's the closest comparison I've seen).
  • Saunders must have been horrifically drunk based on the amount he is described as having consumed. Can the impact this had on police strategies be fleshed out further? (for instance, what is the usual approach to dealing with armed and very drunk people?). I was interested to see that one of the issues the jury was asked to consider was whether the police appropriately considered the vulnerable state Saunders was in due to being drunk. Was the suggestion that the police should have pulled back a bit and waited for him to sober up, or at least avoid destabilising further him when he was in a condition where would have struggled to act rationally? There was an incident in my home town a few years ago where the police shot and crippled a man who came at them on a deserted suburban street with a sword while having a psychotic incident. While the subsequent inquiry judged the shooting justified, it also recommended that police be trained to retreat and give armed people in a distressed state time to recover whenever this could be safely done, which is now part of their strategy along with better integrating mental health crisis teams into the command structure for such incidents, so this might be a global issue police face. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, it's certainly a global issue and it's difficult to predict how confrontations between police and extremely disturbed individuals will end but it's often violent. This piece is good on the competing priorities the police have to contend with and I've added a little bit from that. See what you think. Very much appreciate you having a look, Nick! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those changes all look good, noting limitations with sourcing, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose Comments from mujinga[edit]

Thanks for the ping, it's an interesting article about a tragic event I vaguely remember. To my eyes this article needs a bit of work, I only skimmed the other comments so there might be some repetition. I'll oppose on that current state but I think it can be worked through.

  • Lead
  • London doesnt need linking (I know someone else asked for it though)
  • I don't think there's any harm in it if it avoids having to append "England", lest somebody think we were talking about Ontario Although a Mark Saunders was police chief in Toronto, which pollutes search results!.
  • sure
  • Background
  • Keeping four references to the end of the paragraph makes it a lot of work to factcheck. I would expect claims such as age to be directly referenced for this reason and also because the reference might get sheared off with future edits.
  • I prefer grouping references at the end of the paragraph, or at least grouped by theme, for readability. The little blue numbers are vital but they're distracting in mid-prose. I don't think things like age are so astonishing that they need to be referenced there and then (unlike the prison sentence for corruption mentioned above), which seems borne out by Wikipedia:When to cite (which is linked from WP:FA?).
  • "Saunders began ..." - Are three refs needed on this sentence?
  • From memory, these are all citing different things. I think I had two there but added another one which picked up on the film reference.
  • Saunders began drinking large quantities of red wine and sent a text message to a friend which read "this is the end, my only friend, the end"—a quote from the song "The End" by The Doors used in the soundtrack to the film Apocalypse Now. The friend travelled to Saunders' house but found the area cordoned off by the police"
  • when i check: "large quantities of red wine" - nothing in bbc or independent, times mentions him "drinking from a large glass of red wine" / text to friend - independent / 'the end' reference - independent / friend travelled - not mentioned / area cordoned off - not mentioned
  • so there are currently three refs namely independent, bbc and times. independent is doing most of it, bbc nothing, times could be used to cite the wine but there's better references and the secodn sentence isn't sourced as far as i can see.
  • the problem i think for me with clustering three references is it takes so long here to check all the claims that I can't be bothered to do that later on now. Shooting of James Ashley for comparison does use references at the end of the paragraph but usually only one or two which makes checking easier.
  • Shooting
  • Surely this section should start with him going home and telling the taxi driver he was going to die?
  • Reasonable minds may differ, but I think it's fitting that the section called "shooting" starts with the firing of the first shots.
  • i disagree there but there isn't a right answer
  • Image caption says "identified by the yellow dots in the windscreen" that's a claim that needs to be referenced
  • Meh. I'm sure I could dig up a ref for this, but it's not important here so gone. Wil see if I can track down a free photo of one of the ARVs that was actually at the scene.
  • shame because it's an interestng fact
  • Investigation
  • shot to abdomen not in source
  • Source says "main lower body artery".
  • you are saying "head, heart, liver, and abdomen" and the source is saying "head, heart and liver" and "main lower body artery"
  • Inquest
  • Paul Knapman could be mentioned earlier since he adjourned the initial session
  • Done.
  • "It could also have caused Saunders to step or fall further into the property, requiring police officers to enter the property" - 2x property
  • Tweaked.
  • "Saunders was aiming his shotgun towards officers who were stood on a ledge on an adjacent building. AZ14, who was stood close" - 2 x stood
  • Also tweaked.
  • Conclusion
  • Again referencing issues, I would want a direct quote from Knapman to have a citation on it, both for ease of checking and in case the ref at the end of the paragraph gets disconnected later
  • This is something I often pick up on when I review FACs, but I can't see any direct quotes lacking references? Maybe I've just spent too long staring at it?
  • Knapman instructed the jurors to "put emotion to one side to decide the issues dispassionately" and "beware also of the advantage of hindsight" is what I what was referring
  • Impact
  • "De Menezes was shot dead in a case of mistaken identity and similar criticisms were raised of the Metropolitan Police's command and control of that incident and the post-incident management, including the practice of officers conferring" - too many "ands"
  • Eliminated a few.
  • need to explain where Hackney is for international readers
  • Done.
  • "particularly career criminals" - seems like original research
  • I thought that was verbatim from the source. Turns out I was wrong, but I'll double check to see if I got it from one of the others. Regardless, the closest comparison is with Eli Hall in Hackney, who was indeed a career criminal, and the point is that the shooting of renowned barrister in his £2.2 million Chelsea flat attracted a lot more attention than the shooting of a Jamaican drug dealer in a bedsit in Hackney.
  • is the Andrew Hammond shooting worth mentioning since it occurred around the same time and also was discussed as suicide by cop as mentioned in this book
  • That's an interest titbit, thank you. I managed to find a source that neatly ties together Saunders, Hammond, and De Menezes and I've added a few sentences. I was aware of that incident but not of anything that linked it to the Saunders shooting, so thank you for that. It's a useful bit of context.
  • Overall
  • Sorry I've just had a few other things which all happened at once which rather affected my focus. I wanted to say something about how having read into the sources I feel that there is more that can be said about why Saunders ended up in this situation. For example, this Independent article says he had stopped drinking in March, had taken cocaine recently and had been prescribed Prozac. There were other text messages and this refers to other problems.
  • I deliberately omitted the cocaine use because the sources explicitly say he hadn't used it on the day of his death. Anti-depressants (but not Prozac specifically) are mentioned in the article. What I don't want to do is turn this into a tabloidy human interest story, but I've added a couple of sentences.
  • overall i still feel that the whole picture is not yet being presented here. i take the point of not wanting to give a tabloid account but i think things like:
  • cautioned for being drunk and disorderly in 2005 (times)
  • alcoholics anonymous (times)
  • teetotal for three months (times)
  • his father's reaction (lost the ref)
  • the blank text to his wife (independent)
  • the three text messages to the friend who was best man at his wedding (only one is mentioned currently) (independent)

... are all worth mentioning

  • Regarding the shootings, I read somewhere (lost now) that Saunders shot out a neighbour's daughter's window and the neighbour (who he had never met) was concerned by what would have happened if the daughter was there. Was there argument with the wife, this seems unclear. His father said it was an "absolute mystery".
  • The article says "Several pellets struck buildings opposite"; yes, it struck a child's bedroom window but there's absolutely no suggestion he was aiming for anything in particular and "think of the children" (who weren't even there) is again getting a bit too tabloidy. There was no argument with the wife. There was some suggestion in early reports that she left shortly before the shooting but that appears to be incorrect; she was still at work when he began drinking himself into a stuper.
  • For a few last general comments that don't fit anywhere else, I also wonder if a shotgun is actually dangerous at that range, but the police did say they felt their lives were in danger. And the article is pretty much all newspaper reports, there's Smith and Punch and I suppose the problem is not much else has been written, I didn't find more on a quick search. Mujinga (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had enough range to cross to gardens and a street and embed pellets in the masonry of an overlooking building, and some police officers were considerably closer than that; I wouldn't want to be looking down the barrel of it. You're right, it heavily relies on news reports (though I've tried to balance it out among the quality press and not rely too heavily on any one publication). Smith has quite a bit of detail; Punch is mostly about the politics and the theory of police use of firearms (interesting book, though). As you say, there isn't anything else. There's the briefest of passing mentions in one journal article, and it's not covered in any of the other books I have on policing and related subjects. Probably because, unlike Ashley or De Menezes or some other incidents, there was no great controversy, and the chain of events (tragic as it is) is easier to understand. Thanks very much for having a look, Mujinga, some good food for thought in there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the replies, I'll give my eyes a few days to freshen up then read the article again. Mujinga (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • added some comments and replies above Mujinga (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mujinga: I believe I've addressed these now. I've tightened the background and added some of the details you suggest from The Times, added a ref for the Knapman quote, and changed "abdomen" to "lower body" to better reflect the source. I take your point on the comparison to Ashley, but I had the luxury there of building the entire article around a handful of detailed sources, whereas this incident doesn't have that depth of coverage (partly because it's more recent, partly because there wasn't the misconduct and controversy there was with Ashley). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • hiya should be able to take another look today Mujinga (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one I can see the changes. I do appreciate how you are respecting BLP concerns as well by not naming the peripherally involved people. I'll strike my oppose but I do still think there's some work to do:

  • somehow guardian isn't italicized in ref46 and there's "pp." on its own
  • i still think the times/bbc/independent aren't sourcing what you wrote per my comments above
  • the lead could better summarise the article as it is now, for example:
    • the IPCC investigation isn't mentioned
    • if "open position" is linked below it could be linked here as well
    • the impact summary could be updated with newly added info
    • "Some journalists criticised the shooting as being too hasty, contrasting it with the handling of other incidents" i guess that summarises "Some journalists suggested that the police showed a lack of patience in dealing with Saunders when compared to the Hackney siege" but then in the impact section it would be good to name the journalists and/or the papers rather than saying "some"
    • "dedicated" in "dedicated senior officers" seems unnecessary Mujinga (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Just noting that I haven't forgotten this. I'll be back to it properly on Wednesday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mujinga: Could you have another look when you have time? I've added another couple of details; the details we're discussing seem to be largely covered by The Independent. I've added a bit more to the lead, and tweaked the impact section a little to directly name publications and re-structured it slightly for logical flow. I'd love to know what you think. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hiya I see some improvements so nice one for that, I still don't think this article is as comprehensive as for example Shooting of James Ashley and it worries me that an independent article is a better summary of the events. From the last comments, guardian is fixed, IPCC not mentioned, "open position" fixed, the lead still needs work in my opinion, "some journalists" not fixed, "dedicated" fixed. This is starting to become a slog so I'll leave it here and let other people have their say. Good luck with it! Mujinga (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga: Sorry it's become a slog. That's probably partly because my availability is limited and I'm trying to squeeze this in when I can. I do value your input, though I don't think it's possible for this article to be as comprehensive as Ashley, for example. Ashley's death spawned criminal charges against several police officers, a civil case that reached the UK's highest court, and is a case study in several books across several disciplines. While this incident is still worthy of coverage, it hasn't attracted nearly as much academic attention. I've added the IPCC investigation to the lead but I'm not sure what else could go in there without making it excessively long and simply repeating the body. I get your point about "some journalists" but The Guardian just says "some"; it's not my interpretation, but I added publication names in the body to make that clear. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mujinga, just checking as a coordinator if there will be anything further coming from you. You have done sterling work on this so far, and if not that is fine - I would just like to confirm. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for the kind remarks. I'm someone who would typically much rather support than oppose and whilst I'm happy to have struck the oppose since changes have been made, I still have reservations about supporting and I don't intend to comment further. Mujinga (talk) 17:41, 8 April 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 April 2021 [30].

Die Hard[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1988 action film Die Hard starring Bruce Willis and the inimitable Alan Rickman. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

This article is far too long. Looking at WP:LENGTH, if the level of detail present in "Production" or "Stunts" is desired then a separate article on each should be span off per WP:DETAIL. These sections could then be rewritten in a summary style to convey the message in each section in a more succinct, punchier and clearer way.

Regretfully, this issue causes me to believe that the article is not currently ready for FAC and that the work suggested above should be carried out off FAC and the article then resubmitted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe an Oppose is fair, WP:LENGTH does not insist on splitting at all at it's current size, the stunts section is not long at all, and the production is within the scope of the topic and not sufficient to sustain its own article. It's also no bigger than other articles like Prometheus, Conan the Barbarian, Groundhog Day, and Ghostbusters II are all of comparable length. This also was not raised as an issue during the last FAC only a month ago. Thanks for your input anyway. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, WP:TOOBIG merely suggests that "> 60 kB Probably should be divided ... > 50 kB May need to be divided". The article is currently 65 kB plus quotes, notes and cast list. There is, in my opinion also – to the extent that it is probably best treated as a separate point – a fair bit of scope for a more summary style and places where it does not "stay[ ] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" (FAC criterion 4). I have great admiration for the huge amount of work you have put into the article - clearly a labour of love - and consider it to broadly be in good shape, but I do not consider the style to be summary enough, and I consider the article too long.
Regarding the summary style point, by way of illustration, I consider that

The development of Die Hard began in 1987. Screenwriter Jeb Stuart was in dire financial straits and needed paying work. He had successfully pitched a script to Columbia Pictures with Robert Duvall set to star, but the project was abandoned, and a separate four-script contract at Walt Disney Pictures was not providing him with sufficient income. After submitting his first contracted script to Disney, Stuart had six weeks when he could complete work for another studio. His agent Jeremy Zimmer contacted Lloyd Levin, the head of development at the Gordon Company.

could be rendered as something like

The development of Die Hard began in 1987. Screenwriter Jeb Stuart's agent Jeremy Zimmer contacted Lloyd Levin, the head of development at the Gordon Company.

with little or no loss of useful information. Similarly

Capturing the stunt was difficult because Rickman was falling at a rate of 32 feet (9.8 m) per second, and it was impossible for a human operator to manually refocus the camera quickly enough to prevent the image from blurring as he fell away. Supervised by visual effects producer Richard Edlund, Boss Film Studios engineered an automated system that could relay information from an encoder on the camera to a computer that would instantly calculate the necessary change in focus and operate a motor on the camera's focus ring to make the change. A camera with a wide-angle lens shooting at 270 frames per second was used, creating footage that played 10 times slower than normal. Despite these innovations, the camera struggled to keep Rickman entirely in focus during his 1.5-second fall; the scene cuts away from Rickman as the usable footage runs out. A stuntman in a slow-fall rig was lowered from Fox Plaza to complete Gruber's fatal descent.

could be summarised along the lines of

Capturing the stunt was difficult supervised by visual effects producer Richard Edlund, Boss Film Studios engineered an automated system to film it. Despite these innovations, the camera struggled to keep Rickman entirely in focus during his 1.5-second fall; the scene cuts away from Rickman as the usable footage runs out. A stuntman in a slow-fall rig was lowered from Fox Plaza to complete Gruber's fatal descent.

and the result would, in my opinion, be more succinct, punchier and clearer. I obviously don't insist that I am correct, and other opinions may well be available. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will copy edit the article again, but I do not think it is in the best interests of the article to abandon notable details to fit a loose summary guideline. The article is not unwieldy and sections are neat and concise. The latter paragraph in particular excises any detail about what they actually accomplished with the stunt or why it was an accomplishment. It's also one of the more famous parts of the film, so I felt a more detailed explanation was useful. It is nearly 11pm here so I will do a thorough pass by tomorrow evening. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel a need to rush. Better to take your time. Maybe consult another editor or two. Whatever. Let's get the article as good as we can, even if it takes a little longer than we might like. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm just going to say that I don't think that this article is too long. A good chunk of kB is taken up by the references, and given that this is about one of the most popular and influential films of all time, I think it's sort of expected that it'd be a beefy article if it were truly complete. (As an aside, my most recent FA nom, Sonic the Hedgehog, passed even though it's sizably larger than this one.) JOEBRO64 01:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”one of the most popular and influential films of all time”????[citation needed]
      • Die Hard. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, neither one of the most popular, nor most influential films. A slight seasonal favorite, but it didn’t influence film-making or cinema in any way. (I make no comment on the suitability of this article for an FA star, this is just a comment on the over-blown description). 213.205.194.165 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Try reading the article. It only influenced many action films that came after such that "Die Hard on/in a [insert location]" became a shorthand and it's still referenced in other media today. And that's just in the 4th paragraph. But hey, they can't all be as influential as Harry Potter or whatever you think constitutes quality. -_- Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow. Thanks for making it personal. I did have some comments to add to improve the flow in a couple of places, but I’ll leave you to it. - 213.205.194.165 (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not accurate, WP:Article size only refers to readable prose size, not including references. The prose length of Sonic article at 58 kb is 10% shorter than this article at 64kb. (t · c) buidhe 05:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But you also have to remember that over a 10th of the prose in Die Hard is the Themes section, which I don't personally like doing unless it's a film deep with meaning like Robocop or the Matrix, but is often brought up as a necessity for FAC so I include it. The stuff directly related to the film is well under 60KB. As such I am aiming to copy edit it down further, but I won't sacrifice the interesting details about the production of the film for interpretations of the film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before you edit out details which you believe should be on Wikipedia somewhere, you may want to look at WP:DETAIL, especially the concept of inverted pyramids. You may not want to go that way, but it at worst give you an idea of where I am coming from, Wiki-policy wise. And I think that something along those lines is what is needed. "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs" (emphasis added). Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, the article has been trimmed to a low-end 60KB and under 10,000 words while still including a themes section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast work. While 60kB and 10,000 words of readable prose - quite a bit more if the cast list, the quotes and the notes are included - is well into alarm bells ringing territory, I appreciate your taking the concern seriously, WP:TOOBIG has some flexibility in it and it is entirely possible that the article will shorten further during the FAC as there are requests to tighten the language up. So I am striking my oppose. @Hog Farm, FunkMonk, HJ Mitchell, Laser brain, David Fuchs, and Eddie891: I am pinging the reviewers who were kind enough to comment on this article during its last nomination, in the hope that they may repeat the favour. Once the article settles down after a few reviews, I will have another run through it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue where I left off soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL333[edit]

I agree with Gog that the article is too lengthy. Sections like "Critical response" are the main culprits imo. ~ HAL333 20:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unable to avoid it in time, he was forced to drive into it at speed; it was empty. The "in time" bit can be removed.
  • He returned home to reconcile with his wife, and wrote 35 pages that night. As these are not two independent clauses, the comma should be removed.
  • Levin helped Stuart pitch his story to studio executives, including Gordon. Gordon soon left the meeting, telling Stuart to just go and write the script. Stuart finished his first draft six weeks later. I feel like these sentences could be combined and shortened.
  • You could link big summer film to Blockbuster (entertainment).
  • When Kamen first saw Die Hard, it was largely incomplete and he was unimpressed. Comma needed before "and". A complete restructure of this sentnce may be better.
  • a piece of James Horner's unused score for Aliens (1986) I watched Aliens recently and swore I heard the piece used in Die Hard. I know the source says otherwise, but I'm still a little confused. Not much you can do here I guess.
  • It seems a little strange to have two sentences in different sections about the his first shot being his jump from the roof.
  • Remove "then" from He was suspended on a raised platform and then dropped onto a blue screen airbag.
  • What is a "slow-fall rig"?
  • The sentence The vehicle was detonated during the scene, although the rockets fired by the terrorists were small explosives moving along a guidewire. is confusing. Was it accidentally detonated? Should a rocket of that size not have caused such an explosion?
  • If I understand it correctly, the sentences In the scene where McClane throws C4 down the elevator shaft to stop the assault, the effects team blew out every window on one floor of the building. They were unsure what was going to happen until they did the stunt. could be made more concise with a change liked In the scene where McClane throws C4 down the elevator shaft to stop the assault, the effects team unwittingly blew out every window on one floor of the building.
  • You could link Native American.
  • It's "Avco", not AVCO.
  • Since you link The Los Angeles Times in the body, you should also link The New York Times.
  • In the "Thematic analysis" section, shorten Roger Ebert to just Ebert.
  • As you already mentioned "John Rambo", just call him Rambo.
  • McClane's and Powell's --> McClane and Powell's
  • The A.V. Club noted that unlike many other 1980s films, Die Hard does not contain allusions to the Vietnam War. The film mocks the idea when one FBI agent remarks that their helicopter assault is reminiscent of the war; his partner responds that at the time he was only in middle school. I'm confused. Isn't the reference to Saigon an allusion?

Really solid work. I enjoyed reading this article back in December after my obligatory seasonal Die Hard viewing. ~ HAL333 19:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unable to avoid it in time, he was forced to drive into it at speed; it was empty. The "in time" bit can be removed.
    • He returned home to reconcile with his wife, and wrote 35 pages that night. As these are not two independent clauses, the comma should be removed.
    • Levin helped Stuart pitch his story to studio executives, including Gordon. Gordon soon left the meeting, telling Stuart to just go and write the script. Stuart finished his first draft six weeks later. I feel like these sentences could be combined and shortened.
      • I've reworded this a little as " In the middle of Stuart pitching his story, Gordon told him to just go and write it and left the meeting. Stuart finished his first draft six weeks later." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could link big summer film to Blockbuster (entertainment).
    • When Kamen first saw Die Hard, it was largely incomplete and he was unimpressed. Comma needed before "and". A complete restructure of this sentnce may be better.
    • a piece of James Horner's unused score for Aliens (1986) I watched Aliens recently and swore I heard the piece used in Die Hard. I know the source says otherwise, but I'm still a little confused. Not much you can do here I guess.
      • If you ever read the Aliens article, Cameron basically chopped up Horner's score because he didn't like it. I think the scene you are talking about is where they are rescued from the colony as its about to explode? You hear like the first 2-3 seconds of the track you link, but I don't recall it being used significantly, while those first 50 seconds are definitely the ending to Die Hard without question. It's possible parts of that track are used throughout Aliens, but it would have been chopped up, and I can only really think of two scenes in the entire film where it would be used; them being picked up from the exploding colony, and ejecting the queen, and I don't think it's used for the queen. I think Cameron's chopping all the score up doesn't help because you will have a few seconds of pieces used in different places. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems a little strange to have two sentences in different sections about the his first shot being his jump from the roof.
      • I can see what you are saying. IMO, the first instance is interesting from a reader perspective when you get to filming, and I think it'd be a shame to omit it there, and the second instance is just really setup to talk about the stunt. I think rephrasing it would make it as long but maybe more...boring? I'm open to suggestions though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh, it's not a big deal. ~ HAL333 17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove "then" from He was suspended on a raised platform and then dropped onto a blue screen airbag.
    • What is a "slow-fall rig"?
      • Replaced with a "slow falling harness". Is that any clearer? I get the intent of the source but I don't know if there is an official name for the equipment that I could link to. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence The vehicle was detonated during the scene, although the rockets fired by the terrorists were small explosives moving along a guidewire. is confusing. Was it accidentally detonated? Should a rocket of that size not have caused such an explosion?
      • I have reworded this a little to "Small explosives moving along a guidewire were disguised as the terrorist rockets, giving the appearance of them striking the vehicle." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand it correctly, the sentences In the scene where McClane throws C4 down the elevator shaft to stop the assault, the effects team blew out every window on one floor of the building. They were unsure what was going to happen until they did the stunt. could be made more concise with a change liked In the scene where McClane throws C4 down the elevator shaft to stop the assault, the effects team unwittingly blew out every window on one floor of the building.
    • You could link Native American.
    • It's "Avco", not AVCO.
    • Since you link The Los Angeles Times in the body, you should also link The New York Times.
    • In the "Thematic analysis" section, shorten Roger Ebert to just Ebert.
    • As you already mentioned "John Rambo", just call him Rambo.
    • McClane's and Powell's --> McClane and Powell's
    • The A.V. Club noted that unlike many other 1980s films, Die Hard does not contain allusions to the Vietnam War. The film mocks the idea when one FBI agent remarks that their helicopter assault is reminiscent of the war; his partner responds that at the time he was only in middle school. I'm confused. Isn't the reference to Saigon an allusion?
      • The source says " Die Hard is not about Vietnam, even in an oblique way. It even mocks the idea, as the FBI’s two doomed Agents Johnson approach Nakatomi Plaza in their helicopter. The elder of the two howls with delight: “Just like fucking Saigon, eh, slick?” His younger counterpart just rolls his eyes: “I was in junior high, dickhead." Allusions might not be the right word, it seems to be saying it is just not about Vietnam as many late 70s/80s films were. I will try to reword it. EDIT Changed allusions to allegory. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, now that makes sense. ~ HAL333 17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review this Hal. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HAL333!Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I must say I'm unsure about the length thing; I once reviewed Mayan civilization, which is a whole lot longer than this article, and at that FAC the length issue was also raised, but it passed anyway. On the other hand, that article is a lot broader in scope, with much more ground to cover, so it makes sense it would be longer (but maybe also that it could be split more easily than a narrow subject like this). We should of course be concise if we can, but on the other hand, Wikipedia is not paper, and we don't have to be too concerned about people having crappy Internet connections any more so they can't load long pages. So I think I'll skip that issue for now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think much of the first paragraph of Thematic analysis could still need in-text author attribution, as much of it is interpretation rather than fact.
  • " McClane is portrayed as physically but realistically masculine, conveying the idea of a "real man" who possesses independent, intrinsic strength.[113] This can be seen as a response to Reaganism—the political positions of United States president Ronald Reagan—promoting values of the American dream, self-reliance, initiative, and technological advancement.[114]" Here you link the opinions of two different critics as one opinion, which might be a bit problematic, since the reader would be led to believe it is the opinion of one critic.
  • "McClane reclaiming violently reclaiming his wife" Double reclaiming.
  • "These masculine traits are negative but are seen as more attractive and useful" Seen or shown as? And seen by who?
  • "The film can also be seen as xenophobic." Also a pretty strong statement that needs attribution.
  • "The complex layout of Nakatomi Plaza can be seen as analogous to the concealing jungles of Vietnam" that would be a second source making the connection to Vietnam, but you wouldn't know since only Empire is named.
  • You link Empire at second instead of first mention.
  • "Nakatomi Plaza at the Fox Studio Lot in Century City" Not sure what is meant by this caption. Wasn't Nakatomi Plaza the Fox bui8lding?
  • You say basically the same thing a couple of times about the film's legacy in different sections, could be consolidated. Legacy: "Die Hard is considered to have had a significant influence on filmmaking, and is now regarded as one of the greatest action films ever made." Cultural impact: "One of the most influential films of the 1980s, Die Hard served as the blueprint for action films that came after, especially throughout the 1990s." and "Die Hard is considered one of the greatest action films ever made."
  • I think the "Die Hard on/in a..." list is a bit excessive. We only need two or three examples to get the point.
  • "made the practical effects in films like Die Hard feel more dated" Who says they're dated? You state it as if it's a fact, when it is certainly debatable.
  • Do we really need to list 12 director's influenced by the film? Like, who cares what Paul W. S. Anderson is influenced by, to be honest?
  • "Willis reprised his role as McClane in the 1993 parody film Loaded Weapon 1." You could specify it was just a cameo.
  • "Contemporary reception" When I read this, I think contemporary with the movie. So it would probably be good to make it clearer you are talking about retrospective views.
  • Speaking of article length, I'm not sure why one (1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) out of who knows how many reviews and articles of the film needs to be quoted basically in full?
  • "In 2015, readers of Rolling Stone ranked it the number 10 action film of all time;[143] readers of Empire voted it number 20 in 2017.[144]" Why mention these under Cultural impact only to then mention even more lists in the next section? The lists should be dealt woith in the same section.
  • "his second and final time in the series" By this time it goes without saying it was his second film in the series, why not just say "his only other film in the series"?
  • Los Angeles could be linked in the intro.
Hi FunkMonk, thanks for your comments. I'm not ignoring them, just had some bad news this weekend and did not want to look at this page in case they were super negative comments, but these are things I can actually fix!! I will work through these today, thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, I think the article looks good, so I should be able to support once these are fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, I think I've addressed all of the above except the directors thing. I think it is notable to show them to show the breadth of its influence, even if it is Paul Anderson. I trimmed the 1000 Movies to See Before You Die quote down. I included it because the book is independently notable, and most other places that might list it don't tend to give quotes, or useful ones at least. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I still think the list of directors could be cut down to six or similar and still convey the same message, but I'll let others decide; if you have to trim more, that could be a good place to start. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FunkMonk! I do not think the size should be an issue any further, articles much larger have passed FAC and it's well within guidelines. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - without going into the length issue (see my initial comment), I think the article looks good, it includes everything I was expecting, and is enjoyable to read. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from theJoebro64[edit]

Yippee-ki-yay, motherfu- uh, I mean, I support this article's promotion. Read it and couldn't find anything worth commenting upon, for there were no more words to conquer. JOEBRO64 12:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Joebro. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Bonnie_Bedelia_1974.JPG: source link is dead
  • File:Walt_Disney_Studios_Alameda_Entrance.jpg: what's the copyright status of the arch?
  • File:RoyRogersperformingKBF.jpg: as per the Flickr tag, is a more specific copyright tag available?
  • File:Die_Hard_1988_-_Assault_on_the_Tower.ogg needs a more expansive purpose statement in the FUR
  • File:Die_Hard_1988_Rickman_Stunt.jpg needs a more expansive FUR generally
  • File:Die_Hard_logo.png: source link is broken
  • File:Lancrenon_Ulysse.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Bonnie_Bedelia_1974.JPG: source link is dead
    • File:Die_Hard_logo.png: source link is broken
    • File:Lancrenon_Ulysse.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work?
    • File:RoyRogersperformingKBF.jpg: as per the Flickr tag, is a more specific copyright tag available?
      • Added a new tag. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, but that tag doesn't address why the image is believed to be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand what you mean? It's from the Orange County Archives Official Flickr and I've added the right tag. Are you asking me to delete the other tag? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. The Permission field claims "No known copyright restrictions", ie the image is believed to be PD. I'm looking for why it's believed to be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, I've added a Public Domain tag. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Most GLAM institutions have a mission to make knowledge available, but that doesn't automatically extend to making knowledge copyright-free. Do we know whether the institution in this case held copyright, or is their upload based on the belief that the copyright had already expired? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • They're allowing its use but you have to give them attribution, so that would seem to indicate they take ownership of it. The website just says "The Archives is also home to a vast collection of historic photos and archival materials from affiliated government agencies, as well as the Knott’s Berry Farm Collection, the federal court record of the county’s 1994 bankruptcy, Orange County directories and many local historic newspapers and magazines," which again reads like the photo was taken in an official capacity. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Official capacity of who? Federal government works are typically PD by default, but that doesn't extend to works by other levels of government or other organizations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Die_Hard_1988_-_Assault_on_the_Tower.ogg needs a more expansive purpose statement in the FUR
    • File:Walt_Disney_Studios_Alameda_Entrance.jpg: what's the copyright status of the arch?
      • I have no idea how you would find this out, but it's an askew image of writing blending into shadows taken from a public space of a public fronting. There is this alternate older image (File:Waltdisneyco2.jpg) that doesn't include the Mickey Mouse ears if that helps. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if public, in the US 3D works other than buildings are not covered by freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry are you saying the arch is copyrighted or the mouse or the font? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The design as a whole. If you believe it's too simple to warrant copyright protection that would need tagging as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK I've changed the image and added a bunch of tags. this seems to say that the US does have a FOP rule, but the copyright side of this place is beyond me so maybe I'm reading it wrong. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • US has freedom of panorama only for specifically buildings, not other 3D works. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ok, I've changed it to just a photo of a building. They need to be clearer on what constitutes a building because IMO a fence/border/entrance is part of the overall package. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Die_Hard_1988_Rickman_Stunt.jpg needs a more expansive FUR generally

Support from HumanxAnthro[edit]

I disagree. The analysis section at the minute is a TENTH of the entire article in terms of words, and if I add more content to it it's going to become WP:UNDUE in terms of weight and negate the cuts done to satisfy file size. It is not reasonable to expect an article to cover every text ever written about it, and if the desire is for this content to be included, the section would become so big it would require its own article, Interpretations of Die Hard, which would be separate to, and irrelevant to the FA of this article. I would also argue that the topics of many of those links are covered. There is discussion about terrorists and an associated xenophobia in relation to foreign powers and Powell's importance to the narrative and the role of African Americans in general. Working class is covered, and referred alternately to as blue-collar, McClane's christ-like comparison, gender roles, American ingenuity and place in the world, Vietnam comparisons, etc. A lot of these links, looking at them briefly, are covered in the article and I would be adding them purely to double up on references. Looking at the one on WebData, it's nothing to do with them film except using it as an example of associations between McTiernan and the film. Similarly, this one "Ill Effects: The Media Violence Debate" mentions the film in passing but doesn't discuss it as far as I can see. Stunts/Designs has its own section because it is a separate part of the process and it stops the development section becoming too long and unwieldy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, actually, that makes sense. I'll retract my Oppose for now, although I do have yet to read the article in full depth. Although.... I do smell an article creation idea with these sources, amirite? :)
On a side note, if there are points brought up in the sources above that happen to match the points currently in the thematic analysis section, I would still cite them with the currently used cites as WP:Bundle cites to indicate they're widely-held interpretations instead of abstract perspectives each held by one-to-two random persons. After all, the article size limitations seem to only apply to prose length in this FA discussion, so yeah. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since article length seems to be a recurring issue here, I would have a separate article for the interpretations, with the themes section in the main article being a shorter, concise summary of what would be found in it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look again through the list and add appropriate ones to existing material. If there is something that can be added I will make efforts to squeeze them in as is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments
Lead
  • The second lead para has no sense of leading the reader into it. It just abruptly goes to "Stuart was offered the job of adapting Thorp's novel into a screenplay in 1987." I think stating who greenlit him to do it would be the proper intro to this para, since the company/person started development by hiring him.
  • "The role of McClane was turned down by a host of the decade's top stars," Something about this just sounds non-encyclopedic and WP:EDITORIAL to me.
  • "Willis, who was known mainly for his television work, was paid $5 million for the role," Is "who was" necessary here? I think it's more concise without it
  • "the deal was seen as a poor investment" [by whom?]
  • "ostensibly because the marketing team determined that the setting was as important a character as McClane." I know this means marketers found the setting itself as essential as Willis, but creatively describing the setting as a character makes this non-encyclopedic.
  • I feel the positive (box office, academy awards, retrospective reviews) and less-positives (initial reviews, low box office expectations) should be organized together, starting with the mixed reviews and box office expectations followed by contrast words that lead into the positives. I think it flows better this way
  • No sentence on the thematic analysis, which like you said, makes up a tenth of this article?
Human, I've tackled this section I think, I will take a look at the rest but most of it will probably be done tomorrow. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing and development
  • Just did a spotcheck of a paragraph that cites ref 10:
    • (1) "Gordon told him to just go and write it" Could we paraphrase this better, since it sounds too close to the quote in the source text: "Look, you’re supposed to be pretty good. Just go write it."
    • (2) Wiki article says Stuart wrote draft in six weeks, but the Variety source gives a bit different time period: "Stuart finished his first draft in just five and a half weeks."
Done a pass on this Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other media
  • "Die Hard Trilogy (1996), a popular game for the PlayStation, adapted the first three Die Hard films.[106][107]" I know this article isn't about the game, but could we have a summary about how the first film was ad- or, wait, would that be too much for the article size?
I think mentioning it was a third person shooter would take up more space than necessary. Again, I feel the "article size limit" is a bit arbitrary, I can make the article 100KB if I want to if I can justify it, but for the purpose of this nomination its been raised as an issue that the article was too good and comprehensive, so trimmed it is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath and performance analysis
  • "In a year otherwise dominated by comedy films, Die Hard was seen as an anomaly among action films such as Rambo III and Red Heat, which failed to meet box office expectations.[13][85]" Two issues:
    • (1) How was Die Hard considered an anomaly among action films? There probably already is a separate section explaining this, but you probably should link to here so readers know where to go.
    • (2) I don't think the transition from discussing comedy to actions films is smooth and comfortable.
  • "which had had few successes" Why are there two hads?
  • "Young Guns" This needs a year.
RE: NUmbers 1 and 2, I'm not 100% what you mean. Maybe I've not worded it right? The sentence is saying that the box office was otherwise dominated by comedy films and the action films that year had all generally flopped, including big sequels like Rambo 3 or starring vehicles like Red Heat, so Die Hard was an anomaly in that it was the only action film to do really well. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might understand what you mean now, I've rephrased it a little. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thematic analysis
  • "Darin Payne wrote that when men's role as the main household earner was threatened by more women joining the workforce, and blue-collar jobs were being lost to foreign countries, an American cowboy saves the day, rescuing his captured princess from a tower.[120]" This sentence not only sounds odd, but is confusing, especially given its change from a past to present tense in the middle. Is it saying that there were cowboys saving princesses from big corporation towers in real life during periods of economic decline? And what specific periods are we talking about? Or does it talk about a general fiction trend during real-life socioeconomic trends? Clarification is needed here.
Legacy
  • "He was failing, both personally and professionally, and serves as a vulnerable, identifiable hero who openly sobs, admits his fear of death," Why the tense change?
Changed "was" to "is", I think this addresses the issue. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Modern reception
  • "Several publications have listed it as one of the greatest action films of all time, including: number one by Empire,[152] IGN[145] and Entertainment Weekly;[146] number 10 by Timeout;[153] number 14 by The Guardian;[154] number 18 by Men's Health[155] and unranked by Complex,[156] Esquire[157] and The Standard.[158]" Multiple issues:
    • (1) In the prose, IGN and Time Out magazine are incorrectly presented without italicizations
    • (2) The specific location edition of the Time Out source isn't specified. The list is actually from Time Out New York
    • (3) Timeout --> Time Out, since that's the actual name
    • (4) Since this is the only time we see these work names in the prose, why are most of them, apart from IGN and Entertainment Weekly, not linked to the wiki articles about them?
Refs
Notes
  • Rename "Notes" section to "Citations"
  • Ref 16, 29, 34, 62, 67, 68, and 151 I notice use a hyphen in their titles, which is not allowed per MOS:DASH. As Nikkimaria would say, "Check for others."
  • Ref 45. (1) BBFC is not a work. (2) You never format work or publisher names in URLs. You present the actual names. "bbfc.co.uk." --> BBFC
  • Ref 51. AllMusic is not a work, it's a publisher, so it should not be italicized
  • Are we sure Ref 62 is reliable?
  • Refs 73, 148, and 150. American Film Institute is not a work, so it should not be italicized.
  • Ref 82 Incorrectly uses URL name as work name, plus it's not a work. The name of the source should be presented as a publisher and as "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences," since oscars.org is the official site for it.
  • Ref 83 BMI is not a work, it's a publisher.
  • Ref 128 Library of Congress is a not a work, it's a publisher
  • Ref 135 BBC Online is not a work, it's a publisher.
  • What makes The New York Times a reliable source, because I've heard a bunch of Marxi– nah, just messing with ya :).

More comments coming soon. I just did a random skim throughout this article, and these comments are what I noticed. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • More comments have been added. More to come. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse the delayed comments. I've had a nasty flu that has severely slowed down my ability to get things done on here 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro, I think I've hit most of your concerns. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More commentss (3/30/21)
Plot
  • Most of second paragraph follows a repetitive template: "[He did this] and [this other guy did that]." "[He gets killed] but [this other event happens]." There is no human flow in how the action is described. It feels like its listing events described in a few words "Tony, is sent after him," "McClane kills two terrorists," "McClane kills Tony," "McClane witnesses the murder," "Takagi refuses," but can't put in together in a way that feels concise and put together.
  • Speaking of which, I noticed the problems brought up by HJ Mitchell about the plot section having "choppy prose and excess semicolons," which he brought up in the previous FA discussion, are still there, although I've only noticed the semicolon thing in the beginning of the second para. I think the plot section summarizes all the points that need to be summarized per WP:FILMPLOT, but issues about choppiness definitely still need to be resolved.
    • I will, however, disagree with HJ Mitchell's criticism of the plot being a "scene-by-scene run-down." I know what it means, and if he was talking about a more down-tempo drama or horror movie where only the bigger plot points are essential and could be summarized, I could understand. But this is an intense action film where every small action affects the course of the plot, so I think having what HJ Mitchell is criticizing is needed for Die Hard's plot section. I think there are still points where it could feel less like that, like I example I provided above, but I don't think it should be devoid of that completely, especially for the climatic moments of the film. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Powell, having found nothing amiss, is leaving when McClane drops a body onto his car." So wait, he left after a body dropped on his police car? I don't think that's what happened.
  • "McClane catches Gruber checking explosives on the roof but he pretends he is an escaped hostage and McClane gives him a gun"
    • (1) Who is the "he" pretending to be a hostage?
    • (2) I think a comma is needed somewhere, but where I don't know. You make the call!
Development and writing
  • Can we specify "A project at Columbia Pictures had been abandoned" is talking about, in the Variety source's words, Stuart's "hot spec script" which landed him at Colombia. Given how it's currently framed, it feels like its vaguely talking about a random Colombia project Stuart wasn't involved in.
  • I'm confused about this interpretation of the variety source:
    • "Stuart had six weeks between contracted work so his agent Jeremy Zimmer contacted Lloyd Levin, the head of development at the Gordon Company, a producing arm of 20th Century Fox."
    • The source: "He was about to deliver his first Disney script, and that opened a six-week window where he could work for another studio. So Stuart’s agent put in a call to Lloyd Levin, the head of development for Lawrence “Larry” Gordon over at Twentieth Century Fox."
  • I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about referring to it as The Gordon Company instead of Lawrence Gordon? The article specifies it is the Gordon Company in the next or second next paragraph. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual response to both quotes was below, which you've already responded. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, the Variety source doesn't explain things much better. Did Disney allow him to work at another studio as a reward for delivering the script to Disney? I didn't know the first time I read the wiki article's version of this event that he was given six weeks by Disney, I assumed that meant he never gotten any contracts within those six weeks. Either way, both sentences leave certain things vague that makes reading the whole thing confusing.
  • I read it as he just had six weeks free before he had to start the next Disney script. It's not a specific time period he was given off, it was just time between contracted work when he had nothing to do. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thorp had been inspired to write Nothing Lasts Forever by a dream he had after watching the 1974 disaster film The Towering Inferno." I would specify what that dream is, which the Variety cite does: "in which a man was being chased through a building by gun-wielding assailants." I think it really shows how the main premise of the film came to be.
  • Not sure what Frank Sinatra starring in the 1968 film of The Detective adds to the section. Seems more important that Fox already had rights to the book that Nothing Lasts Forever was a sequel of.
  • "Stuart began working 18-hour days at his office at Walt Disney Studios in Burbank. He became exhausted, which he said left him feeling "on edge"." Could this be presented more concisely as one sentence, something along the lines of, "Stuart began working 18-hour days at his office at Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, which made him near his breaking point."
  • "This helped him realize the film should be about a stubborn man who should have apologized to his wife before a catastrophe." ---> "From this, Stuart greenlit another theme of the story of a man making congruent with his wife before a catastrophe."
  • "Stuart also drew upon the marital problems of his peers to shape the McClanes' relationship." Give more specifics about this as the Variety article does. "Many of the writer’s friends were going through marital struggles. Some were divorcing. Some would vent to him about how their wives had changed back to their maiden names before their divorce was final. Stuart drew on their resentments in ways large and small, from McClane’s conflicted attitude toward his wife, Holly, to the anger he feels when he sees her maiden name, Gennaro, in the office-building directory."
  • I've done the rest, though I reworded the post box-crash wording, because I think "congruent" is not going to be a word most people understand, and I think it changes the meaning, from he SHOULD have apologized BEFORE everything happened, to its about him apologizing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Critical response

👨x🐱 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm looking through these, but the brief one at Philadelphia daily news that says its his best film to date, it was also his third film to date and the other two weren't well received, so I don't think that is a particularly notable claim. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, regarding the power struggles part, I did take notes on it but I'm not sure there's enough meat on it to make a point apart from there being power struggles. If you have a suggestion though I'm open to it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
  • Are we sure we have only one cite of "Die Hard: The Ultimate Visual History" that's about the first movie?

👨x🐱 (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment yes. I can't access it without buying it, and I've already had to spend £20 each on books for RoboCop and The Empire Strikes Back, so at the moment I'm not dropping any more money. Judging by exceprts used on websites about the book, I do not believe anything is missing from the article that it not sourced from elsewhere, except potentially the specific date filming ended instead of the month. But I'm not buying the book to find out. I might when I'm done with the Empire book and can sell it, but not right now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (4/2/21)
Development and writing
  • "Stuart credits Levin for helping him to understand Nothing Lasts Forever" The "to" is unnecessary
Changed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this section falls apart in the last two paragraphs.
    • The first paragraph is about the vagueness of some of the novel and how its use of first-person perspective meant we'd only read about scenes the main character was involved in, but the only solution of the screenwriter presented is for the instances where the main character isn't around. It's also never addressed how the novel's negative tone impacted how the screenwriter adapted the book
    • Additionally, the second paragraph, in the middle, abruptly goes from novel adaptation to a disparate topic about the incorporation of Western stylings in the film.
I've separated the latter off and added some comments by Stuart about disliking the novel's tone and the aging hero. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casting
  • "At the time, there was also a clear distinction between film and television actors, and though films like Ghostbusters (1984) had demonstrated that television stars could lead a blockbuster film, other television actors like Shelley Long and Bill Cosby had failed in their recent attempts to make the transition.[15][25]" I don't think this should all be a single sentence. I think have a ";" after "Actors," remove "And," and start another sentence with the "Though" part.
Changed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert Duvall, Gene Hackman, and Laurence Fishburne were considered for the role." For what character
It follows discussion of Al Powell, but I have clarified further. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Willis said, "They paid me what they thought I was worth for the film, and for them."" This sounds like something Captain Obvious would say. How does this add to the article?
It gives Willis' perspective on the controversy. IMO it speaks to his mindset and that he was non plussed by being paid that much. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-write
  • "McTiernan gave Willis time off to rest and tasked De Souza with adding new scenes" [when?]
It says early filming, but I've clarified further. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He did not want to use terrorists as the villains, as he considered them to be "too mean"," Then how did terrorist characters remain in the final film?
This is explained in the same sentence." He did not want to use terrorists as the villains, as he considered them to be "too mean", and avoided focusing on the terrorists' politics in favor of making them thieves driven by monetary pursuits; he felt this would make it more suitable summer entertainment."
  • "There was a debate over whether to use "Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker" or "yippee-ti-yay, motherfucker".[11]" By whom, and how did they come to a final decision?
I have no idea, I'm not sure it's important? I've added that Willis endorsed the former, he doesn't specify who he discussed it with. I can take a reasonable guess but that's all it would be. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Filming
  • " Willis found acting in Die Hard different from previous experiences, as he was used to acting against another actor, but in Die Hard he is often alone, talking to himself or others via radio." I have a way to make this sentence. "Willis' acting in Die Hard differed from previous experiences in that he was often alone, not having any personal encounters with others."
Changed, but I retained the difficult aspect. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film's final cut runs for 132 minutes.[46]" Why is this in the filming section? It's abrupt and is not connected to anything else, not even the paragraph it's in. It's just tacked on at the end. We have an infobox giving the most essential details, including runtime, for a reason, because it's awkward to describe it in prose.
The complexities of inconsistent FAC rules, I was told that anything in the infobox must be sourced in the article. I've sourced the runtime in the infbox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Context (Release)
I don't know who told you this, but they're wrong. You don't have to cite credits (except for instances where's someone uncredited) because they're always cited by the film itself, both in the actual movie and in its poster. The guidelines on film articles state this. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The summer of 1988 was expected to be dominated by action and comedy films, although a broader range of films was released that year." Who expected this, and what factors made them expect so many comedy and action films?
That level of detail isn't covered, the source has them picking out several comedy and action films they expected to be at the top of the box office, the films are scheduled to come out so they already know the films exist, they're just predicting performances. I have added that it is film industry executives. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were predicted to control the May box office and break opening weekend revenue records." Predicted by whom? Studios? Box office analysts? Journalists?
This is the same people as above. It seems awkward to keep name dropping them, the statement has been made and it's backed up by the source. This seems sufficient. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Box Office
  • A lot of what's in "Aftermath and performance analysis" should be in the "Context" and "Box office" subsections IMO.

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The context section is pre-release so none of it belongs there, and the legacy for the crew is not relevant to the box office section. I have had to split this into box office and legacy.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (4/3/21)
Reception

👨x🐱 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced the 4+ refs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (Easter Day/2021)
Cultural impact
  • "Only one-quarter of Americans polled consider it to be a Christmas film." This is vague. Why are specifics given about the UK poll but not whatever American poll we're talking about here? Additionally, a American poll never surveys all of the nation's 327 million residents, so presenting this poll as an indicator of the opinion of all American citizens (even those that didn't see it) is inaccurate. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Modern reception
  • I gotta be honest. This subsection is lackluster. In addition to my nitpicks about publication names not being linked that I brought up above, actual critical opinions presented are lacking. While it presents a frequently-held modern opinion ("Die Hard is now considered one of the greatest action films ever made.[158][159][160]") it only does it in a sentence, and only a couple of other specific retrospective opinions are briefly discussed. Otherwise, 95% of this is just a list of rankings and numbers, which those rankings and accolades are essential, don't get me wrong, but the section is lame if its mostly this. You might as just make a table of these rankings without presenting it as prose. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've researched more detail on American opinions on the Xmas aspect and added more opening context modern reviews to the modern reception section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro, are we good to go? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing. In paragraph four of the themes section, it's about the negative portrayal of women in the film, but its first sentence doesn't seem to connect with that topic. It looks like a general sentence about the type of protagonist he is, which doesn't seem to do anything with gender. Once this is fixed, Support. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Separated it off into its own paragraph HumanxAnthro! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • When did filming conclude? The lead and body look incomplete without such detail.
  • "Willis, who was known mainly for his television work, was paid $5 million for the role, placing him among Hollywood's highest-paid actors; the deal was seen as a poor investment and attracted significant controversy prior to the film's release" is quite a mouthful! I'd split it into two sentences by replacing the semi-colon with a period.
  • Starting three consecutive sentences with "it" in the lead's fourth paragraph feels monotonous.
  • I'd spell out the NYPD and FBI acronyms (which should be linked upon first mention) like you have with LAPD. Don't simply assume all readers know what they're short for.
  • Are specific budget and gross numbers known? When possible, it's ideal to have those instead of ranges (especially for the latter).
  • The use of "notable" from "Die Hard 2 is notable for being the last film" is inappropriate POV
  • Contrary to what "although" from "Although considered a financial success" implies (pertaining to fifth installment), earnings have nothing to do with what critics and fans think of a movie
  • "'80s" from "closer to the '80s-style" should be "1980s" per MOS:DATE
  • Don't italicize Yahoo! Movies, ABC News, Start TV, Den of Geek, Filmtracks.com, AllMusic, Getty Images, The Numbers (website), American Film Institute, "Oscars.org" (which should read Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or Academy Awards), Broadcast Music, Inc., "Comingsoon.net" (which is supposed to be "Coming Soon"), BBC Online, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Digital Spy, Metacritic, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, NPR, or Bloody Disgusting
  • Not sure whether "Creative Screenwriting", "The Daily Beast", "Film School Rejects", "Gizmodo", "Engadget", "VentureBeat", or "Thrillist" are trustworthy
  • "Vulture.com" should just read "Vulture"
  • "bbfc.co.uk" → British Board of Film Classification (and no italics)

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this Snuggums, I will look at these in depth when I finish work. Per the italics part though, it automatically does that under the 'website=' field as part of cite web. It's not something I can control. There are separate templates for Rotten Tomatoes and BOM that remove the italics but that obviously doesn't work for them all. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can avoid the auto-italics by using the "publisher=" field within those references. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all of these bar the concerns about the trustworthiness of the sites. I replaced the Daily Beast one, even though I believe it is a perfectly acceptable source, but the rest are all reputable sites with plenty of independent coverage of them and/or owned by major companies. Creative Screenwriting is a major print magazine for screenwriters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better now. The lead still needs to mention when filming wrapped, though, and is "by early March 1988" your best guess? The American Film Institue writes that production "ended Feb or Mar 1988 in Los Angeles". I do realize that's ambiguous. However, unless you can find something more specific, we might have to include both months in order to avoid being too presumptuous. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look around, see if I can get someone to give me the AFI's source (I think Daily Variety) on the ResourceExchange. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested the source directly but I've changed the filming segment to late Feb/Early March, and I've added "took place between November 1987 and March 1988" to the lead for now SNUGGUMS. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a bit of copyediting and now am ready to support the nomination. Hopefully you can get more precise answers on filming details soon. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Not a full review, but I looked at the reception section, and it suffers from the "A said B" problem -- see WP:RECEPTION. I won't oppose immediately but I think this needs work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an ideasuggestions what you're looking for as it's been rewritten a few times based on conflicting feedback so I don't want to go in the wrong direction. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECEPTION gives a couple of worked examples, one of which involves eliminating "A said B", so you might find that worth looking at. The problem with "A said B" is that it is just a list, with the bullet points and line feeds removed. I think a good way to look at it is to get rid of all the quotes and see what is left -- what are you telling the reader? Then add quotes in to illustrate those points, making it clear that they are illustrative and are not just being listed. Listing quotes asks the reader to construct the narrative for themselves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see there's been another support since I posted this comment, so just to be clear, I think the prose in the reception section fails 1a. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it, jeez, it's been a day. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't mean to nag -- I know it takes time. Just wanted to be clear to you and the coords. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, I've reorganized and rewritten it as best I can. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. I've struck the oppose but there's one sentence I think still needs work: "Kehr compared Die Hard to films such as Alien (1979) and RoboCop (1987), emulating a humorous and sentimental design that perfected the action genre, but lacking a personality of its own." I think the subject of "emulating" is meant to be Die Hard, but the syntax doesn't work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, honestly that was bugging me too. I will rework it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better; I tweaked it a bit more. I haven't read the whole article so I can't support but this sections looks OK now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini![edit]

I'll have comments in the future. I'm going to busy this weekend so I'll be spending my time on my current projects, so please be patient! 16:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Panini. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that I'll get to this tomorrow... Panini🥪 15:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darkwarriorblake, alright! Starting off; I'll publish each section of my review individually so if you're present, you can work while I review. Panini🥪 11:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "His finished draft was greenlit immediately by Fox, which was eager ..." "who" instead of "which" would make more sense here.
  • "... for a summer blockbuster for the following year ..." the second "for" here is redundant
  • "It created a franchise comprising the sequels Die Hard 2, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Live Free or Die Hard, and A Good Day to Die Hard, plus video games, comic books, toys, board games, clothing, and other merchandise." This sentence drags on a bit too long with too many examples. "... video games, comic books, toys, board games, clothing, and other merchandise" can be cut down to really one or two examples.
Plot
  • "... his weapon and his radio ..." The second his is redundant
  • "... Gruber sees a news report by reporter Richard Thornburg ..." "Report" is repeated twice here.
  • The last paragraph is simply a series of four very small sentences. Maybe try to combine them, and merge them with the paragraph above.
Development and writing
  • "Levin wanted to show it snowing there because that was unusual." -> "The concept, he considered, would give off an unusual aura."
  • "After an argument with his wife, he went for a drive and saw a box in his lane. Unable to avoid it, he was forced to drive into it at speed; it was empty." -> "After an argument with his wife, he went for a drive and saw a box in his lane; unable to avoid it, he was forced to drive over and discovered it to be empty."
  • Considering the word "marital" is right before, "... to shape McClane's marriage" can be changed to "... to shape McClane's relationship".
  • "... and becomes a better, but not a different person." -> "... and becomes a better, but not a different, person."
Casting
  • No, I did not get distracted during the review by clicking on Twins (1988 film) and Bill Cosby. It just took me a long time because I'm, er, thoroughly checking the, uh ...
Re-write
  • "... character beats for characters ..." Character is repeated twice here.
  • "Due to the addition of the Gruber/McClane meeting scene, a different scene in which McClane kills Theo was excised." The word scene is repeated, maybe "Due to the addition of the Gruber/McClane meeting scene, another in which McClane kills Theo was excised."
  • "McClane's catchphrase, "Yipee-ki-yay, mother******", was inspired by old cowboy lingo to emphasize his all-American character.[11] De Souza was inspired by cowboy actor Roy Rogers's own "Yippee-ki-yah, kids"." Similar sentences with similar words can be combined: "McClane's catchphrase, "Yipee-ki-yay, mother******", was inspired by old cowboy lingo and Roy Rogers's own "Yippee-ki-yah, kids" catchprhase to emphasize his all-American character.[11]

Jeez, this article is long. But continuing...

Filming
  • "Principal photography began in November 1987, and concluded by late February to early March 1988. The budget was approximately $25–$35 million." -> "Principal photography began in November 1987 and concluded by early March 1988 with an approximate $25–$35 million budget."
  • No other major problems with this section. Good Job!
Music
  • "Before hiring composer Michael Kamen, McTiernan knew one musical piece he wanted to include—Beethoven's 9th Symphony (commonly known as "Ode to Joy"), having heard it in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971)." -> "Before hiring composer Michael Kamen, McTiernan knew he wanted to include Beethoven's 9th Symphony ("Ode to Joy"), having heard it in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971)."

I'm not as nitpicky as other reviewers here at FAC, so for me, this is all I really have that stood out as out-of-the-ordinary. After these changes, I'm willing to change to support. Panini🥪 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm also not watching this page so please ping me. Thank you. Panini🥪 13:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks Panini! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Panini🥪 22:27, 29 March 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) 9 April 2021 [31].

2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election[edit]

Nominator(s): N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a parliamentary by-election in Lincolnshire, England, in December 2016, back when Brexit dominated British politics (as it would for years). A Brexit-supporting Conservative MP resigned to protest Prime Minister Theresa May's handling of the issue, triggering an election in his safe seat. The Conservatives held the seat easily, while UKIP rose to second and Labour fell to fourth. It's a fairly short article, but I think it's comprehensive.

This would be my first featured article, as well as the first featured article on a British election. I got this article to GA status last year, after a review by The Rambling Man, and expanded it a bit this month, getting helpful feedback from HJ Mitchell through the Mentoring for FAC scheme. I hope you find the article interesting, and I'd be very grateful for any comments.N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Images are freely licensed. It would be cool to include photographs of other candidates, however. (t · c) buidhe 02:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would hazard a guess that there aren't any freely licenced photos of the other candidates. MPs' official portraits are released under the Open Government Licence these days, which is usually the only source of free images of politicians. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've had a look and haven't found any freely available pictures of the others. None of the other candidates are particularly notable, so I suppose that isn't surprising.N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 12:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was triggered on 4 November 2016 by the resignation of". Optional: 'It was triggered by the resignation on 4 November 2016 of'?
    • Made the change you suggested
  • "Lincolnshire Independent" in the Infobox, but "Lincolnshire Independents" in the graph.
    • Standardised
  • "compared to the result in the constituency at the previous general election". "in the constituency" seems redundant. Where else might a reader think is meant?
    • Removed
  • Lead: Why are we told the share of the vote gained by all parties mentioned, but not for the Labour Party?
    • Added vote share
  • "which is lower than". "is" → 'was'.
    • Changed
  • "it elects one Member of Parliament" Why the upper case initial letters?
    • I think this is the standard way of writing it. For example "the dispute ... had "no connection" with Mr Burns's duties as a Member of Parliament" on BBC News ([32]) or "The UK public elects Members of Parliament" on the Parliament website ([33]). Happy to change if corrected though.
Probably. But we are not guided by the BBC here, but by the MoS. See MOS:JOBTITLES.
Changed
  • Graph: Is the purple blob bottom left a stray?
    • That's the Referendum Party, who only stood in the 1997 election. I've removed it though.
  • "because the results were counted in counting areas". Possibly 'because the results were totalled and announced in counting areas' or similar.
    • Changed
  • "Based on the estimates". "the" → 'these'.
    • Done
  • "out of the 650 UK Parliament constituencies" Should that be 'Parliamentary'?
    • Indeed it should, changed
  • "Attorney General". Why the upper case initial letters?
    • Changed to lower case
  • "following a hustings". Could we have a brief in line explanation of a hustings?
    • Added
  • "She would continue to practise medicine after winning the by-election." Is it not possible to give this information in its chronological place?
    • I've removed it due to concerns about the reliability of the source
  • "put themselves forth" Suggest 'forward'.
    • Done
  • "who works for an optician". "works" → 'worked', given the dates of the sources.
    • Done
  • "Sarah Stock, a campaigner". Is it known what she campaigned for?
    • She was an NHS campaigner; I've added that.
  • "Peter Hill, standing as The Iconic Arty-Pole" I don't understand this.
    • His legal name is Peter Hill, but the name that appeared on the ballot paper is The Iconic Arty-Pole, which is allowed (there are many examples of British satirical candidates doing this, most famously "Lord Buckethead"). I've reworded it.
  • "the latter two appeared on the ballot paper with no description" Is "no description" appropriate? Perhaps 'no stated party affiliation' or similar?
    • "No description" is the term used by the source. The point is that not only did they not have the name of a party next to their name on the ballot, they also did not have the word "Independent" next to their names (see for example page 3 of this document [34]).
I am aware of how it works. Despite the wording of the source, the current text gives the impression to those happily unaware of the intricacies of the UK electoral system that the ballot paper includes a "description" of each candidate. There is no rule against paraphrasing the source so as to make it clearer to a reader.
Changed

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The quote near the start of "Campaign" should be a block quote. See MOS:BQ. And is it possible to work Article 50 into the prior text somewhere to prevent the "You what?" of non-UK/EU readers?
    • Done (added to background section)
  • "A 2019 article discussed". Any chance of a little more information on this article?
    • Added
  • "Richmond Park by-election had turnout of over 50%." 'a turnout'?
    • Done
  • "having been in second place in the seat in the 2015 general election." Optional: delete "in the seat".
    • Done

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bilorv[edit]

  • "Stephen Phillips was first elected in the 2010 general election and was re-elected in the 2015 general election" – Consider "re-elected in 2015" to avoid repetition.
  • "(Overton was the only 2015 candidate who also stood ...)" – might be better as a standalone sentence, and phrasing as follows: "Overton would be the only 2015 candidate to stand..." Otherwise the jump between time periods is a tiny bit confusing.
  • Alt text is needed for Johnson in the lead.
  • "a NHS (the National Health Service)" – would it not be common to introduce by the full name, "a National Health Service (NHS)..."? (And otherwise, I think it might be "an NHS" as it starts with a vowel sound.)
  • Under "Candidates", I feel UKIP have a little undue weight given to them given their vote share but length of text as long as the Tories. This could be addressed by wording a bit more tightly e.g. "These remarks were brought up during the by-election campaign" can be established in the previous sentence. And I'm not sure what I can learn from the quote "[it was not] the right time for [him] to seek election to Parliament"—just saying he withdraws in the previous clause sort of says the same concrete facts.
  • Since none of their comments are quoted, it may be better to merge the Corbyn/Farron/Nuttall/Farage visits into a single sentence at the top ("The party leaders of Labour (Jeremy Corbyn), ...").
  • Can we mention the House of Commons makeup at the time of the by-election? Otherwise, a non-UK figure might not realise that Labour had hundreds of seats, Lib Dems had a handful and UKIP had one, which is important to bear in mind when weighing (as a reader) what results for which parties are successes/failures.
  • "described as "one of the party's all-time best by-election performances while in government", "which was described as "remarkably low"" – by whom? Attribute quotes in prose, otherwise the reader has no idea how significant/mainstream the comments are.
  • "widely seen as poor for the Labour Party" – In the vein of the previous comment, this could even be "widely seen by journalists" (but this is a lesser deal).
  • "UKIP's performance was also seen as poor, though Paul Nutall, the leader of UKIP, said he was happy with Ayling's second-place finish even though the party's vote-share ..." – Rather than going back-and-forth, how about: "UKIP's performance was also seen as poor, with their vote-share declining in comparison with the 2015 general election results, though Nuttall said he was happy with Ayling's second-place finish." (Notice: two "t"s in "Nuttall" and he's already introduced earlier.)
  • Not a suggestion, just thought the "Aftermath" sentence "May in May ... Johnson supported Johnson" was a bit funny. Hard to word but no criticisms.
  • "At the 2019 general election, she" – the "she" is not so clear as it's a new paragraph and May was the last-mentioned woman (and also increased her majority over Labour).
  • Inconsistent linking/not linking in refs, unless there's a rule I'm not understanding – you can choose to unlink all works/publishers, link only on the first occurrence or link on every occurrence.
  • The "Aftermath" caption gets a full stop as it's a full sentence.
  • The Iconic Arty-Pole in results table could mention in a footnote that the candidate's real name is "Peter Hill", just for ease of reference.
  • Hill had some serious political opinions too, it looks like from Sleaford Standard (in particular, he voted Leave) – is it worth adding a sentence or clause about this?
  • New Statesman could have url-access=limited in the references.
  • Spotchecks: 30, 46, 58, 70, 72, 76, 86, 88, 92 (numbers as of this version). In #72 ([35]), "said that this would be a sign of a realignment of British politics based on views on Brexit instead of the traditional left–right political spectrum" seems like too strong a summary of: Is the old divide between left and right being transcended by a new faultline between Remainers and Outers? The honest answer is that we don’t yet know. Might be better as "questioned whether this could indicate ..." or similar. No other issues—very good faithfulness to the sources.
  • (Not FA criteria related.) Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election linked in "See also" but is that the link meant? Three GEs later is not really relevant to the 2016 by-election.

Very good overall, had to work hard to come up with suggestions. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments! I believe I've addressed almost all of them; I don't think the Election box template supports alt text, I chose to keep "widely seen" because it was also described that way by politicians, not just journalists, and I think the New Statesman already had url-access=limited, but otherwise I've done what you suggested in all cases. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 20:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like you can do it within the image, by replacing [[File:Official portrait of Dr Caroline Johnson crop 2.jpg|100px]] with [[File:Official portrait of Dr Caroline Johnson crop 2.jpg|100px|alt=ALT TEXT HERE]], though I don't use a screen reader so who knows? Other than this, I'm satisfied that everything has been fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to work; done. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 22:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, support. Thanks for the quick responses! Hope my comments were useful (and you were right about New Statesman, not sure how I missed that). — Bilorv (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

I am somewhat familiar with the UK electoral system and I am fascinated with UK politics. Although I do not remember this by-election, I think you can consider me a "moderate expert" on this topic.

  • "76.3% of the population was economically active" What does economically active mean? I recommend rewording
    • Replaced with data about employment
  • "Sleaford and North Hykeham has always elected a Conservative MP." Change to "Sleaford and North Hykeham has elected a Conservative MP since its creation in 1997."
    • Changed to "Sleaford and North Hykeham has elected a Conservative MP since its creation" so as not to repeat the data of the constituency's creation
  • "Overton would be the only 2015 candidate to stand in the 2016 by-election." Change "would be" to "was"
    • Done
  • "At the general election on 8 May 2015, the Conservative Party won a narrow majority in the House of Commons, winning 331 of the 650 total seats, and the party's leader, David Cameron, became Prime Minister." This implies that Cameron became PM in 2015, but he became PM in 2010. This should be reworded.
    • Done
  • "As of the day before the referendum, 185 Conservative MPs declared they would vote to remain and 138 declared they would vote to leave." Why is this sentence relevant to this article?
    • I think it's relevant because it shows the division within the party over Brexit, and provides more information than just saying that the party was officially neutral in the referendum. I'm willing to remove it though.
  • "Immediately after the referendum result was announced, Cameron resigned.[24] He was replaced in July 2016 as Conservative leader and as Prime Minister by Theresa May." Combine with the previous paragraph.
    • Done
  • "the date of which was not immediately known, though by-elections usually take place within several months of a seat becoming vacant." Replace this with information about when the by-election was called (currently in the next paragraph)
    • Good idea, done
  • "She defeated the two other finalists" remove "the"
    • Done
  • "On 5 December, Farage campaigned in front of a poster on which "Hykeham" was misspelt as "Hykenham"." What was the public/media reaction to this?
    • Added something
  • "in an opinion piece in The Guardian on December 4, the journalist" Why is the number after the month here?
    • Fixed
  • I added a non-breaking space to various dates in the article. This prevents breaks in the text that might cause confusion for the reader, especially on a smaller screen like a smartphone. This was taught to me by a GOCE editor. Please revert if you do not like the change.
    • Seems fine to me

Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I'll get to them on Monday or Tuesday. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 22:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thank you for all your helpful comments; I believe I've addressed them all now. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 19:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed. I support this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Between January and December in 2016". This is clumsy and convoluted. Why not "In 2016"?
  • "The constituency was first contested in the 1997 general election." This sounds as if it was uncontested before, but it must have been a new constituency.
  • "Phillips resigned over the issue" It may be obvious, but I think you need to specify that he resigned his parliamentary seat, and maybe the formal appointment as Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.
  • "The Daily Telegraph reported that Phillips, who is a lawyer, may have been motivated by disappointment over not being promoted to attorney general." The Telegraph article was based on claims of Tory MPs who were trying to cast doubt on his motives. This should be made clear.
  • "Jon Trickett, a spokesman for the Labour Party, said the series of resignations "amount[ed] to a leadership crisis" in the Conservative Party." I am not sure that such a predictable comment is worth mentioning.
  • "The Liberal Democrats selected Ross Pepper, who worked for an optician, on 11 November,[55] who stood in Lincoln in the 2015 general election, coming third." This is convoluted and clumsy.
  • "the party came fourth in the by-election results" Why results plural? Are you referring to Richmond Park as well? If not, I suggest deleting "in the by-election results".
  • "though Nuttall said he was happy with Ayling's second-place finish." Another comment so predictable it is not worth quoting.
  • A first rate article. Just a few niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! I've made all the changes you suggested. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 16:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just making explicit my support. I reviewed this on the talk page before the FAC as part of my mentoring attempt, and I've been keeping an eye on progress here. I'm more than satisfied that it meets the criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • Any reason we're not linking United Kingdom Parliament constituencies in the lead?
    • Added link
  • The "no image" images in the infobox looks really weird, like I'm still waiting for them to load or something. Is that nothing we can put in there equivalent to an image "N/A"?
    • Good idea, done
  • I see the image with a human has alt text, but the "no image" doesn't, it should.
    • Done
  • "a paediatrician" is her chosen vocation important for the lead? Or is it somehow to reflect that she wasn't a lifelong politician?
    • I think if it just said "the Conservatives nominated Caroline Johnson to replace Phillips", the natural question would be "who?" I'm open to getting rid of it though.
  • "Brexit was a key issue in the campaign." in the "by-election" campaign".
    • Done
  • "anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) " our article describes UKIP as "Eurosceptic", not out-and-out anti-EU.
    • "Anti-EU" is used by many sources to describe UKIP: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
      • Sure, I realise. But it's in the lead without reference and that description (as far as I can see) doesn't appear in the main body so perhaps it should, on first UKIP mention (especially as Brexit is oft mentioned) along with the references you provided here to demonstrate that they were anti-EU as opposed to "euro-sceptic" per our article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added to the body with three of those sources
  • "13.5%" vs "10%", Labour got 10.2%, why not consistent decimal places?
    • Rounded
  • There's inconsistent re-linking between the lead and the main body of the text, what's the approach?
    • I intended to re-link everything; should hopefully be fixed now
  • "when it was created" this is an alien concept to many, is there some detail on why/how a new constituency suddenly came into existence in 1997, e.g. constituency boundary changes, reviews etc?
    • Clarified
  • You capitalise Member of Parliament in the lead but not in the main body.
    • Fixed
  • You also abbreviate it in both places but you only abbreviate UKIP (for instance) in the lead.
    • Spelled out UKIP's full name in the body
  • Referendum Party got 5.5% of the votes in 1997 but they're not shown on the graph.
    • I thought it would be confusing to leave them in the graph (since it would just be a dot); I've changed the caption
  • "At the general election.." this sentence isn't sparkling prose, "won ... winning" is repetitive and the parenthetical note about Cameron repeating his name and position almost instantly is awkward).
    • Reworded
  • One could ask why you've skipped over SNP etc in the numbers of seats here. If you're just talking about the results of the parties who participated in the by-election, you should make that clear.
    • Good point; clarified
  • I also wonder, given the sources take me straight to a graph on "popular votes" where UKIP got 12.6% of votes but 0.15% of the seats in parliament, if first past the post needs explanation too.
    • Added
  • "voted to leave the European Union (EU), ... votes cast in favour of leaving the EU. The UK did not leave the EU ...." again, not sparkling prose, repetitive.
    • Reworded
  • "The Conservative Party was officially neutral in the referendum..." this and subsequent sentences feel out of order in the chronology, you've already told us the result and that we went into a transition period before then going back to discuss Cameron and other Tory MP's position on the referendum, feels a bit muddled.
    • Re-ordered
  • I note at this point I don't think you've linked Prime Minister despite it being mentioned a few times.
    • Linked
  • "Sleaford and North Hykeham voted 61.6%" really "members of the constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham voted 61.6%"
    • I went with "voters in"
  • "a parliamentary vote (the government appealed the ruling)." the parenthetical clause is important, so could be a sentence in its own right, and also I imagine our readers would like to know the result of that appeal.
    • Added
  • "under Prime Minister Theresa May for failing" no need to reiterate she's PM, and you've already mentioned and linked her, so "May" would suffice.
    • Done
  • Conservative Association has an article.
    • Linked
  • "to attorney general" shouldn't that formal title be capitalised here?
    • Done
  • "Phillips' resignation" per MOS, that should be Phillips's or reworded to avoid such a horrendous construct.
  • Two sentences out of three in this para start "Phillips' resignation..."
    • Reworded one of those and added the s to the other
  • You link by-election here, but it's mentioned in the "Constituency" section.
    • Fixed

That takes me to the "Candidates and campaign" section. I'll come back soon for the remainder of the article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part ii

  • "lives near Sleaford" did you actually link the town of Sleaford yet?
    • Linked
  • "two other finalists" was there a downselection to the final three then?
    • Probably, but I can't find any information about it
  • "10 November; Evans withdrew because" instead of repeating "Evans withdrew" why not "10 November, the latter because..."
    • Done
  • "in 2015.[53] She had previously stood" all three were "previously", so I would merge these two sentences.
    • Done
  • "context.[56][9][57]" ref order.
    • Fixed
  • Do the majority of our readers know what a "postman" is (vs. say, a mailman)?
    • I think this falls under WP:ENGVAR (the term mailman isn't used in Britain)
  • "Candidates" section has an overdose of "stood", can we find any synonyms to mix it up a little?
    • Replaced some
  • "he also had some more serious political positions, such as supporting..." this reads strange because I think you're literally saying he had an opinion on Brexit rather than "more serious political positions"... (I think almost all Brits had an opinion on Brexit) still Monster Raving after all...
    • I've cut that; I don't think the minor candidates are that important
  • "campaign.[74][63] Brexit" ref order.
    • Fixed
  • "The party hoped to..." which one?
    • UKIP; clarified
  • "the constituency Richmond Park voted" perhaps "the constituents of..."
    • Done
  • "expected to win " by whom?
    • Added "by journalists"
  • ""betting odds on the gambling website Betfair had the Conservatives as clear favourites with the odds ..." you don't need the first "betting odds on" plus I would link odds.
    • Done
  • "Bus-Pass Elvis" -> BBC has "Bus Pass Elvis" (no hyphen) but the official UK Parliament website has it as "Church of the Militant Elvis Party", so perhaps be consistent with one source and footnote the difference between the two.
    • Done
  • Where is the +/- referenced in the table? The BBC source doesn't have that and the UK Parliament source just lists the change as the same as the %...
  • And the swing?
    • I think this falls under WP:CALC; I've added the 2015 results as a reference to the table
  • "won a large majority" what's large in this context?
  • There's a whole article dedicated to the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn which could be linked.
    • Linked
  • "winning a large majority over" again, not sure about "large" and would prefer numbers.
    • Added numbers on all occasions
  • "of May's Brexit deal on" I wouldn't have "May's" in the pipe.
    • Done
  • Be consistent with access dates for refs. If some online references have them, I would expect all of them to have them.
    • Added access dates
  • Why is BBC News italicised yet Sky News not?
    • Made consistent
  • Also, be consistent, whichever you choose, e.g. ref 33 compared to ref 34.
  • You link ONS several times in the refs but not BBC News or The Guardian for instance, what's the linking strategy?
  • In fact, it looks like you got fed up with linking altogether after ref 6....
  • No, hold on, you link LincsFM at ref 50 and The Conversation (once only) in ref 88! Pick an approach to linking all these publishers/works and be consistent throughout.
  • Ref 82 has Betfair in italics but the use of Betfair in the prose was not.
    • Fixed
  • Was there a source review?
  • I think Peter Barnes has an article...

That's it for the first pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, happy to support this nomination. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Willbb234[edit]

Looks like this FAC has been reviewed heavily so I'll try to keep this section brief.

  • The 2016 by-election for the House of Commons constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham in Lincolnshire, England, was held on 8 December 2016. It was triggered by the resignation on 4 November 2016 '2016' is mentioned three times in a short space of time here. I suggest removing one (perhaps the second?) as it is already stated it was in 2016.
    • Removed the second as you suggested
  • and the Labour Party candidate came second we know this person's name so is there any reason not to name them?
    • I don't think naming them would add much; they're not notable enough for an article, and they didn't stand in the by-election. If we included their name in the lead, I think we would have to include the names of the UKIP, Lib Dem and Labour candidates in the by-election in the lead as well, which would get a bit excessive I think.
  • In the infobox, you have notices that there is no image available for two of the candidates, but not the two at the bottom.
    • Added for all
  • he EU in the 23 June 2016 EU membership referendum any need to refer to the specific date of the referendum. How about just June 2016?
    • Done
  • Sleaford and North Hykeham has elected a Conservative MP since its creation. clarify that only Conservative MPs have been elected. Also, do you "elect a Conservative MP" or "elect a Conservative candidate". Let me know as I'm not entirely sure what the wording should be.
    • Changed to "has only elected Conservative MPs" (this sort of phrasing is used, e.g. here [41])
  • seucring 331 of the 650 total seats typo.
    • Thanks, fixed
  • first-past-the-post is overlinked.
    • Unlinked the second one
  • The 2015 general election occurred on the 7 May. I don't see any mention in the sources [42], [43] that it was 8 May.
    • Thanks for spotting that; fixed
  • Immediately after the referendum result was announced, Cameron resigned resigned from what? It's reasonable to assume he resigned the prime ministership, but it might be worth clarifying.
    • Changed to "resigned as prime minister"
  • In the 'Campaign' section, I'm not sure about the use of starting with a quotation as it might seem confusing for a reader.
    • Moved to the end of the section instead
  • The day before the election, the gambling website Betfair had the Conservatives as clear favourites with the odds of their victory being 1/10; UKIP were considered the next most likely to win with odds of 9/1 this sentence has a reference to the betfair website, which I wouldn't consider a reliable source. Unless a reliable source demonstrates that this has any particular relevance to the election, I would recommend removing.
    • Removed
  • which was described in The Guardian I suggest saying "by The Guardian" as 'in' usually refers to the print.
    • Done
  • A 2019 article in a Scottish newspaper we know which newspaper, so why not name it?
    • Added name
  • A 2019 article in a Scottish newspaper discussed whether the low turnout was due to the time of year, and concluded that the fact that the race was not close was also a factor; this needs some work. For example, you don't actually state whether or not the newspaper concluded that the time of the year was a factor, you only vaguely imply it in the rest of the sentence.
    • Clarified
  • Any reason why we need so much whitespace on both sides of the graph in the 'Aftermath' section? This could be pushed to the side and text moved to the other side.
    • I've changed it

Looks good. Let me know when you have responded. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:58, 8 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2021&oldid=1020710661"