Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2019

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 June 2019 [1].

---

Ceilings of the Natural History Museum, London

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

This is more interesting than it sounds, and takes in everything from the invention of chocolate milk, to the Boston Tea Party, to the religious significance of olives in the Church of England. The two botanical ceilings of London's Natural History Museum are one of the unheralded treasures of 19th-century art. They're also very hard to describe, let alone illustrate; the nature of their design means that there's no point from which the entire extent of the main ceiling is visible at once, their use of reflective materials mean they (intentionally) appear different from different angles and in different lighting, and they're too high off the ground and too fragile to photograph in detail without the use of specialist climbing robots. (Not to mention that from most vantage points, they're obscured by the skeleton of a dead blue whale.) To add to this, the records of its design and construction are lost, so we're not entirely sure how they were created and what everything depicted is actually supposed to represent. The Natural History Museum spent most of the 20th century loathed by architectural historians, so there hasn't been as much written about the ceilings as you might expect, but over the last 20 years or so they've started to get the attention they deserve. As far as I am aware, this article summarises everything of significance that's been written about them.

To pre-empt a few queries; no, I can't find a source for the exact dimensions of them, even in The Gilded Canopy which goes into obsessive levels of detail. (Because they're not flat, ceilings are hard to measure; Sistine Chapel ceiling also omits the dimensions.) On a first read, the initial sections appear to be full of non sequiturs, but those are background either as to why individual plants were chosen to be illustrated, or why Owen and Waterhouse came to build such an improbably large and fancy structure in the first place. For the larger of the two halls, I use "Central Hall" throughout, as that's the name it was know by for almost all its existence; it's officially "Hintze Hall" following a large donation from Michael Hintze, but aside from those occasions on which the NHM are contractually obliged to do so I doubt anyone has ever actually called it that. A number of the books cited are published by the NHM, but I wouldn't consider the usual WP:SPS issues to come into play; when it comes to the history of English botanical illustration the NHM and Kew are the only significant publishers, and it's not as if they have anything to gain from self-promotion in this case (nobody visits a natural history museum to look at the design of the ceiling). ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Drive-by comment Support from Victoria

Iridescent, you never fail to astound. This is amazing and I'm tempted to simply stamp it with an enthusiastic support but suppose I should do my due diligence, read from top to bottom, and nitpick to death, though I'm not sure I have the energy. Anyway, will put it on my watchlist and try to get back with some sort of criticism. If not, you and the coords are free to ignore this comment. Victoria (tk) 20:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No, nitpick it all you can; this was written in dribs and drabs over a period of more than a year, and it's entirely possible that either my train of thought shifted midway, or something that seemed obvious to me won't seem obvious to anyone else. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Iri Huge apologies for not getting back here earlier. Like all of us, I got distracted and am beyond demoralized but don't want to leave you hanging. I've read through twice, made some notes during the first read through and see that everything I noted has now been addressed. The only thing I might mention, but I'm honestly lukewarm and it's a preference only, is that the tables could be moved to a list article and expanded but that's enormous amount of work. Still, it would be beautiful. Also wanted to mention how wonderful the Google Cultural Institute site is. Wonderful work here. I've moved to support. Victoria (tk) 21:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I discussed splitting off the tables with The Rambling Man, in his capacity as The List Guy. We were both in agreement that given how niche this topic is, it would be pointless having two separate articles on it since anyone interested in one would also read the other; plus, so many entries on the list are references to the history and vice versa, one would end up duplicating most of the "historical background" material onto the list article anyway. (Most of the apparent non sequiturs in the background, such as Sloane's invention of chocolate milk, only make sense when the link to items depicted on the ceilings is made clear.) ‑ Iridescent 21:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that occurred to me. At first I thought of Bamses List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) and his other National Treasures lists, but each of those does include "historical background". So it's one or the other. In the end I think you made the right choice, but wanted to mention it. Victoria (tk) 21:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Image and source review

Well, that's a cornucopia of images; and there I thought one could not exceed the galleries in Parinacota (volcano).

• General comment: I think that the images of the tiles should probably explain what the copyright status of the tiles is. I figure it might be some flavour of PD-Old, the UK copyright templates on Commons are somewhat messy.
• File:Hans Sloane by Stephen Slaughter, 1736, National Portrait Gallery, London.JPG: Should be tagged commons:Template:PD-old-100 or somesuch to clarify the painting copyright (almost certainly lapsed).
• File:Richard-owen2.jpg: Source is a broken link.
• File:Terracotta monkey in the Natural History Museum Central Hall.jpg: Should probably be tagged as commons:Template:FoP-UK

It sees like all images are in good places. ALT text seems fine as well. WRT the references I didn't run any spotcheck, but they seem to be adequately formatted and reliable to me. I take the bibliography are the top-notch sources on the matter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The photographs of the ceiling and building won't be either PD-old or fall under FoP; they're copyright to whoever took them, and duly licenced as such. (Bridgeman Corel is a US case and doesn't apply in the UK.) FoP doesn't come into play here; that's the clause under which it's permitted to publish a photograph of a work that's still in copyright provided it's on permanent public display, but all the works here are long-since in the public domain. Regarding File:Hans Sloane by Stephen Slaughter, 1736, National Portrait Gallery, London.JPG, while it's clearly not "own work" as claimed by the uploader I'm not going to lose sleep over the exact tag Commons uses, as Stephen Slaughter died in 1765 so is not about to turn up complaining we're violating his copyrights. (That image is primarily there to break up a large block of text, and anything else from commons:Category:Hans Sloane can substitute for it if it's an issue.) File:Richard-owen2.jpg is a reproduction of an 1878 (i.e., definitely public domain) portrait in the National Portrait Gallery; in the wake of previous unpleasantness I'm extremely reluctant to upload anything directly from the NPG website. (There are lots of portraits of Owen, but I wanted to use this one as it shows him at the time the ceiling was painted; most portraits of him date from his period of greatest fame as the leading opponent to Darwin around the time of the 1860 Oxford evolution debate, and show a much younger man.) ‑ Iridescent 17:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the question about the ceiling tile copyright was because such a photo can have two copyrights, that of the tile painter and that of the photographer; the current file descriptions say that the photographer have licensed the file in a Wikipedia-acceptable way but there is nothing about any (now lapsed) copyrights on the tile. The other issues are also more technicalities about how the license(s) are stated, actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to get into attributing the panels in the individual image descriptions, as we really don't know much about who designed them. We know Charles Lea did the physical painting and we're fairly confident Waterhouse was primarily responsible for choosing the designs, but the records are lost; whether the designs were created by Waterhouse or by one or more of the British Museum's botanists, whether Owen was involved in their creation and selection or purely Waterhouse, whether they were original designs or ripped off from existing botanical illustrations, and what technique Lea actually used (e.g. whether he climbed the scaffolding and painted directly, or whether he painted at ground level and then carried them up) are all matters of speculation. In a Wikipedia article we can say Records do not survive of how the plants to be represented were chosen and who created the initial designs. Knapp & Press (2005) believe that it was almost certainly Waterhouse himself, likely working from specimens in the museum's botanical collections, while William T. Stearn, writing in 1980, believes that the illustrations were chosen by botanist William Carruthers, who at the time was the museum's Keeper of Botany. To create the painted panels from the initial cartoons, Waterhouse commissioned Manchester artist Charles James Lea of Best & Lea, with whom he had already worked on Pilmore Hall in Hurworth-on-Tees. Waterhouse provided Lea with a selection of botanical drawings, and requested that Lea "select and prepare drawings of fruits and flowers most suitable and gild same in the upper panels of the roof"; it is not recorded who drew the cartoons for the paintings, or how the species were chosen. How the panels were painted is not recorded, but it is likely Lea painted directly onto the ceiling from the scaffolding., but that's not something that fits easily into the {{Technique}} and {{Creator}} templates on Commons. ‑ Iridescent 20:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

We can probably safely assume that the designs are all public domain due to age, yeah? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In Commons-ese, the ceilings would fall under PD-old-assumed as we can't specify the creators with certainty; the architectural elements such as the ceiling arches, girders and sculptures would be PD-old-70 as those we can definitely attribute to Waterhouse and he's definitely dead. The whale could theoretically be subject to copyright if the NHM tried to claim (a) that their re-hanging of the skeleton in 2016 constituted a new "work of artistic craftsmanship" and (b) that because they may at some point decide to take it down again, it's not "permanently situated in premises open to the public", but if they seriously tried to claim that a 130-year-old dead animal constitutes intellectual property they'd be laughed out of court. ‑ Iridescent 22:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, commons:Template:PD-old-assumed it is for the ceilings. Regarding the skeleton, I recall a Commons discussion commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Dinosaur skeletons copyrighted? about whether reconstructed skeletons might be copyrighted; but that was for reconstructions, a copyright claim on a natural skeleton with no modification would probably be questionable even under sweat of the brow. Especially if the modifications were done 130 years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, do you have any thoughts on these? (The images aren't problematic—nobody's disputing that the paintings are out of copyright and all the photographers who took the derivative works have correctly CC BY-SA licensed them—but it's just a matter of whether and how they need to be re-tagged on Commons.) ‑ Iridescent 20:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the whale would have copyright protection. I'd definitely throw some kind of PD due to expiration template on Hans_Sloane_by_Stephen_Slaughter,_1736,_National_Portrait_Gallery,_London.JPG, a US PD tag on the 2D images that don't have one, and a PD-old-assumed tag on the tile images that don't yet have one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm certain the whale won't have copyright protection; the issue with dinosaurs was that since we don't know for sure how they looked, original thought was going into arranging their skeletons for display, but no originality goes into displaying a skeleton in its normal configuration. Unless anyone suggests otherwise in the next couple of days, I'll paste a piece of explanatory text onto the tile images, as I don't think Commons has templates for this situation. I assume we're all in agreement that none of the images are actually problematic. ‑ Iridescent 09:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Aye, I don't think any of the images is a problem, but I think that there might actually be a template for this: commons:Template:Licensed-PD where one can put in both a license for the photos and one to describe the tile copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Good find, I'll use that. ‑ Iridescent 09:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I think that's all of them; the only ones on which I haven't fixed the licensing are a couple uploaded by John Cummings when he was Wikipedian in Residence at the NHM, as the museum are obviously not going to contest those and there may be contractural reasons the specific tags used were chosen. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. This is a tremendous article. Only two minor points on the prose, neither of which affects my support.

• in the third para of the Background section something has gone awry with the possessive apostrophe in "the museums's holdings".
• in the Deterioration, restoration and conservation section: "erecting the scaffolding was additionaly difficult to avoid damaging the fragile mosaic..." – there is a typo, but on top of that I don’t think the sentence reads well. I always hesitate to suggest adding extra words, but I think perhaps this would read better as "erecting the scaffolding was additionally difficult because of the need to avoid damaging the fragile mosaic" or some such.

That's all from me. The article meets the FA criteria in my view. It is a splendid read, well and widely referenced, gorgeously illustrated and seems to my inexpert eye to be comprehensive. I enjoyed this and will be looking at the building anew next time I'm there. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, both fixed. If you're in the area, I do recommend taking the time to have a look at the ceilings—there's generally a long queue of school parties at the main entrance, but if one goes in the side entrance in Exhibition Road (the former Geological Museum) and walks straight ahead rather than following the escalator onto which they try to direct you, after passing a slightly disturbing exhibit of preserved avian body parts you'll emerge into Mary Anning's fossil collection which in turn leads directly into the Central Hall. The building itself is architecturally interesting anyway, as the combination of piecemeal development over 14 decades and its highly visible site makes it something of a museum of prevailing architectural fashions, but on that more later if and when I get around to it. ‑ Iridescent 15:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

SC

Lead

• "Designed by the museum's architect Alfred Waterhouse and painted by the artist Charles James Lea, they consist of 162 panels in the Central Hall, 108 of which depict plants considered significant to the history of the museum, to the British Empire or the museum's visitors and the remainder of which are highly stylised decorative botanical paintings, and of 36 panels in the North Hall, 18 of which depict a variety of plants growing in the British Isles." That's a mammoth sentence that carries a lot of information; it could be broken in two for ease of reading.

  (replying inline even though I know it annoys the delegates) Split, although I'm not entirely happy with the result as it means the word "ceiling" appearing five times in one paragraph

  (That's fine: I prefer it like this). You could make the last sentence "Painted directly onto plaster, they also make use of gilding for visual effect." It trims one away and still holds together?

  I'm reluctant, as that way it's not clear that Lea climbed up the scaffolding and painted directly onto the roof, rather than just painting the individual panels on the ground and climbing up there to attach them. ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Fair point. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• "The Natural History collections": As it's not a proper noun, shouldn't it be lower case (as you do in the last words of the same sentence and in a lower down section)?

  Technically it should be in uppercase as a proper name (officially the British Museum (Natural History) but nobody ever included the prefix), but I agree it's too confusing to use uppercase for the name and lowercase for the collections. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Background

• "free time in Jamaica he indulged his passion": which he? Monck was the last name mentioned

  Fixed ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Plans for a Natural History building

• The section title: "a Natural History building". Again, are we sure of the capitalisation on this? The first sentence talks of "the natural history department"

  In this context, the uppercase needs to stay even though it's confusing. The BM had four natural history departments, which together were moved to the Natural History building. (Although it's always informally been called "the Natural History Museum", officially it was just the Natural History building of the British Museum until it gained independence in 1992.) ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  That's fine, as long as you're consistent (I haven't checked if you are or not) - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• "(Only nine of the British Museum's 50 trustees...)": I'm never a fan of full sentences in brackets: perhaps as a footnote instead? And technically it should be nine and fifty, or 9 and 50.

  "Fifty" written in full. I don't particularly like sentences in parentheses, but I think this is a reasonable exception; otherwise, a reasonable reader will assume "the trustees of the museum approved Owen's proposal" means there was broad support for the building plan, not that only 18% of the trustees supported the plan but it passed on a technicality. I'm reluctant to relegate it to the already crowded footnotes where most readers won't see it.

• Seventy whales: I don't think this needs to be bracketed at all

  This was initially a footnote, but I thought it gave a good general idea of the scale of the building without going into dry dimensions so moved it up into the text. To me, without the brackets it seems a little disjointed—the other possibility, attaching it to the previous sentence, would make that sentence too long. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Alfred Waterhouse image – possibly move to the left, so he's looking "into" the article?

  That would mean having to alternate images left/right—you can't just have one image on the left and all the others on the right—and alternating images on a page with so much complex markup and indenting would make it unreadable. I've never really understood that "portraits should face the text" thing, which I've never seen or heard anywhere other Wikipedia and has always struck me as a WP:SNODGRASS rule. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Done to the start of the "Main ceiling" section. This is very readable and interesting stuff. – SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Replied on a couple - none of my comments so far have been the "you must" type, more along the lines of suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Continuing...

North Hall

• We have a large, luscious image of the central hall's ceiling centred in the age, but the North Hall has an equally luscious image in a smaller and side-lined position. Could this get the same treatment as the central hall image – comme ça?

  It could, but the North Hall section isn't really all that interesting. The golden ceiling of the Central Hall is a vast artwork representing the final flowering (sic) of creationism as a mainstream science, when botanical illustration was still considered a branch of theology and representing the Works of God deserved just as much respect as representing the Family of God; the North Hall ceiling is a fairly dull addendum that wouldn't look out of place in a provincial Wetherspoons. Plus (and more pertinently) we only have one photo that shows the whole of the North ceiling, and that's a poor-quality snapshot I took on my phone which probably wouldn't stand up to magnification. (Because it's now the canteen, the North Hall isn't easy to photograph; for the Central Hall you can lean off the balconies and get a clear line of sight, but photographing the North Hall means lying on the floor like a drunk with your camera pointed upwards, surrounded by people eating their lunch.) ‑ Iridescent 19:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm tempted to strike my support and force you pop down there and do just that! Next time I'm in the area I'll see if I can get another image for you. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's it from me. A lovely article - I wish we had space or allowance for more and larger images, given the beauty of the things. Nothing to stop me going to Support on this now. Cheer - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks… as per my reply to Tim above, I do recommend popping in if you're ever passing by; the museum itself isn't really up to much compared to its neighbours, but the building is an artwork in its own right. ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Cassianto

Claiming my place. Reading through now. Cassianto^Talk 18:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I will say from the off, ref 175: The date is in the American format, while all the others are BrEng. Consistency is key and while they should all be formatted the same way, BrEng has the edge, it being a British building. Cassianto^Talk 18:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Good catch; for some of the entries on the individual plants I used the references from the existing articles on the plants—there didn't seem a great deal of point tracking down new references for such trivial things as "hazelnuts come from hazel trees". ‑ Iridescent 18:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Background

*"Irish physician Hans Sloane..." -- BrEng does favour the definite article before names, and so do I, but it may fall towards personal choice.

• You've struck this but I'll reply anyway in case anyone else raises it—in this case I don't think the article is appropriate, as "The Irish physician" makes it sound like he was the only doctor in Ireland. ‑ Iridescent 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• "With the British Museum now established numerous other collectors began to donate and bequeath items to the museum's collections, which were further swelled by large quantities of exhibits brought to England in 1771 by the first voyage of James Cook, by a large collection of Egyptian antiquities (including the Rosetta Stone) ceded by the French in the Capitulation of Alexandria, by the 1816 purchase of the Elgin Marbles by the British government who in turn passed them to the museum, and by the 1820 bequest of the vast botanical collections of Joseph Banks." -- That is a hell of a sentence and I found myself tailing off and having to re-read it a few times. There's also, in my opinion, a heavy use of "by the". Too many for comfortable reading.

  I did it that way intentionally to try to give the reader an impression of the constant influx of stuff pouring in. It's splittable if you think it's problematic. Basically, it boils down to "they had a lot of random stuff dumped on them in quick succession which was too important to give away or hide in storerooms, but which they didn't have space to display". ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Other collectors continued to sell, donate or bequeath their collections to the museum, and by this time..." -- By which time? We mention several year ranges above and then in the next sentence, we skip back to 1809.

  Clarified; it was 1807 that they decided there wasn't enough space, but they didn't do anything about acquiring more space leading to the 1808–09 bonfires. ‑ Iridescent 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Plans for a Natural History building

• "...in 1856 the natural history department was split into separate departments of botany, zoology, mineralogy and geology departments" -- thrice repetition of "department(s)".

  Fixed, good catch ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• "...was unhappy with the museum containing botanical specimens at all" -- redundant use of "at all".

  I'm not sure about this. It's not unusual for a natural history museum to contain some plants even if it focuses on animals, in the same way that back before the Geological Museum and the Natural History Museum merged the NHM still had some mineral specimens on display. Owen initially wanted a specific Museum of Stuffed Animals with no botanical specimens whatsoever, which would have been a fairly unusual arrangement. ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Waterhouse's buildings

• "...although expensive to build, this was resistant to the acid rain" -- this? "It" sounds better if your meaning the building. Unless you're talking about the terracotta, in which case "this" could be used.

  It's the terracotta facing that's being referred to here; the theory was that although terracotta picks up dirt more easily than brick it doesn't erode, so no matter how bad London's pollution got the building could just be hosed down and the decorative carvings would appear good-as-new. He was ultimately proved right; the terracotta animals are still pristine. ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Central Hall

• Sorry, I may have missed it, but is there a reason why the Central Hall is being spoken of in the past tense?

  I've reworded the opening of this paragraph to start Central Hall was to be…, to hopefully make it clearer. At this point it hadn't yet been built; we're talking about Waterhouse's original plans which Ayrton was trying to veto. ‑ Iridescent 20:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Main ceiling

• "...or to the museum itself.[73] Each block of three columns depicts a different species, but all have a broadly similar design.[73] The central column in the lowest row depicts the trunk or stalk of the plant in question, while the panels on either side and the three panels of the row above depict the branches of the plant spreading from the lower central panel.[73]" -- Is there a need to keep citing the same reference after every sentence? This continues throughout the article, but in other areas, such as the smaller sections, you use just one.

  I'm inclined to keep the separate references here, as this section (about the composition of the main panels) is the aspect on which it's most likely someone will publish another book; plus, "all have a broadly similar design" is the kind of thing that sounds like it could be my own opinion so I ideally want to make is clear this is a referenced fact. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

North Hall

• "The display was not successful..." -- Orwell would argue that it is better to use one word rather than two, so "unsuccessful" would perhaps be better.

  No problem, done ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Stopping for now. I'm much enjoying this. Cassianto^Talk 20:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay. Read through the remainder today and could see no other issues. Support from me. Great article. Cassianto^Talk 20:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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 June 2019 [2].

---

Chevauchée of Edward III of 1346

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

An invading English army landed in Normandy in July 1346. During the next seven weeks it burnt and looted its way across France, coming within 2 miles of the walls of Paris. Every time it met French forces it defeated them, including at the battle of Crecy. It halted at Calais, which the English besieged and starved into submission over 11 months. Hopefully this is approaching FA quality, but I would be grateful to those who point out the no doubt multifarious ways in which it doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

A few things.

• The lede tells us all about the war, but not what they fought each other for. I gather the English put the French to rout, but you could tell us in the lede why they crossed the Channel in the first place.

I had thought the lead over-long already. I have inserted something, but attempted to keep it brief.

• "The Gascons preferred their relationship with a distant English king who left them alone, to one with a French king who would interfere in their affairs.[3][4]" I might cut the comma.

Done.

• "Although Gascony was the cause of the war, Edward was able to spare few resources for it and whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it had operated in northern France.[6] " I would put a comma after the first "it" (and maybe one after "continent") and omit the "had". Should the second "it" be "they" in BritEng? (ditto other times "army" becomes "it")

Done. (But not the proposed second/third comma.) So far as I am aware, an army becomes an it in standard BritEng.

• "despatched" While I can see this is proper in BritEng, I read that it's not the preferred spelling. YMMV.

Changed.

• "Derby, now Lancaster," I would explain this in greater detail.

Quite right. Apologies. My footnoted explanation had been moved to his first mention. Reinstated and a brief explanation added tot he main text.

• "Edward was not only morally obliged to succor his vassal, but contractually required to; his indenture with Lancaster stated that if Lancaster were attacked by overwhelming numbers, then Edward "shall rescue him in one way or another".[23]" Was the moral obligation simply the usual obligation of a sovereign, or something more? Which was considered more important? Whichever was, should come first.

The sources do not venture an opinion on relative importance, only noting that the formal nature of the indenture added to Edward's normal obligation to a vassal carrying out his liege's command.

• "hoped for total" does this require a hyphen?

Hyphens are my weak point. Thank you. Inserted.

• "Duke John of Normandy" we have not yet been introduced to this no doubt worthy individual.

"John, Duke of Normandy, the son and heir of Philip VI, was placed in charge of all French forces in south west France" in the section "French preparations". I have been strongly advised not to refer to him as Normandy, due to the obvious risk of confusion. So I have followed the lead of several RSs and referred to him as "Duke John after first mention. I have rephrsed his title at first mention to hopefully make things clearer.

• "After his surprise landing in Normandy Edward was devastating some of the richest land in France and flaunting his ability to march at will through France." I would avoid the double use of "France".

Good point. Amended.

• "The English men-at-arms had dismounted for the battle, and by the time they received the French charges they had lost much of their impetus.[101] " You use "they" to mean different things five words apart.

Whoops. Rewritten.

• "The two cardinals representing Pope Clement VI travelled between the armies, but neither king would speak to them.[114]" Starting the sentence with "The" means to me that we are supposed to have heard of these people before but I don't see that. Are these the envoys who Edward would not listen to earlier?

Ah, that is me being too close. They are. First mention amended to tie in with later mentions.

• "Recriminations were rife: officials at all levels of the Chambre des Comptes (the French treasury) were dismissed; all financial affairs were put into the hands of a committee of three senior abbots; the King's council bent their efforts to blaming each other for the kingdom's misfortunes; Philip's heir, Duke John, fell out with his father and refused to attend court for several months; Joan of Navarre, daughter of a previous king of France (Louis X), declared neutrality and signed a private truce with Lancaster.[126]" I think this should be broken up into at least two sentences.

You are quite right. I have broken it into four and I think that it reads better now.

• " it being all but impossible to land a significant force other than at a friendly port." Yet Edward just did so, as I understand it. A little less definite?

Yes, I have expressed that poorly. Now "it being widely considered all but impossible to land …"

• I might say a bit more about the terms of the Truce of Calais. I know there's a link, but given the level of detail you're going into, something might be said.

It is tricky to judge how much information is too much or too little for each area. I have tended towards being brief in those areas covered in their own articles, and providing more detailed information where it is not provided elsewhere on Wikipedia. I have quite possibly provided too much or too little information elsewhere.

I have expanded on the truce a little and included its main provisions. See what you think.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you ping me when it's ready to look at?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt:. Many thanks for stopping by to look at this, and for the thorough review. Apologies for the time taken to get back to you. All of your points above now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Support All looks good. Enjoyed the read.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the battle map

Done.

• File:BattleofCrécyVisualisation.svg: what is the source of the data represented by this image?

Well spotted. Thank you. Fixed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Hi, how do the images look now. Note that File:Philippe VI de Valois (cropped).jpg is new, although hopefully problem free. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Its tagging is redundant (we don't need life+70 when we already have PD-art with life+100), but that doesn't preclude passing. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, I shall note that for future reference. I wasn't sure, and it seemed best to be safe rather than sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

~CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Here we are again let me see what you got. ;)

• Normandy, and stormed and sacked Caen Link Caen.

Done.

• Derby, now Lancaster,[note 3]Sumption 1990, p. 476 Ehm what's this? Shouldn't the citation be in the note?

It should, it shoul. Fixed.

• France, as he had been the previous autumn.[18][17] Fix numerical order.

Done.

• extended to a requirement to also serve overseas.[26][24] Same as above.

Done.

• a chevauchée, a large scale raid American large scale.

I am guessing that you would prefer 'large-scale'. Let me know if I am wrong.

• After a furious argument with his advisors American advisors.

Oops. Thank you. Fixed.

• routed and pursued for miles.[103][104]The French losses No space between the citations and the next sentence.

Sorted.

• Also note one and three are totally the same.

Removed.

We're not done here

• encamped at Poissy, 20 miles (32 km) from Paris This is the second time that the article uses "20 miles (32 km)" in the body.

Fixed.

• A small force would sail for Brittany; Commanded by whom?

Who cares? IMO WP:IINFO applies.

• extremely slow progress of the Genoese may have been Link Genoese.

Good idea, but I have linked Genoa at first mention instead. Is that ok?

• River Somme overlinked.

Good spot. Corrected.

• During March and April, over 1,000 long tons (1,000 t) Link long tons. No short tons?

Correct - no short tons.

• total of 853 ships supported this force.[note 5][39] I believe both the note and citation should be switched.

Done.

• Edward repopulated the town with English, and a few Flemings. [141] Remove space between the sentence and the citation.

Done.

• The truce did not stop the on-going naval clashes Is on-going a word because some dictionaries say to me that that word doesn't exist?

No. Corrected.

• Ref 9, pp. 455–57. --> pp. 455–457.
• Ref 10, pp. 519–24. --> pp. 519–524.
• Ref 12, pp. 461–63. --> pp. 461–463.
• Ref 20, pp. 485–86. --> pp. 485–486.

All done.

• Ref 27, is Table 5 really a page of that book?

No. It is a table on page 208 which contains the information referred to. If information referred to in a cite is in a footnote, table or map, it is the usual convention to indicate this, in addition to the page number.

Nice piece of paper. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Thank you. And thank you for the use of your excellent eyes. Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Now we're done here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: and your new points addressed. Good stuff there. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

I'll look in again after a thorough perusal, but, before that, just a couple of points that caught my eye on a first canter-through.

• Chevauchée – nowhere is the term explained (unless I've missed it). I'm not wild about peppering a lead with footnotes and citations, but I think I'd make an exception and bung in an explanatory footnote from the first sentence of the lead, explaining the term for them like me as doesn't know.

The word is explained at first mention in the article - "Edward's aim was to conduct a chevauchée, a large-scale raid, across French territory to reduce his opponent's morale and wealth." Is that insufficient?

It is entirely sufficient. I missed it on my first read-through. Sincere apols. Tim riley talk 13:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• You twice have Edward succoring the Duke of Lancaster. Whether he suckered or succoured him I shall not be certain until I have read more thoroughly, but he certainly didn't succor him – a word unknown to the OED.

Fixed.

• I just found out that Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries claim that the word "succor" is an American English word. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It is little-known that Edward III held dual nationality, hence "succor" is arguably acceptable. Perhaps surprisingly, several of the more authoritative modern scholars of this topic are American and I tend to pick up their language without realising. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

More anon. Tim riley talk 10:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly two weeks ago I jotted down a few points to raise, but I see they have all since been addressed by other editors and the nominator. The only thing I can still find to attempt a quibble about is the inconsistency in giving a comma to various French nobs: John Duke of Normandy, but Raoul, Count of Eu and Geoffroy de Harcourt, Viscount of Saint-Sauveur. This, as you may imagine, is not a sticking point, and I am happy to support promotion of this top-notch article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't find a nob who hasn't already had his comma inserted Julian. Am I missing something? (There doesn't seem to be a "John Duke of Normandy".)

Thank you for your support. In case you are interested, my next FAC is scheduled to be Battle of Crécy. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahem! You're right, of course. Duke John of Normandy, not John Duke of Normandy, but (struggling to maintain a foothold in credibility) why is he that way round when the others aren't? (And, en passant, Round the Horne is of nante relevance here.) My support - back from the laundry - remains as firm as ever. Tim riley talk 15:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If you can write a sentence containing the words nob, comma and insert without thinking of Julian, then you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

Duke John of Normandy deliberately written like that, so when I abbreviate it to Duke John it will be more recognisable. It having been pointed out that following the normal convention and referring to him as Normandy would be confusing. Alternative suggestions welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

None from me. I flee the field in disarray, having first firmly registered my support. I look forward to Crécy. Tim riley talk 20:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Formats: There seems to be some inconsistency in the use of retrieval dates in the References list. Why the do Neillands and Williamson books need retrieval dates?

Removed.

• Quality and reliability: I wonder if the online Encyclopædia Britannica is the best source for this information?

It seems a RS to me, but removed anyway.

• Otherwise, the sources look to be comprehensive and of the appropriate scholarly quality in accordance with the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton. Thanks for picking this one up. Your actionable points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I wondered if you feel that the sources now meet the FAC criteria? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "It was a campaign of the Hundred Years' War, which began on 12 July 1346". This is confusing. I thought at first that you were saying that the Hundred Years' War started on that date. I suggest adding that the war was in support of the king's claim to the French throne, and then a new sentence about the start of the Chevauchée.

Good point. (The connection between the Hundred Years' War and Edward's claim to the French throne is probably beyond easy summary, and as the latter had nothing to do with the start of the former, or with this campaign, I have ducked it.}

• "slaughtering the population" This is not supported in the main text, which says that 5000 were killed, but does not say all the people were slaughtered.

5,000 was greater than the entire population of any English town apart from London; it was a (in)famous massacre. I don't think that slaughter implies a complete extermination. That said, I have cut right down on the areas where there is a separate article and may have overdone it. I have added a sentence to, hopefully, give a sense of the scale. What do you think?

• I have always taken slaughter to mean the same as extermination but the dictionary supports your view. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that Gascony and Ponthieu should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years." This is not my period, but was not the revival of Edward's claim to the French throne an important factor?

No. Didn't even come up until more than two years into the war. Very briefly, Edward claiming the French throne allowed him to recruit allies who had paid homage to Philip, or at least to the French king. They therefore weren't rebelling and so dishonoured, but upholding the claim of the "rightful" king. It was a transparent political manoeuvre which even Edward didn't seem to have a lot of time for. (Unlike his attitude to his claim to the Scottish overlordship.)

• "English taxpayers were exhausted." I know what you mean, but this sounds an odd wording.

Well, they probably were. Good spot. Reworded.

• "a year's income from all foreign benefices". What is meant by foreign benefices? English houses belonging to foreign monasteries or foreign houses belonging to English monasteries?

Ah. Good. The former. Tweaked.

• "Chancellor of England". This should be linked.

It should, it should. Done.

• "parliament". I think this should be capitalised as it refers to a specific body, although I know that editors often disagree about capitalisation.

I am happy to capitalise. Done.

• "some limited financial commitments were made" To or by the northern counties?

Good point. To. Added.

• "Despite Edward's efforts to obfuscate" You have not previously mentioned obfuscation.

True. I suspect that I am missing your point. I am not claiming that he continued to obfuscate. I am stating that he did obfuscate (unsuccessfully). How would you phrase it?

• My point is that I would take your wording to imply that you have previously mentioned obfuscation. How about something like "Edward attempted to conceal his preparations from the French, but he was unsuccessful."

Rephrased as: "Despite English efforts to conceal their preparations, the French were aware of them." OK?

• Fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• "he opportunistically sailed due south" This sounds POV. I would delete "opportunistically".

Apologies, I missed this one. Rephrased to 'he changed his plans and sailed due south'. The source says "When the King changed his mind is uncertain; it may not have been until he finally sailed on 11 July, with the wind still unfavourable for a voyage down Channel". If this still seems unsatisfactory, let me know. I have also changed the same word in the lead.

• "The towns of Cherbourg, Carentan, Saint-Lô and Torteval were destroyed". Were they really destroyed or just sacked? The article on Saint-Lô says that it was hit by the Black Death in 1347, so it must have survived.

Burnt to the ground. I used "destroyed" to distinguish from situations such as Caen, which was thoroughly sacked but not razed. The population of St Lo was, mostly, spared, so I assume that they spent most of the summer rebuilding. (Even Caen was hit by the Black Death, and probably less than 10% of the original population survived the English visit.) I could go with "razed", or "burnt to the ground", or "set on fire" if you prefer. There is source support for the use of "destroyed".

• I would prefer "razed", or "burnt to the ground" to "destroyed".

Razed it is.

• "On 14 August Normandy requested a formal suspension of the siege" I find it confusing to have him sometimes described as Duke John and sometimes as Normandy. It would be clearer if you kept to one name.

Well spotted. Thank you. I thought that I had weeded all of those. Gone. (And I have checked to ensure that there are no more.)

• "Meanwhile, the Flemings, having been rebuffed by the French at Estaires" What does this mean? That the French defeated Hugh Hastings's Flemings at a place called Eataires?

Essentially yes. A very minor defeat. Reworded slightly to, hopefully, make things clearer.

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Many thanks for looking this over, and for your comments, which are all addressed above. I look forward to the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Your two follow up comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• "These charges were disordered by their impromptu nature". This sounds wrong to me. Maybe "due to their impromptu nature".

Done.

• "being on the closest point of France to the ports of south east England, already strongly defended, a secure harbour and possessing established port facilities. It was also close to the border of Flanders and Edward's Flemish allies." I had to read this twice as "strongly defended" appears to refer to the SE ports. For clarity I suggest moving "on the closest point of France to the ports of south east England" to the end of the sentence and starting the next sentence with "Calais" instead of "It".

Done

• "Calais was strongly fortified; being surrounded by extensive marshes, some of them tidal, made it difficult to find stable platforms" This is ungrammatical.

Sorry, I can't see it. Could you point out just which bit is ungrammatical? Thanks.

• There is no subject for "made it difficult". I suggest "which made it difficult". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.

• "Joan of Navarre, daughter of a previous king of France (Louis X), declared neutrality". This is too telescoped. You need to explain that Joan was ruler and had previously supported France.

Done.

• "1,000 long tons (1,000 t). I would link "long ton" and what does "1000 t" add here?

Linked; in my view nothing, but if I remove it CPA-5 will object. Possibly the pair of you could reach a consensus and let me know what it is? (IMO a simple "tons" would suffice at this very approximate level of accuracy, with no convertions at all.)

• "Edward granted Calais numerous trade concessions or privileges" I do not think that the distinction between concessions and privileges will mean anything to most readers. I would either delete one or change to "concessions and privileges".

Changed.

• "The English also suffered a pair of military setbacks" I would prefer "two military setbacks" "Pair" implies a connection between them, which does not appear to be what you are saying.

Done.

• A first rate article.

Thank you. (In case you are interested, Battle of Crecy will be next up.)

Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dudley Miles. Your points addressed, including one query. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Grammar now, possibly, up to scratch. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Richard Nevell

I think we should be using a contemporary depiction of the French king rather than one from the 19th century. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: Good point. A 16th century image is as far back as I seem to be able to push it. Will that do? It seems to be the commonest older image of him; it was even used as the basis for his image on a 20th century coin commemorating him. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: The 16th-century depiction is certainly a step in the right direction, but what about File:Phil6france.jpg from c1336? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: *smile* That used to be my go to image for Philip, but in an earlier review of it (in a different article), it was suggested that it "needs more information or a better license, currently needs an author and date of death". As I don't really understand the comment, much less how to remedy the flaw, I took the easy way out. If you could point me in whatever direction I need to go I would be quite happy to undergo a learning experience. (I could also then reinsert it elsewhere. And not have to remove it from Battle of Crécy, which is due to be my next FAC up.)

@Gog the Mild: That’s an awkward request since the BNF doesn’t provide info on the manuscript’s scribe, which would suggest it’s anonymous. Not knowing who produced it shouldn’t be a problem given its age. Afterall we don’t know the names or dates of death of the people who made the Bayeux Tapestry! I don’t see that we’re going to get a more accurate licence than public domain due to it being a work of art where the author died more than 100 years ago. Maybe it’s because Jean-Marie Perouse de Montclos is given as the source?
It might have been scanned from the book, but the publisher won’t actually own the copyright, they’ll have got permission from the BNF. Helpfully their website says it’s public domain, though perhaps that’s just for the black and white version as some organisations claim a new copyright from the digitisation process.
It’s ended up a little thornier than I expected, so I am happy to leave this to your editorial discretion! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a well-researched and detailed article. I've popped a few other thoughts below in brief.

• Images We should be aiming for as near contemporary images as possible. At the moment there’s an 18th-century portrait of Edward III which could be replaced by his funeral effigy, portrait on a coin, or a manuscript drawing. Similarly, we have an 18th-century painting of Edward III crossing the Somme. There’s also a late 15th-century depiction of a siege. That’s close enough to the 14th century that I’m less concerned, but is there a particular aspect of the image which isn’t shown in a 14th century illustration? Keep an eye on the alt text as it’s easy to miss typos; the text for Philip VI’s portrait refers to him as Philip IV.
  The map showing the route of the English army is an excellent illustration. It might be worth noting on Commons where the information it’s based on comes from, like has been done with the Crécy visualisation.

Why should we be aiming for near contemporary images? And is that a personal preference or a Wiki-policy? Not arguing, or even necessarily disagreeing, just curious. (I was trying, this once, to get a spread of images over a few centuries, as a subliminal demonstration of the campaign's iconicness (iconicability?). But it was just a conceit; I am happy to change, in principle.)

That is an opinion rather than based in Wikipedia policy so I should explain my reasoning! It’s entirely reasonable to ask why I think we should use near contemporary images where possible. There are two main points the way I see it. Firstly, images reflect the understanding of the time period they were produced in. Hopefully readers will recognise that these aren’t literal depictions of events, and that even one produced in the 14th century isn’t going to be ‘accurate’ in a modern sense just because they were produced closer to the time of the events, but as historians communicating the past it gives a little nod towards how events were perceived at the time. Medieval artists had their own iconography to work with and tried to convey messages through their work, as did later artists. I don’t know much about West’s work, but (from quickly reading about him on Wikipedia) King George was a patron and while the French were working against England in the American Revolutionary War. That doesn’t take anything away from the artwork, but it brings a lot of baggage to the painting and layers of context to help understand it which aren’t directly relevant to Edward III’s 1346 campaign. Then there’s how people actually appear in paintings and the earlier you go in the Middle Ages the more egregious it gets, like a 17th-century artist showing William the Conqueror in plate armour. I’m not seeing something like that here, but… actually is there someone in gold armour on the French side? He seems to have fallen in front of the white horse.
Secondly, because Wikipedia is ubiquitous, any images used here have the potential to be picked up and used anywhere else. Someone who’s not familiar with the differences between late medieval, early modern, or modern art might not realise the images aren’t medieval so as a minimum a date needs to be included, as you have done with the West painting. Even so, it makes it easier for others to take out of context.
I rather like the idea of using the images to great an aesthetic showing that the campaign has sustained the interest of artists over time. That’s certainly valid, but I think it’s worth being explicit with that kind of thing. It is genuinely interesting that artists have returned to the subject over the centuries, and showing that through images is very powerful. My (entirely personal) preference would be to have broadly contemporary images at the start, and to have later depictions towards the end, probably in the aftermath section. That way the jump from text about an event in the 1340s to an artwork made centuries later is smoother as we’re looking at the legacy of the event. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I always put articles through the alt text viewer prior to nominating, but I am dreadful at regnal ordinals. I even have them on my checklist, but I still messed this one up. Thanks for picking it up.

@Richard Nevell: (Edit clash) I don't disagree with much that you have written above, but, unsurprisingly, the detail is more complicated. There are of course the licencing issues which rule some preferred images. With a military history article the first third or so is background and prelude. 'Action images' are usually only appropriate at the top of the infobox - I usually try to make this a contemporary one; the balance are images of the leaders, as they are introduced, and perhaps a general map. So going with images as one goes through an article is rarely an option.:::I entirely take your point about the pros and cons of 14th century images. However, they are often the worst in terms of authenticity. They are almost never actually contemporary, but date to 40-50 years after the 1345-47 period that I have recently focused on. They typically depict troop types armoured as they were at the time the images were made; so anachronistic amounts and types of plate armour etc. More modern images are frequently more accurate in this, and, as you note, other, respects.:::All of this said, I would like to use more 14/15th century images, where they are available and suitably licenced. (Although I have a personal dislike of coins in most circumstances. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Structure Chevauchée isn’t defined until section 3.1. Since we’re introducing a term the average reader won’t have come across we need to define it as soon as possible, which in this case means the lead. At the moment, based on the first sentence a reader might reasonably conclude that a chevauchee is a type of march.

Well a chevauchee is a type of march, so I am not sure that it is a major issue. However, you are, obviously, correct that I have got too close and assumed understanding. I have tweaked the first sentence of the lead, what do you think?

• Sourcing The sources are largely good, and Sumption is very detailed. Have you checked Hewitt’s The Organization of War Under Edward III, 1338-62 to see what relevant information could be added? Also, by a quick count of the 43 sources used only four have a female author which makes me wonder if there are gaps in the bibliography that haven’t been picked up on. Granted, some subjects have a better representation of female authors than others but worth checking. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hewitt - no. I confess that as the number of sources consulted went past three figures I encountered diminishing returns and a feeling that at some point I simply had to say "enough" and get on with the article. You may have noticed that I have made quite a few additions since it was nominated, as I was unable to stick to that resolution. As Hewitt is thematic rather than chronological it didn't make the cut for further study. A (very) brief skim doesn't suggest that was a mistake.

Female authors. I may well be missing your point here. 9% is pretty poor, although if you had asked me I would have named Anne Curry and then probably said she was the only female other. (Though isn't Corfis and Wolfe excellent? Corfis' sex had escaped me.) I am sure that there "are gaps in the bibliography", I would be an idiot to suggest otherwise, but I don't see how this relates to the author gender ratio; which possibly makes me an idiot anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

With the sourcing, I was using that as a quick check. There’s an imbalance in the number of female and male authors, so the question is whether it’s reflective of the literature on the subject or an unhappy coincidence. I think it’s probably the latter. At some point I’d like to upload bibliographic data on the Journal of Medieval Military History to Wikidata as Scholia can give a useful breakdown (eg) so it doesn’t have to be based on guesswork, but from an analogous area I’m interested in castle studies also struggles for gender balance amongst authors. 4 in 43 might not be too bad in context, but I thought it worth asking the question just in case. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Having had a rerun through the literature I struggle to find anything of significance I have missed. In particular I can't find any women authors who would particularly add to the article. This may well be my missing them in the fairly vast literature, but if I am, I am. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: Checking in to see if you have additional comments? --Laser brain (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Final comments

@Gog the Mild: The article covers the political history and logistics of the campaign very well. I think a little development of the social history that's woven through there article would improve it further. The key points for me are:

• Providing context that attacking non-combatants was not uncommon in medieval warfare;

Easily done.

• Tweaking the language around destruction. Can we include more on the human cost of the campaign? So 5000 civilians and soldiers were killed at Caen, but what about the other villages and towns?

The 5,000 casualties at Caen is the only actual figure given by either "contemporary" or modern sources regarding civilian casualties. Chroniclers of the time were even less concerned by the number of dead civilians than they were by the non-man-at-arms dead in actual conflicts. (Given your background I am sure that you are aware of this.) With a couple of exceptions it is not recorded whether broadly the English looted material possessions and left the French citizenry alone, or killed everyone in their path. There are not even many records of the number of people or men or households in the places sacked, much less the villages around them. And where there are, one RS warns that figures were frequently fabricated by town fathers to minimise tax demands. I would like to put in something more specific on this, but unless you can point me at a new source, I don't think that I can.

What I can source is something brief on the civilian refugee issue. Would you like me to?

I'm not too fussed by being able to quantify the number of dead (and would be suspicious of an estimate) but if we can find a way to emphasise the impact on people that would be good. A shame that the sources don't differentiate between people and property, but I'm not surprised. It probably says something about the world-view of the people writing at the time. Which leaves in a slightly tricky position, but I think adding something on the refugee situation would be worthwhile. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A bit on the refugee situation added.

• Also, the section does a good job of outlining the impact of the campaign on objects but what do we mean by 'razed'? My own research examines the destruction of castles in the Middle Ages and while the term 'razed' is sometimes used the destruction isn't as total as the word might lead readers to assume.

If you look above, you will see that the term "razed" was introduced at the request of an earlier reviewer. But they were making, I think, a similar point. @Dudley Miles: I have changed "razed" to 'set fire to', 'set on fire' and 'burnt'; is that ok by you? Richard?

That makes it a bit clearer (not least because it tells us about the method). Richard Nevell (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• On a related note, isn't a scorched earth policy about destroying potential food supplies to deny them to an enemy rather than carrying them off?

Right. The logistics of devastation. Firstly, Edward and his commander's priority was (obviously) gathering sufficient supplies to feed their horses and men (in that order). Destroying crops, orchards etc in situ is extremely time consuming, not to mention more work than most pre-modern soldiers could be persuaded to do unless closely supervised. The way to wreck countryside as a food generating resource is to slaughter the peasantry, but this is also easier said than done, population can be relatively readily moved in from elsewhere, and anyway there is no clear record that this happened: also see above. And peasants routinely hid as much food as they could, to avoid the gaze of their lords, their priests, tax collectors and bandits. What "devastation" as recorded in the chronicles probably meant - touch of OR here - is that: every movable valuable, which includes livestock and significant food stocks, was stolen, despoiled or killed; an unknown proportion of the unknown proportion of the populus who didn't get away were raped, tortured and/or killed; every building, including the ecclesiastical, was set on fire. But the chronicles say "devastated", I have followed suit. I have a reasonable mental picture of what this means, but no "contemporary" nor modern source to (clearly) back it up.

That's fair enough. I had in mind the sentence at the start of the 'March north' section: In anticipation of such a move, the French had carried out a scorched earth policy, carrying away all stores of food and so forcing the English to spread out over a wide area to forage, which greatly slowed them. 'Scorched earth policy' is very evocative, but I wonder if that phrase could be dropped as the sentence explains what the French did in any case. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sensible. Done.

• Discussing contemporary reception. If entire towns and villages were swept up in the destruction, this may well have affected churches, so how did the Church react? In a later chevauchee Edward III mandated that churches should be spared from destruction, which indicates earlier campaigns may not have been so selective. Is there a juicy quote from a chronicler that could be added in?

Edward issued orders from the start to spare ecclesiastical property, and on one occasion had several archers hanged for burning down a monastery. However, this was almost completely ignored; eg before the army had even set off from St. Vaast la Hogue the Abbay of Notre-Dame du Vœu, a foundation of Matilda, daughter of Henry I of England, was burnt down by Englishmen for the third time in 50 years. However, so far as the medieval and modern sources are concerned, this all seems to have been acceptable collateral damage. Clement complained bitterly about Christians fighting each other when they should be crusading, and in a more token fashion objected to Edward's forced loans on foreign benefices and Philip's stripping of churches of plate, but not about the looting and burning of churches etc during the chevauchee.

Back to your point. I could insert something about Edward's token order to spare ecclesiastical property, its ineffectiveness, using the Abbey of Notre-Dame du Vœu as an example; and working in the role of the Bishop of Durham, commander of Edward's rearguard, as an enthusiastic looter of churches. How does that sound?

Including that detail would be great. I think the reader will be interested in it, I certainly am! Richard Nevell (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Done.

• Those are the key bits, but I'd also suggest that when discussing the proclamation from Philip discovered when the English captured Caen it should be made explicit that it was significant because people back in England had stopped seeing a point in the war. It's mentioned earlier that Edward faced problems with support, and a reader going through the whole piece will be able to join the dots, but some readers might miss it or have only read this section so best to make it clear that it's a callback.

Umm. I actually fudged this a bit, if you read what I wrote carefully. Edward tried to use this to rouse popular sentiment - it is difficult to judge if he actually thought this would work. It didn't graetly. The French would despoil the south coast of England if they got the chance, as they had been doing throughout the war to date. Quelle surprise. The tipping point was the unprecedented victory at Crécy, and the French receiving a sound thrashing; that rallied support - as I hope I make clear. I get your general point, I think. I dislike leading the reader too much, but I could go through (re)emphasising the effect on the 'home front' of both monarchs' successes and failures.

In that case I'd be happy to leave it as it is. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Left as is.

Once that's tackled, I'd be happy to support this fine article. Apologies if anything is garbled or unclear, I'm writing this comment from my phone. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Richard Nevell, thanks for the thoughtful suggestions. I haven't made any changes yet. See what you think of my responses above and could you reply to my three queries in blue? Once we have agreed what I am adding or amending I will do it all in one set of edits. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Richard Nevell, I have, I think, addressed all of your actionable points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I reckon you have. I've switched to support and thank you for your patience and perseverance with the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the input Richard, the article is the better for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Query to coordinators

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hi all. To me it looks as if this one will be wending its way shortly, so I wondered if I might have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing! --Laser brain (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Mmm, I see the article has been moved not once but several times during this FAC. I moved it back to what I thought was the original name but it wasn't, and in fact moving back to the actual original (Chevauchée of Edward III (1346)) seems to be disallowed, but perhaps an admin like Wehwalt or Andy could do so we can just close this under the original name, let FACBot do its thing in peace, and then the current move discussion can continue and the article be re-moved to its heart's content... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a tag on top of the page that says I should not. And given the current fraught atmosphere on WP the past three weeks, I'd rather avoid any admin actions that might prove controversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd have thought the instruction not to move until the discussion finishes means not to move to the proposed page name, rather than not to move back to the original page name so as to close the FAC more smoothly, but I wouldn't press you to do anything that makes you unconformable. Hawkeye7, given the article name and the FAC details are out of whack, do I take I'll need to get everything here in sync with the current article name to permit FACBot to do its thing, or have you made allowances in the code for this sort of thing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bot makes some allowances, but it's always best to have everything consistent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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) 29 June 2019 [3].

---

Apollo 9

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Kees08 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the more forgotten of the Apollo missions, but still an important stepping stone on the way to the Moon.Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Driveby query by Support from Iridescent

Driveby query—I'll review this properly when I get the chance—but NASA public relations could not argue the names were inappropriate puzzles me and will presumably puzzle other readers, and ought to be clarified; why couldn't the PR department have ordered them to use Liberty and Opportunity or some such as the callsigns for the modules, if they weren't happy with their multi-billion-dollar program being called Gumdrop? ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The source says basically what we put, plus the additional information that PR weren't overly impressed with the choices.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can only go with what the sources say—it just seems odd that NASA PR didn't intervene given how closely the US space program was micromanaged. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Another source, Deke! (page 225-226), says "Nine would also be the first mission in years in which spacecraft had names instead of numbers. You needed them for radio communications when the command module and lunar module were separated. The command module was going to be Gumdrop and the lunar module was going to be Spider. NASA public relations people like Julian Scheer hated the names; I guess they weren't dignified enough. But the crew had picked them."

Moonshot (pages 227-228) says "Because two spacecraft were involved, to avoid radio call-sign confusion NASA allowed the astronauts to name their ships, lifting a ban imposed after Gus Grissom had tagged his gemini capsule Molly Brown. Some officials were not too pleased with the names selected by the Apollo 9 team, considered them not worthy of this noble effort. Assessing the shapes of the two vehicles, the astronauts named the lunar module Spider and the cone-shaped command module Gumdrop."

Two Sides to the Moon (pages 233-234) says "For some time there had been people in the astronaut corps pushing for us to be allowed to give our spacecraft names. 'No names, only mission number designations,' NASA had said. They gave no particular reason. At times, I think, they just lost sight of the human dimension of the program. But when it came to Apollo 9 we had two spacecraft, the Lunar Module and the Command Module. To communicate between the two, we had to have separate call signs. During training we had nicknamed the Lunar Module "Spider" because of its spindly legs and Spider became its call sign. The Command Module had arrived at the Cape on the back of a truck, wrapped up like candy in light blue Cellophane, earning it the call sign Gumdrop. When the media got wind of these call signs they adopted them as names for the two spacecraft. Bowing to the inevitable, NASA allowed all Apollo crews after us to name their spacecraft. The crew of Apollo 10 used Snoopy and Charlie Brown. After that NASA got a little more esoteric, insisting that the names bear more relation to the missions, hence the use of Columbia and Eagle for Apollo 11's historic mission. But there we were: Gumdrop and Spider. Five days into the mission and the time had come to fly the two vehicles separately."

Based on that wall of text, I removed Young from the list of who named Gemini 3 (it was in reference to Grissom's previous spacecraft sinking in the ocean and a play called The Unsinkable Molly Brown, which I think I should add since readers probably do not know...?). It also matches the Moonshot source. I changed up the wording, since I suspect the PR department did argue and just happened to lose the argument. What we do know is that they did not like the name, so I rephrased to "Personnel in NASA public relations thought the names were too informal, but the call signs ultimately gained official sanction." Addressing the original point brought up by the reviewer, NASA did tighten their rules on naming starting with Apollo 11. I could go either way on keeping that in there, as it is only tangentially relevant, but I think it helps the narrative and any confusion over permission. Do the two of you agree with my edits, and do you think I should add in the bit about the Unsinkable Molly Brown? I think it is confusing to the average reader why Molly Brown would cause NASA to stop allowing astronauts name their spacecraft for a long period of time. Kees08 (Talk) 01:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Molly Brown may remain in the public consciousness as she is depicted in the film Titanic.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I am one of the three people on Earth that has not seen that movie yet. It should be fine as-is then. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, proper review. This is the version on which I'm commenting; no image or source checks conducted. I'm assuming all the technical detail is correct as sentences like Efficiency was increased in the S-II second stage with uprated J-2 engines, and through a closed-loop propellant utilization system rather than Apollo 8's open-loop system make my brain hurt.

• Pet peeve and I'm not sure what (or if) the MOS says about it; as with many abbreviations (including FAC), of a LM jars with me when skim-reading as my brain tries to autocorrect it to "an LM". This is certainly not something over which I'd oppose, but maybe reword to avoid it even if it means saying "lunar module" in full; I'm sure Wikipedia won't fall apart if an article included an extra nine characters.
  • Technically it is in four spots, so 36 characters! I will leave it to Wehwalt to come to a decision on it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I've gone to "an" in the one case where I felt I could not smooth it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose I'm sorry; I've tried to be a good collaborator and go along with the Wikipedia style consensus deprecating the capitalizations classically used in the Apollo program for over 50 years, but this is too much when today's style consensus overturns something like this. The Apollo Command Module page explains (in the lead sentence and the Design phase subsection of History) that the lunar module was historically called by the pronouncable acronym LEM which was later shortened to LM, but everyone developed the habit of continuing to pronounce LM as "lem". Thus "a LM" ("a lem") is what in fact everybody said fifty years ago. (Or would you like to go and change that page too?) Changing it now, encouraging people to pronounce "an L M" amounts to original research, contradicting established practice. My apologies to everyone born too late to remember the original, or from outside the US. Please change it back. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I added a note explaining the pronunciation on it (I thought we had it in other FA articles but I struggled to find any instances). I changed it back to 'a LM'. Admittedly, even though I know it is pronounced LEM I still read it as LM each time I see it. I could see arguments for it both ways; hopefully this is a good enough compromise. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I admit also to hearing it as "el-em" in my head and also don't hear the previous program as "Geminee". Well, guess I don't have The Right Stuff. Is all this satisfactory, JustinTime55?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks. (As for the pronunciation of "Gemini", there's apparently ambiguous usage in different regions of the US. I too always herd "Gemin-eye" in all the public media. The astronauts apparently favored "Gemi-nee", especially Gus Grissom. I remember when I was younger, hearing a tape from the Gemini 4 EVA when Gus was struggling to get Jim McDivitt to tell Ed White to stop the EVA. I thought it sounded like he was saying "Jimmy-por, get back in!" which of course made no sense. He was just slurring "Geminee 4" real fast.) JustinTime55 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Glad you're happy with it, would you mind striking your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• If at all possible try to avoid starting a sentence with "But"; I'm not sure if the MOS explicitly bans it, but it Just Looks Wrong.
  • It was not needed in the one sentence I saw it in; removed. Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• their planned February 21 mission, which [Grissom's crew] named Apollo 1—our Apollo 1 article says this as well, but neither here nor there does who named it actually seem to be sourced (unless Scott & Leonov, pp. 193–195. serves as the source for the entire sentence). In either case, given that the first Gemini flight was Gemini 1 the convention had obviously been established by then.
  • Hooooo boy. At some point, I had seen so many different stories about it I wanted to document it on my userpage. Unfortunately I stopped working on Apollo 1 stuff around then, so still do not have a clear answer, but User:Kees08/Apollo 1 has a source that says they were referring to themselves as the Apollo 1 crew (I think before it was officially named that..but not sure). Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

    We could simply say, "to be called Apollo 1", which avoids the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

    I believe the statement is accurate as written; I updated my userpage linked above recently to show more examples of how it was named. Kees08 (Talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Extreme pedantry alert: re the first Apollo crewed mission to go into space would be Apollo 7, was Apollo 7 not the first Apollo crewed mission, period?
  • Technically Apollo 1 was, but did not make it to space. Kees08 (Talk) 22:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• John F. Kennedy's goal of people walking on the Moon and returning safely to Earth seems to me to be a Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment case; readers can surely assume that Kennedy's goal wasn't for people to walk on the Moon and die on re-entry?
  • There was a bit of discussion at the A-class review of Apollo 11 regarding how much we should emphasize the 'safely to Earth' bit. Looks like we ended up leaving it in five places (once was the intro). I suppose that essay could apply, but for whatever reason 'safely to Earth' was heavily emphasized during the Space Race, so we should probably keep it here. It was even mentioned by Nixon when he was talking to them on the Moon! If you have strong feelings one way or another let me know, but I would be inclined to keep it. Kees08 (Talk) 22:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I've always taken the "safe return" to exclude the early scenarios where someone would be landed on the Moon and maybe they'd get him an ascent rocket later. Just soft landing someone on the Moon without worrying about getting him home is a less complex thing, and Kennedy's goal was more than that, to bring the person home safely, meaning you need the two-stage LM among other things which complicated the task. So yes, I would leave it in as an integral part of it, though it is sometimes overlooked.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I can understand not linking Chicago but linking Neptune, New Jersey, but in that case do we really need to link San Antonio, Texas?
  • Agreed, removed. Kees08 (Talk) 01:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• McDivitt's crew was among the best trained ever to fly—is this within the Apollo program or within the space program generally, and is it still considered the case or were they just the best-trained crew up to that point?
  • Wehwalt: I think unless other sources say the same thing (they might!) we should include a caveat, something like 'according to Burgess and French'. I will see what I can find in other sources tonight. Kees08 (Talk) 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I've done something with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Same issue about "stand-up EVA" as I raised on Scott's biography; the general readers who will see this article if it's TFA will likely have no clue what it means, and assume it means "standing on the lunar surface". (The article is also inconsistent between "stand-up" and "standup".)
  • Good catch for both; made them all stand-up and added the note explaining what it is. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• On the same note, we have During his stand-up EVA, Scott did not wear a PLSS but EVA hasn't been mentioned up to this point.
  • Did you mean extravehicular activity had not been defined properly? I just added that into the article. Kees08 (Talk) 01:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• The astronauts slept well, but complained of being woken by non-English transmissions, possibly in Chinese—I appreciate the sources may not exist, but with the benefit of hindsight have we any idea what was going on here? Were the Chinese intentionally trying to sabotage the mission, or was NASA accidentally using the same frequency as Radio Shanghai?
  • I can find no other source that mentions this; the closest I got was that they were awoken that night due to a hydrogen system alarm. Do either of you have access to NYT? I would love to be able to read the article. I am inclined to remove it at this point, but will not until I can see what the NYT article says. Kees08 (Talk) 02:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I can send it to you but you have to send me an email first through the system as I can't send an attachment through the system. It says as follows "They complained, however, of some strange radio noises awakening them during the night when they passed over Southeast Asia. They had apparently picked up a flight control tower, perhaps in the war zone of Vietnam. (paragraph) 'Seems like we were going over some station that was transmitting from a tower clearing people to land,' Colonel Scott said, adding "and the first couple sounded somewhat like Chinese.'"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, with that I was able to find it in the transcript (around page 76, PDF page 78. At work now so will look at it after. Kees08 (Talk) 21:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find anything about the cause of this, all I see is that they turned off their radio overnight to prevent it from waking them again. Not sure if we should include that or not. Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It's basically color, if you know what I mean. Material to interest the reader in what is necessarily a rather dry article about one of the most obscure Apollo missions, if not the most. I don't think we need say they turned off the radio the next night.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Re NASA officials predicted that Spider would remain in orbit for 18 years, given that it actually re-entered 11 years later, have we any idea why their prediction was so far out?
  • Hrm....I have JSTOR access but for some reason the cited article will not load for me. What does load is Drew Ex Machina and Apollo by the Numbers (page 57), which both say it was expected to be in orbit for five years and that it stayed in orbit longer than predicted (with no reasoning specified). Wehwalt, do you have access to the journal that says 18 years? I will keep perusing sources to see if other numbers pop up... Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Further evidence that five years was the prediction, page 7-3 of the mission report says "The final orbit for the ascent stage was 3760.9 by 126.6 miles, with a lifetime of 5 years." I am inclined to change it unless Wehwalt has any conflicting evidence (including the journal I cannot seem to open). Kees08 (Talk) 00:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I was mistaken. It actually says "Officials predict the ascent stage will not reenter earth's atmosphere for 19 years." I've modified it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

These are all minor queries and "this isn't entirely clear to me" issues rather than anything problematic (under normal circumstances I'd just put them on the talk page, but I'll list them here to avoid other reviewers having to repeat them), and I have no issue with supporting regardless of whether they're addressed. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Seems like each image is in a reasonable space and also reasonably licensed (File:Apollo 9 Command Module.jpg and [4] resemble each other, but the latter is slightly cropped compared to the former, so not likely its origin). No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I was inclined to agree with you, but looking at their other uploads, the dates are reasonably far apart that they may have visited all those museums, and none of the others match Alamy stock photos. Additionally, Tineye says 'first found' for the Commons photo Oct 20, 2012, and the Alamy photo on Dec 19, 2017. I just realized I misread what you wrote, and you thought the Commons file was the original. My last point was going to be the cropping issue, but I see you already raised that. So we are in agreeance! Thanks for the review; I have been considering swapping a couple of photos and if I do I will give you a ping to re-review them. Also, I will be adding alt-text throughout the nomination as I find time. Kees08 (Talk) 21:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Apologies for changing some, but we swapped out three photos (listed below). Let me know if you need anything changed with the new photos (I still need to add alts). Kees08 (Talk) 05:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• File:Apollo_9_backup_crew_water_egress_training_(S68-51700).jpg → File:Apollo 9 Mission Control (S69-26107).jpg
• File:McDivitt, Scott and Schweickart in preliminary training for Apollo AS-258 mission.jpg → File:Apollo 9 crew training (S68-55272).jpg
• File:Schweickart spacer kosmiczny GPN-2000-001108.jpg → File:AS09-19-2982 (21290651233).jpg (file rename in progress)

  Seem all fine license-wise, I've actioned the rename request by the way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you! I was looking into filemover rights but I do not think I qualify. Appreciate the move. Kees08 (Talk) 18:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute! I didn't catch that you replaced the image of the crew training for AS-258 (in CSM-101) with what is obviously a later one, probably in the spacecraft they flew in (CSM-104). That picture was deliberately added because it drives home the point that McDivitt's crew started their training before the Apollo 1 fire. It makes a difference, because even the Block II spacecraft didn't have the anti-fire fixes made after the fire, and they were going to fly in a older version of the spacesuit without the anti-fire fixes (notice the blue color). I would really like this picture swapped back. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I was going back and forth on that when I was deciding, for those reasons. The reason I went with the one in the article now is because I wanted a photo that showcased the 'blue gumdrop'. I think what I might do is revert the picture as you suggested, and then replace File:AS09-20-3104 (21315590814).jpg with this gumdrop photo. We lose the interior shot of the capsule, but I think illustrating both the names is encyclopedia-ly important to the article. Thoughts? Wehwalt? Kees08 (Talk) 20:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Move the one of the CM interior to later in the article, maybe in place of the CM on the carrier? I mean, we have the shot of the CM in the museum right after that, we can spare the carrier shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the carrier photo made more sense chronologically, but it does not really matter, so I made the switch you suggested. Kees08 (Talk) 06:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe put back the carrier photo, and put the one of the CM interior in place of the one showing the LM on the S-IVB? That one isn't so wonderful at thumbnail size.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by SchroCat

• Support. I had my say at PR, and a further review now shows the article has been strengthened even further. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• Verifiability

• Ref 5: I don't understand the attribution to "Jonathan McDowell" ("Jonathan's Space Pages"). The source is a wall of figures from http://planet4589.org/space/log/satcat.txt. What information from the infobox is this source confirming?
  • Since the apogee, perigee, inclination, and period change over time, a single point in time is selected for orbital parameters, known as the epoch. In this case, on March 5, 1969, the parameters are as described in the infobox, but a different date would yield different parameters. To use the page, use ctrl+F with the COSPAR ID (1969-018A). The three numbers below it (204 x 497 x 33.83) are the perigee, apogee, and inclination (in km, km, and degrees, respectively). The 91.55 minute period is the far right column. Let me know if you need anything else on this, hope that helps. Kees08 (Talk) 05:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• • Well, that's clear! I still don't understand why the site is attributed to McDowell, but... Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• LOL!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Links

• Bibliography: Brooks et al 1979: the main link does not seem to be working ("unable to connect")
  • To here? Works on my machine, let me know if you meant a different link Kees08 (Talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• • It's working OK for me now. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ditto Compton 1989
  • To here? Same as above. Kees08 (Talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• • Working also. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Otherwise, all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool

• Format issues:

• Ref 16: template error
  • Fixed Kees08 (Talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Ref 33: "p. 3-2" is a little confusing – looks like a p. range, but isn't; it's how the report is paginated, unfortunately. Same issue on other Mission Report citations, but I suspect that little can be done.
  • Is what it is, unfortunately. Kees08 (Talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• • Ref 80: space missing between pages nos
    • Thanks, fixed Kees08 (Talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Quality and reliability:

• Ref 54: What makes "Jonathan's Space Report" a high quality, reliable source per FA criteria?
  • Well, besides the owner's good taste in definitions for the boundary of space, he gets cited in the media, like Space.com and The New York Times for example. I bolstered one of his citations with a book citation, but I prefer his more-exact definition of SEVA so I would like to keep it. For the orbital parameters in the infobox, I can use his space report or NSSDC, I do not have a preference. Kees08 (Talk) 05:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Likewise ref 97: "Heavens-Above"?
  • That falls under the 'I think it is because it is an often used free satellite tracker but I do not have an actual good reason' category. So I switched it up with n2yo.com, which in their terms of use say n2yo.com is a website providing mainly satellite tracking Services. Thousands of objects can be tracked in real time. The software used for tracking is using mainly space surveillance data provided by "Space Track", a website consisting of a partial catalog of observations collected by the US Space Surveillance Network, operated by US Air Force Space Command (AFSPC). AFSPC does not make any warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of the data provided and does not endorse any product or service that utilizes its data. n2yo.com is an authorized redistributor and the license is renewed annually. In special circumstances for a few satellites the traking data ("keplerian elements") are derived from public sources (monitoring or visual observation). Which means they use data from the US Air Force Space Command. Kees08 (Talk) 05:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I believe I attempted to address all your points above. Thanks for the review, let me know your responses. Kees08 (Talk) 05:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Looks good - a couple of minor quibbles...

• , its major purposes were to qualify the LM for lunar orbit operations and to show that it and the CSM could separate and move well apart, before rendezvousing and docking again - "purposes" reads oddly here..."aims"? "accomplishments"? - also "qualify" seems an odd verb to choose.

• Apollo 9 was deemed an unqualified success - this sentence strikes me as redundant and possibly labouring the point as the next sentence says the same thing (as a quote)

Thanks, Cas. I think I've gotten those. Let us know what you think. I've piped "qualify", the article on flight qualify won't be at FAC anytime soon but it will do until something better comes along.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I did not know that use of the verb. the link is good. All good now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review ask support.

Comments by Praemonitus

Support: Thanks for addressing my concerns. Overall it looks to be FA quality. Praemonitus (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I just have a couple of minor quibbles:

• "The next task was to demonstrate that two docked spacecraft could be maneuvered by one engine." Was the SM SPS engine used for this? It seems likely, but is unclear.

Yes, the SPS. I will add it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• The article could use a good quality illustration showing the stack formed by the CM/SM docked with the LM. Is it possible to add something like this?

I don't know where such a photo could be taken from. The astronauts could not have done so, since they did not go away from the stack to a place where they could. Kees08, any thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

An illustration isn't a photo. Praemonitus (talk)

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Let me look through the Apollo 9 press kit and mission report and see what I can find.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Such a drawing certainly exists, and is currently in the Apollo 13 article. The CSM/LM configuration is fairly generic and is not labeled as exclusive to Apollo 13. Why not use that? JustinTime55 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It's better than the one in the Apollo 9 press kit which is fairly crude by later standards. So I'll import it. Thanks for the suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Praemonitus, thank you for the review and the support. It is nice to have reviewers who know one end of a Saturn V from the other!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we're up to date and there is a likely consensus for promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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) 29 June 2019 [5].

---

1999 FIFA Women's World Cup

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The eighth Women's World Cup kicks off next week in France, but twenty years ago, the tournament was played before massive crowds in the United States that launched women's soccer into the national mainstream. I overhauled and expanded this article a few weeks ago and think it is worthy of FA status, pending small touches here and there. I'm hoping to have the entry make it to TFA in time for the 2019 final or the 20th anniversary of its final, both of which fall in early July. Cheers and go USWNT! SounderBruce 01:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments – Here's a first batch from the early part of the article; I'll read the rest later.

• Venues: We say in the lead that the 1996 Olympics led to a level of expected demand that caused the usage of football stadiums, but this section doesn't really back that up in any way. It just says that the 1996 tournament was successful. We shouldn't have content in the lead that isn't repeated in the body, so this should probably be added in this section.
  • Fixed.
• Qualification: I take it that the two berths allocated to North America included the U.S., even though they didn't have to play in the qualifier? That's the only way the second-place North American finisher could wind up in a playoff.
  • The 2003 tournament had the same allocation (2.5 for CONCACAF) prior to the change of hosts, so I assume that this was the case for 1999 as well. I'll have to tweak the wording and order to make this clearer.
• Media and marketing: I'd remove the "also" before "cross-promoted", since that's basically a duplication of "and" right before it.
  • Fixed.
• Group B: Was this meant to exclude the quotation marks around Group of death, which had them earlier in the article? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, and fixed. Thanks for the first round of comments, looking forward to the second (after my flight). SounderBruce 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Final: "and witnessed by an estimated audience of 17.9 million television viewers in the United States, which peaked at 40 million." If the 17.9 million figure is an average, that should probably be stated to avoid confusion. Otherwise it gets confusing with the two different numbers.
  • Fixed.
• If memory serves me right, there was some controversy over Scurry taking an early start on the penalty she saved. It's not something worth dwelling on here, but do you think it's worth a sentence in the final summary?
  • I'm saving that for the article on the final, since it hasn't had the same cultural impact as Chastain's celebration or the team's achievement.
    • Seems like this was raised by another reviewer below. If they're all right with excluding it, then I will be as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Giants2008: I have added a short sentence about the controversy, since it doesn't seem like it would be that big of a deal in retrospect. SounderBruce 00:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• "Television ratings for the tournament were especially high". This should probably clarify that it refers specifically to the U.S., unless the sources say something about other countries.
  • Done.
• The 17.9 million viewers figure is repeated here. If you want to keep this, I'd suggest a rewording t something like "—the 17.9 million U.S. viewers was the largest audience...".
  • Fixed and dropped the extra link to 2015 while we're at it.
• We should have a link available for the 2000 Olympic tournament, which would be a nice little addition.
  • It is already linked twice in the Qualification and Quarter-finals sections.
• I see the full Major League Soccer name given in several places, here and earlier in the article. Would it be worth abbreviating it after first usage, as is done for the WUSA?
  • I don't think abbreviating it would be worth the hassle, since it's only used a handful of times and the full name isn't a mouthful like WUSA's.
• "and ended with a victory for Germany while the United States finished in third place." The American finish was already mentioned earlier in the section and probably doesn't need to be repeated here. If you want to keep the sentence length about the same, you could mention something about the final, which was competitive IIRC.
  • Done.
• Statistics: Is the award called the Golden Boot or the Golden Shoe? I see both in the article. And was there an assist tiebreaker for the award?
  • Fixed.
• Purely optional, but a link for ref 13 is available here if you're interested. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Would rather keep it unlinked, since I think that version differs from the printed version I sourced the fact from.
  • Thanks for the comments. I believe that I have addressed your concerns; sorry about the delay—I have only just finished unpacking. SounderBruce 05:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC) @Giants2008: Courtesy ping because I forgot how the template works. SounderBruce 02:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Support – After the fixes here and elsewhere, I'm satisfied that this article meets FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thought Comment I don't know if this would look better but maybe have the group reviews above the table instead of below it. HawkAussie (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I experimented with this earlier and decided that having two different template sections next to each other was awkward and less desirable. SounderBruce 05:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

support by Lee Vilenski

• I was surprised to see no England at the world cup, considering they finished third in 2015, then I saw 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA), and it was the most confusing article I've seen. Regardless, here's a few things I saw.

• • I'd like a little more background on the competition. It's only been held twice before this time, so it's quite important in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That would belong in the main FIFA Women's World Cup article, but I did add a sentence to the Host selection sentence.
  • It took place in the United States at eight venues across the country from 19 June to 10 July 1999 -> The world cup was held in eight venues across the United States from 19 June until 10 July 1999. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Reordered the sentence in a different way.
  • Could host selection and venues be under the same supersection, of "Host", or "Location"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd rather keep them separated, since the host selection process was a full year before the venue bidding.
  • Is the large space in the Qualification section needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Just a quirk of the formatting used there, so I have removed it.
  • It was televised live by ESPN during the halftime of an exhibition match between the United States women's team and the FIFA Women's World Stars that was being played at the stadium. - Was this broadcast anywhere else? Eurosport, BBC, etc? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I only have access to a handful of non-U.S./Canadian sources, and they don't really have any coverage of the draw, let alone broadcast information.
      • List of FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasters lists a few places broadcasting the event in places like Paraguay. No idea how it is sourced though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The match officials section seems a bit weird. Are they all notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It is pretty standard for football tournament entries to include a list, which I have supplemented with some appropriate prose (since this was the first time an all-female roster was used).
      • I was thinking more WP:REDLINK. Are they all notable referees? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Generally, top-level football referees are notable enough for their own articles, but their quality is usually limited by the lack of secondary sources. I managed to scrape together a good amount for Im Eun-ju, but others might be harder. SounderBruce 03:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The top seven quarter-finalists also qualified for the 2000 Summer Olympics alongside hosts Australia, who were eliminated in the group stage.[23][117] Russia were the only quarter-finalists to not qualify for the Olympics, having the worst goal difference of the four losing teams.[118] - Why was the Olympics qualifiers the same as the world cup quarters? The wording doesn't quite make sense, as the goal difference of Sweden is actually worse (+3 in group, lost by 2 in quarter = +1 plays +7 -2=5.) I would assume this means that Russia had the worst result in the quarter-finals only (IE, they lost by 2, and didn't score.) Was there any information on what would have happened in case of a tie? 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The qualification was decided by the following order of tie-breakers (according to FIFA): goal difference in the QF (Russia and Sweden were tied at -2 GD), then goals scored (Sweden scored once, Russia did not), then group stage performance (points, goal difference, goals scored), and finally Fair Play rankings and a draw of lots. I have rewritten that section to include these tie-breakers and make things clearer with a new source.
  • Are Awards not part of statistics? Similar to 2002 FIFA World Cup? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I prefer to have them separated.
    • @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for your comments. I believe I have answered all of your questions about the tournament, though the decisions of FIFA in the 1990s and 2000s usually cannot be explained. As for England not qualifying, European teams usually qualified by placing first in their group (after seeding and a draw) and the rest were just left out; the qualification article does need some cleanup, especially with coloring of teams. SounderBruce 06:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The bit about England is confusing, as they somehow finished bottom of their group, but still got a playoff? Unless I'm reading that wrong. I'll likely support this, however I'd still like more of a background to the event. As much as detail should be on the main tournament, the article should be broad enough to be readable on its own. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
        • • @Lee Vilenski: I have added a paragraph of background information on the tournament's origins, and will come back to refine it a bit more later. SounderBruce 02:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sportsfan77777

Lead

• FIFA needs to be spelled out as Fédération Internationale de Football Association somewhere in the lead (probably the first paragraph)
  • Few, if any, tournament articles actually spell out the full name of FIFA in the lead. I don't think it's necessary, but I am adding a link to the article.
• "The United States won the tournament by defeating China in a penalty shootout after a scoreless draw, with the winning penalty scored by Brandi Chastain in the fifth round."
  • This is the "noun plus -ing" problem.
  • It's not a scoreless draw if it ended in a penalty shootout.
  • Also, I think it's worth mentioning Chastain's moment in the lead.
  • Lastly, I think the outcome should go first before the attendance record.
  • I suggest for the whole paragraph: "The United States won the tournament by defeating China in the final in a penalty shootout. After the match remained scoreless through extra time, Brandi Chastain scored the winning penalty to give the United States their second FIFA Women's World Cup title. The image of Brandi Chastain celebrating the winning penalty was featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated and became one of the defining images of women's sports in the United States. The final was played at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California and set an international record for most spectators to watch a women's sporting event with an attendance of 90,185. Overall, Chinese forward Sun Wen and Brazilian forward Sissi were the joint top goalscorers of the tournament, with seven goals each."
    • I'd rather have the attendance record first and would rather not have a sentence about Chastain's celebration (as it is not absolutely vital for the lead). The still-standing attendance record is more important in the context of this tournament's long-term legacy.
• "and played for three seasons before folding" ===>>> "and operated for three seasons before folding"
  • It operated for longer, in a business and planning sense, so I've just dropped the "for".
• "after China withdrew" ===>>> "after China withdrew as hosts"
  • Omitted because it's a detail that doesn't have important relevance to this tournament.
• "playing in smaller venues and unable to repeat as world champions." ===>>> "playing in smaller venues and were unable to repeat as world champions."
  • Half done.

Host selection

• The United States Soccer Federation announced their intention to bid for the 1999 tournament in February 1995, shortly after hosting the 1994 men's World Cup. ===>>> The United States Soccer Federation announced their intention to bid for the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup in February 1995, shortly after hosting the 1994 men's tournament.
• The tournament had been hosted previously by China in 1991. ===>>> China had hosted the first edition in 1991. (passive voice)
• Sweden hosted the 1995 tournament whose games were played under the Women's World Cup name in small venues to little media attention. ===>>> The next edition hosted by Sweden was the first to be played under the Women's World Cup. Matches were held in small venues and attracted little media attention.
  • I'm not fond of breaking things up even further, since I wanted this to only be a single, short sentence in the first place.
• the same day that the 2002 men's World Cup ===>>> the same day that the 2002 men's tournament
  • It's important to have a distinction between the women's and men's editions and also use their official names.

Venues

• Eight venues were used for the tournament, located in Chicago, on the East Coast, and on the West Coast. ===>>> Eight venues were used for the tournament: three on the East Coast, four on the West Coast, and one in Chicago.
  • Done.
• limited to a single time zone <<=== missing a period at the end.
  • Fixed.
• announced on 19 November 1997, including five large American football venues ===>>> announced on 19 November 1997 and included five large American football venues
  • Not done. I think it's best to leave it as is.
• 1994 men's World Cup ===>>> 1994 World Cup
  • Not done. Again, distinction is important.
• The tournament final was awarded to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, reprising its role from the 1984 Summer Olympics and 1994 World Cup. ===>>> The tournament final was awarded to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, the same venue that hosted the final at the 1984 Summer Olympics and the 1994 World Cup.
  • Not done, but I did make it clearer that the venue was the final venue for both of the previous tournaments.

Participating teams and officials

• between the second-place finishers in North and South American tournaments. ===>>> between the second-place finishers in the North and South American tournaments.
  • Fixed.
• between the United States women's team and the FIFA Women's World Stars that was being played at the stadium. ===>>> between the United States women's team and the FIFA Women's World Stars at the stadium.
  • Fixed.
• The highest-ranked teams, China, Germany, Norway, and the United States, were placed in the seeded Pot A. ===>>> The highest-ranked teams of China, Germany, Norway, and the United States, were placed in the seeded Pot A.
  • Not done, as I don't think "of" is a proper transition.
• because the placement of non-seeded Brazil ===>>> because of the placement of non-seeded Brazil
  • Re-did that sentence anyway.
• The referees were staged at two facilities in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to reduce travel, working in groups during matches and training. ===>>> The referees were staged at two facilities in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to reduce travel. They worked in groups during matches and training.
  • Half done by switching the order and preventing the creation of a sentence fragment.
• referees being unfamiliar with working in front of large crowds. ===>>> referees being inexperienced with working in front of large crowds.
  • Done.
• FIFA stated that it had been a successful trial of all-female referees ===>>> FIFA stated that the trial of all-female referees had been successful
  • Done.
• I don't think the referees need to be red-linked.
  • Each referee is notable to have their own article (albeit most end up as stubs, like the players). Since some referees have valid links, it would be distracting and inconsistent to de-link those that do not yet have one.

Preparations

• 1994 men's World Cup ===>>> 1994 World Cup (twice)
  • Not done.
• 26 were live broadcasts ===>>> Of these, 26 were live broadcasts
  • Done.

Group stage

• The sixteen participating teams were organized into four groups, labelled A to D <<<=== "labeled" not "labelled" in American English (or is it not American English?)
  • Fixed.
• The following day at the Rose Bowl, North Korea lost 2–1 to Nigeria after conceding a goal to Rita Nwadike in the 79th minute shortly after finding an equalizer to compensate for an earlier goal from Mercy Akide, who assisted Nwadike. <<<=== Break this up into two sentences.
  • Shortened.
• preserved potential qualification for all four teams in the group ===>>> preserved all four teams's chances to advance into the knockout stage.
  • Partially done.
• Nigeria became the first African team to advance to the quarter-finals of a Women's World Cup, having clinched a place with a 2–0 win against Denmark in their final match of the group stage. ===>>> Nigeria became the first African team to advance to the quarter-finals of a Women's World Cup with a 2–0 win against Denmark in their final match of the group stage.
  • Partially done.
• Olympics semi-finalist Brazil ===>>> Olympic semi-finalist Brazil,
  • Fixed.
• which began with a 1–1 tie in the first ten minutes of the match. ===>>> which began tied 1–1 after ten minutes of the match.
  • Partially done.
• unable to force a save from German goalkeeper Silke Rottenberg until the 89th minute ===>>> unable to prdouce a shot on goal until the 89th minute
  • A save and a shot on goal don't necessarily happen at the same time.
• The Germans then took a 3–2 lead on a deflected shot by Steffi Jones, but the match was tied at 3–3 by a last-minute header from substitute forward Maycon in stoppage time. ===>>> The Germans then took a 3–2 lead on a deflected shot by Steffi Jones, before substitute forward Maycon tied the match at 3–3 on a last-minute header in stoppage time.
  • Partially done.
• Norway scored five more goals in the second half, equaling the goals conceded by Canada during their first-round match against Norway in the 1995 tournament. ===>>> Norway scored five more goals in the second half to match their goal tally against Canada from their first-round match against Norway in the 1995 tournament.
  • Partially done.
• the final goal of the match was scored in the 61st minute by Dagny Mellgren, who headed in a cross produced by Unni Lehn, who had assisted on Isozaki's own goal. ===>>> the final goal of the match was scored in the 61st minute by Dagny Mellgren, who headed in a cross produced by Unni Lehn. Lehn had also assisted on Isozaki's own goal.
  • Partially done.
• The Matildas took the lead in the 74th minute on a goal scored by their captain Julie Murray to beat Ghanaian goalkeeper Memunatu Sulemana, who had made 11 saves during the match to keep her team level despite the red card. Ghana equalized less than two minutes later with a finish by substitute Nana Gyamfuah following a rebound off Australian goalkeeper Tracey Wheeler's save, securing a point in the group standings. ===>>> The Matildas took the lead in the 74th minute on a goal scored by their captain Julie Murray. Ghana equalized less than two minutes later with a finish by substitute Nana Gyamfuah following a rebound off Australian goalkeeper Tracey Wheeler's save, securing a point in the group standings. Ghanaian goalkeeper Memunatu Sulemana made 11 saves to keep her team in the match despite the red card.
  • Reordered the sentence in a different manner.
• Zhang Ouying scored a pair of goals in the 82nd minute and at the beginning stoppage time ===>>> Zhang Ouying scored a pair of goals in the 82nd minute and at the beginning of stoppage time
  • Done.
• which remains the record for the fastest red card in Women's World Cup history ===>>> which remains the record for the fastest red card in Women's World Cup history as of 2015
  • Doesn't need to be given an "as of" and can be updated appropriately when the time comes.
• Cheryl Salisbury reduced the lead to 2–1 with her strike in the 66th minute, ending a 253-minute shutout streak for Chinese goalkeeper Gao Hong, but Liu Ying scored in the 73rd minute to assure a Chinese victory over the Matildas. ===>>> Cheryl Salisbury reduced the lead to 2–1 with her strike in the 66th minute, ending a 253-minute shutout streak for Chinese goalkeeper Gao Hong. Nonetheless, Liu Ying scored in the 73rd minute to assure a Chinese victory over the Matildas.
  • Partially done.

Knockout stage

• China advanced with a 2–0 victory over Russia, with a first-half goal by Pu Wei and a goal scored by Jin Yan in the 56th minute, while the Russians did not manage a shot towards goal until the 91st minute. ===>>> China advanced with a 2–0 victory over Russia, with a first-half goal by Pu Wei and a goal scored by Jin Yan in the 56th minute. The Russians did not manage a shot on goal until the 91st minute.
  • The new sentence would be too short on its own.
• Sweden received a consolation goal ===>>> Sweden score a consolation goal
  • Done.
• but the Americans found an equalizing goal eleven minutes later from a shot by Tiffeny Milbrett ===>>> but the Americans found an equalizing goal eleven minutes later from Tiffeny Milbrett
  • Done.
• The Olympics qualification was determined by a series of tie-breakers, beginning with the margin of defeat in the quarter-final match, followed by goals scored in the quarter-final and group stage performance. ===>>> The Olympic qualification was determined by a series of tie-breakers, beginning with the margin of defeat in the quarter-final match followed by goals scored in the quarter-final.
  • Doesn't make sense to drop the group stage tie-breaker, which is part of the listed sequence (even if it went unused).
• Russia and Sweden both lost by two goals, but the latter had scored in its defeat and Russia were left as the only quarter-finalist to not qualify for the Olympics. ===>>> Although Russia and Sweden both lost by two goals, Russia was ranked lower since they did not in their defeat and were left as the only quarter-finalist to not qualify for the Olympics.
  • The last part of your suggestion doesn't make much sense and omits the most important detail (that Sweden scored).
• Norway had the majority of chances to score during the match, but their shots were saved by goalkeeper Maravilha to preserve a shutout. ===>>> Norway had the majority of chances to score during the match, but goalkeeper Maravilha saved all of their shots to preserve a shutout.
  • Not done.
• Pretinha missed her penalty, but the remaining five taken by her teammates were all scored ===>>> Although Pretinha missed the opening penalty for Brazil, her teammates scored all of the next five.
  • Not done.
• Did Brazil or Norway go first in the shootout?
  • It seems that Brazil did.
• The match was scoreless after regulation time, with several attempts at the goal made by the hosts, and moved into extra time. <<<=== You could elaborate on this a little. How many shots on goal did each team have? Or state that neither team had any good chances if that was the case.
  • Not mentioned in the citations.
• but saves by midfielder Kristine Lilly and goalkeeper Briana Scurry preserved the tie, which persisted until the end of extra time. ===>>> but saves by midfielder Kristine Lilly and goalkeeper Briana Scurry preserved the tie until the end of extra time.
  • Done.
• You could mention that Scurry's save was controversial for her appearing to leave her line too early. See this article from the New York Times.
  • As I said above and in the peer review, that is best left to the entry on the final. We're aiming for summary style here.

Aftermath and legacy

• 2014 men's World Cup ===>>> 2014 World Cup final. (I presume it's the final?)
  • No, it was a group stage match and it doesn't need to be elaborated on further (as that belongs in the final entry).
• They went on to finish as silver medalists at the 2000 Summer Olympics behind Norway and won three subsequent gold medals. ===>>> They went on to finish as silver medalists at the 2000 Summer Olympics behind Norway. (The same team was not part of the 2004, etc. Olympic gold medals).
  • Kept the gold medals and added a transition to clarify things.
• The United States finished third at the next two editions of the Women's World Cup before returning to the finals twice in the 2010s: losing to Japan in 2011 and defeating them in 2015 to take home their third World Cup title. ===>>> The United States did not win another World Cup title until 2015 when they defeated Japan in the final. They had finished third at the next two editions and were runners-up to Japan in 2011.
  • Done in a different way.
• which was established after the 1994 men's World Cup ===>>> which was established after the 1994 men's tournament in the United States
  • Again, not done.
• The league's teams continued playing in exhibition matches, but eventually folded, while another professional league was founded in 2007 and folded after three seasons. ===>>> The league's teams continued playing in exhibition matches, but eventually folded. Another professional league was founded in 2007 and also folded after three seasons. The National Women's Soccer League was launched in 2012 and has continued to operate as of 2019.
  • Added a mention NWSL, but I don't like having more sentence fragments to deal with.

Awards

• Chinese striker Sun Wen was awarded the Golden Ball and shared the Golden Shoe with Brazilian forward Sissi, having tied her with seven goals and three assists. <<<=== They had the same number of goals and assists? It's not so clear the way it is written.
  • Cleared it up and split the sentence.
• The first two sentences here are out of order. First should be the three Balls. Then, should be the three Shoes.
  • Generally, it would make more sense to have the MVP award come before scoring awards.
• The sixteen members of the Women's World Cup All-Star Team were announced on 8 July 1999, including seven players from China and five from the United States. ===>>> The sixteen members of the Women's World Cup All-Star Team were announced on 8 July 1999. It included seven players from China and five from the United States.
  • Not done, as the new sentence would be too short and its content is too dependent on the existing sentence.

Overall

• The content looks very thorough, except for the Scurry controversy that is missing.
• The prose is pretty good, but there are some run-on sentences. Most of the comments above just point those out or are other small grammatical things.
• I didn't put specific reasons for a lot of the comments/edits, but I'm happy to discuss them. (Hopefully, most of the reasons are obvious.)
• Will support once the majority of the above comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'll work on the match sections in a day or two, but I have had to reject quite a few of your suggestions for the reasons I gave above. Please let know if there are any problems. SounderBruce 04:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sportsfan77777: That should be about it. I tweaked many of your suggestions to fit the style and flow a bit better. SounderBruce 02:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @SounderBruce: I was WP:BOLD and made a bunch of small changes. Feel free to take a look at those. One last comment: How about going with "men's 1994 World Cup" instead of "1994 men's World Cup"? I don't like inserting "men's" in the middle since the year is a part of the official name. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Sportsfan77777: The current format is more consistent with the women's tournament's name, and it also matches the press and book sources I have used (and seems to be an informal style preferred by sportswriters). I'll be making small tweaks to your changes (which are all very good spots) at halftime of this match. SounderBruce 19:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @SounderBruce: Okay, that's fair. Supporting! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kosack

Hi SounderBruce, meant to get here sooner but was unable too until now.

Lead

• Could link match officials to Assistant referee (association football).
  • Done.
• "which ended after Brandi Chastain scored in the fifth round", could we split this into a separate sentence perhaps and include that China missed an effort? Something along the lines of "Brandi Chastain scored the winning penalty in the fifth round after China missed their third spot kick"?
  • Added a mention of Liu.

Background

• "the 1st FIFA World Championship for Women's Football for the M&M's Cup until retroactively given the World Cup moniker, was a success", was considered a success perhaps, just to avoid making it sound like its us saying it was.
  • Fixed.

Venues

• RFK Memorial Stadium, Jack Kent Cooke Stadium and Civic Stadium are redirects, pipe the links to avoid these.
  • Given that the names for the latter two could easily change in the near future due to their nature as corporate-sponsored venues, I don't think it's necessary to pipe (and MOS:NOPIPE also applies).
• Link friendly to Exhibition match.
  • Done.
• "In addition to the large football stadiums" + "including converting football locker rooms", I'm assuming these are referring to American football? I'd include the full name in each of these to avoid any possible confusion. The locker room sentence might not even need the football reference unless there were other types of locker rooms there?
  • Done for consistency. For the locker room, Gillette Stadium actually divided one NFL locker room in half to accommodate two teams, since they needed four locker rooms to handle the four teams each matchday while preserving the soccer locker rooms for the MLS teams.

Group B

• In the opening Sissi is listed as a forward but here she is listed as a midfielder?
  • She was positioned as a midfielder during the tournament but played most of her career as a forward, so I'll have to correct all uses of forward.

Group C

• "were both caused by Hiromi Isozaki", were both conceded perhaps?
  • Sounds good.

Group D

• "Olympics runners-up China" > Olympic?
  • Fixed.
• "Forward Jin Yan scored the equalizer for China in the 17th minute and broke through in the 69th minute with a goal by Liu Ailing to win 2–1." Does this sentence work? Seems to change subject from Jin Yan to China midway through if you see what I mean?
  • Fixed.
• "Alicia Ferguson was sent off for a tackle in the second minute", foul instead of tackle perhaps?
  • Fixed.

Quarter-finals

• Helge Risse is linked in the group stage section, no need to repeat the link here.
  • Fixed.
• "Germany retook the lead in stoppage time just before half-time", bit of a round about way of saying it, maybe just "in first half stoppage time.."?
  • Fixed.
• "Defender Joy Fawcett's header off a corner kick in 66th minute proved to be", there's a word missing here.
  • Fixed.
• The Sissi forward/midfielder issue is repeated here at the end of the third paragraph.
  • Fixed per above.

Semi-finals

• "Liu added a second goal herself in the 51st minute", given that she scored the one prior to this I don't think herself is needed here.
  • Fixed.

Final

• "were able to convert theirs and force sudden-death rounds", I'm a bit confused by this. If China missed their third penalty and the US scored every one of theirs, how would the shootout have gone to sudden death rounds?
  • Whoops, got it mixed up with another detail. Replaced with the score.

That's all I've got I think. Kosack (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: Thanks for picking this up for review once again. I have implemented all but one of your suggestions. SounderBruce 00:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries, nice work. I'm happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:FIFA Womens World Cup 1999.png: What is the source of the background map? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I was unable to find a source, but I have instead uploaded a new version of the map using a recognized source (which is more accurate due to including FIFA teams representing non-sovereign national entities).

All images are in good places and have so-so ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything specific I need to improve with my ALT descriptions? I didn't want to get too detailed and repetitive with the stadiums, but should I have described their shapes? SounderBruce 04:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Fundamentally ALT text should describe what an image is; if an image is merely decorative it does not need ALT text, if it illustrates a certain thing in the context of the article that thing should be described. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• Spotchecks

I carried out a series of spotchecks for verifiability etc, and these were generally OK. I found one issue:

• Ref 6: supports text: "The United States Soccer Federation announced their intention to bid for the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup in February 1995, shortly after hosting the 1994 men's World Cup". This information is not given in the cited source.

• Links: all links to sources are working, per the extrnal links checker tool
• Formats:

• Ref 49: Name of newspaper missing from reference
• Ref 139, for consistency, you should add publisher location

• Quality and reliability: No issues – heavily reliant on press coverage, but acceptable in an article such as this.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed both formatting issues, and will work on finding a new citation for Ref 6's supporting text. The bid was announced in that month, but most of the coverage then were just blurbs at the end of briefs, so there's not much to go by. SounderBruce 06:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: Found a small mention of the date and connection to the 1994 World Cup in another book source. SounderBruce 20:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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) 29 June 2019 [6].

---

SMS Hannover

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another German battleship article (and the last of the Kaiser's battleships to grace FAC), this one had a fairly length career, seeing action during World War I at the Battle of Jutland, serving with the postwar navy as one of the few ships allowed under the Versailles treaty, then being used in weapons tests in the late 1930s, before ultimately being scrapped in the mid-1940s. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

I'll do this one tomorrow or Sunday. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Here we've the last one of the Deutschland family. :)

• Link long tons.
  • Done
• Link knots.
  • Done
• Hannover was laid down on 7 November 1904 Remove 1904.
  • Done
• This sentence She displaced 14,218 metric tons (13,993 long tons) at full loading uses only long tons but this sentence capacity of up to 1,540 metric tons (1,520 long tons; 1,700 short tons) of coal uses both short and long tons.
  • Fixed
• stopped in Ponta Delgada in the Azores from 23 July to 1 August Add Portugal after "Azores".
  • Done
• Link Kiel.
  • Done
• The ship won the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize) Link Kaiser.
  • Done
• 1914 began as previous years had, with squadron training. Try to avoid using a nummer at the start of a sentence.
  • Fixed
• At midnight on 4 August, the United Kingdom declared war on Germany Link United Kingdom with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland's article and Germany with the German Empire's article.
  • Done
• Link World War I.
  • Done
• Link nautical mile.
  • Done
• Under orders from Wilhelm II to avoid battle if victory Link the Kaiser here.
  • Done
• during the operation to bombard Yarmouth and Lowestoft on 24–25 April.[14][13] Suggest to switch the citations here.
  • Good catch
• 11 November 1918, Germany entered into the armistice with the Western Allies Remove 1918.
  • Done
• Link Spain with the Restoration (Spain)'s article.
  • Done
• Link France with the French Third Republic's article.
  • Done

Infobox

• "22.20 m (72 ft 10 in)" the extra nought in the metre is unnecessary.
  • Removed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the Jutland diagram
  • Good idea
• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • See if what I added is useful - I'm not particularly sure about the maps. Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Source review

• Possibly give the full title for Hore and for Hildebrand et al?
  • You've worn me down ;)
• Further reading: The full title is Warship 2014; could you add the names of the editors.
  • Added

The sources used are all solidly reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I consider the sources to be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt

Thank you for another good one: Let's see:

Lead

• 2 links in a row in the first sentence, and 2 times "slightly" in the second.
  • My interpretation of WP:SEAOFBLUE is two links in a row is OK but three is a problem
• "After Jutland" - it wasn't immediately clear (to me) that the battle was meant. I wonder how that is pronounced, btw. Hannover is so nicely German ;)
  • Switched "After the battle..."

Peacetime

• Link Kiel and Wilhemshaven?
  • Wilhelmshaven is already linked earlier and CPA already got me on Kiel ;)

• "the Kaiser's Schießpreis" - a bit awkward, as the article is already in the award name, somewhat like the The Beatles. I wouldn't capitalise "Shooting Prize, and why not translate Kaiser's? - "the emperor's shooting prize"?
  • I used the German for the award with the idea of emphasizing that it was a significant thing, and Kaiser is routinely used in English.

Postwar service

• Palma, Majorca, Cartagena, and Vigo - that looks like 4 ports at a glance
  • Tweaked to make clearer what Majorca is.

Nice job! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. Still think the prize shouldn't have a "the", but no reason not to support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Sturmvogel_66

• Link guard ship, 8-point turn point,
  • Done
• A few too many "she"s in the last paragraph of the lede. Mix it up with a Hannover or two
  • Done
• Do we know what kind of mods were made to improve their underwater protection?
  • No, unfortunately - I would suspect it was rather limited, as apart from bulging there isn't a whole lot one can do to completed ships (especially in the span of a month or two)
• night march back ships marching?
  • Two by two, hurrah, hurrah ;)
• the Hessen ?
  • Fixed
• armored cruiser HMS Black Prince; Black Prince was quickly destroyed awkward
  • Fixed
• forced to heel out of line never seen heel used in this context. Suggest "fell" out of line.
  • Done
• Do the sources tell us what mods were made to make her suitable as a guard ship?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hildebrand et. al. don't say, unfortunately. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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) 29 June 2019 [7].

---

Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the most successful caliph in history. At the time of his accession, the Umayyad Caliphate had lost about two-thirds of its territory to Muslim rivals, a resurgent Byzantium and Berber rebels, while his Syrian home front faced multiple threats. In 15 years he defeated them all. The caliphate's reunification was coupled with unprecedented centralization. A uniquely Islamic currency was introduced and Arabic became the language of administration, setting in motion its development as the lingua franca of the Arab world. The Dome of the Rock he founded in Jerusalem, the first great monument built by a Muslim ruler, contains the earliest inscriptions proclaiming "Islam" and its prophet Muhammad. No caliph before him and few after him played such a formative role in the creation of the Muslim state. The foundations he laid enabled his son and successor to oversee the Umayyads' greatest territorial extent and peak of prosperity, though the dependence on the Syrian army begun by him contributed to the dynasty's ignominious fall in 750. I began intensive work on this article six months ago and believe it meets FA criteria. Al Ameer (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Constantine

I will post my remarks here as I go through the article.

Lede

• "had collapsed across the caliphate" hmmm, "caliphate" with lower case means the institution rather than the state; I would recommend either capitalizing it or replacing it with "[Muslim? Umayyad?] empire" or analogous. Ditto for the remainder of the article
• "under Abd al-Malik's suzerainty." the term "suzerainty" is usually used in its technical sense of overlordship, which given the centralizing tendencies of the Umayyads is rather inaccurate; "rule" would be better IMO.
• "having stamped out opposition" -> "stamping out opposition"?
• "rule over the caliphate was centralized" perhaps "rule over the provinces of the Caliphate was centralized"?
• "the domestically peaceful and prosperous consolidation of power" -> "a domestically..."
• "less reliable, localized Arab garrisons" I think you meant "less reliable, locally recruited Arab garrisons" or something to that effect?

Will continue with the rest tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 19:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I’ve the made the adjustments. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Early life

• "The latter had been ardent opponents.." This is a bit confusingly formulated. Perhaps rearrange like this: "The Islamic prophet Muhammad was also a member of the Quraysh, but the rest of the tribe had been his ardent opponents before they embraced Islam in 630. After that, the Quraysh gradually came to dominate Muslim politics".
• "by Caliph Mu'awiya I (r. 661–680)" (optional) perhaps add the familial relationship between Abd al-Malik and Mu'awiya here (second cousin once removed, I think? perhaps "distant cousin" suffices, a it also conveys the lack of inter-personal relationship)
• "When a revolt broke out in Medina" add the precise date
• "to the rival Mecca-based Caliph" here the opposite to my comment above holds true, "caliph" is descriptive of the office and so should not be capitalized

• Done — For the first point about Quraysh, I revised a bit differently from your suggestion. Change it if necessary. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Reign

• "notes Abd al-Malik was nominated" -> "notes that Abd al-Malik was nominated"
• "staffed by the mawālī" -> "staffed by the mawālī"
• "intensified his raids and inflicted heavy tolls against" -> "intensified his raids and exacted a heavy toll on" or "inflicted heavy casualties on". The same further on "at the heavy toll he had inflicted"
• 'became the "dominant figure"' either "becomes" or simply "is the dominant figure", since he still is the dominant figure in the sources we have available and that is unlikely to change
• "bombarded the city" add "with catapults" at the end of the phrase, lest anyone should think that he had cannon
• "he installed al-Hajjaj in the post instead" add the year
• "a Zubayrid holdover with long experience combating the Azariqa, whom he defeated in 697" a bit unclear who defeated who here, perhaps "Against the Azariqa, al-Hajjaj backed al-Muhallab ibn Abi Sufra al-Azdi, a Zubayrid holdover with long experience combating them. Al-Muhallab finally defeated the Azariqa in 697."
• "flared in the heart of Iraq" -> "flared up in the heart of Iraq". Ditto for "flared until 692–694"
• "In an effort to reduce expenditure, al-Hajjaj had reduced the Iraqis' pay to less than that of their Syrian counterparts in the province.[44] Upon becoming governor..." the chronological order here is reversed, I would suggest rearranging the two sentences (also because threatening execution is rather more severe than cutting pay)
• " according to Kennedy" link and introduce him as a historian
• "for refusing to pay the annual tribute" rather irrelevant why the campaign to Zabulistan was ordered, IMO
• "revolted in Sistan," I would add "marched back" after that
• "in favor of a Muslim currency introduced that year." add a "see below" and link the section after that

• Done — For the last point, check if the "see below" link is properly placed, I've used this before. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Legacy

• "the major achievements of al-Walid's rule" which were? AFAIK, these were mostly territorial expansion, so simply note that
• " by issuing Islamization measures" -> "by enacting/imposing Islamization measures"
• "in the Sasanian design" link Sasanian, also explain that the dirham was used in the eastern, formerly Persian provinces. This will also help explain why there was a Persian-speaking diwan in Iraq.
• "Persian Khurasan" why "Persian" here?

• Done. Struggled a bit formulating the third point. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me in terms of prose and some issues of detail. Content-wise, it is really a superb piece of work, well referenced, well written, and extremely comprehensive. I will have a look whether I can add anything more from the Byzantine side, but I doubt it. Again, well done. Constantine ✍ 06:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thank you for taking the time to go over the article (and your previous additions regarding Abd al-Malik's struggles with the Byzantines and other improvements). I responded to your points section-by-section. I hope your concerns have now been addressed. If anything about my recent changes is off, please revise as you see fit. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Al Ameer, the changes look good. I've also added some more details on the Byzantine-Armenian front during the resumption of hostilities. Particularly the suppression of the Armenian rebellion in 703-705 was a seminal event in that country's history. Plus I thought one should explain Justinian's motivations, and mention the fact that the caliph's own sons led the raids into Byzantium. And I found an indirect reference to him repairing the Kaaba, which I added (also gives a nice plug for a figure like John of Damascus). Feel free to tweak around :). Anyhow, since my comments above are addressed, and I have myself finished any additions I was going to make, I am pleased to switch to support. Constantine ✍ 12:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: All interesting information, glad you were able to find it ;) I plan on starting the article on John's influential father Sarjun if no one else does. Thanks for the latest additions and support. Cheers, --Al Ameer (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: I was also intrigued and planning on starting the article, actually, but if you want to go ahead :). Constantine ✍ 21:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Nope. Now I insist that you start it ;) I'll add to it if necessary. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the first three maps

• @Nikkimaria: Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the maps be enlarged? And if so, should I do the same with the other images? —Al Ameer (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes to the first (using |upright=), not necessarily to the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• File:First_Umayyad_gold_dinar,_Caliph_Abd_al-Malik,_695_CE.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original coin. Same with File:Dinar_of_Abd_al-Malik,_AH_75.jpg

• Done (I think). —Al Ameer (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Won't PDing the File:First_Umayyad_gold_dinar,_Caliph_Abd_al-Malik,_695_CE.jpg violate photographers rights who has released it as cc-by-sa-3.0? @Nikkimaria:?AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• I enlarged the maps, please let me know if any adjustments should be made. --Al Ameer (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A photograph of a three-dimensional work like a coin has two copyrights: that of the photo, and that of the object itself. Applying a PD tag to the object itself has no impact on the CC tag for the photo, as long as it's relatively clear which tag applies to what. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the tag here states the media file is PD. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to suggest a rephrasing of the tag if you think the existing one is likely to be confusing; however, IMO with a bit of rearranging to make clear which tag applies to what this should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think something similar to Template:PD-art-3d should exist for coins too to state clearly that "original work is PD, but the image is not." ;) Just an opinion though. If the current tag is adequate to your expert eye, then, off course, I have no problem with it. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It would also be fine to use that tag instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• File:Mukhtar_al-Thaqafi_Control_on_Iraq.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• I removed the map because I don’t know. I will replace or modify it with sources, though I cannot estimate how long that will take. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Any issue with the two pictures I added to the “Renewal of Byzantine wars in Anatolia, Armenia and North Africa“ section? —Al Ameer (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. And same question goes for the map added to the “Early challenges” section. —Al Ameer (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by AhmadLX

Disclosure: I reviewed this at GAN.

• Suggest linking "first generation of born-Muslims" to Tabi‘un.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• "...Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, who had just been expelled by the Zubayrids from his governorship in Iraq." This is imprecise. Ashraf recognized Ibn al-Zubayr only after expelling Ibn Ziyad.

• Thank you, I don’t know who else could have caught that :) Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• "At the time of his accession, important administrative offices were held by members of Abd al-Malik's family...The caliph's ḥaras(personal guard) was typically led by a mawlā (non-Arab Muslim freedman; pl: mawālī) and staffed by the mawālī." Why does this belong in "Early challenges"?

• Good point. I originally had it in Legacy where it didn’t belong, but now I’ve moved it up just one place to “Accession”. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• "[Ibn Ziyad] was tasked by Abd al-Malik with the reconquest of Iraq." I think it was Marwan who sent him to reconquer Iraq. By the time of Abd Al-Malik's accession, Ibn Ziyad was already in northern Syria. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I remember from the Marwan I article. I’ve corrected it now. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• I see some balance issues: Zufar's defection is mentioned in one sentence, only two campaigns against Mus'ab are discussed (Dixon discusses three, Wellhausen also concludes there were three), but you do mention camping at Nukhayla (trivial, I would have omitted this).

• Zufar's defection, though important enough to mention because it removed Abd al-Malik's obstacle to Iraq, doesn't warrant more than a sentence. I chose not to include the second campaign against Mus'ab because nothing came of it (no confrontation, losses/gains), but briefly mentioned the equally nonproductive first campaign ("... Abd al-Malik used the respite from the truce to initiate a campaign against the Zubayrids of Iraq ...") because it sets the stage for a more dangerous development: al-Ashdaq's attempted coup in the capital Damascus; otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it either. As for the encampment at Nukhayla where Abd al-Malik prepared and dispatched a Syrian army under al-Hajjaj to subdue his greatest enemy, Ibn al-Zubayr, I added this because it illustrates Abd al-Malik's last active involvement in the Second Fitna. After he dispatched the army, he apparently returned to Syria, while al-Hajjaj and Tariq ibn Amr dealt with Ibn al-Zubayr. I trimmed it in any case, hopefully the revised version addresses your concern here. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• That's fine.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• "[Hajjaj] had risen through the ranks to become a highly competent and efficient supporter of the caliph. According to Hawting, for the period between the end of the civil war and the years after Abd al-Malik's reign, al-Hajjaj became the "dominant figure" in the medieval sources, discussed more than the caliph himself." Same as above. This article is about Abd al-Malik, not Hajjaj. Summary style should be followed. Just introducing Hajjaj as "his most competent general" or something similar would suffice.

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The growing strain and heavy losses inflicted on the Syrians by the Caliphate's external enemies "led to the weakening and downfall of the Umayyads" in 750, according to Blankinship." You don't need to mention author here, as this is more or less a established fact. "Despite Abd al-Malik's victory over his Muslim rivals, the Umayyad Caliphate remained domestically and externally insecure, prompting a need to legitimize its existence.[30]" Here you do need to mention author, as this is opinion, not a fact.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• "According to medieval and modern-day sources, he spent the winter months mostly in..." Why do you need first fragment here? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• @AhmadLX: Done. Thanks for looking this over once more after the GAN, your comments are always insightful. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Al Ameer for addressing the issues.
• Note on sources (just to reduce the effort): I thoroughly checked for verifiability during GAN and found everything to be supported by the cited sources. A few issues were found and fixed. Some new sources have been added since then, two of these support the claims. Remaining one or two I haven't checked. (Note: this is regarding verifiability only.) AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support Ahmad, and appreciate the extra spot-checking. —Al Ameer (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon, some preliminary thoughts first. Armenia and Maslama are dulinked in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• "a Euphrates river fortress strategically located at the crossroads of Syria and Iraq." Need citation.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think more names and terms could be linked in the image captions (at first occurrence).

• Done (please check revisions though). Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Is this UK or US English? I see both "meager" (US) and "ise" endings (UK). Could be checked throughout.

• US English. I couldn't find incidences of British spelling. Could you point one or two out to me? --Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, seems I may have misread something earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• "who collectively became known as the "Yaman"" Explain why?

• @FunkMonk: Do you mean why these unrelated (at best distantly related) tribes formed this alliance? - or why they called themselves the "Yaman"? I was trying to avoid too many details here since it's a somewhat complicated subject covered to an extent by the Qays–Yaman rivalry. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I think a brief explanation, that they are southern tribes, the other northern, or such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll add something along those lines later today or tomorrow. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I made some revisions that I think address this now. If anything, I could supplement the information with a footnote. Let me know what you think. Al Ameer (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Najdiyya Kharijites in Yamama in 692/93.[61][64] The Azariqa" I think you should specify that the latter were also Kharijites.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Link Khurasan in the article body too.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• "for the return of the Cypriots" All Cypriots were deported? Sounds like a huge undertaking, anything to link?

• Not sure. Cplakidas might have an answer here. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've made some additions in this regard; the situation is rather unclear, but it appears that after Justinian II moved some of the Cypriots to Cyzicus and elsewhere in Anatolia, the Arabs moved others to Syria (although it is possible that the latter may have been prisoners form previous raids). Constantine ✍ 18:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, in the west" Maybe good to specify North Africa?

• Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• "when Abd al-Aziz died in May 705" From what?

• As far as I know, the available sources don’t mention how he died. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Abd al-Malik died five months later" From what?

• Always eluded me. The sources that I have access to (and they are many) don’t provide any details about the cause of his death. I assume he died the natural death of an aging man, but again there’s no source to support that. No reports of poison, illness, etc. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• "boundaries of the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount)" Why use the Arabic name primarily? You don't do that for the dome of the rock.

• Modified. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• "She bore Abd al-Malik sons" The sons?

• Fixed. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - looks great to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk. I just made some changes/additions to the Legacy section if you and Cplakidas wouldn’t mind reviewing them. Cheers. Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. Constantine ✍ 11:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• Verifiability: this seems to have been covered in the main prt of the review
• Formats: mostly OK but a couple of minor points:

• Ref 80: can you clarify this format? Is this two references?

• Not too sure. Cplakidas, could you clarify? —Al Ameer (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Cplakidas: Any update on this? --Laser brain (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry Laser brain, I missed the previous ping. What exactly is the problem with ref #80 ("Lilie 1976, p. 140"), because I don't see how this could be "two references"? If you mean ref #81 ("PmbZ, 'Abd al-Malik (#18/corr.)"), it is correct: PmbZ links to the work reference in the sources section, and the relevant entry is linked to its online location. Constantine ✍ 08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Bibliography: It's probably best to be consistent in defining publishers - e.g in Bacharach and others we have "Brill" and in Becker and others we have "E.J. Brill"

• @Brianboulton: A bit tricky. The sources with “E. J. Brill” are the Encyclopedia of Islam citations, which have their own template. Modifying the templates would have ramifications across hundreds of articles. The sources with just “Brill” are from the same publisher but all seem to be newer than the EoI and exclude the “E. J.” part. Any advice on what to do here? —Al Ameer (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's not a sticking point - in view of your explanation, no action needed, I'd say. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Quality and reliability: the sources appear to be comprehensive, scholarly, and of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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 June 2019 [8].

---

Trachodon mummy

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another dinosaur article, but this time not about a genus, but a unique specimen. This find, one of the most important dinosaur specimens ever found, had profound impact on the understanding of dinosaurs. The Trachodon mummy is one of a handfull of "dinosaur mummies", and is interpreted as the fossil of a natural mummy. The article combines history with cutting edge scientific research, and therefore is hopefully of interest for a broader audience. It just received a copy edit and GA review from user:Gog the Mild. I'm looking forward to comments. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licensed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Must be the first time we have an article about a specific fossil (rather than a taxon) at FAC. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• It looks like there is a duplink in "all referable to duck-billed dinosaurs" and later "Hadrosauridae ("duck-billed dinosaurs")". Seems a bit odd that you only gloss it at second mention, maybe you should stick to calling them hadrosaurids, and keep "duck-bill" in parenthesis.

Fixed. I used "duckbill" as this term was also used by some of the sources, but consequently sticking with hadrosaurid might be less confusing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I wonder if this AMNH source[9] is of any use? It has some discussion of the mummy.

Thanks, but these are merely a collection of excerts from Osborn (1911), which is already cited. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe move the image under Taphonomy to the left, it clashes a bit with the image above on my screen.

Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• There is also some coverage in this old book[10], maybe more contemporary commentary can be found.

Checked it; nothing useable inside but was worth a look at least! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Is the specimen also called "Trachodon mummy" in recent sources? Does the title reflect current usage?

Well, the article had this title before I started working on it, and I always thought this might be an edge case. But thinking about it (and reviewing the actual usage) I think you are right: It does not really reflect current usage, and it would be more prudent to move to a different lemma. What comes to mind is "Edmontosaurus mummy in the American Museum of Natural History" or just the specimen number "AMNH 5060". Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a survey of the sources can give some more contenders we could vote for after the article is promoted? Maybe "Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060" is more concise? Perhaps Edmontosaurus mummy in the Naturmuseum Senckenberg could also be shortened. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060" sounds good, thanks. Other names such as "Sternberg mummy" seem to be ad hoc and may also refer to the Senckenberg mummy. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think this restoration[11] was informed by the mummy, as the integument paper also has a line drawing based on it, and it shows the fused hand.

Great, I was looking for that! You are right, and this fact is even clearly stated in Osborn 1911, where it was first published. Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Osborn knew about the agreement between Sternberg and the British Museum, which gives the latter rights to acquire any of the finds" Gave? I doubt the agreement is still valid...

fixed.

• "he appealed to Sternbergs patriotism" Sternberg's.

fixed.

• "Subsequently, the mummy was scientifically described by Osborn himself" Give date.

added.

• Were the sons adult at the time? Othwewise I'm imagining kids running around in the badlands.

The two eldest were in their 20s, and Levi was around 14. Not sure how to add this; I didn't find the exact date of birth of Levi to give his age at the time of discovery, but I'm on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so one was practically a kid, no way to generalise then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• "In 1911, Osborn rhapsodized" Seems a bit hyperbolic, no? I think "stated" or "concluded" could be enough, and less loaded.

changed.

• "The second such mummy, now in the Naturmuseum Senckenberg" Could you explain whether its preservation is comparable or of lesser quality?

added sentence.

• You link both Anatosaurus copei and Anatotitan, which redirect to the same article. Maybe you should only link Edmontosaurus and Edmontosaurus annectens in the article.

fixed.

• "Bottom view of Edmontosaurus annectens mummy" Maybe best to be consistent in how you refer to the specimen.

fixed.

• "This term was later used to refer to a handful of similar fossils with extensive skin impressions" I wonder if we could go into what sets a mummy apart from for example other specimens with skin impressions? I guess it is mainly 3D fossils (not slabs)?

Its just a tradition that hadrosaurid specimens with extensive skin impressions are termed "mummies". This term is loosely attached to various specimens only. There is also the term "mummified skin", which appears to have broader usage. Changed to make this a bit clearer, but its difficult lacking precise definitions.

• "The specimen was found lying on its back, with head and neck being twisted downwards" A bit confusing, since down could be interpreted either in relation to the animal or to its position. How about it was twisted backwards? Would also be consistent with "Both knees were drawn forwards"

Changed.

• "In his 1911 description, Osborn coined the term "dinosaur mummy" for the specimen." and "leading Osborn to coin the term "dinosaur mummy"." Seems repetitive. Maybe second time you could just say in parenthesis "(which led to the coinage of the term dinosaur mummy)" or something.

Removed one.

• "In 2007, paleontologist Kenneth Carpenter suggested that even impressions of inner organs might have been preserved" Still, or before it was excavated? Looks like the body cavioty is hollow?

Still, he didn't give more hints, unfortunately.

• Maybe more images could be worked into the article? For example, if you combine the current hand image with the other one in the paper that show its underside so they could be side by side in the same image? The facial integument in fig 4 could also be interesting (among others) under nostrils maybe, the Senckenberg mummy might be more relevant in the section it is mentioned in? Now there are also two almost identical photos of the specimen from below, one of which could maybe be replaced by a more unique image.

Yes, I will try.

• You jump a lot between past and present tense under description, in some cases you probably didn't have a choice, but in others it just seems inconsistent for no apparent reason. For example "The largest surviving scales are found on the outer side of the arms; these polygonal tubercles were up to 1 cm (0.39 in) in diameter.".

Fixed now I hope.

• "in a 1942 monograph" About what? If that's too much detail, why not just say in a 1942 paper or publication? You expect more context if you specify it's a monograph, I think.

thanks, fixed.

• You seem to cover some of the same ground on nostrils in the skin and nostril sections. Any way to consolidate this? Why is this repeated?

Good suggestion, tried to merge those and simplified a bit.

• "These scales, which measure 3–5 mm" Convert.

done.

• "by an withered" A.

fixed

• "Color pattern" This is perhaps a bit too definite title considering the content, how about "possible color pattern" or "theories about color patterns" or similar?

Changed.

• Could more mummies be listed under "Significance and classification" maybe?

Would certainly provide a more solid background, so added!

• "With the Senckenberg mummy, an additional Trachodon specimen with supposed webbing" Second link to that mummy.

fixed

• "the hypothesis of an aquatic lifestyle of hadrosaurids, although previously considered controversial and speculative" Could you state what it had been based on before? I believe it was because the teeth were thought to be too loose to chew on tough land plants or something.

added.

• "did not feed on soft aquatic plants as previously assumed" I see you mention this further down, but I think it should be stated earlier, when you actually mention the theory first.

added.

• "a highly specialised" The rest of the article seems to be US English (for good reason). Perhaps check for other US/UK inconsistencies.

seems to be the only one, fixed.

• "they remark that the melanin" Why present tense, when the preceding text is past?

fixed.

• "large part of the tail, which is not preserved in the Trachodon mummy" You could clarify they are known form other specimens? One such specimen even seems to be shown in the old paper.

reformulated.

• "by Hopon from 1975" Full name, as with everyone else?

added.

• "Charles H. Sternberg, in 1909,[4][5] and Charles M. Sternberg, in 1970" Seems overly repetitive, why not just "in 1909 and 1970, Charles M. Sternberg assumed"?

These are two different Charles, Charles H. and Charles M.

• "Carpenter concludes from a photo taken" Why present tense?

fixed.

• You mention photos taken during the excavation, any that could be used here?

Principally yes, but I only have a modified version. Will mail it to you for advice!

Added. Maybe the caption could be better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The taphonomic processes" Link, and I wonder if it should be mentioned and explained earlier in the section.

Linked. Not sure how to incorporate the term into the first sentence without blowing it up, but I thought that the first sentence makes clear what the paragraph will be about in any case.

Maybe some Easter egg link, though it's kind of discouraged... FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Carpenter emphasizes that" Why present?

fixed.

• "formed by the bacterial (biomineralization)." Bacterial what?

fixed.

• "One of the finest dinosaur specimens" Best preserved would sound more formal.

fixed.

• Perhaps natural mummy could be linked and explained outside the intro too.

done.

• Natural mummy is also linked twice in the intro.

done.

• ", leading to the now-rejected perception of hadrosaurids as aquatic animals" But this had been suggested even before, it was just more "confirmation"?

The hypothesis was speculative and controversial earlier, only the mummies led to a paradigm shift. But changed anyways to be on the save side.

• "its specimen number is AMNH 5060" Should be mentioned in the article body too.

done.

• "The mummy was discovered lying on its back, with its neck twisted downwards" Problematic, "backwards" would be more clear.

done.

• "and still conected" Just a typo.

done.

• "carcass dryed out" Dried.

done.

• You should maybe be consistent in using quotation marks for the various kinds of tubercles.

I only used quotation marks at first mention to make clear that these are actual terms that have been proposed. Not sure if it looks cluttered if I use them throughout? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• One additional thing I wondered about, how long is the specimen, and how long is it estimated to have been in life? Weight, other dimensions?

I had another look through the sources, but this not stated anywhere, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• The first image caption could maybe say it is shown from above?

Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Changes look good. Only thing missing is that some images could be added, and maybe moved around a bit (to create better space and relevance to adjacent text). Tell me if you need help or suggestions.

Ok, I'm not good with images, but I did what I could now. I am open to further suggestions! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I think maybe fig 6 could be used under taphonomy (lower right?) to show how tightly the skin adheres to the bone? FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• The original description also describes the skin on the rest of the forelimb, I wonder if some of that could be added (including maybe fig 10)? Maybe the "hands" section could be "forelimbs".

This is already covered in the "skin" section; I could not find anything significant in addition to that in Osborn (1912); what do you have in mind specifically? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I didn't find it because I searched for "forelimb", as termed in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I took the liberty to upload the highest resolution version of the images here[12] and make them the same size ratio. I also made the order more like the other images used, with the photo before the diagram, so the caption might need an overhaul. The different orientation of the image also leaves more space for another image under Significance and classification, if we want that... Plenty of interesting ones in the paper to add (perhaps plate IV?[13]).

Thanks, looks better! Also added the additional photo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I moved the image a section up, so it doesn't clash with the header below. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - the article looks good (nice to see more important historical images come to use), and the next step would be to move it to a more modern title, such as for example "Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060". FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the throughout review and support! Do you think there are less technical complications if I move the page right now, or should I better wait until the candidature is over (as I read from your answer above)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I could imagine a lot of the FAC links and transclusions maybe getting screwed up, not sure, but I've seen it being advised against in other nomination discussions. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a coordinator, such as Ian Rose or Laser brain, can advise? FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this -- yes, I prefer to see moves happen after the FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

• Links, redirects, etc are fine.
• An alt text is missing - for File:Pasta - mummified trachodon - AmMusNatHist.jpg.

Thanks, added missing alt text! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Formats

• Publisher locations missing from refs 1, 2 and 3
• Ref 4: OCLC 876719 per WorldCat
• Ref 11: Capitalization: "The world company press"
• Ref 14: lacking ISBN
• Refs 21, 24: lacking ISBN
• Bibliography: Is there any particular reason why this one particular book is listed?

• Quality and reliability: The references all appear to be to scholarly sources, of the standard required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for the sources review! All fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Looking good....queries below...

• The Trachodon mummy is a fossilized natural mummy of a dinosaur. - not a fan of having two "mummy"s in the same sentence, and we're saying a "mummy is a mummy", which sounds odd. I'd somehow combine it with sentence 3. (One of the best preserved dinosaur specimens ever discovered, it was the first to include a skeleton encased in skin impressions from large parts of the body.) - So - The Trachodon mummy is an exceptionally well-preserved fossil(ized remains), the first found to include a skeleton encased in skin impressions from large parts of the body." or something like this.

Adjusted accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• The Sternberg expedition left its family residence in Kansas in early spring - err, it wasn't the expedition's family residence. How about just, "The Sternbergs left their family residence in Kansas in early spring"

fixed.

• Several authors have addressed the question of how the animal died and what circumstances led to its exceptionally good preservation. - "addressed" suggests to me "answered conclusively" - maybe "investigated/theorised/proposed" or something

used "discussed" now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise this is in great shape and well on track to FA status Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild, part ii

I assessed this at GAN, and as it was clearly FAC bound, gave it a hard time then. Rereading:

• Edmontosaurus annectens, by Charles R. Knight.jpg needs alt text.

added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "between 1 and 5 in (25 and 127 mm) in" Suggest 'inches' in full (|abbr=off) to avoid "in (brackets) in".

changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• The lead gives the size of the scales, but not the size of the specimen, which seems odd.

That is quite annoying, but nothing I can do about: The size of the specimen is not mentioned in any of the sources, surprisingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

How exceedingly strange. OK.

• "In search for acquirers of potential fossil finds" "for" → 'of'.

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Day after day hoping against hope we struggled bravely on. Every night the boys gave answer to my anxious inquiry, What have you found? Nothing." Is there a reason for this being a block quote? The MoS would suggest otherwise. Likewise some of the other block quotes.

I have to admit I am a bit reluctant here. Hm, the MoS states that you have to use block quotes if there are more than about 40 words, but it does not explicitly state that you should not use them if there are fewer. The problem is that I have to use block quote for the longest quote of the article at least (to comply with MoS), and using two different quotation styles makes it looking inconsistent. Not sure what would be the lesser of the two evils here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. IAR.

• "he was unable to evaluate the fossil despite the high asking price of $2,000" This reads as if it were the high asking price which prevented an evaluation. (I know that you go on to give a fuller explanation.)

Reformulated, hope it is better now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• "in three articles published in 1911 and 1912,[9][8][9]" I suspect one of these cites of being incorrect.

Indeed. Thanks for spotting that. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "As dinosaur skin impressions were previously known only from few fragments" Suggest 'from a few fragments'.

Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is image sandwiching in the "Significance and classification" section.

Fixed, I hope. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Although the skeleton of the Senckenberg mummy is more complete, it is less well preserved than the Trachodon mummy in other respects" IMO "in other respects" is redundant.

True, removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "was excavated in the Hell Creek Formation" "in" → 'from'.

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "In the Maastrichtian age of North America" I don't understand this. Do you mean 'In North American specimens from the Maastrichtian age'? Should "age" have an upper case A?

Yes, that was incorrect. "In the Maastrichtian of North America" would have been correct; Maastrichtian here refers to the succession of rocks. But took your wording. No, "age" needs lower case A I believe, as this is no formal name. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "25% are referred to Edmontosaurus" I don't actually know what this means.

Yeah, "referred" in this context appears to be technical speech used in paleontology. Changed to "belong". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "with head and neck being twisted backwards" Suggestion: delete "being".

Removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "shows a regular row of rectangular lobes at least in the tail area" What does "at least" add to the description?

right, removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "in accordance with an 1883 account of Edward Drinker Cope" Suggestion: "of" → 'by'.

true, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Today, the webbing-hypothesis is widely refuted" I am not sure about the hyphen.

removed hyphen. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Cite 7 should have a location.

added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• "the circumnarial depression" I am sure that there is a reason for this being in italics; what is it?

Only to mark it as the technical term that was just explained, but removed the italics as it is inconsistent with the rest of the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, again. Working on these! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

All done now, except for the issue with the block quotes; please give me some time to consider that issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Leave them in. A fine, fine article. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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 June 2019 [14].

---

Spinophorosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a long-necked dinosaur which is notable for bearing spikes on its tail, and in being one of the most completely known members of its group from its time and place. We have summarised all available sources, including a German book about the expeditions that found the fossils, and the article therefore has a detailed and rather dramatic account of the discovery, which is otherwise rarely possible when relying only on scientific papers. It has been copy-edited, is a GA, and we have been lucky in getting many free images. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from IJReid

I might as well begin this off. Article is really well done, not many points but I'll get through them slowly. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to have a dino project veteran comment. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for reviewing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "No one had dug for dinosaurs there before" seems too short and choppy in the context

Placed in parenthesis as "This locality (where dinosaurs had not been excavated before)". FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Link "vertebra" at first mention

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Link "Elche museum"

Redlinked, no article yet. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think you should mention the model is "Namu" in the image caption

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Shonosaurus" just a typo

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "They shared a basipterygoid process" it should probably be "they share" IIRC anatomy is present tense

Hm, I'm always unsure when it comes to tense in anatomical descriptions. Would you suggest we should generally stick to the literature standard here and use present tense throughout? Maybe we need a broader discussion at the WikiProject Palaeontology then.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd follow literature standard yes. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• The length-width ratio of the centra should be 3:1, using a colon.

The elongation index is just a number. But I simplified now and wrote "length-to-width ratio of 3.1:1", is that better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes I didn't realize the elongation was 3.1 X height, got confused because of the "3.1." It's not necessary to include the ratio, but if its not included it may confuse readers because there is no unit and nothing follows the number so it falls directly in front of a period. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Might want to mention the Hyposphene-hypantrum articulations limit dorsal vertebrae flexion

May be a general thing, but is it stated in any of the relevant sources? Can't find such a mention, Jens Lallensack? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Provides more context, thus added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Modern dogs and relatives backwards mates?? I'm not entirely sure that is correct even if it comes from a published paper.

Hehe, it is part of the mating process apparently, I have not watched dogs mate in real life, but apparently they get stuck together after the initial phase. If you don't want to soil your browser history, Google images has plenty of examples... But here are some diagrams:[15][16] You think it should be added it's only part of the mating? The source specifies "and part of the “tied/lock” phase of mating in some Carnivora (Mammalia), such as Canis sp." FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I think specifying its only part of it in dogs would be useful hehe. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned, and linked to Canine reproduction, which even has a photo of this... FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• "(and one of the earliest known members of that group)" seems a bit redundant following a note it may be one of the earlier spinosaurids, perhaps remove and simply reword the preceeding mention to include this?

Reworded to "while the fourth belongs to what may be one of the earliest known members of Spinosauridae". FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yeo I've got absolutely nothing important now, Support from me. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Having a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks and reads really well. The only quibble (which is not a deal-breaker anyway) is, Spinophorosaurus has either been classified as a very basal sauropod outside Eusauropoda, or included in that group. - just thought it might have made more sense in English to say something is within a group or just outside it (i.e. reverse the classification), though the importance/likelihood of it being basal might be a good counterpoint to this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Changed to the following, better? "Spinophorosaurus has been classified as either a very basal sauropod, or inside Eusauropoda, a more derived group." FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Usernameunique

Lead

• were to be — "are to be"?

Hard to say, no sources state whether this has been done yet or not. But once it is confirmed, the text will be changed accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• A number of inconsistent abbreviations, e.g., "13 metres (43 ft)."

Think I got them all. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• (the source of the generic name) — Covered in the first paragraph, no?

Yeah, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

History of discovery

• Perhaps just title "Discovery"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• More inconsistent abbreviations, e.g., "30 kilometres (19 mi)." These can be cured by (in this example) going from {{convert|30|km|mi}} to {{convert|30|km|mi|abbr=on}}, which gives you 30 km (19 mi)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• conducted a large-scale excavation campaign

Seems you missed to add the issue? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I might have initially wondered if "excavation campaign" was somewhat redundant, but rethought the issue and forgot to delete the quotation. Not an issue. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• To discourage others from collecting the block, an explosive dummy was fabricated and attached to the fossil — Yikes. Any photos of this?

No (sadly), all available free images of the excavations (and specimens) are used in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Any non-free images available? Not for the article, just out of curiosity! --Usernameunique (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Not as far as I know (maybe in the German book), but this Google Arts slide show (used as external link here) has additional images from the excavations:[17] FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Skull

• The braincase of Spinophorosaurus was short from front to back and moderately deep, broad, and of relatively large size overall. — It's unclear what "moderately" is modifying. Moderately deep and generally broad, or moderately deep and moderately broad?

The former. Reformulated to make this clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• A CT endocast of the brain cavity — of the paratype?

Not stated explicitly in the paper, but I can see from the specimen number it's the holotype, so added. Also made me notice the specimen number of the paratype had somehow been removed, so added that as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• and in that the structure of the brain was obscured by meninges that were relatively thick as well as dural venous sinuses — Could this be rewritten as ", a structure of the brain that was obscured by meninges that were relatively thick, and in having dural venous sinuses"?

The source says "and in having the brain structure obscured by the former existence of relatively thick meninges and dural venous sinuses." So the structure is obscured by both, and I therefore said "obscured by spaces that housed relatively thick meninges as well as by dural venous sinuses". Is it any better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• the more derived — What does this mean?

The easiest way to get it across is to use the now discouraged "advanced", which I have added in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Advanced" is used in two other places: in the lead, and in the first paragraph in "Skull." Is there a reason for doing so if it's discouraged? This is far from my specialty, so I'll leave it to you to make (or unmake, or not make) any changes you think are appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, of course, I'll ping Jens Lallensack to see if we should maybe consolidate this under one term. Likewise with primitive/basal... FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should say "derived (advanced)" at first mention, and afterwards stick to "derived". Same with primitive/basal. Hard to avoid these terms. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Did so. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Vertebrae and ribs

• contain multiple small, air-filled chambers — "containing"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Worth linking mamenchisaurids here?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• where it has evolved independently — Is the "has" needed?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• were more elongate — Is this correct, or should it be "elongated"?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Classification

• which recovered Spinophorosaurus — Is "recovered" the right word?

Said "placed" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Evolution

• The first sentence could be split into two.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Palaeobiology

• reported radial fibrolamellar bone — "a radial"? "bone tissue"?

It is a fixed term. Added an explanation; hope that helps! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• a specialised function of the tail, which is unknown. — I think you mean the function is unknown, but as written it sounds as if the tail is unknown.

Changed to "Together, these features of the tail may have been part of a specialised function, which is unknown." FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Another fine article, FunkMonk. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks (for copy-edits as well), couldn't have done this without Jens, who probably wrote more than half of it. We'll get to the issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The issues should now be addressed, Usernameunique, though it appears you added one point without explaining the issue? FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, FunkMonk, adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! As mentioned below, a bit of extra information was just added, if you want to check:[18] FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Alt text is needed throughout - [19].

Will look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Now added, hope it is ok. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Could the Source of File:Theropod teeth associated with Spinophorosaurus.png be shown as the actual source document, with a page number, rather than the abstract.

The abstract has a link to the PDF; I usually avoid linking directly to PDFs, both because it might be heavier for some Internet connections, but also because links to PDFs are often changed, so I consider it safer. Also, the current link makes it possible to navigate to other parts of the journal's website (in case one wants related papers or to look closer at the copyright info), which can't be done from a PDF. I can change it if it's important, but this is the reasoning I usually go by. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not the reasoning I would use, but I can see its merits. You have thought it through, so fine.

• All images are appropriately licenced.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• In general the sources appear to be of appropriate scholarly quality. I do have a couple of queries, however:

• The five references (5, 5, 6, 8 and 10) that are sourced to "Google Arts & Culture" contain very little, and I struggled to find what information in the article text is supported by these refs. As an example, take ref 8.

It is often some interesting context that wasn't mentioned in the German book. For example 8 supports "(showing signs of a professional excavation)". 6 supports "(the shorter route through the Sahara was not possible due to the risk of terrorist attacks); other members of the team arrived by airplane" and so on. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 18: This appears to be an early draft article, the source says "PeerJ Preprints is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary." Can we therefore offer this as a high quality, reliable source?

The citation supports a very uncontroversial fact, though, which is unlikely to be challenged in the final publication (and the author, Michael P. Taylor, is respected); "The vertebral column is almost completely known, and the holotype is one of the few sauropod specimens that include a complete neck". Why this is not stated in one of the published papers is hard to say, but is a notable fact. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• There are also a few format issues:

• Ref 2 is missing page references

I assume this is due to the citation style, where they are shown in-text, will let Jens Lallensack answer. I wonder if it would help to add the book's full page range there? FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we used rp-templates here. Not sure if we are allowed to add the full page range at all (according to Template:Cite book: "do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source"), but for the record, its 175 pages. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Likewise ref 3

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Likewise ref 32

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 12: Retrieval date missing.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• We just discovered a 2018 conference abstract book we had overlooked and added some additional information, in case the reviewers want to check this. The changes are here:[20] FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AhmadLX

• "The centra of its vertebrae are 80% smaller than those of Spinophorosaurus". Source ([18]) says they are 80% of the length of Spinophosaurs vertebrae. The two are not the same.

Right, changed to "80% the length of those of Spinophorosaurus". FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• [1] doesn't say that it was "first German dinosaur expedition to Africa in almost a century" or that "it included ten permanent members." [7] supports only the former claim.

Replaced citation 1 with 2, where the info on the team is from (issue created when text was moved around). FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• [12] doesn't actually say that it "is one of the most completely known basal sauropods, it is a good model for biomechanical studies." It should be replaced here with [25], which does specifically say that.

Whoops, must have happened when some of the text was rejigged, fixed by simply removing 12 from the sentence, as the paragraph ends in 25 anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Any reason link for [12] hasn't been given? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 19:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Whoops, seems Jens and I had an edit conflict, he already did the edits above anyway (though with some differences), haha... FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Couldn't find any other issues. I am supporting. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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 June 2019 [21].

---

Elizabeth Raffald

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It took a Yorkshire lass to show the Mancunians how to cook—and to invent the pride of the north west, the Eccles cake. Elizabeth Raffald was an extraordinary character. After working in service, she opened a Register Office to introduce domestic workers to employers; ran a cookery school and sold food, published a superb cookery book and Manchester's first trade directory, ran two important post houses while also giving birth to six children. This article has undergone a re-write and had an excellent peer review. Any further constructive comments and suggestions are warmly welcomed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. I was one of the peer reviewers and my quibbles (all minor) were dealt with then. Only two further points strike me on rereading. In the lead, "In 1769 Raffald published..." might flow more smoothly as "In 1769 she published ..."; and in Business career, penultimate para, I think you have one ess too many in the Raffalds's: you only want the first one. The article seems to me to meet the FA criteria: comprehensive, an enjoyable read, balanced, well and widely sourced and nicely illustrated. – Tim riley talk 12:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Afterthought: speaking as a Liverpudlian I take issue with your absurd claim above about Eccles cakes. Frightful things! Give me a plate of scouse any day. Tim riley talk 12:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim, for your PR and additional thoughts here. I've tweaked per your two suggestions here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. One minor query: in the lead, we are told that "After her death there were several official editions of her cookery book, and twenty-three pirated ones": is there any particular reason the lead doesn't say how many genuine editions of the book were published? Other than that, the prose is good, illustrations are good (if I were to be really picky, I might complain about the off-of-horizontal lines of mortar and text on the photo of the blue plaque!), and the article seems balanced and comprehensive. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No reason at all, and I've now added the number. (I've also asked at the graphics lab is anyone can do something clever with the plaque image to straighten it out a little. We shall see what they can come up with!) Many thanks for your comments here, and for your tweak to the year template - I'm very much obliged to you! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria. Now duly added. - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. I missed the peer review, but looking at this version today, it's evident I wasn't needed. I've read through the article today, fixed some ref orders and removed a typo, and I'm happy this meets the FA criteria. A sterling effort and a very good read. Well done. Cassianto^Talk 17:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cass - I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

• There is quite a bit of over linking; eg "flummery" is linked three times.
• It would seem reasonable to me to link "wedding cake" in the lead. And in the main article.
• "The Directory contains" and other cases. Should "Directory" not be in italics?
• "Hunt identifies that there are no keepers of lodging houses listed" Optional: "identifies" → 'points out'.
• "Fifteen genuine editions of her book were published" "genuine" seems odd; do you mean 'authorised'?
• "which includes a recipe for apricot ice cream.[91] In her 1984 book, An Omelette and a Glass of Wine, David includes recipes for potted ham with chicken, potted salmon, and lemon syllabub" I assume that these recipes are copied from Raffald's book; it may be worth tweaking the language to make this clear.
• "she included three of Raffald's recipes" I count more than three. Could you separate them out with semi colons?
• "A blue plaque marked the site of" Should that not be 'marks'?

• Marked is right: It was damaged in the bomb attack and a new one placed nearby. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• "at the hall's restaurant, catering for public visitors" IMO this would read better if "catering" → 'which caters'.
• "Steve Hamilton, Arley's general manager" "Arley's" → 'Arley Hall's'?

An excellently written article. Enjoyable and educational to boot. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Gog, thank you very much indeed for these. All done, with the exception of the one I've commented on. I'm mich obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• All links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
• Formats: Ref 72 requires pp. not p.
• Quality and reliability: The article appears to very extensively sourced, and I see no evident issues relating to quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Brian, Many thanks for your eagle eye on this. I've tweaked the ref in question. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for dealing with a woman influential in cooking! Only minor comments:

General: while I believe that a woman should not be called by given name alone, I don't think she should be called Raffald before she married. That goes for lead and the first paragraph of early life.

• Both courses are followed, and I am not sure there is any firm guidance that either one is inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• This is a recurring theme on Wikipedia. There are some who believe that calling a woman by her first name belittles her, whereas I believe that it clarifies just who it is you're talking about. "Raffald" could be taken to mean either Elizabeth or her husband, and as you say Gerda, she didn't adopt the surname Raffald until her marriage anyway. And I have to say I find the switching between "Elizabeth" and "Raffald" to be somewhat grating. But so long as the WMF is so morbidly obsessed with non-existent gender issues there seems little to be done about it. Eric Corbett 17:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• I tried (on a couple of other articles) using the first name throughout for consistency and clarity. Given the reaction, one would have thought the end of the world was nigh. Mind you, the two main drivers to change the name were among the most unhelpful individuals I've ever come across - one of whom was a rather unbalanced stalker too. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead: The first sentence is overly general, - I'd prefer a hint at her topics.

• The problem is that she followed a diverse path. Books on cookery, a directory and on childbirth; businesses selling food, a pub, a servants register, etc. We start bloating a bit too much and lose the impact. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Early life

• I see no advantage of the image left, where it displaces the text below the header.
  • I'm ambivalent, but done. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Business career

• "John opened a floristry shop near Fennel Street; Raffald began an entrepreneurial career at the premises.", - you could say - in this case - "Elizabeth" (to distinguish), or "his wife". Or begin with what she did and then say "her husband". Same a few sentences later.
• "Raffald did not "gloss ... over with hard names or words of high style, but wrote in my own plain language"." - I don't know a good way to avoid the switch from third person to first person in the quote, but perhaps you can find one.
  • Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• I had to look up Mancunian, but may be the only one. Manchester dialect?
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• I suggest to have the Directory image a bit larger.
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Cookery

• "Colquhoun thinks some of the recipes 'just a bit bizarre'", - strange grammar in the combination, but ma be just for me.

Legacy

• I don't think we need a translation of "burnt cream" a second time.

Please take the points just as things to be considered, - I am ready to support regardless, and some may be just my missing English or Mancunian ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Eric Corbett

An improvement on my poor effort. Eric Corbett 17:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank Eric - and also for your comments and assistance at PR - I'm much obliged, and I hope Raffald's name spreads further! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

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 June 2019 [22].

---

Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo Helmet (not to be confused with the Sutton Hoo helmet) is a major work by the minor artist Rick Kirby. Reflecting the fragmentary nature of the helmet on which it is based, it nevertheless retains the imposing, form-based characteristics of Kirby's oeuvre. The sculpture was unveiled by Seamus Heaney in 2002, and greets the thousands of visitors who visit Sutton Hoo each year.

I believe this short article meets the featured article criteria. I have scoured for every available source (including unanswered emails to Kirby and the National Trust), and am confident that it is comprehensive. At the same time, it was thoroughly reviewed last year by Premeditated Chaos, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

Generally this is fine as it goes - but its very slight, and rather uninforming. I get the lack of available sources and stuff, but it strikes me as more DYK than fac - eg does Kirby really have "major works"? Dunno, and anyway, his version adds nothing new. Also, not sure that Axle Arts [@axle_arts] is a reliable source. I'm sort of verging on a principled oppose.Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Ceoil. I’m happy to make changes in accordance with any suggestions. Axle Arts could be removed as a source, for instance; it supports only the minor point that the maquette for this sculpture was offered for sale in 2005 for £9,600. The source is probably reliable on this point—just as citing to an auction house for a sales price would be reliable—but it is hardly a major point of the article. As for DYK vs. FA, the notability standard is the same for both, so I don’t think that should be a problem. This article is certainly short, but there is precedent for that, and I have taken a close look at the featured article criteria, and believe that this article meets them. —Usernameunique (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of work since I last read it, and while have "sort of" kept up during the back and fourth below during last few days, to say I am no longer concerned about length in this case- it is clear that an exhaustive search has been conducted and the page as it stands represents the extent of the published sources. Will have an other read through shortly. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Going to call this as a Support, with some cmts;

• it takes as its inspiration the fragmentary appearance of the reconstructed helmet - drop "it takes as its", and maybe inspired by the fragmentary remains or some such

• Changed to "it is inspired by the".

• mild steel plates that are coloured red - how was it made red

• I'm not sure, the source just says "Small mild steel plates, coloured red". Based on an email exchange I had with that author, my guess is he just gleaned that visually when he visited the site.

• giving him the sense of scale and dramatic impact - don't like "giving him" - "as it allows a sense of scale...."

• Changed to "allowing the sense".

• [2] The Sutton Hoo ship-burial was quickly, if not uniquely, dubbed "Britain's Tutankhamun", and the finds reshaped views of what was then termed the Dark Ages - not sure if it should be "find" or "finds". Also "dubbed" is a dreadful word.

• You're right, I think either would work here. I used "finds" because I was thinking of the varied artefacts and the skill that went into manufacturing them (and the trade routes evinced by them), but "find" would be appropriate also, considering the holistic scale of the burial. Dubbed is pretty dreadful as you say—and feel free to change it—though its bluntness is being used partly because "Britain's Tutankhamun" is bit of an unthoughtful term by the press, used also for the Staffordshire Hoard (link), the Prittlewell royal Anglo-Saxon burial (link), and undoubtedly others throughout the decades.

Thinking..."dubbed" could be "became know as". "was quickly" is very imprecise, if you could clarify. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Why are we even mentioning the Dark Ages; I doubt many RS use that term.

• The point is historiograpic, i.e., that Sutton Hoo helped lead people to stop using the term "Dark Ages" and start using the term "Middle Ages" in its place. According to the source used in the article (although a few say essentially the same thing, Sutton Hoo "profoundly changed the way people thought about what had been called the 'Dark Ages' - those centuries that followed the collapse of Roman rule in Britain."

• Yes I know. So say so (unless I missed that bit). It would explain a lot why Kirby was so moved. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• The Sutton Hoo finds were soon donated to the British Museum - can we be clearer than "soon donated"

• Changed to The Sutton Hoo finds were donated to the British Museum within weeks.

• within weeks - thanks Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• ...English sculptor Rick Kirby to create a sculpture - repetition re sculptor

• Changed to "to create a work", but am open to other suggestions.

Maybe - the English artist Kirby to create a sculpture Ceoil (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Kirby's works included a number of public commissions at the time - "at the time" is redundant

• How about "Kirby's works then included a number of public commissions"?

• the glistening replica made by the Royal Armouries - "glistening" isn't very informing from a visual arts POV, which is my POV. A compare and contrast here might be appropriate.

• What do you think of (note the piped link) "rather than the glistening silvery replica made by the Royal Armouries."?

• Thats even worse. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not say "glistening". Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Overall, excellent. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Ceoil. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Putting aside the question of length (I'm agnostic, but it would be the sixth-shortest FA at its current size per the list above) or overall feature-worthiness, something I can do in the meantime to help this along is give an image review. It's simple, it's low-hanging fruit, it clears one item off the checklist to get to more complicated issues.

There are two images:

• Sutton Hoo Exhibition Hall.jpg – free-licensed, authored by a Commons user, no issues.
• Sutton Hoo mask - geograph.org.uk - 178637.jpg – free-licensed, part of the Geograph project, no issues.

Per Commons, the UK's freedom of panorama law provides that it's OK to take photos of a sculpture put on permanent public display, which this helmet indeed is. So no copyright vio in taking photos of the sculpture, even though the sculpture itself is a copyrighted work.

It may be advisable to include a photo of the actual Sutton Hoo helmet (or to be more precise, the reconstruction upon which Kirby's helmet is modeled). —BLZ · talk 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from BLZ

• That second image includes coordinates that could be used with template:coord on the page itself.

• Added (using coordinates pulled from Google Maps).

• Tentatively, I would say that the Axle Arts Twitter account is an OK source. While it's odd that they aren't verified, the gallery's homepage links back to that account so I don't see much reason to doubt its veracity. It seems like all the tweet adds, beyond what was already provided in the other Axle Arts, is to confirm that the sculpture named as "Sutton Hoo Helmet" in the pdf is in fact the maquette of this sculpture.

Incidentally, you have two sources that are institutionally credited to Axle Arts, but the tweet lists "Axle Arts" as the collective author, while the other gives "Axle Arts" as a journal (which I'm not sure is right anyway—maybe an unitalicized publisher). This is a small inconsistency and partly a quirk of the cite tweet template, but it might be worth rethinking how to format some of these citations—or possibly, to dig deeper for individual authors, as it may be possible to contact Axle or otherwise identify their catalog writer(s)/social media manager(s) at the time of the Kirby catalog/the tweet.

• As you say, the main point of the tweet is to say that the artwork being offered for sale is a "maquette"; this word, which as you say is a technical term, is not used in the catalog. "Axle Arts," in the second citation (which uses the cite web template), is in the "website" parameter. Would you put it somewhere else?

• I would probably put it in "author" so that it shows up next to the tweet in the bibliography. There isn't much meaningful distinction between "publisher" and "author" in this situation anyway, but it is kind of odd to have these two sources that are shortcited the same way show up so far apart. It's only an issue because it's forced by template:cite tweet, which only allows a Twitter handle to be considered as a (quasi-individual) author rather than as a publisher, even though there are many situations where a Twitter account would be better considered the publisher than the author—e.g. I wouldn't consider Burger King to be the "author" of @BurgerKing. More for the bibliography: you should change the parameters of ArtParkS International, Bath Contemporary, and National Trust from "website" to "publisher", since they aren't works or ongoing journals and thus shouldn't be italicized.
• Done.

• It looks like a 2002 issue of Minerva (archaeology magazine) may have commented on Kirby's statue. Google Snippet view; difficult to tell if they commented beyond the highlighted portion in that link. But it makes me wonder if there are other offline print sources out there, or academic sources that may be behind a paywall.

• That issue can be found for free here; the article, by Angela Care Evans, is on pages 40–42. There is nothing else about the sculpture, although the article could be used to add some of the context that you speak of. Generally speaking, I've done a quite thorough search for sources, using, among others, Google, Google Books, ProQuest, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, twitter, hathitrust, and jstor. There may be out there (particularly other newspaper articles about the unveiling of the centre that mention the sculpture), but I have looked broadly.

• Thanks for finding that. Too bad there's not more, but I still think it would be worthwhile to include the statement that the helmet "dominates the entrance to the Visitor Centre". It complements the stated intention of a "fierce presence" and, though it's not much, it gives some hint of the sculpture's "critical reception", since it's a third-party impression/assessment as to its artistic effectiveness.

Otherwise, I do trust that you've cast a wide net; I'd actually checked JSTOR myself before even posting my first comments, and sure enough found nothing on Rick Kirby or his work. Even this Bibliography of Anglo-Saxon studies in 2002 doesn't seem to turn up anything that may be about the Visitor Centre or Kirby's Helmet, other than the same Minerva article. —BLZ · talk 19:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Good point, added.

• Something that may help bulk up the article and give it the "standalone" quality that goes along with an FA-level of comprehensiveness: I think there could be more context provided about the site and the original helmet. I think you provide some good context about the origins of the visitor centre, but a general reader encountering this article as a TFA would leave it having little if any idea what Sutton Hoo or the Sutton Hoo Helmet actually are. This would only warrant a paragraph or two, but nevertheless the article screams out for a section with Template:Main.

• I've added a new paragraph explaining what Sutton Hoo, and the Sutton hoo helmet, are; hopefully this gives a greater degree of context than before. (I've also trimmed part of the previous context, such as the ownership history of the Sutton Hoo estate, which seems unnecessary.)

• Looks good to me.

• "rendered on a much grander scale" – you give the dimensions of Kirby's helmet, but not any info about the dimensions of the reconstructed helmet. To some extent this is self-evident—it's roughly adult-male-human-head-sized, surely—but it would be nice to have that precision, so a reader can work out just how much bigger Kirby's helmet is. (Relatedly: you give the height of the maquette in centimeters/inches, but the dimensions of the actual sculpture in meters/feet.)

• Added, and changed the units.

• Some other omitted details that spark natural curiosity: it was unveiled in 2002, but when was it commissioned? Commissioned at what price? Why did the National Trust choose Rick Kirby, as opposed to other sculptors? How long did it take to make, from start to finish? What was the process? It may be that these questions aren't answered in any currently available sources, but they're basic aspects of almost any work of art that a reader would want to know about.

• I emailed the National Trust last year, hoping to find out some of these answers, but never got a response. I've just sent another email, and requested copies of the 2002 and 2003 annual reports, in case they say something, from a library nearby.

• Speaking of process: I now know what a "maquette" is because I bothered to click the link, but I'm an ignoramus when it comes to the finer points of sculpting—as most people are—and I wouldn't have understood that sentence on its own. I'm not asking you to adopt this exact wording—you would know better how exactly to word this—but I think the maquette would be better introduced to the reader like this: In the course of making the sculpture, Kirby completed a maquette, which is a [definition of maquette]. The maquette, [height] with pedestal, was offered for sale by a private art gallery in 2005, with an asking price of £9,600. —BLZ · talk 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've largely adopted your wording (which I like), changing it to In the course of making the sculpture, Kirby completed a mock-up, or maquette. The maquette, 1.97 m (6.5 ft) high with pedestal, was offered for sale by a private art gallery in 2005, with an asking price of £9,600.

Thanks for the review, Brandt Luke Zorn. I believe I've addressed each of your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Brandt Luke Zorn, thanks for the fast response. A few comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Steel is Kirby's favoured medium, giving him 'the ability to go huge' and the 'whoom-factor!' he finds in Sutton Hoo Helmet." The source indicates that these qualities are why Kirby favors steel in general, but this wording suggests he commented on his Helmet in particular or attributed these qualities to the Helmet in particular, which he did not. Thus, "... he finds in Sutton Hoo Helmet is misleading. Later, "Both the material and the subject are typical of Kirby's work. Steel is Kirby's material of choice, for what he describes as 'the ability to go huge' and its 'whoom-factor!'" is OK. It may be better to paraphrase in the lead rather than quote the same portion twice; I think something like "sense of scale and dramatic impact" would reasonably capture what he means. —BLZ · talk 20:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Brandt Luke Zorn, done. I had wondered about that too. I originally kept it in since Kirby's words "whoom factor!" are so close to how the National Trust described the work—"wow factor"—but the new wording, giving him the sense of scale and dramatic impact found in Sutton Hoo Helmet., is better. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Kirby's CV appears to list two Sutton Hoo commissions, one dated to 2000 and one dated to 2002, the latter "Unveiled By Shamus [sic] Heaney". Is the 2000 one the maquette? Either way, this clue gives some indication as to the overall timeline of the project.

• I was confused by that too. If the 2000 one was commissioned by the National Trust, it would be odd for it to be the maquette, given that it was offered for sale by a private gallery. I think it may be a mistake—at least, I don't think it is citable evidence that the sculpture above the visitor centre was commissioned in 2000. I way as well send another email to Kirby, however.

• Probably good to summarize briefly Kirby's career/most notable works up to that point, too. Even if we don't know exactly why National Trust chose him, indicating briefly what else he had done recently is good context.

• Added a line mentioning his public commissions, and specifically those unveiled by Princess Margaret and Queen Elizabeth.

• 245 acres – in keeping with your handling of units elsewhere, reasonable to parenthetically convert this to square kms and miles.

• I'm not sure that this one needs conversion, since acres are units in both imperial and US customary systems.

• £5 million – big sum, 20 years old; you could consider adjusting for inflation: "equivalent to approximately £{{Inflation|UK|5|2002|r=1}}{{nbsp}}million in {{Inflation/year|UK}}" gives "equivalent to approximately £8.7 million in 2021". —BLZ · talk 20:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Done.

Thanks Brandt Luke Zorn, responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support At this point I have no doubt that the article is as complete and comprehensive as it could possibly be, under the circumstances of its subject matter, and I have no doubts as to the quality of the writing, research, or any FA criteria. Usernameunique has been very responsive, and I think this article demonstrates even articles with modest or obscure subject matter can be featured-quality. —BLZ · talk 05:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support, Brandt Luke Zorn. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Cas Liber

Looks fine prose- and comprehensiveness-wise, apart from one quibble - " but is rendered on a much grander scale" could be construed as positive POV, so I would say " but is rendered on a much larger scale" - not a deal-breakert though. Ncie work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review and support, Casliber. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• All links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
• Formats:

• Ref 19: p. number missing

• The cite is to the entire work, since the chapter is Nigel Williams’s description of the reconstruction.

• Bibliography includes "Rick Kirby, Bath Contemporary" and "Rick Kirby Sculptor profile", but there appear to be no citations to these sites.

• They’re in the final two citations, 21–22.

• Quality and reliability: no issues – the sources used appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the source review, Brianboulton. Responses above. —Usernameunique (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: nothing to say on the Ipswich Star? ——SerialNumber54129 09:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

• "A representation of the Anglo-Saxon namesake helmet found in the Sutton Hoo ship-burial": I know what you mean by this, but "namesake helmet" reads awkwardly to me; I would say "Anglo-Saxon helmet of the same name" or "from which it takes its name" or even "which is its namesake".

• Done.
  • Better, thanks. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• The lead has two instances where you have two consecutive links, which is disrecommended by the MOS: "Anglo-Saxon namesake helmet" and "Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney". And I didn't expect to end up at List of Nobel laureates in Literature from "Nobel Laureate": I expected it to point to Nobel Prize in Literature.

• "Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney" is actually three links—including Nobel Prize in Literature—but that kind of proves your point. I've compromised by moving the second link to the body of the article.
  • Yeah, this is definitely clearer. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "The Sutton Hoo ship-burial was quickly, if not uniquely, labelled "Britain's Tutankhamun"": what does "if not uniquely" mean here? (I guess that other finds have also been given the appellation, but it isn't clear from the text)

• That's exactly what it means. As said above, in §Support by Ceoil, "'Britain's Tutankhamun' is bit of an unthoughtful term by the press, used also for the Staffordshire Hoard (link), the Prittlewell royal Anglo-Saxon burial (link), and undoubtedly others throughout the decades." I can add some of those sources if you think it needs it.
  • I might suggest something a little more verbose: "The Sutton Hoo ship-burial was quickly labelled "Britain's Tutankhamun" – a term also used for other discoveries such as the Staffordshire Hoard and Prittlewell royal Anglo-Saxon burial." Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• In that case I think I'm inclined to just remove the clause, as naming the other "Tutankhamuns" seems a little tangential (especially in a background section). I had also toyed with "if not uniquely," but for reasons discussed above that also seems not ideal.

• Yeah, I think this is an improvement to be honest. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• "became known as the Middle Ages": this surprised me. I was under the impression (though I am no medievalist!) that the dark ages referred to the early middle ages. Our article on Dark Ages tells me that the term was once used to denote the entire medieval period, but that by the 19th century it was restricted to the early part of the period.

• Dark Ages (historiography) seems to answer this, stating that "scholars began restricting the 'Dark Ages' appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century), and now scholars also reject its usage in this period. The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate."
  • Yes, I understand that; what I object to is that this article seems to be saying that the Sutton Hoo discoveries were a (the?) major reason for this, whereas Dark Ages (historiography) suggests that the change was already well underway! (and I note that the source cited does not make the claim that either the term "Dark Ages" was still being used at the time of the Sutton Hoo discovery, or that the discovery was responsible for the shift to "Middle Ages"; just that "it profoundly changed the way people thought about what had been called the 'Dark Ages'") Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think this point is strong. MacGregor 2011 states both that Sutton Hoo "profoundly changed the way people thought about what had been called the 'Dark Ages'" and that Sutton Hoo "profoundly changed our understanding of this whole chapter of British history. Long dismissed as the Dark Ages, this period, the centuries after the Romans withdrew, could now be seen as a time of high sophistication and extensive international contacts that linked East Anglia not just to Scandinavia and the Atlantic but ultimately to the eastern Mediterranean and beyond." Marzinzik 2007 says that "the quality and beauty of the garnet jewellery and millefiori glass inlay in particular ... and the complexity of the chain-mail and textiles demonstrated a sophistication unexpected from what was then called 'The Dark Ages.'" Nor is that to mention the article entitled "When the Dark Ages Were Lit Up: the Sutton Hoo discovery 70 years on." There are many more examples. Dark Ages (historiography) is not inconsistent: It states that by the time of the Sutton Hoo discovery, the Early Middle Ages—from which time the ship-burial dates—were still referred to as the "Dark Ages," even if the High and Late Middle Ages had begun to be lose the "Dark" moniker. Even if the change was underway, the discovery of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial was clearly a catalyst.

• Okay, Marzinzik does support "then known as the Dark Ages", and the sources do support that the Sutton Hoo helmet was a major factor in the change. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• "The maquette, 1.97 m (6.5 ft) high with pedestal": Possibly this is merely a sad indictment of my reading comprehension, but my first thought was "that's a bloody enormous maquette" and the second was "wait, isn't the full sized sculpture only 1.8 meters?" Do we have the dimensions of the work without pedestal? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• I had pretty similar thoughts. We could extrapolate from the dead-on photograph in the catalogue that the sans-pedestal work is about .75 m (2.5 ft), but that might be pressing it. The fact that the height includes the pedestal is already an extrapolation (it's clear from the Twitter photograph, set against a doorframe, that this is nowhere near 15 feet tall), but I figured it was important to make that clear.
  • Pity. Would be nice to have more dimensions for the work (width and depth as well!) but if that's all that is out there then c'est la vie. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I suppose we don't know what became of the maquette after it went up for sale?

• Just sent the gallery an email. I'm doubtful that it will lead to anything, let alone anything sufficiently sourced to add to the article, but worth a shot.
  • I would be astonished if they tell you anything. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just received a response saying that it was sold some years ago, and that it was created as part of Kirby's pitch for the commission. The pedestal was added at the suggestion of the gallery, to make it appropriate for a domestic setting. This is interesting stuff, especially that it seems that the commission was opened to a number of sculptors, who went through something of an audition process. I'll follow up (and see if perhaps a photo of the maquette could be licensed).

• Oh, that's really interesting stuff. Would be great if you could find any reliable sources which discuss this! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Caeciliusinhorto, I've just asked. It also supports Brandt Luke Zorn's theory, above, that the 2000 National Trust Sutton Hoo Helmet listed on Kirby's cv is the maquette; if made for the pitching process it would have had to be made some time before the 2002 sculpture, and was, in a sense, made for the National Trust. Also, one more response above (re: "Dark Ages"). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Caeciliusinhorto. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. Though I still have reservations about the Dark Ages thing, I cannot rationally explain them... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review, Caeciliusinhorto, and now the support. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

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 June 2019 [23].

---

Thomas F. Mulledy

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the two-time President of Georgetown University, one of the founders of the College of the Holy Cross, and a prominent 19th-century leader of the Jesuits in the United States. He was very cantankerous and was not on good terms with most of his fellow Jesuits. Today, he is most remembered for having been the main actor in the 1838 Jesuit slave sale, in which he sold 272 slaves owned by the Jesuits to pay off Georgetown's debts. This resulted in significant protests at Georgetown and Holy Cross in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Ergo Sum 03:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Will be providing feedback shortly w/ disclaimer that I'm an alumnus of Georgetown. ceranthor 20:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Prose notes

• "He went on to become twice the President of Georgetown College in Washington, D.C. " - I always find "went on" a redundant phrase like "subsequently"... why not just "he was twice the President" or "for two terms"?
  • Rephrased to sound more streamlined. Ergo Sum 03:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• I also think the meaning of the twice President mention is unclear from the rest of the lead; perhaps just mention the years and it should be more obvious?
  • With the above rephrasing, I think it is clearer now. Ergo Sum 03:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• "Before receiving any formal education, he and his brother, Samuel Mulledy, taught at the Romney Academy in their hometown.[9][10] " - who is he here? father or son?
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 03:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• "The legislature eventually awarded Georgetown lots across the city worth $25,000, title to which was transferred to the college on February 20, 1837.[35]" - think you are missing the word "the" before "title"
  • I've seen it both ways, with or without the article, but generally I don't see "the" appear before title in the real estate world. Ergo Sum 03:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• "ulledy had developed alcoholism, and subsequently resolved to observe a year of abstinence.[42] " - "subsequently" adds nothing here
  • I've rephrased it, though it doesn't make sense unless one communicates that the abstinence occurred after the alcoholism. Ergo Sum 03:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• "Roothaan was particularly persuaded" - don't think you need "particularly" here
  • Removing the word changes the meaning of the sentence. The idea is that Eccleston tipped the scale for Roothaan without being the sole persuading factor. I'm not sure how to rephrase it to communicate this idea without using essentially the same verbiage. Ergo Sum 03:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, the prose is of excellent quality, and I feel comfortable supporting this per 1a. ceranthor 01:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments, Ceranthor. I believe I've addressed each of them. Ergo Sum 03:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
  • Converted px to upright scaling factor. Ergo Sum 21:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• File:Thomas_Mulledy_daguerreotype.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Mulledy_Hall_1898.jpg, File:Fenwick_Hall,_Holy_Cross.gif
  • @Nikkimaria: Those three images were created in the 1840s, 1898, and 1844, respectively. My reading of U.S. copyright law (which I take from here) is that works created prior to 1899 (120+ years old) are in the public domain regardless of when or where they were first published. Is this not how you read it? Ergo Sum 21:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The 120+ years old rule applies to "never published, never registered" works, which would require that we know these are unpublished (and would also require different tagging). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: I see the confusion; I forgot to mention I was talking about anonymous works regarding the 120 year rule. I've done quite a bit of searching and have been unable to find any attribution for these three photos or the one below (St. John's Literary Institution). While one cannot state with certainty that these are anonymous works, I think they have to meet the definition of anonymous works, since the only places that would have information regarding their authorship (the archives that currently hold the actual images) provide no further information; i.e. this is not merely a situation in which a random website displays the photo without any information. These images are in the possession of archival custodians whose purpose is to preserve information about their holdings, and they have none. Therefore, it is my understanding that while anonymity should not be presumed, the high bar is met here, so the 120 year rule supersedes any publication date + 95 year calculus. Ergo Sum 04:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't dispute that the works are anonymous. But if you look at the Cornell link you've provided, the 120-year rule for anonymous works applies only to "never published, never registered" works - that's the bit that is at this point uncertain. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
          • I have found no evidence that these images were published prior to being uploaded recently to various websites (which I understand is currently up for debate as to whether internet uploads constitute publication). In any event, if I could draw your attention to the actual copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17), at section 302(c) (concerning anonymous works), I read it as applying equally to anonymous works that were published or unpublished. What do you think? Ergo Sum 18:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
            • "95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first". What is the first known upload? Have any of the uploads you've seen provided details on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
              • @Nikkimaria: No, I've searched for any history of the images that would indicate prior publication, but haven't found anything. Ergo Sum 21:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

• File:Articles_of_agreement_between_Thomas_F._Mulledy,_of_Georgetown,_District_of_Columbia,_of_one_part,_and_Jesse_Beatty_and_Henry_Johnson,_of_the_State_of_Louisiana,_of_the_other_part._19th_June_1838.pdf needs a US PD tag
  • Added tag. Ergo Sum 21:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• File:St._John's_Literary_Institution_Frederick.jpg: when/where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto from bullet no. 2 (since the photo was created in 1890). Ergo Sum 21:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support from me. When I reviewed this for GA, I noted that both my review and the quality of the article exceeded the basics required for a GA. Nothing has changed, this is a featured quality article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Links: Ref 69 is returning a 404 error, although the archive goes to the source. Otherwise, all links to sources working, as per the checker tool
• Formats

• Check ref 42: "pp. 24–24"?

• Quality and reliability: As far as I can judge, the sources are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability as required by to meet the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: Thank you for the source review. I've fixed the dead url. Regarding ref 42, can you explain what needs checking? I'm not seeing anything wrong. Ergo Sum 14:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ergo Sum: Not Brian, but the problem is currently with ref 43. Same page number in the range. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Brianboulton and RetiredDuke: Ah, it's right in front of me! Same page numbers. Fixed. Thanks for suffering my confusion. Ergo Sum 04:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Support from Ceoil

Will give this a close read this evening.

• Maybe establish notability earlier in the lead; would expand the opening sentence "was an American Catholic priest from Virginia", which is a bit "so what".
  • I've beefed up the lede sentence so a reader would more quickly learn what the subject was all about. Ergo Sum 19:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure about "severe censure", perhaps drop "severe" as the two words don't go well together, and you detail the exile later in the same sentence. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• By the same token as my first point on notability, would mention the 2015 student protests, reasons and outcome in the lead. I will probably object on this point alone if the reasons are not mentioned in the lead.
  • I've added a few sentences about the protests at Georgetown and Holy Cross to the lede. Ergo Sum 19:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• He was unable to fund a new building to house a refectory, chapel, study hall, and dormitories until a Jesuit who had not yet taken final vows and still retained his property offered Mulledy a substantial loan. Overly muddy. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've broken it up into two sentences and rephrased them to be much clearer. Ergo Sum 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Mulledy scummed to alcoholism, but later resolved to observe a year of abstinence. This seems as white washing; no other details, and "but later" is an undefined, how many years later. Resolved is one thing; was he successful. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Rephrased the sentence slightly; I'm not sure how else to say it without sounding a little whitewashed, since the source does not say whether he was successful in breaking his alcoholism or how much later he tried abstinence after developing alcoholism. Ergo Sum 19:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Make it clear what the source doesn't say, or remove. In fact, this should totally go. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Have read closely. Excellent choice for an FA, if done well. Its not currently, and needs work, imo. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil: Thank you for your comments. I will go through them in the morning. To clarify, do you mean that it will be in good shape for FA after your comments have been addressed? Ergo Sum 07:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't support the page as currently written. Ceoil (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Ceoil: I've gone through all your comments, and I believe I've addressed them. If there are additional things that you think should be done to have this article satisfy the FA criteria, I'd appreciate your comments. Ergo Sum 19:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Mulledy Hall at the College of the Holy Cross retained Mulledy's name, but was supplemented by an additional one, bearing the name of a subsequent president who pursued racial integration on campus. I cant understand this; "an additional one"? Given the emotive (slave trader) statement just before, I would like absolute, in tiny words, clarity here. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work on the sentences about the building names. I found it a bit difficult to state concisely what was going on. Between your reworking of them and a few followup edits I just made, I think it's much clearer now. PS, I did remove the words "slave trader" because (as I said in my edit summary), I think it's rather exaggerated, since he was not a career trader, but executed one sale. Ergo Sum 21:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• That said, have confidence in Ergo, am now leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil: Great, let me know what you think of it now. Ergo Sum 21:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Have had another look over. What I was looking for in the end was balance, and I appreciate the quick response. Support. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2019 [24].

---

Ashcan copy

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a type of comic book that publishers used to secure trademarks in the 1930s and 40s. They were never meant to be seen publically and were considered worthless, hence the name. Years later, they're extremely valuable and considered an important part of comic history. As knowledge of them spread in the late 1980s, the term was co-opted to lend significance to newer comics. The ashcans that are published today have very little in common with their namesake. The article is on the short side, but I believe it's fully comprehensive. It passed GA in July 2018 and has since been expanded with an extra source or two. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• For this sentence (The term was revived in the 1980s by Bob Burden, who used the term for prototypes of his self-published comic book.), I would avoid the repetition of "term" twice in the same sentence.
  • This one has been addressed by User:Eric Corbett. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• A wikilink for "American comic book" is used in the lead, but "comic book" is not linked in any way in the body of the article. Should a wikilink be added to the body of the article for consistency?
  • Added. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• I am assuming that the article should be written in American English considering the topic. This leads me to a question about this part (At the time, waste containers were commonly called). As an American, I personally use either "trash can" or "garbage can" and the article being linked mentions that "can" is the preferred wording in America. "Waste containers" might be used in certain U.S. regions or in the past though., It is a super nitpicky point, but I did pause when I read that phrase.
  • I couldn't think of a good way to phrase that at the time and chose to go with "waste container" because that was the name of the article. I've revised it to "garbage can" for now, but I'd welcome suggestions on restructuring the whole sentence. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope these comments are somewhat helpful. I am completely unfamiliar with the comic book industry, but I have heard of television and film companies doing this to preserve a licensed character/property. I remember hearing some speculation that the 2015 film Fantastic Four was done solely to keep the licensing. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Every little bit helps! I also recall that film being close to the deadline for the rights to expire, but I'm not sure it would count as an ashcan considering the effort they put into production and promotion. The only mention the article makes about the rights is the 2022 deadline for a sequel or reboot. I'd be happy to look over your FAC, but I need to complete a couple other items on my to-do list first. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. It is an interesting and enjoyable read. Good luck with all the items on your to-do list! I have a quite a few things on my own list too so I can definitely understand that. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Eric Corbett

• "An ashcan copy is a type of American comic book publication created solely to establish trademarks on potential titles and not intended for sale, which was done in the 1930s and 1940s when the comic book industry was in its infancy." This would almost certainly be better recast as two sentences, perhaps along the lines of "An ashcan copy is a type of American comic book publication created solely to establish trademarks on potential titles and not intended for sale; the practice took root during the 1930s and 1940s, when the comic book industry was in its infancy." But there does seem to be some inconsistency with the rest of the article, which tells us that some modern ashcans are intended for publication, so maybe "not usually intended for sale" might be more accurate? Also, something can't really begin in the 1930s and 1940s, as it must have begun in one or the other.
  • I have revised the opening statement. I believe the new language addresses all of your concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Some ashcans lacked interior pages of any kind." Is that just a rather unusual way of saying that they had no interior pages at all?
  • Yes. This wording matched the tone of the source, and I've rephrased it to match the tone of this article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• "The term was applied to these editions of comics because they had no value.[4] However, some spare copies were given to editors, employees, and visitors to keep as souvenirs." "However" can't be the correct linking word here, as there's no contradiction with what's gone before.
  • It's contradicting the first sentence of the paragraph. I've reorganized it to put the two ideas closer together. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• "... a new publisher started by popular artists" Why "new"? Why not just "a publisher started by popular artists"?
  • Yes, I suppose saying it was the first publication makes 'new' redundant. Removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Soon, other publishers began using the idea in a variety of sizes and formats." I don't really see how an idea can have sizes and formats.
  • Clarified Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• The first two sentences of Later use read very awkwardly to me.
  • Combined and simplified. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Once the practice was in place ..." "Once the practice had become established"?
  • Changed Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett 13:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from John M Wolfson

This is my first time reviewing an FAC, so bear with me.

• I really feel as if this needs at least one image. Its talk of quality implies that there are visual distinctions between the originals and regular comic books from the same era, and while the text does a good enough job with elaborating on that, as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. It would also make it satisfy criterion 3 (Media), as I feel that such illustrations would be appropriate given the above. (Given the relative necessity of such images I might argue you could even use fair-use images to that effect, but don't take my word for it.)
  • There used to be some images, when the article was heavily slanted toward the specific example of Captain Marvel (DC Comics). They're still in use in the character's article, to give you an idea of what they look like. I can also get a scan of the Action Comics ashcan, which featured a witch instead of the more famous artwork seen here. Do you have a preference? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I think the Action Comics might be better given how historically important it is to comic books.
      • I'll get it added today. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Perhaps consider putting the montage in the lead, though I'll leave that to you.
• Citation 8, from CGC comics, is a dead link. I have tagged it as such, hopefully the IABot will take care of it and rescue it.
  • If not, I'm sure I can find a replacement. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Alright, thanks.
      • @John M Wolfson: I have linked an archive and added a second source for this. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• I don't believe that the trademark clerks would be fooled that easily into thinking that such "garbage" was actually published, although that could just be my modern-day cynicism.
  • At the time, comic books were expected to be low quality material. I imagine the trademark staff paid little attention to what was coming through. And, from what I understand, the ashcans were actually printed on higher quality material than the "official" versions that were sold on newsstands. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps that should be put into the article for those not familiar with the history.
      • Unfortunately, most of what I said there was synthesized from my research, not direct from a source. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, and the Action Comics cover makes it look like a legitimate pulp magazine anyway.
• "Ashcan = garbage can" needs a citation at the end of the sentence, IMO.
  • done. It had been there previously, but got shuffled when I made other changes. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your quick responses. I'll give this article another run-through, but pending those changes I'm likely to support.

Sorry if this is a bit short, or if my concerns are of limited actionability. Thank you! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for your quick responses, will be ready to support once the dead link is repaired. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'll support now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• Dead link in ref 8 still requires attention
• What makes Bloody Disgusting.com a high quality reliable source?

Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I added an archive link to ref 8. BD has been replaced. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from Ian

Recusing coord duties, read this purely out of interest and found precious little to do copyediting-wise -- short and sweet, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Appropriate fair use claimed for both images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2019 [25].

---

Grant Memorial coinage

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... Two coins, the last commemoratives we have to deal with from the 1920s. The usual legacy of (relative) beauty and doubt about whether the money went to a good cause.Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moise

Hi Wehwalt. I'm working my way through the article. So far it's looking pretty good for prose and (though I'm not an expert on coins) seems quite comprehensive as usual. I made several small edit-suggestions on my first read-through, and am now working on my second read-through.

• "He fought in the Mexican-American War. He resigned from the Army in 1854, and attempted several civilian trades with limited success. He was more successful once the Civil War began; after a series of victories, President Lincoln appointed him General in chief of Union Armies in late 1863." Three sentences in a row beginning with "He". Maybe consider changing the second one around for some variety.

Done.

• "Reed Smoot of Utah noticed from the report that the entire bill, bar the enacting clause, had been re-written and Willis asked that McLean as chairman of the Banking Committee explain this." This sentence changes directions a few times and gets a bit complicated; especially it feels like "asked that McLean as chairman of the Banking Committee explain this" is more complicated than need be. I don't have any immediate suggestions, but if you have any ideas could you try to simplify this?

I've played with it a bit.

• "This satisfied Smoot, and the presiding officer, Vice President Calvin Coolidge, asked if there was objection to the bill being considered." I don't have a good idea for this one either (but maybe you do). Each time I read it, my immediate first interpretation is that "and the presiding officer" means "it also satisfied the presiding officer". Then when I get to "asked" I realize that interpretation doesn't work, and I have to go back and re-read it. It'd be ideal if the first part could be re-written to avoid this mini-confusion. Moisejp (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've played with it a bit hope it helps.

• "At the CFA meeting on February 24, members viewed the model for the obverse of the gold dollar and were pleased with it, approving it." – "were pleased with it, approving it" feels a bit awkward to me. Do you have another way you could express that?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• "On the coin, Grant wears a military coat, but the closely-cropped beard suggests he is meant to look as he did in the final years of his life." I wasn't sure whether this is supposed to mean his beard is not closely cropped in the photo, and that it wasn't taken in the later years of his life—i.e., the coin designer broke away from the image because it was perhaps felt a later Grant would be more "representative" or something. I don't know how much of this may be answered in your sources, but just in general I feel it's better not to stir up unanswered questions in the reader's mind, if it can be avoided. Moisejp (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Duffield's point is that he is shown appearing like he did later on, but is wearing a coat typical of his Civil War years. I've tried to make this clearer.

• Design section, second paragraph, I got a little confused. Does "the trees do not appear on the medal issued for the Grant birth centennial" mean it's suspected there may not have actually been trees, unlike what's in the coin? Also, I think "but for the sake of better effect a little of the realism might have been sacrificed without detracting from historic interest" means that (unlike what she actually did) the designer could have chosen to sacrifice some realism and such a decision would not have detracted from historical interest; if it does mean that, I'm not sure how that fits in with the question of whether or not there really were trees. Or maybe it means she did sacrifice realism (by adding trees that were not there) but this did not detract from historical interest (but it's not clear to me how the presence or absence of trees affects "historical interest"). Yeah, all in all, I guess I don't know what this paragraph is trying to say. Moisejp (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've gone back and re-read the source and made an edit I hope helps. Duffield doesn't seem to doubt there were trees, he just thinks it unnecessary to show them.

• "Some of the Grant half dollars without stars were spent, and are worn today." I was wondering whether it'd be worthwhile to wiki-link "worn" to Coin grading or somewhere else. I'm not sure if the link I suggested is the perfect place to direct to. I guess mostly coin enthusiasts will be reading this article, but wasn't sure if people with less knowledge would immediately catch this means that from having been circulated, they got worn down (scratched, etc.) and their value lessened. Well, if there is a good place to link to (or if it's worthwhile to spell out the meaning and implication more), great, but if you don't think it's worthwhile, then please ignore this comment. Moisejp (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've played with that too.

Those are all of my comments, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, it looks good and happy to support. One final thing I wanted to confirm at the very end, it's saying the most valued silver half dollar is $9,750, four times more than the most valued gold dollar at $2,250? If so, that's surprising but I guess that doesn't mean it's not true, but just checking. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is because the half dollars are more widely collected. Collecting gold, there are only I think seven and the Panama-Pacific ones are very pricey.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• I'm asking because I don't know: re. File:Grant Centennial dollar obverse.jpg, the license says "permits color illustrations of U.S. currency provided: 1. The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;" The image at [[26]] seems to be about 16 cm in diameter, while the image at [[27]] displays as about 12 cm, and the image in the article displays as about 4 cm. 12 cm would be about 3/4 of 16 cm, but are those the relevant versions to compare for this condition of the license? Moisejp (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a reference to paper money and is not applicable to coins.

• The coin images are all in public domain, and depending on the question of dimensions above, may all be properly licensed.
• The non-coin images are all properly licensed. Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reviews. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, the images seem good to go, then. I'll come back and look at your prose changes in the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Usernameunique

Lead

• the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ulysses S. Grant — This appears only in the lead.

Adjusted.

Perhaps better in the second "Background" paragraph, but your call.

• The half dollar with star has long been priced higher than the one without the star — Seems likely it is highly prized compared to commemorative coins generally, which might be worth adding.

Mentioned.

Background

• It's a bit unclear where this section is going. Perhaps (but only do if you like the idea) add subsections, Ulysses S. Grant and Commemorative coins.

I'm not the biggest fan of one-paragraph subsections and would rather just keep consistency with a bunch of other commemorative coin articles that have a similar background section.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• He was more successful once the Civil War began — So he rejoined the Army at some point?

Added.

• the responsible group was the Ulysses S. Grant Centenary Memorial Association (Grant Commission) — Some information seems to be missing here. What was the point of the Grant Commission? Why create it? What did they do, besides brainstorm commemorative coins?

Added. I think I've addressed your concerns about a disconnected section now.

Legislation

• The written report recommended a number of amendments — Such as?

They were mostly technical in nature, the biggest was the insistence that the sponsoring organization pay for the dies. In practice, this meant pay for the sculptor.

• and the bill obliged the Commission to pay for the coinage dies used, there would be no expense to the government. — Should there be an "as" or similar between "and" and "the bill"?

Added.

• and noted that Nichols was a former state chief justice — What is the relevance of this?

He is assuring the Senate that not only is the coin wanted locally, the Association is being run by the very best people, that it's not fly-by-night. I think it should be left as is, because it serves the same purpose with the reader.

Preparation

• The full CFA ratified the decision in time for the gold coinage to take place during March. — To be minted? To be distributed?

Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Design

• Is the photograph captioned Portrait of Grant by the studio of Mathew Brady the photograph that Laura Gardin Fraser used for her design?
• Laura Fraser worked from a photograph of Grant — When was it taken?

Responding to the two above: None of my sources states with any certainty which photograph of Grant. This seemed to fit as he was facing right and wearing the military coat.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Slabaugh noted, "there is no question of the fine quality of her work". — This seems better suited for the third paragraph.

The second instead.

• the building is dwarfed by the trees — Meaning the building as it actually appeared in person?

Clarified, I hope.

Yes, looks good.

• "the design itself tells the story" — According to who?

Clarified.

• actual flans — What are flans?

I see someone added a pipe to planchet.

Whoops, added the link but forgot to remove the question.

Distribution and collecting

• "a bonus that greatly surprised the committee". — According to who?

• A number of sources put it in varying ways, I just picked the most colorful. It appears to trace back to a piece by Duffield (again, uncredited) in July 1922 about this in which he says, "It is said that 5,000 of this variety were received unexpectedly by the committee, and that they are being sold at a higher price than the variety without the star." ("Two Varieties of the Grant half dollar", p. 314). He points out that their ads weren't even mentioning this. The sources seem consistent on this.

• Duffield printed — Maybe The Numismatist printed.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• and the silver for $1.50 — This is the first time, other than the lead, that silver is mentioned. That the half dollars were made of silver should be mentioned earlier.

Done.

• the Commission was requiring — Perhaps "the Commission required"?

That puts it back in Wikipedia's voice when it is more supposed to be about what Nichols is saying, concluding with the insider offer. Such was life in the Harding administration.

• Few of the coins went to the general public; many of the half dollars and most of the gold pieces went to coin collectors. — Are coin collectors not members of the general public? I'm somewhat unclear what the distinction that you're drawing is.
• some proofs of each variety may exist — What would account for this?

Simply because they often were, for the personal collection of the designer or the Chief Engraver, than specific knowledge there.

Might be worth adding, such as "may exist, as often happened for the personal collections of the designers of the Chief Engaver; numismatist Anthony Swiatek ..."

• by 1935 it sold for $65, the highest value of any U.S. silver commemorative coin — More than gold coins, and in particular, more than the gold dollar with star (of which there were an equal number)?

The silver commemorative series is more widely collected. There's not as much demand for the gold dollars; of the eight (depending how you count) gold coins, two, the $50 Panama Pacifics, are out of people's price range.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• On that note, were the half dollars with star sold separately,

It's mentioned that they were, late in the year. I'm just trying to give a generalized sense of the goings on than track every ad in The Numismatist.

• In that year, a dentist from the Bronx, New York purchased several hundred of the half dollars without stars and proceeded to punch stars into them. — How was this discovered?

I did some research on this and although the archived The Numismatist doesn't go into this particular scam, there was a similar one a few years earlier. A faked coin, apparently, shows disturbances around the star that a real coin would not. Bullowa, writing a few years later, talked some about fakes and this issue but doesn't actually mention a Bronx dentist. Do you feel more needs to be said?

Nope, just an interesting story. You might think about adding some in a footnote (e.g., it's also interesting how disturbances can indicate fakes), but it's entirely discretionary.

• The second- and third-to-last paragraphs may be able to be combined.

I don't want to bury the bit about continued counterfeiting so would prefer to keep them apart.

References

• #5: Is this not available for free?

I hesitantly say I don't see it. You've proven quite good at finding these things, though.

Would you mind emailing me to send the pdf that you have? I'm not finding the May 11, 1921 version through text searches. Incidentally, the page-number links for 8, 10, & 11 redirect to the home page.

OK, will email. You need to reply and then I can send the text. As for the others, I was trying to address your previous comment about free availability of the CR. If you have a better formatting I will adopt it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

For instance, #8 should link to here or here. Looks like it is also volume 61, not 67 (it was the 67th Congress).

• #32: This is out of copyright, and available online for free.

Thanks, also replaced the other 1922 sources the same way.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• How do you know the "uncredited" works are Duffield's?

They are notes by the editor, and Duffield was the editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, Wehwalt. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough comments. Everything done or replied too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure, Wehwalt. A few more comments/questions above, but adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I will review and reply individually but thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. I must have been asleep at the switch: I always look out for Wehwalt's coin articles, but I missed this one till now. Having combed the article to find something to complain about I have failed, and am happy to support FA status for it. Clear, comprehensive, authoritative – just the job. Tim riley talk 14:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2019 [28].

---

North-Western Area Command (RAAF)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The last RAAF area command I'll be bringing to FAC, at least for a while, North-Western Area was also the most important during World War II. The reason is simple -- it was right in the path of Japan's major air offensives against northern Australia and, ipso facto, the best placed to deliver offensive operations of its own against Japanese forces in the Dutch East Indies; it is after all the only RAAF area command to have a campaign named after it. Some info has been added or tweaked since its MilHist A-Class Review three years ago, but the bulk of the article has remained constant. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Darwin_42.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:NWA0450Bladin1943.jpg, File:056420Cole1943.jpg, File:AVM_Charlesworth_%26_GpCapt_Headlam_(AWM_NWA1022).jpg, File:P-40Es_8th_PS_49th_PG_at_Darwin_1942.jpg, File:13_Squadron_RAAF_Hudson_aircrew_Hughes_NT_Feb_1943_AWM_NWA0074.jpg, File:Spitfires_in_RAAF_North-Western_Area_1944_(AWM_NWA0692).JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, sorry Nikki, hadn't updated the licensing to PD-AustraliaGov since the ACR -- done now. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, per discussion with Gavin below I've added a new map under the Order of Battle section, could you pls check my licensing? Just a stop-gap really, if I get to work out how to edit the Northern Territory SVG map into just its top portion I'll use the locator map method instead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, licensing looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape, with little to nitpick about. I have a few comments:

• in the infobox, offensive operations isn't included under role, but obviously they were part of it, especially later
  • True, but I felt it best to stick to the clearly specified roles laid out for all area commands when they were formed; NWA's breadth of operations did expand as the war progressed but I'm not aware of anything extra being officially added to these core responsibilities.
    • Follow-up -- found I was able to expand a little based on a source that explicitly added raids on Japanese bases and shipping to the original, core responsibilities of air defence, reconnaissance, and protection of sea lanes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• "formation of RAAF Command under Air Vice Marshal Bostock" as his rank hasn't changed since he was introduced
  • Fair enough.
• it isn't clear that No. 1 Fighter Wing was a RAAF formation, I made the assumption that it was RAF because its squadrons were transferred from the UK. I see that it did have a RAF sqn, but think a bit more explanation is in order.
  • Also fair enough.
• suggest there are enough wings being mentioned to stick with No. 1 Fighter Wing
  • Mmm, would you settle for once a (sub)section...? :-)
• "divert enemy forces from Allied columns"? what do you mean by columns here?
  • Not sure what I meant -- "advances" is more in line with the source.
• as he has been promoted, and Jones is a common name, suggest "Air Vice Marshal George Jones"
  • Sure.
• the ORBATs are a great addition, and answer a few questions I had

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• The only quibble I have is that you've rendered USAAF squadron names as if they were British or Empire. No. 319 Squadron USAAF was actually the 319th Bombardment Squadron. It would probably be smart to keep USAAF in parentheses or something to show readers what country they belong to.
  • "No. 319 Squadron" was definitely an error; elsewhere I adhere to the US convention of "nth Squadron" and should have done so here. I think though that when distinguishing units that don't belong to the subject's country, putting the air force after the squadron name without parentheses is pretty standard on WP.
    • The USAAF put the type of squadron ion the name, which is not how they're rendered in the OBs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Okay, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Also in December, No. 34 (Transport) Squadron, which had been formed under NWA's control in Darwin four days after the first air raid, divested its aircraft Divested is a rather unusual term in read in this context. Essentially didn't No. 34 Squadron transfer its aircraft and then disband or possibly vice-versa?
  • Yes, "transferred" is probably better.
• These are the only things that I caught on first read. I'm going to give it another read-through later to see if anything else presents itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Tks Sturm, pls do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Another case of divested its radar stations divested to other units in the area that should probably be transferred--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How did I miss that? Tweaked... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Nick-D

This article is in great shape. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• "Headquartered at Darwin, North-Western Area Command was responsible for air defence, aerial reconnaissance and protection of the sea lanes within its boundaries" - I'd suggest including "initially" here given that the next para notes that its role became focused on offensive operations over time (though it was striking Japanese forces in the NEI from a surprisingly early point)
  • Heh, "initially" was there (perhaps at your suggestion way back?) and I recently deleted it because I thought it might confuse but happy to reinstate.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about the account of the "Adelaide River Stakes" - wasn't the issue that some units were ordered to evacuate, while other RAAF personnel deserted? If so, it might be best to separate this.
  • Will check.
    • I don't have Grose or Lockwood at hand but Stephens mentions Gillison reporting that the Darwin station commander's direction to personnel to "regroup" could have been misconstrued as an evacuation order, but that he (Stephens) finds this interpretation overgenerous. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - I have been dubious about the stories of units being told to evacuate into what was basically wilderness at the time. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• " one squadron each of Dutch East Indies B-25 Mitchell medium bombers" - I presume that this is No. 18 (Netherlands East Indies) Squadron RAAF? If so, I'd suggest tweaking the text to note it was an Australian-Dutch East Indies squadron given that around half its personnel were Australian.
  • Fair enough.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• The shortcomings of the Spitfires (especially their short range, but also the issues experienced around mechanical unreliability) could be more explicitly noted - this is hinted at
  • Will check.
    • Re-reading the article, I kind of feel the shortcomings mentioned are enough, and if we expand these then we perhaps should go into problems with other types as well -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I might be a bit one-eyed given my interest in No. 1 Wing, but the problems with the Spitfires were fairly serious as it made intercepting incoming raids a tricky business (especially as the Spitfire was the only type available for air defence) and meant that No. 1 and No. 80 Wings were effectively useless once the raids stopped. I'm happy to leave it to your judgement though. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure if this is the right place to cover the issue, but the very serious proposal to base large numbers of B-29s at Darwin could be noted, especially as it lead to some fairly significant construction works (see the No. 61 Wing article)
  • Will check.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
      • That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• "No. 1 Wing received two fresh British squadrons of Spitfires in July, to replace two that had been transferred to No. 80 Wing" - perhaps note that the transferred squadrons were Australian? It's interesting that No. 1 Wing's flying units were all British from this point forwards.
  • Sure.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Could some or all of the orders of battle be expanded to note non-flying units?
  • Like to but from memory only one of the sources includes those so I went for consistency...
    • OK, fair enough. I'd suggest tweaking the text to note that the OOBs are only for flying squadrons though. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Sure, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks as always Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

My comments are now addressed so I'm pleased to support, but I've left a couple of suggestions above for further consideration. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Tks again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Links: I was unable to get the link in ref 26 to work, after repeated attempts. Perhaps it is a local problem. The source appears to be to a paid subscription service, and this should perhaps be noted
  • Yes, it is a subscription service, the old "subscription=yes" parameter is apparently out now and we use "url-access=subscription", which puts in the red padlock emblem...
• Formats: ref 12 requires pp. not p.
  • Done.
• Quality and reliabililty: The sources appear to be comprehensive, and of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Brian, appreciate your efforts. Cheers, 00:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

SC

(I can't help but think of N.W.A while reading this, which is something of a polar cultural opposite to the subject!)

Formation

• Is there anything you can do with "Five days later, the Australian War Cabinet officially transferred to ABDACOM the operational control of northern Australia stretching from Onslow in Western Australia to the south-east edge of the Gulf of Carpentaria"? It reads a little bumpily at the moment
  • I wouldn't disagree -- the whole ADBA bit was added by another editor and I tweaked it but perhaps I can do better with this, let me think about it.
    • How about "Five days later, the Australian War Cabinet officially transferred the operational control of northern Australia between Onslow in Western Australia and the south-east edge of the Gulf of Carpentaria to ABDACOM"? - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

1942–43

• "As well, 278 RAAF": I think we can drop the first two words – they make the sentence look like an add-on.
  • I think I threw them in because you're not supposed to start a sentence with digits, but I could fix that with a semicolon...
• "finetuned" and "coordinate": the OED has these hyphenated. Does AusEng have them as one word? (I ask from a position of complete ignorance!)
  • Have to admit I've never double-checked these things before but the Macquarie seems to allow finetune while preferring it hyphenated, so will change that; coordinate seems correct in AusEng.
• "airfields at Cooomalie, Millingimbi, Fenton, Long, and Darwin" Any chance of a map showing the main places of note? (Aside from the three general ones showing the whole country?)
  • Funny, just after I nominated this I started asking myself the same question. There is in the official history at least one decent map of the Darwin area, its airfields and their units, it would just take me time to produce my own version and then I'd have to think of where to put it without sandwiching text, but I will look into it.
    • Had a go -- meant I had to remove the shot of the crew from 13 Sqn but I'll try and make up for it by adding the image to the squadron's article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• "on the assumption (correct as it happened) that this was where the Japanese raiders were based". I'm not over-keen on the parentheses in the middle (or maybe just the phrase "as it happened", which feels unencyclopaedic and, if it remained, needs a comma after "correct")
  • I believe my original phrasing was "in the event" but Dank had previously suggested "as it happened" as a more universal expression and I was okay with that -- what would you think of "(which proved to be correct)" (or the same with long dashes in place of parentheses)?
    • How about "which proved to be correct" with long dashes? - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Great, consider it done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• "385, including ninety-six officers": I think the MoS says not to mix numerals and spelled-out numbers (and ditto the "numbered 108, including twenty-three officers" in the "Post-war" section.
  • Yes I've always found it a bit problematic that we're supposed to use digits over a certain number and words below a certain number but then not mix the two. Of course many prefer all numbers above 10 to be in digits anyway but I like to spell out those below 100 because we have so many digits in military articles with all the different units and so on. Regardless, happy to use digits across the board in these instances.

1943–45

• "During March–April 1944" -> "During March and April 1944"? (Ditto "in June–July"?
  • Okay.

That's it—all very minor quibbles for you to consider, and nothing to stop a support if you decide to retain most of the status quo. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over Gavin! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent stuff. Many thanks for taking these into account - I am happy that the article meets the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Tks Gav. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 June 2019 [29].

---

French battleship Jean Bart (1911)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Jean Bart had a typical career for a French dreadnought of her generation. Her participation in World War I mostly consisted of swinging around a mooring buoy as she was tasked to prevent a breakout into the Mediterranean by the Austro-Hungarian fleet, aside from helping to sink a small Austro-Hungarian cruiser and getting torpedoed. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized, but would have been too expensive for another refit in the mid-1930s. Jean Bart instead briefly became a training ship before she was converted into an accommodation ship for the naval schools in Toulon and had to give up her name for a newly building battleship. She was captured when the Germans occupied Vichy France although they only made use of her as a target for the massive shaped-charge warheads that they were developing. The ship was sunk by Allied airstrikes in 1944 and was scrapped after the war. The article had a MilHist A-class review a few months ago and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. I'd like reviewers to look for any stray AmEng and unexplained or unlinked jargon as well as any unfelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

Looks like your first reviewer is here already. Also it looks like this is your first nomination in a long time right?

• France on 16 July for a state visit to Saint Petersburg, Russia Replace the Russian Federation's link with the Russian Empire's article.
• on 25–26 July, but a planned visit to Copenhagen, Denmark, was cancelled Unlink Denmark.
  • You're far more optimistic than I about the extent of our readership's geographic knowledge.

• So you believe that not a lot of people knows where Denmark is but you believe that our readership knows where Sweden lies? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Added link for Sweden. Any other minor countries that I've missed?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• @CPA-5:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well about that, the first Spain in the article should be linked with the Restoration (Spain)'s article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thinking more about this, I don't think that we should be linking to the government in power whenever the ship visits. All that a reader cares about is what country the ship visited, not what regime was in charge.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• You're sure about that? I mean in this case (if I am clear) then why should we link Russia, Italy, Spain, Greece and Egypt, if their regimes are not important? I am in a little dwaal right now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Geography, my friend. If they want to know what regime was in charge they can get to that via the basic country article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• split with the battleships headed for Otranto, Italy Replace the Italian Republic link with the Kingdom of Italy's article.
• while the armoured cruisers patrolled off the Albanian coast Replace Republic of Albania's link with the Principality of Albania article.
• supplemented by a pair of 75 mm (3.0 in) Mle 1891 G guns on anti-aircraft mounts uncessary nought.
• the ship participated in the occupation of Constantinople Link occupation of Constantinople.
  • Linked in the lede
• Jean Bart was transferred to the Black Sea to reinforce Link Black Sea.
  • ditto
• made port visits to Bizerte, Crete, Egypt, French Lebanon, Corfu, and Greece Unlink both Egypt and Greece.
  • As I said before about geographic links
• made port visits in French North Africa, Majorca, Spain and Casablanca, French Morocco Same as above unlink Spain.
  • And again
• Additional mle 1912 4.57-metre rangefinders were added By MOS:NUMNOTES "Adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats".
  • Good catch.
• boarded France on 16 July for a state visit to Saint Petersburg, Russia

• @Sturmvogel 66: Hey sorry Surm for my late delay was busy irl. Anyway I asume that the new style calender is used in this sentence? I think we should add an old calender's date here, because in Russia they still used the Old one in 1914. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your usual thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments

Mostly nitpicks:

• "part of the 1906 Naval Programme." - is that right?
  • Like the Germans, the French used naval laws to set construction programs for a dozen years or more. Preliminary discussions about the Courbets began in 1907, but with the usual French haste for action in this period...
• Isn't "private ship" a specifically RN term?
  • Probably, but since I'm writing in BritEng, I think that I can be spared the liberty.
• "When France declared war on Austria-Hungary..." - this is the same format as the beginning of the previous paragraph, and is a bit repetitive
  • Good catch.
• You can drop Boué de Lapeyrère's first name on the second mention of him
  • I want readers to understand that this is the same person as the Navy Minister and not a relative.
• Jordan & Caresse go into some detail about the crippling effects the coal shortage (and the crew transfers) had on French morale and overall readiness in 1917/18 - might be worth mentioning here. I think they say at one point only a couple of ships could be considered fit for combat.
  • I added the quote from Darrieus' report. Does that suffice? Or should I add the bit about only two ships being combat worthy as well?
• "all of the Courbets assigned to the 1st Battle Squadron" - missing word here, I think?
  • Belike.
• Link rear admiral
• Sometimes you spell out "modele" and other times you abbreviate as "mle" - can you standardize one way or another?
• I'm struggling to find a French admiral with Herve as a surname - is it perhaps Hervé de Penfentenyo instead? He'd have been a CA at the time
  • Possible, but why would Jordan & Caresse use his first name? Barring better information, I think I'd better stick with what the source says.
    • Hmm, this article mentions a "RADM Herve", so I doubt it's a mistake - it's just maddening that I can't figure out who this is... Parsecboy (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• "the 360-millimetre (14.2 in) rear armour" - you don't need to convert this again
  • Good catch

Nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this so quickly, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Use |upright= rather than fixed px size

• File:Jean_Bart_Cuirasse_1913.png: why a life+70 tag if the author died in 1958? When/where was this first published?
  • Published in France, 1913 in Mer: la Mer Dans la Nature, la Mer et l'Homme. Deleted the life tag.@Nikkimaria:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• File:Cuirassé_"Jean_Bart".jpg: why does this have an anonymous-EU tag if the author is credited? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Good catch, EU tag removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• • • Looks like you've been reverted, though I'm not sure why. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I think I accidentally took out some relevant material that the anonymous tag was buried in the middle of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from PM

I reviewed this article at A-Class and had very little to nitpick about then. Parsecboy has already picked up on a couple of things that I noticed on a further read through. The sources are what you would expect for a French battleship of this vintage, and are all of high quality and reliable. No spotchecks done due to the nominator's long history at FAC. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

• Is there a reason why protected cruiser is not linked on first mention in the main text?
  • I don't repeat links that are in the lede except in the case of very long articles.
• "Kefalonia" and "Cephalonia"; both linked and both leading to Cephalonia.
  • Good catch
• Link "occupation of Constantinople".
• "and the parties of the Left". The upper case L looks a little odd. I would have expected either 'Parties of the Left' or, more likely, 'parties of the left'.
• "the expense of a third refit like those her sisters received" Optional: "like" -> 'similar to'.
• "and later raised for scrapping beginning on 14 December 1945" Optional: "beginning" -> ',which began'.

Digging a little deeper into the sources, I agree with PM67 that the sources used are all solidly reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I consider the sources to be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

• I note that Dumas, Forsythe and Jordan & Moulin are given their full titles, while Whitley and Halpern are given their abbreviated titles. I am not aware of a Wiki-policy on this, but it seems inconsistent.
  • To tell the truth, I never noticed :-( --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I believe that I've addressed all of your comments; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sturm, spot on - of course. Supporting, and passing the source review.

Comments by Wehwalt

Not much, really.

• "The Courbet-class ships carried enough coal and fuel oil to give them a range 4,200 nautical miles (7,800 km; 4,800 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph).[5]" Should there be an "of" after "range"?

• Indeed.

• You are not consistent about whether you use a hyphen in "Vice Admiral".

• Good catch.

• Can anything be said about why she deteriorated to such a state as to be thought unseaworthy three years after her last refit?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Neither Dumas, nor Jordan & Caresse, really address the issue, but I strongly suspect that with the two Dunkerque-class battleships building and Jean Bart being the least modernized member of the oldest class of French battleships, it was really more a case of economics rather than actually being unfit for sea. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Wehwalt:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 June 2019 [30].

---

British logistics in the Normandy Campaign

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the British Army's Normandy campaign in World War II. Wrote it on my summer vacation last year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Look who've here? Welcome back mate, may I ask you which kinda English this article uses? British, American or Australian English? It wouldn't suprise me that it is written in Australian English. Also I'll do this one later I'd give you my comments within two days. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

British English. Added a {{use British English}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• an opportunity to build up reserves of supplies American build up.

  Changed to "accumulate". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• to the north to capture Antwerp Add Belgium after Antwerp.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• British Guards Armoured Division liberated Brussels Same as above.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• logistical units had learned from practice American learned.

  Changed to "learnt" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• developed plans for Operation Rankin No link for Operation Rankin?

  It would be a red link. There's no article, although it warrants one. I don't normally cfreate a red link unless I intend to create the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• In the image File:Invasion_Build-up-_Preparations_For_the_D-day_Landings,_UK, A line of army trucks awaits collection along a tree-lined lane or path in preparation for Overlord First American line/lined and second American trucks.

  Changed to "lorries" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Hawkeye7: Shouldn't line be replaced by queue because it looks in my view they're standing in a queue? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

    They are not in a queue; they are lined up. If they were queued, they would have to leave in the order they arrived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Brigadier L. L. H. McKillop; and a Deputy Adjutant General (DAG), Brigadier Cyril Lloyd No links for L. L. H. McKillop and Cyril Lloyd?

  Brigadiers are not presumed notable. Lloyd became a major general after the war, and was involved in the establishment of West Dean College, so he is presumed notable, but has no article. I created articles on Miles Graham and Gerry Fielden for this article, but not McKillop or LLoyd, as I lacked sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• A Headquarters (HQ) Line of Communications Is this an official name if not then I don't reckon it's bad to change line into queue?

  That's an official name; "line" as in "line of communications" does not mean "queue". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• under 11 Line of Communications Area when Second Army Same as above.

  as above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• would be gradually built up to a fortnight's Again American built up.

  Changed to "increased" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• charged with responsibility for regulating the build up of vehicles Same as above.

  Changed to "build-up". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• were employed by Vice Admiral Sir Philip Vian's American Vice Admiral.

  Hyphen added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• stores had to anchor up to 5 miles (8.0 km) from shore The nought isn't necessary.

  Rounded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• This sentence destroying 100,000 imperial gallons (450,000 l) uses only imperial gallons but this sentence "which was about 200,000 imperial gallons (910,000 l; 240,000 US gal)" uses imperial and US gallons.

  Removed USgal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• when it arrived, 11 Line of Communications Area Same as above if it's not an official name then uses queue instead of line.

  Again, "line of communications" is a military term; here is is also the name of the unit, hence capitalisation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Is it "Mediterranean Theatre" or just "Mediterranean theatre" because there're two different theatres.

  De-capped the second.

• supply for the 5.5-inch guns to 30 days' No metric units?

  The gun is linked; the calibre is not so meaningful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• consumed tens of thousands of tons of steel This sentence uses three ofs isn't that too much?

  I think it works here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• tankers up to 5,000 gross register tons (14,000 m3) could discharge Link both "gross register tons" and m³.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• using Tombolas, floating ship-to-shore lines American lines.

  This is another definition of "line". In this case it means a hose or pipe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ammunition Depot arrived and began coordinating the stores American coordinating.

  Changed to "co-ordinating" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• In the image File:Supplying_Allied_Forces_After_D_Day,_July_1944_B7186.jpg GMC two-and-a-half-ton 6 × 6 trucks (CCKW-353) parked on expanded metal standings, taking on fuel supplies American trucks.

  Changed to "lorries" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• When HQ Line of Communications assumed administrative command on 13 July Same as above.

  As above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• An exception was 1,400 Austin K5 three-ton trucks American trucks.

  Changed to "lorries" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• While the railway lines in northern France and Belgium Another American lines.

  Yet another meaning of "line". In this case it means "A connected series of public conveyances, as a roadbed or railway track". See List of railway lines in Great Britain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• 800 long tons (810 t) of POL and 300 long tons (300 t) The "(300 t)" isn't necessary. There is one already previously.

  Yes, but the conversion templates make it necessary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• much less than of the lines south of the Seine American lines and unlink Seine there is one already previously.

  Unlinks, and "railway lines" is meant here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• had provided an opportunity to build up reserves American built up.

  Changed to "accumulate"

• had a draught of 2.90 metres (9 ft 6 in) "2.90" is a little to accurate maybe remove the nought 'cause it looks in my opinion a little bit unnecessary. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  Rounded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I couldn't find anything else. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Review

Fantastic well researched article which breathes a new fresh perspective ino the Normandy campaign in 1944. When it comes to warfare logistics in general is definitely overlooked. An inspiration for future articles on same subject and a good link to related articles. Many thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Formats: the inclusion of a retrieval date for the Coles & Weinburg source seems unnecessary. The similarly-sourced Ruppenthal entry does not have a retrieval date.
• No other issues. The sources are uniformly and consistently presented, and appear to meet the requirements of the FA criteria with regard to quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Nick-D

I reviewed this article's GAN, and am very pleased to see it here. I have the following comments:

• My main comment is that the lead doesn't match up particularly strongly with the body of the article - while the body is largely thematic, the lead is probably too focused on how the campaign played out. I'd suggest reworking the lead so it's more strongly focused on the nature of the logistics effort and the challenges which were overcome

  Added some more material to the lead. Not sure what is needed here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  That's very good now Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• "while having the immediate effect of diverting British and Australian troops from the war against Germany" - not sure that the different nationalities need to be mentioned here, especially as lots of Indian troops and small numbers of NZ troops were also diverted to the Pacific

  Removed. The text echoed the original source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• The background section could discuss the logistics-heavy nature of the British way of war in 1944. As all formations were motorised or mechanised and the British sought to use as much firepower as possible in order to keep casualties down, this made for extensive supply needs - much in excess of the largely unmotorised German Army for instance.

  Expanded to background to discuss this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• The particularly challenging nature of amphibious/expeditionary logistics and the central importance of overcoming this challenge could also be noted - the entire operation hinged on the Allies' ability to move troops and supplies into Normandy by sea at a faster rate than the Germans could by land, with their success in doing so being a major achievement

  Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The RASC, the corps of the British Army responsible for most forms of supply and transport, was about 15,000 men short of its requirements." - when was this?

  In April 1944. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Why was the port of Courseulles-sur-Mer abandoned? Was it too small to be worth the bother once over-the-beach arrangements were sorted out?

  The source says it was found to be unsuitable for coasters. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• "bypasses constructed around villages with narrow streets that were suitable for one-way traffic only" - not sure if it's worth including, but various sources say that the ring road the British Army built around Bayeux was the first such road in France

  Do you have a source? I can add this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm struggling to find a RS, though from memory there was a sign in Bayeux stating it. This and this state it. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• "the Second Army employed only two of its eight infantry divisions, grounding the VIII Corps, so the transport of two could be used to help maintain the other six divisions" - this is a bit unclear - were two or six divisions active?

  An error. Corrected. The first "two" should have been "six". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape, and I had a close look at it during Milhist ACR, where nearly all of my comments were addressed. However, I think there is one area that undermines its comprehensiveness, mainly relating to the CMP, in both traffic management/control for the 150,000 vehicles in the lodgement area by late July, and PW handling, especially in the latter period when PW were not all being evacuated to the UK. I raised these at Milhist ACR, and my concerns there weren't really properly addressed. There is really nothing about main supply routes or traffic control and management, which must have been extensive. There are two small sections about PW, but no coverage of the PW handling system, what units were deployed to guard and administer PW, especially when at one point, there were 27,000 PW being held in Normandy with many employed on labouring tasks. This must have taken a considerable effort and troops to do, yet it isn't really covered at all, with no mention of any PW facilities established etc. CMP are only mentioned in relation to the fact that they were involved, and their inclusion in the beach groups. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on the activities of the provost, and I have expanded the bit about prisoners. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Review comments:

• in the lead, suggest "specificallyespecially constructed"

  Changed to "specially" after consulting the wiktionary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• in lead, why were the roadheads for those corps? Were they the lead corps of the two armies? If so, perhaps mention that?

  Mentioned that they were the two corps in the lodgement at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• the "gun ammo exceeded figures" in the lead lack context, as we are not told what the base allocations were. I suggest dropping this and just saying that ammo allocations were exceeded, or alternatively expanding to explain by how much the allocations were exceeded in percentage terms.

  I thought rounds are easier to visualise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but the number is meaningless. I mean, we have no idea what the rounds per gun per day were, so we don't know whether six rounds was 1%, 5% or 20%. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  As the article states, the allowance for 25-pounders was 70 rounds per gun per day, and 50 per gun per day for the five fives. The reader can easily calculate that the allowances were exceeded by 8% and 24% respectively. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  The lead doesn't say that. I'm struggling to see what the problem is here. The lead is a summary of the article. If you want to make a point about the overuse of artillery ammo, do it by establishing that the usage rates were X% over what was planned, instead of asking people to read the body of the article to get context for what is in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  The lead says: "Ammunition usage was heavy, and exceeded the daily allocation for the 25-pounders of seventy rounds per gun per day by six rounds per gun per day, and the allowance for the 5.5-inch guns of fifty rounds per gun per day by twelve per gun per day." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  True, that is what it says now (after several attempts to resolve this issue with no substantive response) but it is too wordy and repetitive and a percentage would be an appropriate summary for the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  I've re-worded the the lead to use percentages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• link line of communication in the lead

• Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "The emphasis of mobility over firepower turned out to be a mistake; it soon became apparent that mobility was impossible unless the enemy's firepower was suppressed" doesn't really follow in the context. Did the British Army really prioritise mobility over firepower? In what way? How was this demonstrated? In general, I think the Background section needs some attention to make it more focussed on the logistic challenges faced by the foreshadowed lodgement force. It currently jumps around between the interwar period, WWII, Battle of France, an indeterminate period when the British Army had a higher proportion of armoured divisions, Normandy, the Western Desert Campaign etc. It needs more structure and development, and would benefit from a chronological approach to the development of British logistics. The bit about Normandy doesn't belong in the Background.

  It is in chronological order. Dropped the sentence about mobility and firepower. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  The question of when it was that the British had proportionally more armoured divisions hasn't been addressed, and there is still a mention of what happened later (in Normandy) in the Background section. I mean, the article is about the Normandy operation, so why include information about what actually happened during it before you've even covered the planning for the operation? Also, what stage is "Confronted by German defences..." referring to? Is this what was done in Normandy, or is it referring to the Western Desert Campaign or Italy? If Normandy, why is it here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Moved the sentence on defences. Added "in June 1944". The point is that the British Army was more highly mechanised than its German counterpart. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  Its administrative doctrine→British Army administrative doctrine Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

  Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  "logistical units had learned from practice" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  The observations about the overall armoured to infantry ratio in the British and German armies is essentially meaningless for Normandy as it stands and should be narrowed to those engaged in the Normandy campaign. The British Army raised ~45 divisions during the war, not all of which were active at one time and they fought in various theatres. The German Army raised hundreds of divisions, scores of which were re-raised after destruction on the Eastern Front, and which fought in many theatres. The classification of divisions would vary based on being foot infantry, light, grenadier, motorised, panzer grenadier, and panzer on the German side, with some parsing on the British side based on the number of tanks and personnel carriers, halftracks etc per division. The armoured and motorised division proportion was different in each theatre (just look at the Afrika Korps versus the Eighth Army), with the largest infantry proportion in the east. Maybe limit this observation to the ratios in Normandy on D-Day to be directly relevant to this campaign. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• For the British Army, there 21st Army Group in Normandy had three armoured divisions and nine infantry or airborne divisions. In Italy, the Eighth Army had two armoured divisions and six infantry divisions. Not much difference... but I don't have a German Orbat, so I have removed the sentence (although it is reliably sourced). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• "included 15 per cent were in"

• Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• is Robert Naylor likely to be notable?

  Yes, he notable. Linked. Sigh. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  Frank Naylor has an article now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• "twenty six and thirty divisions"

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• the Planning section could do with something about the plans to deal with PWs, ie backload to UK

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Usage had exceeded allocations" same observation about context

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "one point two metres"? 1.2 m?

  That took some finding. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "replaced with 25-pounders" does this mean these artillery regiments switched to towed guns, or the 25-pounders were retrofitted to the M7s? Clarify?

  No, to SP 25-pounders called Sextons. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "18,000 piles 18 to 37 metres (60 to 120 ft)" long?

  Added "long" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, five companies produced 5,400 cubic metres (7,000 cu yd) of materiel for construction purposes from ten quarries" seems out of place. I assume this is gravel?

  Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "RMA area"→"RMA"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "taffic congestion"
• "opeate as units"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• suggest "cushions"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• suggest "In mid-September, 12"

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• comma after "the main airport at Brussels"

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "aAllied soldiers"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "indigenous resources" seems odd wording

  Changed to "local". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Did you have any further comments/concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 June 2019 [31].

---

French battleship Jauréguiberry

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Jauréguiberry was one of five roughly similar battleships built in the early 1890s in response to a British naval expansion program. Constrained by fiscal and size limitations imposed by the French National Assembly, they were inferior to their British counterparts and had much longer building times. The ship was particularly accident prone over the course of her career with incidents of running aground, boiler and torpedo explosions. She played a minor role in World War I, although she did participate in the Gallipoli Campaign before becoming a guard ship in Egypt for the rest of the war. She was then used as an accommodation hulk before being scrapped in 1934. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review that included image and source reviews. While Parsecboy and I believe that it meets the FA criteria, we would like reviewers to look closely for any remnants of BritEng and unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from PM

I just looked over this article at Milhist ACR, and consider it meets the Featured criteria. One thing though, the Foreign Periodicals Data Service newsletter has an OCLC which should be added, 41554533. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Damn librarians, cataloging anything and everything ;-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:French_battleship_Jaureguiberry_NH_88826_.jpg: the current template used is for article text, not images
  • Fixed
• File:Jaureguiberry_1915_AWM_J06004.jpeg: why would this have been Crown copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Good question - corrected the template. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    • As per the new tag, any information on first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Nope. This addition to the tag seems to be newly added to a bunch of other tags as well, and it's going to be just as unanswerable for them as it is here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        • It's also worth pointing out that the photo was obviously taken pre-1955, so we don't really need a publication, since the pre-1955 criteria is met. Parsecboy (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Publication could make a difference in terms of US status, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentSupport by CPA-5

• scrapping on 23 June 1934 for the price of 1,147,000 F Maybe link franks?
  • Sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    • CPA-5 Is there anything else?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: Yes of course. it's a great article and I don't see anything else. Well I guess you wanted something and you'll get it from me. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

The sources all appear to meet the appropriate standards of quality and reliability as required by the FA criteria, and are uniformly and consistently presented. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

This is well past the one-month mark and hasn't seen much action in recent weeks. I'll add it to the Urgents list but it will have to be archived soon if it doesn't attract some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Prose Comments bySupport from Factotem

General

• You use AmEng spellings for caliber and millimeter throughout, but given this is a French battleship shouldn't the, erm, BrEng spellings be used (if that makes any sense to you)? It just looks a bit odd to me that an article about a French ship does not use the European spelling of millimetre. If you accept this as a general principle, then the 'u'-less armor also needs fixing.
  • No worries, I don't, since I'm using AmEng throughout.
• In listing the armaments, in one case you insert a comma after the quantity ("fourteen,[10] 47 mm (1.9 in) 40-caliber Canon de 47 mm Modèle 1885 Hotchkiss guns") but not in others ("two 305-millimeter (12 in) 45-caliber Canon de 305 mm Modèle 1887"). I think the comma works.
  • The comma is there because it's marking a subordinate clause ", although d'Ausson lists fourteen,"
• I also wonder if a comma is necessary between the millimeter and caliber identifiers, ("fourteen,[10] 47 mm (1.9 in)<comma> 40-caliber Canon de 47 mm Modèle 1885 Hotchkiss guns"), though maybe I'm getting a tad over-enthusiastic with commas here. What do you think?
  • I don't know why I didn't put the conversions in the weapon name like I usually do, but I think that is a much cleaner way of doing things.

Lead

• "...built in the 1890s. Built in response..." Repetition - maybe replace one "built" with "constructed"?
  • Agreed, although I reworked the first sentence a little bit as well.
• "...was armed with a mixed battery..." Not sure about this, but maybe: armed with mixed batteries?
  • I see your point, but naval books typically use battery when discussing a ship's entire armament and will break it down further if necessary by adding some sort of qualifier like secondary or 6-inch battery.
• "...and a mixed batteryarmament that was difficult to control..."?
  • Agreed, proximity issue.
• "The ship's peacetime career was spent participating in routine training exercises..." -> In peacetime the ship participated in...
• "... was tasked with escorting troop convoys from North Africa..." -> ...escorted troop convoys...
  • Good idea.

Background and design

• "In 1889, the British Royal Navy passed the Naval Defence Act that, which resulted in the construction..."
  • I think that the difference between "which" and "that" has always eluded me.
• "this major expansion of naval power led the French government to pass its reply,respond with the Statut Naval (Naval Law) of 1890..."
• "The law called for a total of twenty-four..."
• "...a group of four squadron battleships that were built to different designs but metwhich were to meet the same basic characteristics..."
  • I think that the real issue here is "characteristics", but I don't want to use "requirements" because it's used in the next sentence, even if that is a different paragraph.
    • Not happy with my previous change, I've swapped things around and tweaked things a little.

Nor was I, but then you made the exact same change as I was going to suggest, so all good there. Factotem (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• "...displacement wouldshould not exceed..." given that the rest of the specifications use "should"
  • OK, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• "The secondary batteryarmament was to be either..." (YMMV, but to me a battery of guns is more of a set of guns as a single unit, as one might find in an artillery unit or, in this case, a single turret, but maybe there's some naval terminology I'm not aware of here)
  • Naval authors just use a slightly larger concept of battery--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• "...submitted proposals to the competition; the design for..." that semi-colon doesn't seem right to me; doesn't the prose warrant a full stop there?
• "...and their mixed gun batteries comprising several calibers..." And here you do indeed refer to the armament as batteries, plural. Strike that. Missed the fact that you're referring to several ships.

General characteristics and machinery

• "The boilers were divided into six boiler rooms..." The boilers were divided? Maybe "distributed across"?
  • "Between", I think.

Still not happy with the idea that the boilers were divided, as if part of each one was in one room, and other parts were in another. How about "The boilers were installed in six boiler rooms..."? Factotem (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? Factotem (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd missed this comment. I think perhaps distributed?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Prefer installed, but not objecting. Factotem (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Armament

• "Jauréguiberry's main armament consisted of two 305-millimeter (12 in) 45-caliber Canon de 305 mm Modèle 1887 guns in two single-gun turrets, one each fore and aft of the superstructure and two 45-caliber 274-millimeter (10.8 in) Modèle 1887 guns in two single-gun wing turrets, one amidships on each side, sponsoned out over the tumblehome of the ship's sides." Long sentence with a lot to convey. Maybe: "Jauréguiberry's main armament consisted of two 305-millimeter (12 in), 45-caliber Canon de 305 mm Modèle 1887 guns in two single-gun turrets, one each fore and aft of the superstructure. Two 45-caliber, 274-millimeter (10.8 in) Modèle 1887 guns were mounted in single-gun wing turrets amidships, sponsoned out over the tumblehome on each side of the ship."
  • OK
• "...with the same muzzle velocity ofas the larger guns."
• "The ship's offensive armament was rounded out by a secondary battery??? of eight 45-caliber 138-millimeter (5.4 in) Canon de 138.6 mm Modèle 1891 guns that were mounted in manually operated twin-gun turrets." That battery/batteries thing again – maybe use "complement" or "armament" here? You've used "single-gun" before, so why not "twin-gun" here?
  • I've already mixed it up a little more earlier.
• "...although d'Ausson lists fourteen,[10] 47 mm (1.9 in) 40-caliber Canon de 47 mm Modèle 1885 Hotchkiss guns..." Is it necessary to state 47 mm twice?
  • No, I've folded all of the conversions into the designations.
• "Her 305-mm gun turrets were protected by 370-mm (15 in) of armor on the sides and faces while her 274 mm turrets..." (I think the gun designations here need to be made adjectives by inserting hyphens between number and "mm").
  • Not by MOS. Hyphens are only used if the measurement is spelled out.

Service

• "Throughout the ship's peacetime career, she was occupied with routine training exercises, which that included gunnery training, combined maneuvers with torpedo boats and submarines, and practicing attackingpractice attacks against coastal fortifications." Never quite sure about that/which, but I think ", which" works better here. Never like two "ing" words colliding.
• "...her boiler tubes were renewed at Cherbourg that took four monthsin a four-month refit."
  • Good idea.

World War I

• "was sent to French North Africa, where they would escort the vitalescorted troop convoys..."
• "As part of this effort..." "This" appears to refer back to the Goeben's flight to the Ottoman Empire. Maybe, "As part of her duties..."?
  • I think "As part of this mission" is better because it isn't just her.

It's the "this" I have a problem with. The previous sentence ends with the German ship fleeing to the Ottoman Empire, so I'm reading "this" to mean that German movement. You're effectively writing, "As part of the German flight to the Ottoman Empire, Jauréguiberry went to Oran..." See? Change "this" to "her" in your original and it's fine. Factotem (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean now. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• "... restored to effective strength, includingand included..."
• "SheJauréguiberry provided gunfire support..." The subject of the previous sentence was the 3rd Battle Division, so I think you need the ship's name here rather than a pronoun.
• "...kept the Ottoman guns on that side of the strait largely suppressed, unable to interfereand prevented them from interfering with the main landing at Cape Helles."
• "SheJauréguiberry continued operations..." Again, because the subject in the preceding sentence included other ships, I think you need the ship's name here rather than a pronoun.
  • No, because they're not named, there's no possibility of confusion.
• "She was stricken from the Navy List..." I have a vague memory of reading about this somewhere before, but are ships stricken or struck from lists, or does it not matter?

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure that it matters, but the normal term is stricken. Thanks for your very thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cadar

I think Factotem has covered most of the outstanding issues. Go ahead and implement his suggestions, then by all means ping me or mark that they're completed on your last edit and I'll take a run-through myself and see if there's any suggestions or polishing I can do to help.

Cadar (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: One thing I picked up on: the convention when talking about the calibres of heavy ship armament is to speak in terms of their absolute calibres, usually in inches, although centimetres would probably be valid these days. So rather than "45 calibre" main guns, the Jauréguiberry would have been armed with 45-inch main guns, describing the absolute calibre of the shells. These days, "45 calibre" is too easy to confuse with ".45 calibre" handguns. Oh, and I'm using the British spelling of "calibre," but whichever works for you, of course.

Cadar (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Very confusingly caliber is length of barrel measured in multiples of the inside diameter of the bore or gauge, generally only used for artillery, and it's also that very same inside diameter for small arms like pistols. Strictly speaking a .45 caliber pistol should be written as a .45-inch caliber pistol, but given how we like to shorten things... I link caliber on its first use so that people who are curious will understand that a 50-caliber artillery piece has a barrel 50 times longer than its bore diameter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I've done a run-through and tidied up a couple of minor grammar issues. Otherwise it all looks good to me. Nice job :)

Cadar (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of them look fine, although one or two were rendered redundant when I implemented Factotem's suggestions. The one that I really didn't like was changing "and was reduced to reserve in 1918". I understand why you did it, but it just seemed too short to be worthy of a semi-colon and there were too many "she"s in close proximity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Just one quibble from me: my Pocket Oxford Dictionary gives the past participle of the verb "to strike" as "struck", whereas "stricken" is deprecated because it's archaic. Fowler's Modern English Usage says that it's archaic but survives in certain phrases (none of which apply), and also "The use of the word by itself as an adjective = afflicted, in distress, is sometimes justified, but more often comes under the description of stock pathos."

That's why I changed it. By all means, double-check me, but I do this kind of thing for a living, so I tend to revert to the sourcebooks when in doubt :)

Cadar (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is from Chambers:

stricken adj, often in compounds

(1) deeply affected, especially by grief, sorrow, panic, etc • horror-stricken.

(2) afflicted by or suffering from disease, sickness, injury, etc • a typhoid-stricken community.

ETYMOLOGY: 17c; 14c as the past participle of strike.

"Struck" in the sense of "was removed" is definitely the right word in this instance. Hope it helps.

Cadar (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think that you're right and I've changed it back.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Glad to have helped sort that out. Admittedly it's fairly obscure, so not too many people would even notice it or know why it wasn't appropriate in this instance. I just happen to be a writer, so I'm dealing with this sort of meaningful nuance all the time. If you're interested, essentially it comes down to a difference between weak and strong verb inflection forms, similar to hung/hanged. In each case the past participle of the weaker version of the verb has evolved its own identity and meaning separate to the much more widely-accepted (and much older) strongly inflected version which is in regular use. Each verb only gets the weaker past participle for a specific usage, and none other. So "to strike" gave "stricken" when specifically deeply affected by some sort of affliction, while "to hang" gives "hanged" for an execution. The difference is that "hanged" is very much still in current use; also, it's a legal affectation which was consciously adopted because the archaic sound of it was felt to give weight to pronouncements concerning hangings. So there you have it :)

Anyway, regarding the article: it all looks good to me now. I'll keep an eye on it and let you know if I notice anything else. Good job, by the way. Well done!

Cadar (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by The ed17

• "By 1907, she had been transferred to the Reserve Division, as more modern battleships had entered service by that time, though she continued to participate in maneuvers and other peacetime activities. The "modern battleships" part of this statement is not supported in the text, as far as I can see. I might also add that Jauréguiberry didn't spend much time in what most people would think of as the "reserve", so I suspect that this line should be rewritten.
  • Reserve meant different things to different navies at different times. As best I can tell, around this time for the Brits and French, reserve meant the bulk of the crew was reservists who were called up once a year to participate in the annual fleet maneuvers, not the mothball fleet concept familiar to Americans where the ships only have caretakers and rarely went to sea. I can only use the terms as they were used by the owning navy. As for more modern battleships, by 1907 there were eight more modern battleships in commission, some of which were mentioned in the following paragraph, albeit in a 1908 context.
    • Hey Sturm, I think the modern battleships point needs to be added to the text—in the article proper, there's no reason given for the ship's move to the reserve division. That more modern battleships are mentioned in the next sentence in a rather different context doesn't obviate the need to back up that line in the lead. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Actually, I should probably remove that bit from the lede instead as nobody discusses why she was moved to the Reserve Division.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• "The ships suffered from a lack of uniformity of equipment, which made them hard to maintain in service, and their mixed gun batteries comprising several calibers made gunnery in combat conditions difficult, since shell splashes were hard to differentiate. Why did people have to differentiate between shell splashes? I know the answer (fire control!), but I suspect that most people, even enthusiasts, will not know.
  • Fair enough, lemme expand that.
• The sea trials began in January 1896, but a 24-hour engine trial wasn't done until June? Is that really correct? Any idea what took so long?
  • It's correct, but nobody discusses why it took so long.
• What was the Special Division/why was it so named?
  • No idea, nobody discusses it. I only know of it because it's listed on an OB for 2 August 1914.
• What was the reason for the quick reversal of the ship's deployment to the Suez Canal during WWI? When did it return to the canal to offload her guns?
  • Unknown, it couldn't have been related to the raid by the Ottomans as that was in 1915. Annoyingly, Jordan & Caresse almost totally ignore Egyptian activities and d'Ausson only provides a very terse listing of activities.
• Was there a pre-WWI plan in place for how the French planned to deploy these aged warships in the advent of a conflict? The boiler tube replacement—a major undertaking, if I'm recalling my Bahia class history correctly—might imply that they expected the ship to take on a non-trivial role, which would make some sense in that the French Navy had a major shortage in proper dreadnoughts, but I'm not sure if this topic is remarked on in your sources. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • They probably replaced the boilers simply to keep her usable. I haven't seen any formal planning for these ships in case of war, although they probably had a vague idea of second-line duties of some sort. Thanks for the comments, see if my change to the shell splash thing is clear enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Changes look good! Re: my other comments, can't do anything about them if the sources don't cover the questions, so no worries. Happy to support, my one remaining question is pretty minor. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2019 [32].

---

Orpheus in the Underworld

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 20:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

More disgraceful goings-on, I'm afraid. Orpheus in the Underworld was Jacques Offenbach's first full-length comic opera, and caused something of a scandal because of its cheeky satire of the Second French Empire and the Graeco-Roman classics. But the music and zany plot carry all before them, and the opera is still produced here, there and everywhere. Offenbach wrote dozens more comic operas, but this is the locus classicus, and I hope the article does it justice. Over to you for comment, fellow editors. – Tim riley talk

• Support I had my say at the peer review, and my comments were addressed. An enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I say! That was quick. Thank you, Wehwalt, for support here and your valuable input at PR. Before the PR I wasn't quite convinced the article was ready for FAC, but thanks to you and the other reviewers and the improvements you have suggested I am emboldened. Tim riley talk 20:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment FTR, I oppose any suggested page move to a French title; per WP:COMMONNAME, it is already at the most usual title. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 08:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for that point. I thought hard about this when starting my overhaul. I agree that following WP:Commonname means leaving the article's title in English – a Google analysis shows the English title getting three times as many hits as the French. (Within the article I've followed the main sources written in English – Faris, Gammond, Gänzl, Lamb, Selenick, Traubner – and used the original title as they all do.) – Tim riley talk 09:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Another happy camper from the peer review. A further read-through shows it has been improved further since. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, SchroCat, for your support here and your input at PR. I'm much obliged. Tim riley talk 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support with Minor Brass Quibble: and I'm sorry I didn't get round to saying this at PR. Under "Music > Editions" we have this: The 1858 version of Orphée aux enfers is scored for [...] two trumpets/cornets. I'd love this to be clearer. Do you mean that it was really scored for one or the other instrument, or for both doubling, or four players non-doubling? (Fantastically unlikely, that last.) I don't have the score but on a quick look at the only credible-looking parts on IMSLP it seems to me that it is two cornets – these are labelled Pistons in the parts, as in "Cornet a Pistons". I'd like to claim that I have incredibly strong and reliable professional instincts telling me that it must be two cornets; unfortunately, I don't got those ... would you accept instead my weak and unreliable professional instincts telling me that it must be two cornets? Sorry, I know it sounds terribly nitpicky but it's just Reading Rong™ for me. Anyway, I'm supporting regardless so, whilst it would be nice to sort this out, it is not a showstopper. Thanks and best to all DBaK (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with being nitpicky, especially at FAC. Yes, Offenbach (like Sullivan after him) wrote for two cornets, but the cornet parts are now almost always played on trumpets (not always an advantage as trumpets can be too dominating). I'll go and clarify this. Thank you very much for the support here. Tim riley talk 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• And now done. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you! Yes, I am well aware of the modern substitutions, due to my misspent, ah, leesure time, but I am very happy that it is now correct here, and I love your explanatory footnote. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support An entertaining read, particularly enjoyed the illustrations. Have you considered a picture (or DVD screenshot) of a modern production? All around great article! Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for that support. I'd love to add a modern picture, but I haven't found one that is acceptable under Wikipedia's strict rules on copyright. Tim riley talk 18:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• The images are brilliant.

• Thank you (and thanks to the Bibliothèque nationale de France, too). Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "It continues to be revived in the 21st century and remains the most often produced of his operas." This sounds a bit awkward to me. How about "It is his most frequently performed opera and continues to be revived in the 21st century."

• Better. Done. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "In the last decade of the 19th century the Paris cabarets the Moulin Rouge and Folies Bergère adopted the "Galop infernal" from the culminating scene of the opera as the music to accompany the can-can, with which the tune became, and has remained, widely associated in the public mind in France and abroad." I found this difficult to follow at first. Maybe "In the last decade of the 19th century the Paris cabarets the Moulin Rouge and Folies Bergère adopted the music from the "Galop infernal" from the culminating scene of the opera to accompany the can-can and ever since then the tune has been popularly associated with the dance."

• Fine. Duly done. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "because the actors, who could not tire the public, were themselves exhausted". You have given the French original, but should you not also spell out that it is your translation?

  Happy to do so, but I can't think how and where to add that fact. I don't fancy adding "Translation by Tim riley" – it would look big-headed and show-off, and still less do I fancy adding it nine times (there being that many of my translations during the article). Any thoughts? Throughout I have made a rule of footnoting the original French versions of all translations made by me; where I have quoted someone else's published translation I have not sought to quote the French originals. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think this needs a ruling from a higher authority such as Ian. My view is that you need to be immodest and add a note "All translations from the French which are otherwise unattributed are by Tim Riley". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Good idea. This can't be the first time the question has come up, and there must surely be a precedent. Can't find anything in the MoS, but then one seldom can, I find. Tim riley talk 16:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see that it's necessary. When we write a plot summary, we don't say "synopsis by so-and-so". Similarly, the translation could be modified by multiple editors over time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• But Tim has said synopsis by so-and-so by citing it to Crémieux etc. Translation should be similarly referenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think plot summaries should have a cited source. Tim riley talk 19:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Tim riley: Laying out @MOS:PLOTSOURCE, the plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary; in full recognition of the fact that this is of no help whatsoever :) ——SerialNumber54129 07:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• "However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research" I try to follow this. Tim riley talk 08:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't remember this coming up before but I might check around for precedents if there's nothing in MOS... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ian. As I read the MoS (MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE} it doesn't specify that D-I-Y translations should be attributed – only that the original words should also be quoted – to make the translation verifiable, I assume – which is done here. But if you can throw any further light on the matter from your experience with earlier FACs it would be most helpful. Tim riley talk 08:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Offenbach expanded it further, adding new ballets" Would not "ballet sequences" - as you describe them below - be clearer? Also you refer to "new" ballets but you have not previously said that there were any.

• Ooops! I have now. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Aristée enters. He is in reality Pluton (Pluto)" "Aristée enters disguised as a shepherd"?

• I've fleshed this out a little bit. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for these, Dudley. Very useful indeed. I look forward to more. Tim riley talk 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "displaying, in Faris's analysis, many of his own hallmarks" I am not sure what "own" is doing here. It sounds as if it means Faris's hallmarks.

• I've changed to "personal": I'm seeking to contrast them with the parodies of other composers' styles mentioned just before. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Schipperges, Thomas. "Jacques Offenbach's Galop infernal from Orphée aux enfers. A Musical Analysis" I see that you have also translated from German. (What a horribly talented person you are!) You have translated the title of the article but you did not translate French titles. You need to be consistent on this.

• Happily – my German being even rustier than my French – I was only cribbing from the abstract at the top of the article, which is in English. I think I should leave the "in German" tag there though, as most of the article (16 pages of it) is in German, but I'll remove it if you think I ought. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• If your source is an abstract in English then I think you should delete the 'in German' tag. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Fine. Will do. Tim riley talk 08:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Offenbach's music defies all musicological methods". I am not sure what this means - cannot be analysed?

• I take it to mean can't be analysed by the normal academic methods of musicologists, but I shouldn't like to gloss the comment. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would wikilink "dramaturgy"

• Done. The MoS discourages links from quotations, but the rule is so widely flouted that I doubt it anyone will object. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Orphée aux enfers was the first of Offenbach's major works to have a chorus." I thought you said that there were no earlier full scale operas due to licensing laws.

• Indeed I did, but I, and more to the point the experts, would class some of his earlier one-acters as at least as major of some of his less convincing 2- or 3-acters. An English analogy: in the G&S canon I'd call Trial by Jury major, and possibly not The Grand Duke (not a word to any Savoyard). Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "By the time of Offenbach's centenary, in 1919, it had become clear that predictions of the ephemerality of his works had been wrong" You cite for this the Times and NY Times 1880 obituaries and Hauger's article on the change in attitude towards Offenbach in English journals between 1880 and 1897. I think you should make clear that the predictions were by English speakers. Also your source says the change came before 1900, not by 1919. Are some of the comments in Hauger's article worth quoting?

• I'll have a think about this and report back tomorrow. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've revised the opening of this section to reflect critical hostility in France after Offenbach's death as well as sniffy comments from abroad. The opening sentence should, I suppose, strictly be in the previous section, but it seems to sit better where it is, and the narrative flows better, I think. There is much of interest in Hauger's article, but nothing that cries out to be quoted. Tim riley talk 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Section 'Continental Europe' - to be pedantic this should be 'Continental Europe outside France'.

• True, but it's a bit of a mouthful, and unless you feel strongly about it I'd prefer the shorter, if less accurate, term: I think its import is clear enough. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Breslau - I would say in Poland.

• I think it was in Germany, or rather Prussia, in 1859. I'd rather not add "now in Poland" or suchlike: a bit of a diversion, I think. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "(both given in French)". Were the producitons mentioned earlier translations? If so, you should says so.

• Done. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "in a version by J. R. Planché titled Orpheus in the Haymarket" Presumably English language version?

• Added. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "In 2019 ENO announced a new production with an English text by Tom Morris." I prefer ballet to opera but I will have to try to see this.

• Hmm. In my experience operetta doesn't work well in the Coliseum. Just too huge a theatre, I think, and all the subtlety is lost. Still, one never knows. I shall certainly go, expecting the worst and hoping for the best, and the great Sir Willard is playing Jupiter, and that should be worth seeing and hearing. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "New World" This term does not include Australia. Maybe 'Outside Europe'

• Well, I'm blest. I've learnt something today. As a wine drinker I certainly include Australia and NZ in "New World". But "Outside Europe" is fine, and done. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Two more German productions were given: December 1863 with Fritze, Knorr, Klein and Frin von Hedemann and December 1866 with Brügmann, Knorr, Klein and Frin Steglich-Fuchs." Where? This is in the New World section.

• It was in New York. There was an astonishing amount of foreign-language theatre in New York in those days. Melting pot and all that, I suppose. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• A first rate article as usual. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Dudley. I think I've addressed all your points with the one exception, which I'll mull over tonight and report back on. Tim riley talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• And now done – satisfactorily, I hope. Tim riley talk 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Dudley, both for the support and the very helpful suggestions, above. I shall not lose sight of the question of attributing D-I-Y translations. – Tim riley talk 09:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Full support, infernally good. Now, what about raising the composer to the same level.....--Smerus (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Smerus. Your support is greatly appreciated. I am already on record as signed up to an ascent of Mount Offenbach with you when your other commitments allow. I look forward to it. Tim riley talk 15:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

SN54129

"Tasty Tasty Very Very Tasty. It's Very Tasty".

Forced to omit much of the technical stuff I'm afraid.

Lead and Background/first productions

• "extensively revised and expanded in a..."—"into a" or "as a"? Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Any of the three prepositions would work equally well here, I think. I'm inclined to leave this as drawn. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• "He is glad to be rid of his wife, Eurydice, and has to be bullied by Public Opinion into trying to rescue her from the underworld"—for those of us brought up on Quadrophenia ("These ain't blues! Let's do 'is motor!", etc), recast as "He is glad to be rid of his wife, Eurydice, who has been taken to the underworld, but is bullied by Public Opinion into trying to rescue her", perhaps; explaining where she's gone before telling us he has to follow her.

• expanded. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, the can-can, I've heard of that. Any reason it's not linked? Unless you're worried that most people have heard of it also might immediately click away... :)

• Linked. (It was linked earlier, but I must have lost the link when acting on an earlier reviewer's suggestions.) Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps redlink Henri Tayau? Or are members of the Bouffes not equally notable? (Honest question—I found bugger all on him online, but you know your sources)

• I'd write a brief article on Tayau myself, but there simply is nothing online or in reference books in English. No prospect of an article as far as I can see. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• "His shows were lavishly and expensively mounted"—does those mean his productions in general were, or that each individual showing of MitO were?

• redrawn

• You might want to open with a sentence briefly explaining exactly who Offenbach was; for example, you mention him having to keep his creditors at bay, but there's been no intimation until then that he had any reason to.

• expanded. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• "irreverent public ripostes"—gorgeous. But the WP:READER will be slobbering at that; can we have some examples of how they (I imagine, in modern parlance) took the piss? Human interest and all that...and make sure Dank gets one or two of 'em in its TFA blurb  :)

• The English sources do not elaborate much. Offenbach wrote a letter to Le Figaro in macaronic prose, mixing German and French, but though this was possibly the height of cheek in 1859 I doubt if your putative slobberer will find the fact especially enlivening. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• "for that theatre"—I wonder if this is necessary? The theatre has been mentioned only a few words earlier, and there's no harm in removing a minor repetition.

• I think the words are necessary to make it clear that it broke records for that theatre, and not the theatre in general. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

<interlude>

Editions / overture & galop

• "The Offenbach Edition Keck"—is that the name, or could it be "Keck's edition"?

• The name of Keck's edition is indeed the Offenbach Edition Keck. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bizarre that the Orphée aux enfers doesn't have it's own article, considering it contains what must be one of the most famous pieces of music in the world (for a few minutes anyway).I do believe SchroCat used it as his Nokia ring tone. And finally, a link to the can-can! It might otherwise have encouragé les poilus, eh?  :)

• It is already linked in this section. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

<interlude>

• "Thinly disguised satire of the régime of Napoleon III"—baldly, how? This could do with some context. Bearing in mind I above suggested a few lines on Offenbach himself under "Background", I now suggest a short opening paragraph to the section which describes Offenbach's life until now and the social/political context; viz, why only a decade after the 1848 revolutions was he the target of popular disdain. Probably only need to be a few lines to set the scene.

• The sources do not really elaborate. I can well imagine why Jupiter was seen as a sly dig at Napoleon III – head of a régime noted more for show than for moral rectitude – but that would be OR. And as I have said in the text, the critics at the time either didn't think it was political satire or (more likely) prudently turned a blind eye to it, but I shouldn't like to go further than that. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• My recollection of the BBC production mentioned is that they were all dressed (or changed into) Second Empire clothes, I think Denis Quilley was made to look quite like Napoleon (III). PS, the Mellers book I mentioned below may help. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Your memory does not deceive you: Quilley was got up as Napoleon III briefly (though in Graeco-Roman dress for the main action). The version took some liberties, including a verse for Mars in the Metamorphoses Rondo. Thoroughly enjoyable, though. Tim riley talk 08:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Any reason Toko isn't linked?

• No mention of the word anywhere in the article. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Later, penny having dropped. We don't link capitals, including Tokyo (MoS). Tim riley talk 18:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note #2 is interesting and relevant enough to be inline, methinks.

• I wondered about that, but eventually decided it wasn't central to the main narrative. It is so tempting to throw in interesting titbits like this, but the article already weighs in at 5,300+ words, and it is as well to keep to the essentials, I think. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful Tim riley, and that you are, as ever, keeping well. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 17:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for these points. Addressed as outlined above. Hope reciprocally that you are flourishing. Tim riley talk 07:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

some final thoughts

I have checked on Wiki Commons media section and it seems that the cartoon of a garlanded Offenbach as Orpheus, and the Gustave Doré sketch of the finale of the opera (Keck's 'rave') are not available there, which is a shame as they would have been an addition... I wondered if, as the article mentions 'can-can' several times, that it needs a note at the bottom just to say that the only mention of cancan in the picee is when Jupiter speaks it in Olympus in the sense of 'bavardage malveillant'. Lastly, by accident I just discovered a book by Wilfrid Mellers entitled The masks of Orpheus - Seven stages in the story of the European music (Manchester University Press, 1987). I am only dipping in at present, but there is a very pertinent and perceptive section on pages 138 to 142 about the Offenbach work which I recommend and could provide good points for the article. If you are unable to track the book down I can try to add some of the better bits in.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that one of Mellers's books and will order it at the British Library. He knows his stuff, though his prose is apt to be heavy going. Tim riley talk 15:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Mellers perpetrates numerous errors in his plot summary (and his sociological hypothesising and his prose are both as dire as one might expect from a student of F. R. Leavis) but he makes a couple of good points about the music, which I have added. On the can-can point, it is true that the librettist and composer did not apply the term to the galop, but reviewers did from the outset if I recall correctly from trawling the press coverage. I think the point is sufficiently made that Offenbach called it a galop. Tim riley talk 16:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I know I am being awkward what with sending you off on a goose chase after Emeritus Professor Mellers and not liking Hughes and Taraskin, however, in the table of musical numbers, second column, Cybèle, Pomone, Flore, Ceres, are listed for the Rondeau des métamorphoses although they are not up in the cast list. Also Ceres is given with English spelling although other characters have French, and dieux is given with upper case at the end of the table. Apologies if I missed a perfect explanation for this... (Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC))

I took the view that the minor gods are covered by "Gods, goddesses, shepherds, shepherdesses, lictors and spirits in the underworld" at the end of the cast lists, and left that bit as I inherited it, but now you home in on it I agree it is anomalous to mention them by name in the listing for the rondo without mentioning them individually in the dramatis personae. Cybèle and Pomone (3rd couplet) and Flore and Cérès (5th) now added. The full 1874 cast list also listed Thalie, Euterpe, Clio, Polymnie, Euterpe and Érato among others, and so I've added "muses" to the omnium gatherum at the end of the cast list. All your tweaks now duly twuck, I think. Most helpful: many thanks. Tim riley talk 08:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I really will shut up now. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I've enjoyed and profited from your comments throughout, mon général. Could I ask you to say if you think the article as now revised should be supported for FA? The FAC coordinators will, I think, be glad to know your view. Tim riley talk 21:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, in spite of my contributions, it must be worthy of recognition! Thanks again for your hard work. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, and for your support and valuable suggestions throughout my overhaul of the article. Tim riley talk 18:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:Sven-Erik Wikstrom-Elisabeth Soderstrom.jpg requires a USPD tag, regarding which I fear you may struggle. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• I rather suspected as much. This was a legacy of an earlier version and I can quite happily live without it. Deleted. That done, are you happy to sign off the review? I may look for another PD-US-1923-abroad/PD in France image from the ever-wonderful Bibliothèque nationale de France. Thanks very much for doing the review. Tim riley talk 18:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licensed. Ping me if you do add any further. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog, pinging, having added a replacement image: the cover of an 1876 theatre programme. (Sorry to pester you.) – Tim riley talk 19:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks fine. The pass stands. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing. Tim riley talk 06:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• All links to sources are working, according to the external links checker tool
• Formats

• Ref 4 is to a JSTOR article and ought to bear the subscription template. See for example ref 106

• I've omitted the template because JSTOR makes articles as old as this available to all, without charge or subscription.

• Same applies to ref 109

• Ditto.

• Ref 150 has a peculiar date; "3 August 3 1985"

• Oops! Now corrected.

• Ref 151 should have the subscription template, per 150

• Indeed. Done.

• The article is very extensively referenced and sourced, and the sources appear to meet all the FA criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, BB, for the review. All points now addressed, I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 09:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2019 [33].

---

Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018)

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have decided to nominate Carlotta after having worked on it for a long time. I actually tried to delete the article myself and it was on the cusp of being merged into the seasonal article. I rewrote Carlotta and added an impact section after finding out there was a decent bit of information on the storm. I now believe Carlotta is of sufficient quality to be brought here. Noah^Talk 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

Most of the descriptions were good enough. I added in things like "visible satellite image" for alt text in addition to the description of the image. Noah^Talk 19:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Suggest scaling up the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: This can't be done without changing EVERY track map. There really isn't a reason to make it any larger as the intensity dots are easily discernable even without clicking on the image for the full size. Yeah, some of the dots are smashed together, but that's what you get when a system slows down and stalls. Please let me know if you think this is a large enough issue that it warrants a change. Noah^Talk 19:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would every track map need to be changed in order to change this one? According to the documentation for {{storm path}}, the functionality to change the image size is already part of the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Oh, I thought you meant the image itself needed to be zoomed in more. There is an issue though... the project doesn't scale up track maps unless the storm has a long track, such as that of Hurricane Hector (2018). Storms with short tracks do not get enlarged. Keep in mind that such a change would go against the current practice and would likely require some form of consensus or it would run the risk of being reverted. Noah^Talk 22:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Where has this practice been codified? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It is more of a practice to cut down as much text squishing as possible. Nearly every article has the infobox on the right, and the map is in the top-left of the meteorological history. It's more a matter of style. That being said, there is one extra line at the very bottom of my screen, so if the map was a tiny bit bigger, the line wouldn't drop all the way to the left. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: As far as I am aware, there aren't any actual discussions on the matter. I asked a few people without any luck. It's just how it has been done (for the reason pointed out above). As it appears there is no official consensus, I have honored your request. Is everything good now regarding images? Noah^Talk 02:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)

• I would link Mexican state in the first sentence

  Done. Noah^Talk 16:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• On June 12, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) reported that a broad area of low pressure had formed several hundred miles south of the aforementioned country. The NHC continued to track the disturbance over the next couple of days as it drifted northward. Following an increase in organization, the system was designated as a tropical depression on June 14 and was upgraded to tropical storm status the following evening. - too much MH for the lead. This can all be summarized into one sentence

  Cut out any mention of TD in the lead. I have it as strengthening to TS by June 15. Noah^Talk 16:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would mention how close to land Carlotta got in the lead, or maybe add that it stalled "just offshore" or something

  mentioned closeness at peak intensity. Noah^Talk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• The NHC continued to monitor the disturbance over the next couple days as it drifted northward.[3] Initially, strong upper-level winds prevented organization,[2] but by the next day, conditions had become marginally conducive - as my general rule of thumb, if the previous sentence doesn't mention a date, then don't refer to "the next day", since then the reader has to go back two sentences. Also, what were the conditions that became more conducive?

  Added a date and corrected the statement. Noah^Talk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• The system thereafter increased in organization, resulting in the formation of a tropical depression by 18:00 UTC on June 14. - where?

  Added place and distance. Noah^Talk 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• The NHC later reduced its intensity forecast as the system's center had reformed further north, decreasing the amount of time until landfall. - the wording could be tighter here, like - After the system's center reformed farther north, the NHC anticipated only minimal intensification due to less time over water. That's not perfect either. It's odd, because you're talking about two different time frames here, the forecast, and what the storm did. Also, because it's distance/location related, it should be "farther", not "further".

  Is that better? Noah^Talk 22:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Carlotta began to intensify around 06:00 UTC as it stalled off the coast of Mexico. - wasn't it already intensifying once it became a TS?

  Clarified as the intensity stalled for multiple times. Noah^Talk 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Around 18:00 UTC, Carlotta weakened into a tropical depression after lacking organized deep convection for several hours. - see what I said earlier about timing

  I hope that clarifies the timing more. Noah^Talk 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• On June 14 at 21:00 UTC, a tropical storm watch was issued for Tecpan de Galeana to Punta Maldonado [es]. - I'd say "The government of Mexico issued a tropical storm watch..." - this cuts down on the passive voice

  Fixed. Noah^Talk 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• There, a total of 170 families were affected and the DN-III-E Plan, a plan for the coordination of search and rescue operations and disaster aid, was activated to help with recovery efforts. - this seems like two different ideas. First, what does it mean that the families were affected? I don't usually include that in articles because it's a fairly open-ended stat that doesn't mean too much. Also, was this plan used for any search/rescue on the Yucatan?

  removed the stat and replaced it with the police station that was inundated. I can't find any information on search and rescue operations. I have tried multiple searches with no success. I did find that the army was prepared to help if needed, but nothing available on whether they actually did help in Yucatan. Noah^Talk 22:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Could you cut down in general on the passive voice in the impact section?
• A total of 138 trees were downed; 120 in Acapulco and the remaining 18 in the municipalities of Cuajinicuilapa, Florencio Villareal, Azoyu, Tecpan de Galeana, Benito Juárez, Coyuca de Benítez, Eduardo Neri, and Coyuca de Catalán. - usually articles don't give a breakdown for towns where trees were downed. Seems kinda trivial IMO. I'd just keep the 138 downed trees

  cut most of that. Noah^Talk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Additionally, 11 roads collapsed, nine houses lost their roofs, 32 neighborhoods lost power, and a hospital sustained window damage in Acapulco. - was this all in Acapulco? Also, the ordering seems off. Mentioning collapsed roads in the same sentence as damaged windows seems off.

  Should be fixed now. Noah^Talk 23:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Approximately 210.6 mm (8.291 in) of rain fell in La Villita while 194.9 mm (7.673 in) was recorded in Presa La Villita. - watch for rounding. Also, is there any significance to these rainfall totals as opposed to the previous one mentioned (which was presumably the highest recorded in Mexico).

  I have been told rainfall values must conform to sig fig conversion rules, which states a value with 4 sig figs must have a conversion to inches with 4 sig figs. No, there isn't a particular significance, although those three were only exact rainfall values throughout Mexico. Noah^Talk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• In the Tiquicheo Municipality, 10 houses flooded after a river near the city of Tiquicheo overflowed its banks. - no need to mention Tiquicheo twice, IMO.

  cut "of Tiquicheo" Noah^Talk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Throughout the storm, 35 temporary shelters were in operation. - nationwide? Or in Michoacan?

  Added... please note I did not intend to leave that as open ended since it is in the Michoacán paragraph. Noah^Talk 23:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• A 30-to-35-year-old woman and a 15-to-17-year-old girl became entrapped in their vehicle due to rising flood waters - no need to mention the age range. How about just "Two women became trapped..."

  Cut the ages. Noah^Talk 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That's it for my review. The article is in decent shape, but just seems lacking for an FA (probably because the storm wasn't too damaging, therefore not too much to write about). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to Support now. It may be short, and not what I would've put on FAC, but I believe it passes the criteria. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Support and Comments by 12george1

• "and sea surface temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F)," - The rest of the MH uses imperial units first. Therefore, celsius should be in parenthesis. Because it's a template, you can just add |order=flip

  Fixed... seems odd that NHC uses Celcius when they use imperial units for everything else. Noah^Talk 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Carlotta's remnants dissipated around 06:00 UTC.[1]" - Specify where the remnants dissipated

  Added virtually the same thing that the TCR had since there was no specific location/distance. Noah^Talk 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The proximity of Carlotta prompted the closure of the ports of Huatulco, Puerto Ángel and Puerto Escondido" - Comma after Puerto Ángel

  Fixed. Noah^Talk 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• "In Puebla, a state highway and a bridge collapsed, cutting off several towns in the area." - At first I couldn't tell if you were referring to the city or the state because you end the sentence with "in the area". Upon further investigation, it looks like this was in the Tehuacán area. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The source used for this sentence also states that there were flooded businesses and homes, as well as stranded cars in Tehuacán area, which should be added to the article

  I clarified... I was referring to the state with Puebla. I added info about the flooding as well as the cars and trees. Noah^Talk 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• At the bottom, add Category:2018 in Mexico

  Done. Noah^Talk 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That should be it. This is a pretty good article, but just a few things need to be done before I can support. Anyway, I'm glad you decided against withdrawing.--12george1 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@12george1: I should have addressed everything. If there are any problems, please let me know. Noah^Talk 20:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I will now support this nomination--12george1 (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Other discussion

At this point, I would say a withdraw is warranted. The article is simply too short to qualify for FA. I would like a second opinion on it before formally making a decision on this. Noah^Talk 15:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess I will see this through given the negative feedback regarding a withdraw. Maybe the sentiment has changed in more recent years. I had heard in great detail about opposition to smaller hurricane FACs. Noah^Talk 21:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Before you withdraw, two questions: 1. Is this subject worthy of a stand-alone article? If not, withdraw and nominate for deletion. If it is worthy of a stand-alone article, 2. Does it incorporate every useful and worthwhile piece of encyclopaedic information, without going into trivia or too much details? If not, withdraw. If it passes both 1 and 2, don't withdraw. I know nothing about hurricanes, etc, but if this is a worthwhile article and is of sufficient standard that covers all appropriate material, then there is no reason it cannot be an FA (although I say this without reviewing the current version). We have shorter articles than this (I think some of Crisco's Indonesian lost-film articles were shorter, and they deserved to be FAs as much as this one may). If you decide to remain, ping me and I'll review the prose. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Looking further, Panggilan Darah – 982 words and Air Mata Iboe – 948 words are both shorter than your 1214 words of "readable prose size". Because they were short Crisco ensured that every useful and encyclopaedic piece of information was included. If you have too, then there is no need to withdraw on size alone. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  @SchroCat: I have decided to continue on with the process. Noah^Talk 23:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• @WP:FAC coordinators: Would it be okay for me to nominate another article within the next few days? Noah^Talk 19:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: That would be fine. --Laser brain (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

SC

General

• The name "Carlotta" appears 36 times in the article. A few of these could be replaced with "the storm" etc, as a bit of variety.

  Changed some. I had 4 in the lede and about 10 in the prose. Noah^Talk 01:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• You have a habit of adding an introductory word at the beginning of each sentence (Additionally, However, Moreover, Soon after, Meanwhile, etc). Try and remove those if they are not actually needed. They make the reading less fluid that it could be (and it looks like an added in sentence of something forgotten – 'oh, and another thing…')

  Changed as possible. Meanwhile and soon after are mainly there as we only have 6 hour track points. Noah^Talk 01:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • You have "Additionally" seven times in the article, which makes for awkward reading. Most of them could be removed, or the sentences tweaked slightly to make the reading a bit more fluid

  Removed all but one. Noah^Talk 01:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • "due to" always jars slightly (although that may just be a personal thing), so consider whether "because of" would be better

  Replaced all of them. Noah^Talk 01:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead & IB

• Fatalities: "3 total": do we need "total"?

  Yes, it is needed because there are both direct and indirect deaths. This is done for almost every storm. Noah^Talk 14:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  But that field in the IB makes no distinction. It just supplies the number of deaths and the "in total" is inherent in the field, which is three - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  We always clarify... either list “# total”, “# direct, # indirect”, or “# direct/indirect (whichever it happens to be)”. Noah^Talk 16:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  "We" being? A project, I presume? The benefit of not being part of a project is that I approach it like a reader (which is exactly what you need). This looks wrong and the two words raise more questions than answers. An IB should give simple points that clarify, not complicate matters. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I did clarify on the deaths since such information exists, but I will not go against project practices as this would require a consensus to change. Noah^Talk 21:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• "the aforementioned country" feels a bit forced. "Central America" or something else would work better

  Removed Mexico from the first sentence and replaced the aforementioned country with Mexico. Noah^Talk 22:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The storm caused a total of three deaths": "a total of" is not needed. This should be followed by a colon, not a semi solon

  Fixed... oops typo... 22:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Additionally, the storm caused": "Additionally" not needed

  Fixed. Noah^Talk 22:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

History

• "However, a tropical wave": "However" not needed

  Removed Noah^Talk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• "the National Hurricane Center": As we're talking about a storm over Mexico and the previous mention of a country was Mexico, it may be worth clarifying to "the US National Hurricane Center"

  Added "Miami-based" Noah^Talk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• "the NHC forecast that" -> "the NHC forecasted that"

  Although both are correct, everyone uses forecast. Noah^Talk 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Preparations

• "at 21:00 UTC,": delink UTC

  Done Noah^Talk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not an AmEng speaker, but shouldn't "cancelled" be "canceled"? (I ask from a position of complete ignorance!

  English is weird... both spellings are correct, but appears canceled seems to be preferred (at least by rule books, not neccesarily by actual people). I always used cancelled due to cancellation. Noah^Talk 14:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• "fishing operations.[25] Additionally, multiple": use a semi-colon instead of a full stop and drop "Additionally"

  Done Noah^Talk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• "collapsed.[37] Moreover, 12" Again, semi colon and drop the "Moreover".

  Done Noah^Talk 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope these help. – SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I addressed all the items you presented. I saw someone else did make some changes, so please let me know if I need to make any additional corrections. Noah^Talk 12:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• One final point on something added since my review. In the second para of "Preparations", you have the line "The cyclone caused two deaths in Aguascalientes and one in Oaxaca". This isn't needed and should be taken out - you have the details in the next para and the final one, and this sentence makes it look like there were three more. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  @SchroCat: Removed. Noah^Talk 16:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support I'm glad you decided to keep on with this article. It's a good one that fulfils the FA criteria, as far as I am concerned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• Spotchecks not carried out
• Formats: no issues
• Links: all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
• General: So far as I can judge, the sources are appropriate to the subject. I note that the first 21 references are all to National Hurricane Center reports, the remainder are all to Spanish sources for which I am unable to properly assess the quality/reliability. The publisher of ref 22 appears to be Comisión Nacional Del Agua, not "gob.mx", and the source is a map rather than a report. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  I fixed the issue with it having the map as a "report". The reference has Conagua listed as the publisher and website as gob.mx. Noah^Talk 12:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from KN2731

Some small issues:

• Missing Oxford commas
  • Lead - Aguascalientes, Guerrero, Michoacán, Oaxaca and Puebla

  Fixed Noah^Talk 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Prep & impact - Aguascalientes, Guerrero, Michoacán, Oaxaca and Puebla, being affected, as well as the Yucatán Peninsula

  Fixed Noah^Talk 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Prep & impact - After 57 mm (2.2 in) of rain fell,[38] the city's drainage system failed,[37] 12 houses were flooded and 12 trees fell

  Fixed Noah^Talk 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• You mention "favorable environment" in the lead, but never mention "favorable" again in the MH

  That was an oversight... I said "an environment" but meant to say "a favorable environment"

• Over the next twelve hours, Carlotta experienced [...] south-southeast of Acapulco. I feel like there should be a comma somewhere

  Added a comma after the non-essential part. Noah^Talk 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• In Tizimín, the Popolnáh police station - ref says Tizimín Municipality, not the city which the link currently leads to

  Alright... Guess I put the main city in the municipality rather than the municipality itself. Noah^Talk 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• prompted the closure of the ports of Huatulco, Puerto Ángel, and Puerto Escondido and the suspension of fishing operations - change second "and" to "as well as"

  Done. Noah^Talk 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Great article overall. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 12:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@KN2731: I should have addressed everything. Noah^Talk 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice work. Supporting ~ KN2731 {t · c} 05:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2019 [34].

---

Death of Blair Peach

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Just over forty years ago Blair Peach attended a demonstration against the National Front where he received a blow on the head that killed him. This was, in all probability, from one of a possible six Special Patrol Group officers. No-one was ever charged with his death and it is unlikely that the actual culprit will ever be formally identified. The case was high-profile at the time, and it has been mentioned numerous times since, normally when there is a death related to police action. This has gone through a thorough re-write recently, and any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment by David Fuchs

• In the lead, In 2009 Ian Tomlinson died after he was struck from behind by a member of the Territorial Support Group, the SPG's successor organisation—it’s not immediately clear in the lead (versus the body) that this similar account led to the release of the report into Peach’s death. I think this should either be made clearer or Tomlinson’s death should be moved into the subsequent paragraph detailing the legacy of the incident. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks David. I've added a sentence to link the Tomlinson death and release. Does that look OK to you as is? It may be that others would prefer it in the later paragraph, but we'll see. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Support per my detailed comments at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Wehwalt - I'm much obliged to you for your time and comments at PR and again here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Noswall59

• I hope you don't mind, but I've added his parents' names (which I believe are standard in biographical articles/summaries yet missing in his ODNB entry) and the names of his brothers, one of whom (Roy) was a solicitor and led the legal campaign after Blair's death; their mother Janet also sued the Met in 1981, but I've not added that. I am not familiar with your citation template though, so I'm afraid you might need to go through and standardise the references I've added (currently numbered 2, 3 and 4). As a final note, cite 2 is a bit odd; his parents' names are included on his gravestone, a photograph of which is available at the Getty Foundation and I've linked to it; the Foundation explicitly states in the caption that it belongs to "Blair Peach, who died in the Southall, West London, demonstrations against the National Front on April 23rd 1979, by a blow to the head." An unusual source, but I think perfectly acceptable. Cheers and good luck with the nom, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC).

Only (watching), but if i may say so, Noswall59, that's all useful stuff, cheers; Apropos nothing, I think SC is out raising money for the Police Benevolent Fund atm. ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Noswall59. I've tweaked the text just a little to reflect the sources a bit more closely and turned the citations into the right forms. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Blair_Peach.jpg: I read the statement re: public domain on the Guardian site as attribution rather than release. Any idea what the original source of this image was? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikkimaria. I don't know, I'm afraid. I went with what the newspaper say it is (the press are normally excellent about ensuring the licencing is correct for images). - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• That has... very much not been my experience. The same image appears to have been used in contemporary protests (eg [35][36]), though of course without any attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, What are you suggesting here? - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• The use of the image in those protests suggests that it predates the Guardian publication cited, although the original source is unclear. Might the Guardian have more information on where the photo came from originally? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've emailed the pictures department to ask on what basis they show it as PD. I suspect we may be in for a long wait! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I think I shall be supporting, but a few minor points first, as I ducked out of the PR:

• "The BNP's successor, the National Front" – I see what you mean, of course, but is "successor" quite accurate? In present-day terms, is the Brexit party the "successor" to UKIP? One gang following a moribund predecessor gang, but I think "successor" implies some sort of hand-over.

• The original BNP (1960–1967) help form the National Front when it imploded, with a large chunk of the party joining with a couple of other far-right knuckle-draggers to form the new organisation. I think there are some reliable sources that use the "successor" tag too. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "After bad press, they were replaced" – "they" being District Support Units? It isn't crystal clear.
• I don't press the point, but there is a certain amount of in-and-out running in singular-v-plural for groups: e.g. "The SPG was disbanded .. the National Front announced that they would..."
• Capitals are, I know, a headache for the scrupulous writer, but I do wonder why commissioner of the Metropolitan Police but Director of Public Prosecutions. (I'd capitalise Commissioner, but that's just my view.)

• I've followed your suggestion. I go round in circles trying to work out what the MoS are saying on whatever day of the week. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Despite statements by the police and the Labour government" – it seems a touch tendentious to say "the Labour government", as if a Tory one would have been sans peur et sans reproche.

Those are all my points on the prose. The content of the article seems to me balanced, comprehensive and well-referenced. I shall look in again to, I hope and expect, add my support. Tim riley talk 21:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim. Only the singular-v-plural point to deal with, but I'll go over those shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Tim, I think I've covered these now (although I'm not sure I've made it worse in doing so!) Could you cast your eye over and see if I've brushed it up sufficiently? Ta - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think you've got all the singular-v-plurals right. Some would write "the family was", but I'm with you in making them plural. While I was checking the current text I noticed (smack handies for not spotting it before) that you are inconsistent with the definite articles of newspaper titles: the Daily Mirror, but The Daily Telegraph and The Times. Not a matter of grave import, but it would be as well to stick to the same form for all. Tim riley talk 10:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim - duly tweaked to be consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Happy to support now. I see a source review is wanted. If no-one more expert volunteers I'll have one of my occasional goes at source reviewing, using BB's wise guidance. Tim riley talk 08:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim. As always, your comments are extremely helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

• "the parallels in the deaths proved to be a catalyst in the release of the Cass report to the public." Something can be the catalyst for a single event, but not "a" catalyst - that would imply that it is one of several which is not chemically nor grammatically allowed.
• "In the late 1950s—a decade after the partition of India—many of those who had been displaced by the events lost land and savings in the movement of people from their homelands into new areas." Umm. Possibly this has lost a word or three somewhere along the way while being copy edited?
  • I've re-written this several times, and deleted them all! How does this current version look? - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• "meant easily obtainable jobs" IMO this would read better as 'meant jobs were easily obtainable'.
• "Southall" The second and third sentences start with "Many", as does the last clause of the first sentence. Would some variation be possible?
• "During local elections of the 1960s anti-immigration rhetoric was used by some candidates, successfully in many cases." Can you cite "successfully in many cases"?
  • It was part of the Karapin reference at the end of the next sentence, but split out now for clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• "In 1978 there were 204 members of the SPG in the Metropolitan Police Service." "in the Metropolitan Police Service" is redundant, the first sentence of the section covers this.
  • yeah-but, no-but... By '78 the SPG model was being used by forces outside the Met, so we need it there for clarity. (If you think a line would be beneficial to say the model was used in other forces, let me know and I'll dig out the sources again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Accusations were made that the police were inappropriately violent towards those demonstrating against a National Front march." Is this connected to the previous sentence? It seems to spring out of nowhere.
• "After bad press" It may just be me, but that does not read as encyclopedic. If only for want of a verb. Possibly 'After receiving bad press'?
• "As the number of demonstrators at the town hall rose, the crowd contained what the police considered militant elements." That doesn't really work. Perhaps 'The number of demonstrators at the town hall rose, and included some whom the police considered militant elements'?
• "The police decided to make a sterile cordon around the town hall" "make" -> 'set up' or similar? 'create'? 'establish'?
• "a sterile cordon"; "The cordons were". Singular or plural?
  • Both, according to the police report! I've tweaked to put all plural - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Caption: "the green arrows shows Peach's direction of travel while trying to leave the area" "shows" -> 'show'.
• "between 5:30 and 6:30 pm violence rose" Possibly a personal preference, but can violence 'rise'? 'the violence increased'? the level of violence rose'?

• Personal or not, I've gone with it anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "which triggered the reaction from the crowd" "the" -> 'a'. (Or specify what "the" was.)
• "One house on Park View Road was used as a first aid post; the building was also the headquarters of Peoples Unite" "one" needs to be 'a' and the sentence seems messy. How does something like 'A house on Park View Road, the headquarters of Peoples Unite, was used as a first aid post' sound?

• Much better, thanks - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• " 'peaceful English hamlet' " Why the additional quote marks.
  • That's how they are in the quote (see here). I've moved one of the citations adjacent to make the quote clearer too. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• "At about 7:30 pm Peach, along with four friends decided that they would return to their cars" Needs tweaking. Possibly 'At about 7:30 pm Peach, along with four friends, decided to return to their cars ...'?
  • Yes, better - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• "radioed to the central control that there was a riot in progress" This seems to need a word after "control"[?]: 'point', 'room', whatever.
  • I think it was just called "Central Control", but I've added "unit" to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• "There were a group of 100 to 150 protesters" "were" -> 'was'.
• "Beachcroft Avenue and as the SPG vans of Unit 3 drove to the junction" Delete either "and" or "as".
• "He was rapidly operated on" "rapidly" -> 'promptly' (or similar).
• "25 members of the public were also injured, of which Peach was one." "which" -> 'whom'.

More to follow.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• All done, except where commented on above. Thank you for all these: they are excellent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "and the Labour government" I assume that this refers to the UK Government? It would, IMO, be more appropriate to label it as such. If there is some point to be made as to which political party was in power, could it be made more openly. I note that when Ealing London Borough Council was mentioned earlier in the article, the party or parties in power did not come up.

• swapped for "incumbent government". - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Instead of holding the trials locally, they were held 25 miles (40 km) away in Barnet." How unusual was this? In the area of the UK where I live, it has long been the case that high profile cases are not tried in the area where they are alleged to have taken place. If it was not unusual then add something such as 'as was normal practice in such cases'. If it was not, then could you cite this.

• 'High profile' tends to mean a major crime which goes to the regional crown court. These cases were small stuff, so should have been the local magistrates court. I'll dig out the info and add as appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "writes that while initially 90% of the defendants" "writes" -> 'wrote'

• Tim riley suggests "writes". - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "the eve of Peach's funeral" Redundant, given that the following sentence starts "The following day he was buried"
• Note g: "A sample list of the weapons found in the lockers of Unit 1-1's members, included" I don't think that the comma is necessary.
• "including for Officer F and Officer G and Officer I" Should the first "and" not be a comma?
• "shaved off his moustache which he had that day" "his" -> 'the'
• "Cass considered that he had identified the likely individual who hit Peach" Is "likely" necessary here?

• I think so. Cass put a list of six and said "in order of likelihood" or something similar. - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Taking a break.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Again, all done except where commented on. I'll dig out the court info shortly Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Carried down from above

• "In the late 1950s—a decade after the partition of India—many of those who had been displaced by the events lost land and savings in the movement of people from their homelands into new areas." How about 'In the late 1950s many of those who had been displaced by the partition of India a decade before emigrated to the UK.' I am honestly not sure whether you are trying to say that they lost land etc during partition or when they moved to "new areas". But I don't see how any of that is relevant. I don't even see how the background of some - you don't quantify - immigrants is relevant, but if you do I can be flexible.

• The point is that the relocation of 10 million+ people meant that many lost land and property and ended up coming to the UK as a result. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

In which case perhaps something like: 'As a result of the population transfers after the 1947 partition of India over fourteen million people were impoverished. From the late 1950' on many of them relocated again in search of more prosperous lives.' Nothing special about those words, but I feel that you are trying to pack a novella into a single sentence, so cutting the information to what a reader really needs to know may help, as might spreading it out over two sentences.

That's better. I've added a slight variant to it here - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• "meant easily obtainable jobs" IMO this would read better as 'meant jobs were easily obtainable'. Neither commented on nor actioned.

• Yep - it was already done in this edit - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I am clearly going senile. Apologies.

• "Southall" The second and third sentences start with "Many", as does the last clause of the first sentence. Would some variation be possible? Neither commented on nor actioned.

• Ditto - swapped out one of them for "some" - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think it was just called "Central Control", but I've added "unit" to clarify.

If it had had upper case Cs in the article I wouldn't have queried it. Just saying.

• Given the MoS's often bizarre approach to capitalisation... either way, it should be clear now. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Instead of holding the trials locally, they were held 25 miles (40 km) away in Barnet.

How unusual was this? In the area of the UK where I live, it has long been the case that high profile cases are not tried in the area where they are alleged to have taken place. If it was not unusual then add something such as 'as was normal practice in such cases'. If it was not, then could you cite this.

'High profile' tends to mean a major crime which goes to the regional crown court. These cases were small stuff, so should have been the local magistrates court. I'll dig out the info and add as appropriate.

I see your point. Hopefully you see mine. If we are accusing the British judicial system of attempting to rig the system against the accused - something I am personally willing to believe - we need to nail it down with a couple of very reliable sources IMO.

• Done this already - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "writes that while initially 90% of the defendants" "writes" -> 'wrote'

Tim riley suggests "writes".

Mr Riley is a renown semi-literate. Ask him if he would care to reconsider his position.

He'll pipe up shortly, but as the text is extant and the opinion not withdrawn, it is still the "current" position of the author. All allowable in grammatical terms. - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It's an odd convention I suppose, a sort of variation on the historic present, and even those who adhere to it interpret it differently. Some people apply it only to recent-ish publications, and others use it for everything. From a quick search of Google books: "according to what Julius Caesar writes in his Commentaries", "Julius Caesar writes of iron nails", "Julius Caesar writes about the transmigration of the souls in Celtic religion". My own use of the idiom is arbitrary, I'm afraid. I use "write" or "wrote" according to what feels right in each case. In my current overhaul of Orpheus I see I have said "Albert Lasalle, in his history of the Bouffes-Parisiens (1860) wrote that ... In 1999 Thomas Schipperges wrote in the International Journal ... Félix Clément and Pierre Larousse wrote in their Dictionnaire des Opéras (1881) that ..." but "Peter Gammond writes that the public appreciated... Kurt Gänzl writes in The Encyclopedia of the Musical Theatre that... In his 1981 study of Offenbach, Alexander Faris writes, "Orphée..." Of these one "wrote" refers to a living writer, and one "writes" to a dead one. One or two of these "writes/wrote" could perhaps be switched, and in fact I dithered about the choice for M. Lasalle's quotation, but on the whole the choice of tense seems to pick itself according to the context. And note that at the PR nobody has been troubled enough by it to mention the inconsistency. In short, I think either "writes" or "wrote" is acceptable in the sentence in question, and it is a matter of personal stylistic preference. I hope that satisfactorily confuses the issue. – Tim riley talk 07:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. As muddy as a very muddy substance. In brief SC, it would seem that you can go for whichever variant you prefer.

• "Cass considered that he had identified the likely individual who hit Peach" Is "likely" necessary here?

I think so. Cass put a list of six and said "in order of likelihood" or something similar.

OK. In which case how about 'Cass considered that he had identified the individual whom he considered most likely to have hit Peach.

Now done - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Why not reorder the first paragraph of Special Patrol Group as:

The Special Patrol Group (SPG) was formed in 1961 as a specialist squad within the Metropolitan Police; In 1978 it consisted of 204 members, divided into six units, each of which contained three sergeants and 30 constables. Each unit was commanded by an inspector. It provided a mobile, centrally controlled reserve of uniformed officers which supported local areas, particularly when policing serious crime and civil disturbances. The SPG comprised police officers capable of working as disciplined teams preventing public disorder, targeting areas of serious crime, carrying out stop and searches, or providing a response to terrorist threats.

• Because it wouldn't be correct. In 1978 the SPG comprised 1,347 members, of whom 204 served in the Met, the others elsewhere (including 368 in the RUC). Reading the above makes it appear that there were only 204 members anywhere. I'll tweak the existing para to include info about the number overall. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Notes

Act 2, scene 1

• "Cass finished the investigation fully in February 1980" "fully" is redundant.
• "during that time" You haven't given a time [period], just an end date.
• "as only the coroner and police lawyers had copies of the report, "it was impossible for anyone ... to obtain a complete picture of the evidence" However well cited, this is clearly incorrect, as the coroner and the police lawyers would have been able to.
• "the Peach case is an example where "compensation is ... paid in tacit admission that a wrong had been committed." As the quote is not a full sentence, the full stop should be outside the quote marks.
• "That June the Metropolitan Police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson announced that Cass's report and supporting documentation would be released. The parallels in the deaths of the two men proved to be the catalyst in the release of the Cass report to the public." IMO it would be beneficial to swap the order of these sentences.
• "The journalists Mark Hughes and Cahal Milmo see that the action of the SPG "became a symbol of police corruption"." Grammar issues. 'The journalists Mark Hughes and Cahal Milmo considered that the action of the SPG "became a symbol of police corruption".'?

• What are you saying to change? The sentence already has "that" in there. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I put the emphasis in the wrong place. I was attempting, ineptly, to suggest that 'considered' might convey your meaning better than "see".

Ah, OK - swapped for "consider" - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Sus law" -> 'sus law'.
• "to commemorate the former NUT member" If you are going to use an abbreviation, you should put it in brackets after the first use of the in full of the term abbreviated.

Which would be either the last line of the lead, or the second paragraph of the main article. Your choice.

The second para is a bit too far away for many to remember, so I've left it as full in the final section, but tweaked so it is not repeated twice in quick succession. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note g: "Figures for the actual number vary. "actual" is redundant.
• Sources: Butler and King 1965 and 1966 are too early to have had ISBNs.

• Retrospectively provided – example. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, well; live and learn. I am astonished and enlightened.

I was a bit surprised by it too. I think it's something that happened with the release of some works as ebooks - not entirely sure, but I was looking for the oclc number when I came across this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ideally Gilroy should have the page range of the article or chapter given.
• Caption: "Ian Tomlinson, just after being struck to the ground by police. His death was the catalyst for the release of the Cass report" There should be a terminal full stop.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Covered, except where commented on. Thanks again - although I know I need to cover a couple of points from further up. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Gog, Again, many thanks for these comments - I am very grateful indeed. If there are any that I have missed, or you think need more work on, please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem SchroCat. It is an issue I was quite exercised about at the time, and it has brought me to a steady simmer several times since. You have clearly put an enormous amount of work into the article and it was a privilege to be able to contribute my smidgen. (That said, if you happen to feel like dropping by my A class nomination Battle of Cape Ecnomus then please feel free. I learnt this shameless approach from Tim.)

I was about to sign off with a support when I noticed "Cass considered that he had identified the individual whom he considered most likely to have hit Peach" Two times "considered". I have boldly edited the first one to 'decided' so as not to hold things up, but feel free to revert or make a different change.

Good spot. I may tweak to "considered", but either of them are better than the duplicated word. - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A magnificent article. Well-written, solidly cited to a wide range of sources, neutral, even in trying circumstances, and comprehensive. Happy to support.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you. I am most indebted to you, and will return the reviewing favour shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cass

I am so sorry, I completely forgot about this. Reading through tonight...(not John Cass, obvs) Cassianto^Talk 19:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• "During his studies he visited Britain and liked the country." -- Not List or Rutherford, presumably?
• "From the late 1950s on..." -- do we need "on"?
• "...many of them relocated again." -- do we need "again"?
• "Many Sikhs and Hindus left..." -- Many/many
• "Some of the early arrivals found work at the R. Woolf and Co Rubber factory and by 1965 all the lower level workers were from Poland or the Indian subcontinent." -- I'm really not sure of the conjunction here. I don't think it works with what precedes it.
• "Racial discrimination in the workplace was common, and 85% of those Asian workers who had been given entry into the UK on the basis of their education or training, were only employed in unskilled or semi-skilled roles." -- and here. An obvious semicolon would work better here, IMO.
• Did all forces have units called "SPG"? Only the Met have what is called the "TSG", now, with other forces having units using different names. I'm led to believe that some don't have a support group/public order unit at all now and rely solely on level two aid deployments.
  • Most had an SPG, even if they were only 11 officers (like Derbyshire's). The source I have says Glos, Norfolk and Notts were the only English forces without one, and neither did Central Scotland. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• "...meeting hall. The day before the meeting..." -- meeting/meeting
• "Approximately 1,200 police officers were on duty along the five-mile (eight-kilometre) route, at which 19 people were arrested." -- Is it possible to be at a route or on it?
• "... regardless of what they were doing, and there were subsequent complaints of racist and sexist abuse by the police." -- those police are a precious lot, aren't they. Surely they're used to such abuse? Or were they the ones dishing it out?
  • Bloody snowflakes, the lot of them! - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• "It reconvened on 25 May 1979 and again was adjourned" -- "It reconvened on 25 May 1979 and was again adjourned" is a bit crisper.
• "PC Raymond White, PC James Scottow and PC Anthony Richardson" -- could we get away with PCs and then the names?

Stopping for now, more soon. Cassianto^Talk 20:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Excellent stuff, cheers. All done, except the one point where I've clarified the extent of the SPG 'model' at the time. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Continuing with coroners inquest down...

• "In early 1980 sections of the Cass report..." -- this makes it sound like the report was written sectionally over a period of decades. Is there a way of avoiding this? I know its the American comma, but here I think it would work. Failing that, get rid of "In early 1980" as it soon becomes obvious with "January 1980 and "March 1980".
• "...but the calls were turned down by the government." -- I should imagine the calls weren't, but the public inquiry was.
• "...concern at the way Burton conducted the inquest. One concern..." -- concern/concern
• "...including the BBC, of producing what he described as "biased propaganda" -- The BBC, who'd have thought!
• "After Stephenson announced the Metropolitan police would publish the Cass report, Murray stated that he believed that he was the officer referred to in the report as "Officer E". -- awkward, especially around the that/that part. "After Stephenson's announcement that the Metropolitan police would publish the Cass report, Murray stated that he believed he was the officer referred to in the report as "Officer E".
• "In 2010 Andy Hayman, the former assistant commissioner for Specialist Operations at the Metropolitan Police wrote..." -- is there a closing comma missing from the end of Hayman's introduction?

That's my lot. A very balanced article, and a good read, albeit a difficult one at times (emotionally, you understand, and by no-means a slur on your shoddy prose), executed sensitively. Support unconditionally, with regards to my comments. Cassianto^Talk 18:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks Cass. All your suggestions taken on board and duly sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support on the basis of my peer review comments, and the considerable degree of fine tuning that has occurred during this FAC. A source review will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian. You PR comments were very helpful, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Links: all links to sources are working, per the external link checker tool
• Formats: There is an issue of italicasation of non-print sources in the refs. See 2 (Getty Images); 28 and 34 (Metropolitan Police Service); 44, 67, 111, 120, (BBC); 48 (Birkbeck); 133 (National Union of Teachers); 139 (Shazam). I believe these should be de-italicised. BBC is also italicised in the list of News articles.
• Quality and reliability: The sources include books, reports, articles and online sites, and appear to be very comprehensive. In my view they meet the required FA criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks once again Brian. All now de-italicised. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2019 [37].

---

Battle of Blanchetaque

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A battle from the Hundred Years' War. The English army was trapped by the French in an area stripped of food. At Blanchtaque the English escaped by fighting their way across a tidal ford of the River Somme, against a French blocking force. Two days later the English fought and heavily defeated the main French army at the Battle of Crecy. I hope that this is ready for FAC, and I would be grateful for any and all suggestions for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from PM

I reviewed this closely at Milhist ACR and consider it meets the Featured criteria. Well done on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by CPA-5

As someone who reviewed this one in an ACR I think it meets the featured criteria. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Images

- are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Having a look now...

• I am a neophyte in this area but do we really call it a "Chevauchée"? I am surprised there is not some English analogue....

We really, really do, odd as it sounds. This from Google Scholar gives you an idea of how widely it is used; eg, note "Cyber chevauchee" and Sheridan and Sherman's activities referred to as chevauchées just in the first six hits, of 9,000.

• I'd probably add "French noble(man)" before Godemar du Fay to clarify who/what he is...

At which point? The lead, or in the article, where he is already tagged as "an experienced French general" at first mention?

• ... source of conflict between the two monarchies throughout the Middle Ages - see, to me "monarchy" to me is an emphasis on the type of government rather than the government itself. I'd never use it to describe a kingdom except that of the UK really. Why not, "kingdoms" here?

To me it is a matter of nuance. The "dispute" was more one between the two dynasties over the control of the kingdom of France, than one between the two kingdoms per se. But it is a nuance which will no doubt bypass most readers, so I have changed it.

• .... which was to last 116 years. - I don't think this is needed here. The previous segment is sufficient.

Deleted.

• ...and the main force would accompany Edward to northern France or Flanders - awkward as Edward is the subject at the beginning of this sentence. How about, "and he (±himself) led/took the main force to northern France or Flanders"

Changed, although IMO it makes the sense slightly less clear

• In early 1345, the French anticipated, correctly, that the English planned to make their main effort in northern France - sounds odd as we've just used "Early 1345" in the previous bit. I'd suggest dropping the time here as it is obvious it is about the same period.

Good spot. Dropped.

• ...while Edward attended to diplomatic affairs. - err, sounds a bit vague...what was he doing exactly? If it was simple better to just say what it was.

Well, yes, except it wouldn't. A messy, ongoing situation on which whole books have been written. There is almost no limit to which I couldn't expand it and still leave questions hanging, but I have given it a go.

Yeah that's enough and helps a lot Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• When it sailed, probably intending to land in Normandy, it was scattered by a storm... - this flows awkwardly. How about, " Although the army intended to land in Normandy, it was scattered by a storm..."

Tweaked. See what you think.

• During 1345, Derby led a whirlwind campaign through Gascony - "whirlwind" comes across as a tad informal to my ears.

I am honestly struggling to think of another word. I am probably fixated, any suggestions? (He captured over 100 towns and castles in three months; serious modern scholars have variously described the campaign as: "superb and innovative tactician"; "ris[ing] to the level of genius"; "brilliant in the extreme"; "stunning"; "brilliant". I would like to communicate some of this in as few characters as possible.)

Yeah I see your point - it does convey it as succincntly as possible - ok don't worry Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• ....and gave the English possessions in Gascony strategic depth - umm, what does this mean?

I have Wikilinked it. I should have anyway. Me bad. Does that help?

• "enormously superior" to any force the Anglo-Gascons could field - why use quoted words here? Can we reword without needing something to be in quotation marks?

Gone. (You are not the first assessor to comment on this sort of thing. I am trying to break my life's habit of quote marking even individual words, but am finding it difficult.)

• Meanwhile Edward was raising a fresh army in England and the largest fleet ever assembled by the English to that date - the switch from active to passive verb here makes it sound odd. How about, "Meanwhile Edward was raising a fresh army (±in England) and assembled the largest English fleet to that date" actually strike that, I think it would flow better as "Meanwhile Edward was raising a fresh army and assembled a fleet of over 700 vessels - the largest ever in England to that date"

Excellent thinking. (This got picked on at both GAN and ACR and I think that I was hesitant to do anything radical to it.) I have changed your suggested wording slightly. Is it ok?

• The English "achieved complete strategic surprise" and marched south - can we reword so we don't need quotes?

Fixed. (No idea why I left it - exactly the same quotes were picked up in a previous FAC.)

• The greater pressure of the English forced the whole melee onto the French bank of the river. - I suspect "whole" is redundant here...

Removed

Concluding, most of it reads well, just a few clangers (listed above) that it would be much better with fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, thanks for stopping by, and for your insightful read. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

Just spotted this. Shall look in tomorrow, I hope. Just booking my place for now. Tim riley talk 21:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing of any great importance from me. Minor quibbles about the otherwise first-rate prose:

• "out-manoeuvred" – the OED doesn't hyphenate the word.

Silly me. Corrected.

• "melee" – the OED prescribes mêlée

Damn foreign diacritics. I shall, of course, bow to the preferred wisdom of the OED. Done.

• "entrepôt into northern France" – if entrepôt means what I think it means, and what our linked WP page says it means, I don't think it can be "into" – just "in".

My shorter OE (a mere 2,500 pages) does not give this meaning, but it is very nearly as old as me [!] and who trusts Oxford dictionaries anyway. Advice welcomed.

I was using entrepôt in the sense of the third usage here ("A point of entry for people"), where it gives a quotation of "an entrepôt into …" The GAN assessor requested the Wikilink, and I can see how it may mislead.

Having mentioned the point I am entirely content to be corrected and go with your preferred usage. Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "including all of the military officers" – Fowler describes the unnecessary "of" in such constructions as an Americanism. Gray (Practical English Usage) and Fowler both go for the shorter form, which here would be "including all the military officers"

Later: I wrote the above when away from home and bookshelves, with only the 2nd edition of Fowler to hand. Back at GHQ I see the current (4th, 2015) edition says – I paraphrase – do as you bloody well like. I mention this but will, for myself, stick with the 2nd edition.

I believe that I have commented before on my unconscious penchant for Americanisms. Thanks for picking this up. Corrected.

Even later: By all means let us not be au goût du jour.

• "assembled over 700 vessels" – some style guides insist on "more than" rather than "over" for relational quantity with numbers. A bit of a superstition, I think, but I generally comply just the same. I merely mention it for your consideration.

Appreciated. Changed over-hastily to meet an entirely justified concern of the GAN assessor's. Your suggestion is more felicitous. Changed.

• "to transport it - the largest English fleet" – en-dash rather than a hyphen wanted here, according to the MoS, in a rare outbreak of good sense.

See above re haste. Corrected.

• "disembarking an army other than at a port" – "other than" looks rather odd to me. Might "except" be more natural? Just a thought. Ignore ad lib.

I hope that you won't mind if I feel that "other than" flows more naturally and communicates my meaning marginally better, for all of its admittedly unusual construction.

Placet. Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "many ships deserted" – the meaning is crystal clear, but can inanimate objects actually desert?

My shorter OD suggests that it can. It has a "hand" or a "regiment" deserting.

OK. If you're happy with it that'll do me. Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "They also captured" – if "They" refers to the the English fleet, is there a case for internal consistency by treating "fleet" as a singular noun, as you do for "army"?

An overwhelming one. What a polite way of saying: "Gog, you're being an idiot."

Now would I say such a thing? (Answers on a postcard, please.) Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Poissy, 20 miles from Paris, having left a 40-mile wide swath of destruction down the left bank of the Seine to within 2 miles of the city" – earlier and later you give metric equivalents of miles. One can have too much of a good thing, but if I correctly read the MoS (MOS:CONVERSIONS) we are enjoined to give equivalents for all miles/kilometres.

We are, we are. Although only at first mention of any given distance. CPA-5 keeps me on the straight and narrow in this regard, bless them. So two of the distances you mentioned converted.

• "On arriving at the river, it was discovered" – the participle dangles a bit, perhaps. Particularly as we're at the start of a paragraph, might it be better to say something like "When the English arrived at the river they discovered..."?

Fair point. Done.

• "a disorderly melee" – as above (OED). (And, now I think about it, can one have an orderly mêlée?)

Diacriticed. My shorter OD gives a single definition: "A mixed fight between two parties of combatants, a skirmish." I understand (arguably incorrectly) that in a military context mêlées are allowed to be orderly. If you care to stoop to lesser authorities than the OED I could give examples?

No need. If you want an example of a disorderly mêlée, have you ever been in the Athenaeum on Boat Race night? Neither have I. – Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Having moved into contact at walking pace, casualties were few" – another dangling participle? I think the intended meaning is that the soldiers (not just the casualties) had moved into contact at walking pace. But I don't press the point.

Not impossible, all those arrows and bolts you know, but no, not what was meant. Tweaked.

• "Abbeville, 6 miles away" – another place where you cruelly confuse kilometre fans by not providing a translation of the obscure English term "6 miles".

Readers who are not aficionados of the exotica of the English language should now be less confused. (The convert template has an option to convert into rods, but I resisted. Aren't I good?)

Wot, no parasangs? Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Tim.Sadly not. Although checking I found perches. I shall have to work that into an article at some point. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "So the English were able to resupply; Noyelles-sur-Mer and Le Crotoy in particular yielding large stores" – if you're going to use the absolute construction (and very elegant it can be), the semicolon must be a comma.

Oops. Comma'ed.

• "entrepôt into" – as in the lead.

See above.

I'll look in again with a view to supporting once these minor points are addressed. As always with articles in this series, I have enjoyed the read and learnt a lot. – Tim riley talk 08:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon Tim and thank you muchly for your usual comprehensive demolition of my miserable use of English. All of your points above addressed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, get off! All [of] your prose is among the best I regularly see in these hallowed halls. I'm sure you could find just as many tweaks to suggest in any of my attempts (blatant hint). I am very happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me balanced, comprehensive without going into excessive detail, widely and well referenced, and a cracking read. – Tim riley talk 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

SN54129

Couple of prose remarks.

• "out manoeuvred"---one word or hyphenated.

Could you fight it out with Tim riley? See " 'out-manoeuvred' – the OED doesn't hyphenate the word." above.

Just spotted this. So much for the alleged excellence of my prose: what I was trying to say is that in the OED it is one, unhyphenated, word. I've removed the space. Tim riley talk 08:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• "was defeated at the"---space.

Oops. Well spotted. Done.

• (re. hyphenation, all the "south west"s etc.)

Are you suggesting that "south west" etc, should be rendered as 'south-west' etc? If so, then can I point out that not hyphenating in such cases is a perfectly acceptable practice in all variants of English. I offer in evidence South Western Railway; South Western School District; South Western Highway; South Western Railway zone. These are each from a different continent - to establish common usage, including one from the US. If that's not what you are suggesting, apologies and could you elaborate?

@Gog the Mild: Hyphenate when adjectival. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 06:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Whoops. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• "richest land"---historians usually refer to lands, unless in a purely geographical sense.

Fair point. Amended. (I note that I am also inconsistent, having referred to "richest lands" in the lead!)

• Battle of Blanchetaque.jpg: the alt text has an extraneous comma (and "Medieval" doesn't need to be uppercase, although I don't suppose it particularly matters for a screen reader).

The alt text only has one comma and it is supposed to be there. It separates the two attributes of "image of knights and bowmen in hand to hand combat" as is usual in a list.

Have I mentioned French sources before?

I believe that I can recognise a rhetorical question when I'm asked one.

Although not in French, presumably.

¿Que? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(Possibly) back tomorrow  :)

——SerialNumber54129 18:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi SN. Good of you to look this over. Your points above addressed and I await a possible further installment in an excited state of quantum uncertainty.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hullo SN, were you done here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

SC

Absolutely fascinating piece about the run up to Crécy – one of the major battles of Europe – and I thank you for covering it. Very scant fare from me, but for what it's worth:

Background

• "unexpectedly threatened with the loss of his Flemish allies": is it worth a brief footnote to say what his woes were? (or, second best, a link to something we may have to cover it) – I won't push the point if you decide not to, but I don't like leaving question marks in people's minds.

Ah. Even that amount of detail is only there at the insistence of an ACR assessor. There is almost no end to the level of detail I could add, each one begging more questions. Think of it as trying to get two series of Game of Thrones, with 50 years back story, into a footnote. Sadly there is nothing on Wikipedia on this. I would love, seriously, to give more detail; but it would just get more and more off the point. IMO this unsatisfactory compromise is probably as good as it gets. Can you live with it?

If it's going to be too much detail to sensibly go in, then yes, no problems. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• "to that date[18][19] The..." missing full stop

Whoops. Done.

Prelude

• "landing in Normandy Edward": I normally eschew commas after opening clauses, but I feel that one may be warranted here, just to avoid the obvious gangster name of "Normandy Edward"

:) Done.

• "left a 40-mile -wide (60 km) wide":1. Need to lose the space on "mile -wide"; 2. Can you either tweak the template or just put into plain text so that "(60 km) wide" reads as "(60 km-wide)"

Mr Riley was insistent re the CONVERT template. Tweaked. (Sloppy proof reading by me.)

Battle

• Speaking as an ignoramus, is there a difference between knights and mounted men-at-arms? You have in the lead "the longbowmen but were in turn attacked by English knights", but it looks like it may be the mounted men-at-arms who did that, or maybe I'm just reading it wrong in the fog of war...

No, they mean the same thing. There is a tendency for some historians to use knights when speaking of mounted, as opposed to unmounted, men-at-arms. I was just trying to bring a bit of variety to the prose, and both are Wikilinked. Probably best if I standardise as men-at-arms. What do you think?

Sounds good. As long as it's consistent then no problems from me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• "2,000 French soldiers were killed": you give us this info twice in quick succession. The first ("reported to be as high as 2,000 killed") can be culled

Done. I have no idea how I missed that.

Only a couple of these definitely need to be dealt with as mistakes, the others are for consideration. I do hope this means you'll be bringing Crécy to FAC at some point too? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Crecy :)

Excellent - I look forward to seeing it!

Many thanks SchroCat. Appreciated. Your points addressed above, two with queries.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Very nice piece. From a prose point of view this covers the FA criteria as far as I am concerned. I am not a subject expert, so can't comment on completeness, reliability of sources etc. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carrried out
• All links to sources are working
• Format: No issues; the refs and sources are consistently and uniformly presented.
• Quality and reliability: The article is comprehensively sourced, and the sources appear to meet all the requirements for quality and reliability per the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Query to coordinators

@WP:FAC coordinators: Apologies if I am doing my impatient act again, but it looks as if this one may be winding up? If so, would it be permissible for me to nominate the next in my queue? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 June 2019 [38].

---

1927 Chicago mayoral election

Nominator(s): John M Wolfson (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the last time a Republican candidate won a Chicago mayoral election. William Hale Thompson defeated unpopular prohibition-enforcing mayor Dever with a campaign supported by Al Capone and going off on such tangents as King George across the pond. His victory resulted in Chicago's disgrace across the country, and he would lose 4 years later to Anton Cermak due to the Depression. (This is my second FAC overall after an unsuccessful FAC of this article two weeks ago. I'd like to thank User:Coemgenus for reviewing this article in the interim and User:Factotem for introducing me to the Bibliography conventions of FA's. I'd also like to thank User:SecretName101 for his/her contributions to this article, including most of the images.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at peer review and found it to meet the FA standards. There has been significant improvement since the last FAC, and this article is worthy of promotion. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

Done

• Suggest adding alt text

Will do when I get to a computer later tonight. Done. Feel free to correct it if needed.

• File:William_Emmett_Dever_1923_headshot_(1).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Dr._John_Dill_Robertson_May_4,_1915_(1).jpg, File:William_hale_thompson.jpg

Those are crops from images in the Commons that I'll look at when I get to my computer later tonight. EDIT: I'm confused with what exactly you want, User:Nikkimaria. Unless I am mistaken I think the parameters you're looking for are already on the Commons pages. For the Dever and Robertson headshots I put the relevant parameters in the "Source" area of the description in Commons, but the Thompson photo already had that in the source department. This is my first experience with such things, so please do enlighten me in that regard.

These images all have a licensing tag indicating pre-1924 publication. However, while I agree all were taken before 1924, all are cited to archives rather than to contemporary publications. This is a problem because it's quite possible for archival images not to have been published contemporaneously, which would make those licensing tags incorrect. We need either to demonstrate that they were actually published before 1924, or to find some other applicable tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Duly noted, will search. -John M Wolfson (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced the Robertson and Dever images with newspaper clippings from 1915 and 1923, respectively. I have removed the unsure-license Thompson photo for now. Unfortunately the photos that were replaced are in the Chicago Daily News archives, whose paper archives I can't seem to access via newspapers.com like the Tribune. Perhaps someone else can help search through non-newspaper archives like books, but I hope this works for now. (EDIT: Perhaps User:Adam Cuerden can help with the Dever image. In any event I'm really tired and about to go to bed, see you tomorrow. EDIT EDIT: Looking through the websites it's quite plausible based on their rights statements that the images are NOT free. Given the replacement of the images I believe that all of Nikkimaria's concerns have been actioned on with regards to this article, but feel free to correct me and/or add more if you feel otherwise.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• File:Chicago_1927_mayor_by_ward.png needs a source for the data presented. Same with File:Chicago_1927_mayor_democrat_by_ward.png, File:Chicago_1927_mayor_republican_by_ward.png.

Those were from the aperture cards and news sources cited in their respective captions (except for the general results, which are cited at the ward table per INFOBOXCITE). I can add those citations to the appropriate Commons pages later tonight. Done on Commons pages. Let me know if anything else is needed in that regard.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian

Recusing from coord duties, I heard of Thompson when reading about Al Capone as a kid; if I remember rightly he summed up his contempt of Prohibition with the claim "I'm wetter than the middle of the Atlantic Ocean"...

• Having read through and copyedited the first half of the article, I think the prose needs work but perhaps not so much that it couldn't be improved within a reasonable timeframe at FAC.
• I'll therefore oppose for now but with a further copyedit (by me when I have time, or someone else) I could see myself withdrawing that.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'll see what I can do with copyediting but perhaps someone else might be better for the purpose. (EDIT: As in being a fresh pair of eyes, not an attempt to shirk nominator duties. In any event I have done some c/e of the remaining part of the article.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose, I have copyedited the article. In particular I focused on consolidating paragraphs and sentences (and for the primary elections entire sections) and rearranging content a bit, especially in regards to the general election and aftermath. I'm not sure whether the results will be to your entire satisfaction, but I hope that it's at least a start. -John M Wolfson (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Tks, I'll try to look at the rest of the article in the next few days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Returning...

• Not sure why my tweak to the lead made further comments on international affairs, directed against the United Kingdom in particular was essentially reversed as I still think it reads better to what's there now (a one-letter typo on my part notwithstanding)...
  • I thought the new text flowed better, feel free to revert it if you disagree.
    • Okay, tweaked. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Dever was endorsed by such prominent reformers as Charles Edward Merriam, Harriet Vittum, Harold L. Ickes, and Jane Addams, who campaigned for "decency" on his behalf -- was it Addams who campaigned for decency or all of them?
  • All of them, I have clarified to that effect I believe.
• That's about it re. prose I think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for your comments, this has been a really fulfilling experience. John M Wolfson (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I hope it has, and sorry it's been drawn out -- given the above, and what I gather are completed image and source reviews, I'm ready to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• Spotchecks: I have carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification purposes. There are a few minor issues:

• Ref Books 8, p. 30: ARTICLE: "Known as "Big Bill", he was a charismatic character in Chicago politics." SOURCE: The word "charismatic" does not appear, nor does the description of Thompson support this characterization.

Having not found a better statement elsewhere in Schottenhamel, I have removed the sentence.

• Ref Books 12, p. 33: ARTICLE: "He also had many enemies from his previous tenure in office including the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Daily News," SOURCE: I'm not so sure that "many enemies" is justified, since the source only mentions the two newspapers, in connection with the 1915 election.

I have weakened the sentence.

• Ref Books 29, pp. 43–44: ARTICLE: "Some Democrats criticized Thompson's positive relation with the city's African-American community". SOURCE: OK, but rather misses the main point, which was the crude attempt by some Democrats to divide the electorate on racial lines. I recommend you strengthen this somewhat.

I have strengthened the sentence.

• Links: all links to online sources are working
• Formats

• Page ranges need ndashes, not hyphens

Done

• The newspaper references are all via a subscription service, so the (subscription required) template should be used

Done via template parameters

• In the Bibliography, the Bright book lacks publisher information

As said before, I couldn't find it when I looked at the book at the library, but I can check again when I get back.

• Quality and reliability. The sources used appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability

One further general point. Although the subdivision of sources between Books, Newspapers, Web etc is helpful in some respects, I found the notation in the text very distracting, especially when double or triple references are used. It is possible that your general reviewers may wish to comment on this readability aspect. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll wait for further consensus before doing anything about this, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Thank you for your comments, I'll address them when I get home. I couldn't find publisher info on the Bright book looking at it, but I can look again now that I'll be back from vacation. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

WorldCat gives the publisher as Jonathan Cape & Harrison Smith, New York, 1930. It also provides a OCLC number: 557783528. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The site of the Chicago Public Library, where I got the book, says New York, J. Cape and H. Smith, but not the full names or OCLC number. If it's okay with you I'll just put that lower amount of information. (If it matters, I can use the info you've posted.) John M Wolfson (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The WorldCat info is reliable, o i suggest you use all of it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

In that case done, which I believe addresses all of your concerns unless you have any others. Again, thank you for your help! -John M Wolfson (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Misc. comments by nominator

I'll be leaving for vacation tomorrow and for a week afterwards I won't have access to offline sources, so I won't be able to effectively respond to comments on them. I will still have internet access, however, so online sources and comments dealing with solely online matters will not be affected. -John M Wolfson (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd greatly like for this to be promoted by the 28th for WikiCup purposes if not an imposition. Even if that's not reasonable, however, I'd still be okay with pursuing this FAC to its conclusion, whatever it may be. Thanks! John M Wolfson (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: That seems unlikely at this point given it's the 22nd and we have minimal support for promotion and open issues. --Laser brain (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, although the issues raised above (other than that of Ian Rose) have been dealt with if I am not mistaken. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton:, I've shortened the ref group names to single letters, I was just wondering if you think that would be a good compromise or that more conversation should happen with it. @Ian Rose:, I was just wondering if you had gotten the chance to review the article after my copyediting. Thank you both for your help! John M Wolfson (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

After looking through the recent TFA's for guidance I have decided to remove the ref groups and consolidate the reflists into one. Feel free to let me know if you disagree with that decision. Thanks! John M Wolfson (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I have posted notices of this FAC to the talk pages of WikiProject Chicago and WikiProject Elections and referendums in an effort to get more feedback, I hope that isn't an issue. (I have read WP:CANVAS and I do not believe such notices constitute canvassing.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Any luck? This has been open for quite a long time (and is at the bottom of the queue) and will need to be archived soon if it doesn't attract some more feedback. We have a good amount now, but FAC really requires a substantial amount of review and support for promotion before an article can become featured. --Laser brain (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Not yet, unfortunately, although the two users below give some hope. If the worst does happen will I be able to waive the two-week waiting period and renominate this article sooner? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been meaning to review the article. It may take me another day or two. --Carabinieri (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I've solicited another experienced editor to review this, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt

The prose is a bit rough in the lede but pretty good elsewhere and I'm not making an issue of it.

• I don't see the point of mentioning the other elections in the first sentence. That seems relatively insignificant to put in your first sentence.

  Done

• " his approval rating." did they have such things?

  Probably not as a number, but his approval did fall qualitatively. Fixed as such

• "Former mayor Thompson took advantage of this and entered the race, as did Robertson." is the reader whose off if this is omitted?

  Reworded

• "directly particularly" That phrase is new to me.

  Reworded

• "Thompson was supported and funded by notorious mobster Al Capone, and the campaign involved much demagoguery on his part." I imagine "his" refers to Thompson but it could arguably be Capone. You might want to mention if this was public support, it might help to set up your damaging the reputation bit at the end of the lede.

  Reworded

• Somewhere early in the first paragraph of "Background" you might mention he's a Democrat.

  Done

• Nowhere in "Background" do you mention that the election at which all these people are to run is in 1927. You could possibly figure it out but you shouldn't have to.

  Done

• I would cut "in the interim" and earlier in the sentence put a "had" before "managed".

  Done

• "Lundin later had Robertson withdraw from the Republican primary in order to support Edward R. Litsinger, " I might replace "to support" with "not to split the vote with" or similar. It's unclear who Litsinger is at this point. You introduce him on second mention, which is a bit odd.

  He would campaign for Litsinger, which I've modified to show

• After Brundage's name, the references are in reverse order; unsure if this is an accident.

  Fixed

• "to investigate causes and potential remedies of recent tax increases" Not sure what this means.

  Reworded to clarify

• "admitted on the ballot" I might say "allowed on the ballot"

  Done

• I don't see the point of the redlinks Galpins, Ellers.

  Potential future articles, but not particularly likely at the moment.

• "Robertson retaliated, asking his audience "Who killed Billy McSwiggin, and why?"[36] and accusing Thompson of corruption by "flocking with the Crowes, Galpins, Ellers, and birds of like feather[.]"[36] Litsinger reiterated such accusations ..." What this is saying is that Litsinger repeated allegations against himself. Suggest "Litsinger replied in kind ..."

  The accusations were against Thompson, which I've made clearer.

• In the third sentence of "Campaign", you use the word "conspiracy" twice. I would avoid the second usage.

  Done

• "Thompson based these claims on McAndrew allowing his allies to promote historic texts which Thompson believed were unpatriotic" what does this mean?

  It means that McAndrew allowed textbooks that Thompson considered unpatriotic to be used in the school system. I have reworded it as such.

• "He attempted, particularly early in the race, to tout parts of his record such as his construction of Wacker Drive and 51 new schools and a pure milk ordinance he had passed.[26]" I think this needs a comma after schools.

  Reworded

• "Attorney Orville James Taylor.[50]" why is attorney capped?

  Fixed

• I'm not sure that "socialite" is the first description of Potter Paper that comes to mind, though he certainly was. Builder?

  Done

• "Thompson won the election with the absolute majority of votes cast," I would just give the percentage unless there is some reason not to.

  Done

• "ultimately failing to properly promote Dever's own message.[48]" I might say "fully" rather than "properly". I'm sure they did their best.

  Done

• Suggest consistency among the hyphenations between the nationalities and "American" in second paragraph of "Result"

  Done

• Refs out of order on the Will Rogers quote.

  Fixed

• It strikes me that the final two sentences of the article could be combined.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Prose looks good, and certainly seems comprehensive.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Factotem

Lead

• "It remains as of 2019 the last Chicago mayoral election won by a Republican as well as and the last such election not won by a Democrat.";

  Done

• "Thompson engaged in much demagoguery during his campaign...";

  Done

• "Thompson won the election, which damaged Chicago's reputation nationally." -> "Thompson's victory damaged Chicago's reputation nationally."

  Done

Background

• "...he and businessman Julius Rosenwald ultimately convinced Dever to run for reelection."

  Done

• "...Thompson, who was mayor for two terms from 1915 to 1923, took advantage of the situation and ran for a third term..." Tripped on "third term" as it is not obvious that being mayor from 1915 to 1923 involved two terms (which I assume to be the case);

  Done

• "He also had such enemies from his previous tenure, such as the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Daily News,[14] and had started to wear out his welcome with such former allies, such as party boss Frederick Lundin."

  Done

Democratic primary

• Dever faced no genuine opposition from within his party,[28] winning all the wards and securing the citywide vote by more than 10 to 1. There's a confusing leap in the narrative here. Suggest moving the statement about winning to:
• "Although he overwhelmingly defeated his token opponent, winning all the wards and securing the citywide vote by more than 10 to 1, Dever's vote total in the Democratic primary was less than the margin of victory Thompson had secured in the Republican primary."

  Done

• "The 27th ward attorney Martin Walsh filed on February 2..." to avoid beginning a sentence with a number;

  That sounded odd, so I went with "Attorney Martin Walsh of the 27th ward..." instead.

Republican primary

• "After Thompson's victory partisans of Robertson claimed that Democratic voters for Thompson were what had propelled him to the Republican nomination;" And suggest a comma after "victory";

  Done, but no comma.

• "...nomination;[28] similarly, Democratic leaders insisted that many of Thompson's voters..." Think a full stop rather than semi-colon is called for after "nomination".

  Done

Campaign

• "...set the groundwork for the United Kingdom to retake possession of repossess the United States;"

  Done

• "...the use in schools of textbooks which Thompson believed were unpatriotic and being critical of such artworks as Archibald Willard's The Spirit of '76."

  Not done, as McAndrew was the one critiquing the artwork, rather than the textbooks. I have substituted ", as well as" for "and" in that case to make it clearer

I swapped the order round to make it read better, if that's OK with you. Factotem (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that would work better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• "...the former of which was also used by The Independent Republicans for Dever Committee."

  Done

• "Supporters of both Thompson and Dever appealed resorted to bigotry."

  Done

Endorsements

• "After Thompson's primary victory, Charles Deneen relented and backed Thompson." -> "After his defeat in the primary, Deneen backed Thompson."

  Done

Result

• "He found that Eastern European Jewish precincts were carried by Thompson 55 to 41%, while the German Jewish precincts were carried by Dever 62 to 35%" I think you need to specify that 55 and 62 are also percentages. Per MOS:PERCENT, percentages in the main narrative (not infoboxes, tables, etc.) are "commonly" written in USEng as "percent", not "%".

  Done

Aftermath

• "The election was accompanied by only one ballot box theft and a negligible amount of violence, an uncommon occurrence in Chicago elections at the time." Were ballot-box theft and violence uncommon, or was it uncommon that so few/little thefts/violence occurred?

  Both occurrences were uncommon. I have attempted to reword the sentence to that effect.

The sentence is still ambiguous. I don't have access to the sources to check, but the title of one, Quiet election surprises Cops guarding polls, suggests that it was uncommon for there to be so few ballot boxes stolen and so little violence. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, how about, "The election was marked by an unusually low level of crime; only one ballot-box theft and a negligible amount of violence." Factotem (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Perfect, done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Carabinieri

Hi, I haven't gone through the whole article, but here are my initial comments:

• I'm not a big fan of all the false titles.

  I'm sorry, I don't believe I know what you mean. I looked up what a false title was. They don't seem all that bad to me and are often better than the alternatives in many cases, but I did remove some instances in the article.

• I'm afraid you haven't quite understood what false titles are. A false title is something like saying "Democratic incumbent William Emmett Dever" rather than "the Democratic incumbent William Emmett Dever" or "notorious mobster Al Capone" instead of "the notorious mobster Al Capone". Newspapers use them to save space, but this use has spread somewhat beyond newspapers and isn't uncommon on Wikipedia. I think it makes sentences sound choppy. Since this use is fairly widespread on Wikipedia, it would be unreasonable for me to insist on removing the false titles, but I think it is worth thinking about, particularly given the extreme frequency with which they are used in this article.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'll think about that.

• I'm not sure about the source in footnote 3. It appears to be a summary of Schmidt 1989. Why not use that book directly?

  I have removed all but two of its uses, where it remains the only ref. I can't access the book right now because the local library's closed, but tomorrow I can remove the others. All instances replaced or removed.

• "It remains as of 2019 the last Chicago mayoral election won by a Republican and the last not won by a Democrat." That seems like an unnecessarily complicated way of saying that Democrats have won every election since then.

  Attempted reword

• I think that's better. It still unnecessarily makes this election the grammatical of a sentence that's really about something else. One could simply say "As of 2019, Democrats have won every Chicago mayoral election since 1927". At least, I'd change "won by a Republican and a non-Democrat" to "won by a Republican or any non-Democrat" to remove some ambiguity.

  Done second one

• "and made comments on international affairs particularly directed against the United Kingdom" This is rather vague. I would suggest either being more specific or leaving it out.

  Made more specific

• "Thompson engaged in demagoguery during his campaign" Is demagoguery really a neutral term? Also, I can't find this information in the body of the article.

  Reworded it for neutrality and specificity

• "His crackdown on Prohibition made Chicago the most alcohol-free major city in the United States by 1925" According to the source (Schmidt 1995), this was by 1923, not 1925. Schmidt only says that it was "proclaimed" the driest city in the US. Also, in the edition of the book I'm looking at, this is on page 89, not 90, but that may just be due to a difference in pagination between editions of the book.

  I decided simply to reword it as "was initially effective", or it could be excised altogether

• "Republican William Hale "Big Bill"[8]" The source actually gives his nickname as "Big Bill the Builder"

  Changed to source that gives shorter form

• "having served as alderman of the predominantly black[12] 2nd ward" The source only says that the 2nd ward had Chicago's largest African-American population. This does not imply that it was predominantly black.

  Changed to "largely black"

• The source doesn't really support that either. The source says that this ward had the largest number of African-Americans of any ward in the city. This doesn't imply anything about the proportion of African-Americans in the ward, only that it was higher than in other wards.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  Given that blacks were historically segregated it is not unreasonable to assume that a largely-black neighborhood, especially in the early 20th century, would not have many members of other races. Having said that, in an effort to remove any possible OR I tried to reword it to be more direct.

• "Doctor John Dill Robertson, also known as "J.D.", "Doctor Dill", and "Dill Pickle",[16] who had previously been the city's health commissioner from 1915[17][18] to 1922[19] and an ally of Thompson,[12] ran against Thompson in the Republican primary supported by Lundin.[16]" Seven footnotes in one sentence, isn't that overdoing it? Makes it rather cumbersome to read.

  Perhaps, removed some sources

• "participating in such antics as constructing a yawl named the Big Bill with his head as the figurehead and spending $25,000[a] to take it" Antics is a non-neutral term. According to the source, he only paid a third of the $25,000.

  Changed word, but the third is mentioned in the footnote.

• Oops, I must have overlooked that.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't link boil and appendix.

  Done

• " the same day as the primary elections" and "the same day as the general elections" Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that those elections were concurrently, not just on the same day?

  Yes, done

• "Robertson retaliated, asking his audience "Who killed Billy McSwiggin, and why?"[36] and accusing Thompson of corruption by "flocking with the Crowes, Galpins, Ellers, and birds of like feather[.]" I think we need more context. Who are Billy McSwiggin, Crow, Galpin and Eller? Also you shouldn't place a period in square brackets.

  Such context would be unnecessary detail, IMO, so I decided to just say he accused Thompson of corruption.

• "After Thompson's victory partisans of Robertson claimed that Democratic voters for Thompson had propelled him to the Republican nomination.[28] Similarly, Democratic leaders insisted that many of Thompson's voters in the primary were Democrats who wanted him to be Dever's opponent and who would vote Dever in the general election" I'd suggest merging those two sentences.

  Done

• I'd actually go further. Why not: "Both partisans of Robertson and Democratic leaders claimed that..."?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done

--Carabinieri (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Billy McSwiggin was a mobster. I suppose the others likely are too. But, yes, arguably unnecessary to include.SecretName101 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Some more comments:

• "as well as a pure milk ordinance he had passed" I don't know how Chicago municipal politics work, but wouldn't the ordinance have been passed by the city council and then possibly signed by the mayor?

  Yes, ordinances are passed by the City Council and then signed by the mayor. The source (to the extent that I can remember, I don't have it on me) states that he "passed" it, which I presume is shorthand for him having helped its passage. I've changed it to "helped pass"

• "Capone donated between $100,000 and $250,000[f] to Thompson's campaign,[43] by some accounts as much as $500,000" Wouldn't that mean that he donated "between $100,000 and $500,000"? Or is the latter figure somehow less believable?

  Merged figures.

• The paragraph on Thompson's supporters starts with organized crime and then goes to traditional political actors. Was the support of organized crime that important? Otherwise, I'd suggest reversing the order.

  Done

• "as loyal as a Catholic as he is citizen" is that quote right? There seems to be a word missing.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  I looked again and yes, it is correct as is, but I added an [a] in the quote to make it flow better. Thanks for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 3 June 2019 [39].

---

The Legend of Bhagat Singh

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about The Legend of Bhagat Singh, a 2002 biopic of the Indian freedom fighter Bhagat Singh. The film stars Ajay Devgn as the titular character and is known for its direction, story, screenplay, technical aspects and the performances of the cast members. A special note of thanks to Numerounovedant for reviewing the GAN. This is my sixth FAC attempt and my second solo nomination. Constructive comments here are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from Damian Vo

• Support – A well written article. Meets the FA criteria. Damian Vo (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Damian Vo. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

The nominator has asked me to comment, which I am happy to do. Please bear in mind that as a BrE writer I am not familiar with differences in usage in Indian English. The two may differ in ways I don’t know about.

• Plot

• The text switches between past and present tenses in places, for example:

"When Lala Lajpat Rai was beaten to death ... Thapar and Chandra Shekhar Azad, carry out the assassination" – [is beaten?]

"the British proposed the Trade Disputes and Public Safety Bills, Bhagat... initiates the bombing" – [propose?]

"The Indians hope that Gandhi would..." – [will?]

• "Bhagat and other fellow prisoners, including Thapar and Rajguru, undertake a 63-day fast unto death" – plainly not "unto death" in his case, at least.
• "Irwin": his name is in the link to the pact, but he should, I think, be linked at first mention of his name in its own right.

• Development

• "Although Manoj Kumar made an earlier film in 1965, titled Shaheed" – we don't need to be told that 1965 was earlier than 2002.

• Casting

• "but he left the project due to schedule conflicts" – varieties of English differ about "due to". In AmE it is evidently accepted as a compound preposition, like "owing to"; in formal BrE it is not, and either "owing to" or (better) "because of" would be wanted. I don't know what the convention is in Indian English, and just raise the point for you to consider.

• Music

• The table of numbers is beautifully presented. I must have a look at the edit page and see how it's done.

• Reception and accolades

• "Devgn's execution of Bhagat" – in the circumstances I think you could find a synonym for "execution" here.
• "more "restrained and credible" than Deol" – careful readers will be clear that this Deol is Bobby and not Sunny, but for casual readers it might be a kindness to give this Deol both his names here.
• "Kehr eulogised Devgn's interpretation" – "eulogised" seems a bit strong unless the critic really went over the top in his praise.

• References

• On the face of it, to my inexpert eye, the sources are proper media ones – not relying on blogs or other sites that don't qualify as WP:RS.

The article is readable, well-proportioned, properly referenced, and thorough without going into excessive detail. The mixed reviews are given due coverage. I look forward to supporting the promotion of this article once these minor points are addressed. I'll look in again soon. – Tim riley talk 06:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, Tim riley (Some solid points there). I've resolved your comments. Do have a look at the article and let me know if there's anything. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

All nicely attended to. I'm happy to support. Tim riley talk 09:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tim riley. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Veera Narayana

• "...until the day he was hanged" -- "...hanged to death" might be a better choice.
• "Produced by Kumar and Ramesh Taurani under their Tips Industries Limited banner..." -- Could be rephrased as "Produced by Kumar and Ramesh Taurani's Tips Industries Limited...".
• "the film's story and dialogue were written Santoshi and Piyush Mishra wrote respectively" -- "the film's story and dialogue were written by Santoshi and Piyush Mishra respectively" should be fine.
• "Later in 1929, when the British propose the Trade Disputes and Public Safety Bills, Bhagat, along with Batukeshwar Dutt, initiates the bombing at Parliament House." -- Why did they initiate the bombings? What was the specific threat that accompanied the bills? If the film speaks about it clearly, please mention it.
• What was Lord Irwin's role in the film exactly? Mention it in the plot.
• "Bhagat, Thapar and Rajguru are hanged in secrecy at 7:33 pm on 23 March 1931." -- "hanged to death" might be a better choice. BTW, is the time that important in the larger scheme of things?
• "Sunil Grover as a Jaidev Kapoor": "as a" --> "as"
• "Anjum Rajabali mentioned to Santoshi about his work on Har Dayal, whose revolutionary activities inspired Udham Singh." -- Who is Udham Singh?
• Feel free to disagree, but, what is the specific need to the quote of Devgn which is doing nothing but glorifying the subject matter? The Development section already said that the film is about the man more than the revolutionary. Hence, it would present something the public domain was unaware of. Will Devgn taking aback after listening to the script for this very reason qualify the need for a quote like that?
• "Sushant Singh and D. Santosh, who made his cinematic debut, were cast as Bhagat's friends" -- Could be rephrased to "Sushant Singh and D. Santosh (in his cinematic debut) were cast as Bhagat's friends".
• "The soundtrack was released on 4 May 2002 in New Delhi under the label of Tips." -- I think it is better to say that Tips marketed the soundtrack.
• "...criticising the inclusion of Mannewali as Bhagat's widow..." -- widow? He married her? No such instance was found in the plot summary though.

Well, for the images and sources, we do have specific and separate reviewers. Hence i am staying away from those aspects. On a concluding note, this article seems to be comprehensive and well-researched enough to be a FA Candidate. Let me know once the comments above are addressed. Regards, Veera Narayana 11:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've resolved your comments as best as I can, Veera. Do let me know if there's anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Well, Ssven2, what is your view/understanding on Devgn's quote and its inclusion into the article? Veera Narayana 14:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Veera Narayana, he's basically talking about how much playing the freedom fighter on-screen means to him. Also, those who watch the film would get a better understanding of the freedom fighter and that Bhagat Singh was more than just 23 March 1931. So, I feel it can be included in the article for the readers to get what it means to Devgn (He also won the National Award for it btw).  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have nothing much to say further. This candidate has my support. Veera Narayana 14:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Veera Narayana. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

SC

I've made a couple of minor tweaks to punctuation and a couple of minor additions. Please let me know if you'd like to know the rationale behind any of them.

Development

• "Later in August 2000": Either "Later" or (much better) "In August 2000". (As it's two years after the previous date, it's obviously "later").
• Rajkumar Santoshi and Anjum Rajabali. I think you need to introduce the two a little better: "the film director Rajkumar Santoshi" and "the screenwriter Anjum Rajabali" would just help the reader here
• "Santoshi gave Rajabali a copy of K. K. Khullar's biography of the revolutionary titled Shaheed Bhagat Singh." You can tweak this to flow a little better: "Santoshi gave Rajabali a copy of Shaheed Bhagat Singh: K. K. Khullar's biography of the revolutionary". (your call – it's not an actionable one if you don't want to)
• "Martyr : Bhagat" You can lose the space before the colon
• "began his research on Bhagat Singh": we don't need the full name again
• "was "a difficult task" for him.": the last two words are not needed
• "received inputs from Kultar Singh": input singular
• You need to check throughout for WP:LQ punctuation. For the quote ending 'fighter." ', it's not a full sentence, so it should be 'fighter". ' with the full stop outside. (ditto 'in that period."' In the final para of the section, plus a few other places).
• "by it and agreed to produce the film under their banner and commence filming". The "and ...and ..." nature of this makes it feel a bit of a run on. Full stop after "impressed by it" and redraft the next sentence would work well enough.

Casting

• "that point.[5] he had not watched" – Capital H

Additional

• Is there any indication how the film has fared since its release? (Did/does it do well in the DVD market, for example, or was there a '10-year retrospective' or similar, which looks at the impact or legacy of the film? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

All done except for the final comment, SchroCat. I've asked for your opinion about it on your talk page. Cheers.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If those are all reliable sources, then I think you should include a paragraph covering their content. How the film compares with similar works or stands the test of time should be covered wherever possible, I think (particularly for an FA). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Included a paragraph as per your suggestions, SchroCat. Do let me know if there's anything else. Cheers.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, SchroCat. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would add ALT text to the infobox image. I would check to make sure that all of the images used in the article have appropriate ALT text.
• Would a wikilink for “hunger strike” be helpful?
• For this part (burning British-made clothing, giving up school, college studies, and government jobs.), shouldn’t it be “burning British-made clothing and giving up…)? The entirety of the phrase “school, college studies, and government job” is tied up to the “giving up” part and by having another comma, it makes me think that there is a third item in this list of actions which is not the case.

The article looks great. You definitely inspire me to work on more film articles. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Once my three (very minor) comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Aoba47. I've resolved them as per your suggestions. Do let me know if there's anything else. Cheers.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

• I think "biopic" is informal, so write the full form. I'm sure you can find other ways to reduce the "film" count in the lead.
• In the lead, all major Filmfare nominations (directing, producing, writing and acting) must be mentioned. But you have simply mentioned that the film won "three Filmfare Awards" with no nominations. Or just consider writing "X Filmfare Awards from X nominations".
• Replace "publisher" with "website".
• Santoshi gave Rajabali a copy of Shaheed Bhagat Singh: K. K. Khullar's biography of the revolutionary - I would suggest a comma instead of a colon.
• Chandrashekhar Azad – the article is Chandra Shekhar Azad.
• it was declared a "disaster" by Box Office India - BOI verdicts are not supposed to be included per this disccussion and this too. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Kailash29792. I've resolved them as per your suggestions. Do let me know if there's anything else. Cheers.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing else from me, just verify that the cast members are all sourced (using BH and the credits). Nonetheless, this already has my support. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Kailash29792. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Cass

Marking my place here, whilst reading through and taking notes. As with Tim and SchroCat, I'm English so my way of phrasing things may differ somewhat to others. Comments to follow...

Lede

• "The Legend of Bhagat Singh is a 2002 Indian historical biographical film directed by Rajkumar Santoshi." The year jars where it is. Would suggest: "The Legend of Bhagat Singh is an Indian historical biographical film directed by Rajkumar Santoshi and released in 2002."
• "The Legend of Bhagat Singh was released on 7 June 2002 to generally positive critical reviews" -- what is "critical" adding here?

Plot

• "Later in 1929..." -- later, in 1929 or later on in the year 1929? This is the first mention of 1929 as the year before it is 1907.
• "In Central Jail Lahore, Bhagat and other fellow prisoners..." -- some fellow prisoners, all his fellow prisoners?

Development

• "In August 2000, the screenwriter Anjum Rajabali..." -- we dip from an accepted form of AmEng (In 1998, film director Rajkumar Santoshi) into a spot of BrEng, here, with the use of the definite article. Be consistent and stick to a particular style.

Casting

• "...to see Devgn's face closely resembled Singh's" → "to see Devgn's face closely resemble Singh's"
• "Devgn called the film "the most challenging assignment" in his career at that point" -- You don't need "at that point".
• "Mishra mentioned that while informing his father about his role" -- Why was Mishra having a frank discussion with his father about his paternal responsibilities? I think you mean to say "Mishra mentioned that while informing his father about his role of Azad"
• Who said "became a driving force"? You quote it but without attribution.
• "The actors were chosen according to their characters' backgrounds as well." → "The actors were also chosen according to their characters' backgrounds."

Filming

• "some of them were shot between 9 pm and 6 am." -- and this is pertinent, because? I assume because it was dark.
• "Kultar in turn was so pleased..." -- no need for the adjective here.

I will continue later. All looks good though. Cassianto^Talk 18:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, Cassianto. I've resolved them. Do let me know if there's anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 05:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• It looks as if the rest of the article is in a good order. I can find no other faults. Good work all round. Support. Cassianto^Talk 22:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cassianto. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Dwaipayan

• Any reason why Bhagath Singh is referred to as Bhagath instead of Singh in the article?

This is done to avoid confusion with the surname "Singh" as there are many characters and actors (Sushant Singh) with that particular surname. So I've referred to those people by their first names.

Ok.

• "Many aspects of Bhagat's life, including Mannewali, were derived from Piyush Mishra's 1994 play Gagan Damama Bajyo..." Mannewali is probably not an "aspect" of his life. Perhaps "including his romance with/marriage with/relationship with (wife/fiancée) Mannewali" is better.

Done. As asked.

I finetuned it in the article :) You are taking suggestions too literally!

Thanks for that.

• Ajay Devgn was known as Ajay Devgan at the time of the film's release. I guess this may be mentioned in the cast section. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. As asked,

Oh, you have changed Devgn to Devgan everywhere. I did not ask for that. I am not sure whether this is appropriate. What I requested is mentioning something like "Ajay Devgn (then known as Ajay Devgan)" in cast section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I've changed it now. Have a look and see if it is alright, Dwaipayanc.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nikkimaria. Appreciate it.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• All links to sources are working according to the external link checker tool
• Formats

• Ref 12: should "K, Kannan" read "K. Kannan", i.e full stop not comma?

@Brianboulton: The URL (link is here) says it as "Kannan K" so there's no full stop as per the source.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• General: Sources which are not in print media should not be italicized. See for example Box Office India, Bollywood Hungama, Sify, Zee News, possibly others

Done as asked.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Quality and reliability: Refs 9, 21: what makes this a high quality, reliable source?

@Brianboulton: They are from the film's official website.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the issues indicated, the sources are consistently presented and in general meet the required standards of quality and reliability per the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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) 1 June 2019 [40].

---

Eastern brown snake

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a badass snake that is considered the world's second most venomous snake...except that it isn't...except that it sort of is. The ranking was based on a highly potent neurotoxin isolated from the venom...except that in people it has almost no neurotoxic effects...however, it is responsible for most deaths from snakebite in Australia due to the severe damage it does to the human circulatory system. Anyway, have a read and let me know what to fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Only have a few minutes, so won't get far.

• "First described by André Marie Constant Duméril in 1854, the adult eastern brown snake" A little jarring: "the adult eastern brown snake" was "first described"...

I split the sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• "cardiovascular system—coagulopathy, haemorrhage, cardiovascular collapse and cardiac arrest. One of the main components of the venom is the prothrombinase complex pseutarin-C" A little technical for the lead; perhaps you could introduce some wikilinks?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• "gave it the name Diemenia textilis in 1896" This is presumably explicitly "resurrecting" Duméril's name? Perhaps worth mentioning?

Not quite. He just recognised it was the oldest valid name, as evidenced by having it at the top of the list of synonyms. Hence added this acknowledgement, with link to Principle of Priority Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• "and reinforced by American herpetologist" Gramatically, it's not clear what was reinforced. "and Worrell's claim was bolstered by American herpetologist" or something, perhaps?

I went with "upheld" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps Pseudonaja ohnoi should be in the taxobox? Same with the rejected subspecies?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The Dharawal and Awabakal held ceremonies for the eastern brown snake" I'd definitely like to hear more!

so would I - this is proving elusive.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, got to dash. Will hopefully be back! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Back for a few more minutes... Sorry for the bittiness...

• Any sexual dimorphism?

doesn't appear to be - but nothing outright states there isn't either (frustratingly) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Could you perhaps explain what "divided" means in the context of scales?

It is mentioned under anal scale but added footnote Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• "and arid scrublands and farmland, as well as more arid areas that are intermittently flooded" More arid than arid? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering if it says what you meant it to.

well, yeah, that'd be more desertlike as there'd not be enough water for scrub. changed to "drier" anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• " engage in 'ritual combat' with" Why the 'single quotes'?

don't recall but unnecessary and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• What do the eggs look like? Just little white orbs?

I think so but need a source describing them... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Should you provide Fahrenheit conversions for the temperatures?

yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• File:Eastern Brown Snake eating an Eastern Blue tongue. (8235988337).jpg Could we crop out or clone out the watermark?

Stopping again! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

More:

• This may sound silly, but you don't actually mention that the venom is used for hunting. Or is it not?

AFAIK all venomous snakes use venom for hunting and thought it was obvious...will see what I can source. ok added this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• "the inland taipan of central" Specific name? You generally provide one, but not always.

yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• "brown snakes accounted for 41% of identified snakebite victims" Were responsible for (or similar) I think - this reads like they were the ones bitten!

ok/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Snakes of Medical Importance or snakes of medical importance?

source actually lowercases it so aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• "a third of cases develop serious systemic envenoming including hypotension and collapse, thrombotic microangiopathy, severe haemorrhage, and cardiac arrest" Wikilinks, perhaps? And next few sentences/paragraphs. I appreciate that this section has to be fairly technical, but wikilinks can help.

linked a bunch Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Mirtschin and colleagues found that Queensland eastern brown snakes produced over triple the average amount of venom (11 mg vs 3 mg) than those from South Australia.[61] Worrell reported" Full names, perhaps?

added - Worrell mentioned previously in article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Some pictures in the venom section might be good. A picture of a bite would work, or chemical structures, or something?

Heh, not volunteering! Will have a think...already asked on flickr for immature photos too... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hope that's useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Support on prose. This reads very well, and is no doubt a valuable resource for anyone wanting to learn about the snake. I'd really like to hear more about cultural significance, and perhaps about human/snake interactions... I'm guessing that people kill them, for example? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I'd like some more cultural significance - and if I can find I will add. Regarding their status, most Australians are not too good at distinguishing species and there are loads of dangerous ones. These are not hated any more or less than other species really. And thx for support :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AhmadLX

• "German-British zoologist Albert Günther described Demansia annulata in 1858." Maybe described it/eastern brwon snake as Demansia annulata ?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Günther or Gunther? I see both.

now umlauted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Italian naturalist Giorgio Jan named Pseudoelaps sordellii and Pseudoelaps kubingii in 1859." is unclear. Are these different species, different looking specimens of eastern brown snake?

different specimens as different taxa that turned out to be this species. Thing is, it can be quite variable in appearance (particularly young and mature snakes) and covers a wide range. Will see if I can make this clearer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, then it should be mentioned. Currently it seems as if they are different species. In my opinion, one general statement describing the situation should be added at the beginning of the paragraph. Something like "Due to differences in appearance, different specimens of Eastern Brown Snake were categorized as different species in the early nineteenth century."

now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Correct me if wrong, I am no expert in biology, but "described as ABC" gives impression that some species ABC already existed and specimens of EBS were wrongly associated with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No that is a fair point. I have rewritten the first segment to address that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm a bit dumb, so can't understand what does this mean: "Snake clutches in colder areas often have more banded than unbanded young snakes."

more of the offspring have a banded coloration Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Contrast doesn't seem to be clear: more banded vs. unbanded. I can't access the source, based on your description I think a formulation like "In colder areas, newly hatched snakes are more heavily banded than young snakes" would be easier to understand.

it means more baby snakes with bands not baby snakes with more bands (some babies do lack bands) - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Any reason for one-line para in Distribution and habitat?

no - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Why not °C?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Any info on longevity in the wild?

none that I could find Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This source explicitly says "it is not known", so for comprehensiveness, it should be mentioned here too.

• "...carpet python (Morelia spilota), have also been eaten." perhaps juveniles?

I'd love to but the source does not specify Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The bearded dragon is possibly resistant to the effects of the venom." Does this mean they are not on the menu? or?AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 12:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

not really - they still get attacked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I am supporting. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

SC

Lead

• "The adult eastern brown snake is a slender snake up to 2 m (7 ft) long with": snake – snake

rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Tax

• We have both "Gunther" and "Günther"

now umlauted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• "for lack of rigour": I would probably phrase as "for a lack of rigour", but if that doesn't look right in AusEng, please ignore

no, Aussies are no different, "a" added.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• "number of diploid chromosomes at 38, those of the other species": looks a little like a comma splice – a semi colon may work better

semicoloned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Link for monotypic?

now linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The species commonly called" -> "The species is commonly called"

verb added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Reproduction

• At the end of Behaviour you say "cool days in September and October risked running into courting male snakes", and the next sentence—in Reproduction—you say "snakes mate from October onwards". It may be worth smoothing the discrepancy out a bit

looking at source again, "early" added before October, and "generally" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Venom

• "pre- and post synaptic" -> "pre- and post-synaptic" (with the hyphen)?

see below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• "presynaptic" and "posstynaptic": 1. "posstynaptic" is a spelling mistake; 2. are this meant to be hyphenated or as one word

now one-worded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Refs

• You have dates in the "30 October 2015" format and "January 11, 2014" format (the latter at FN 52)

now linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• You have the rage ranges in the "pp. 224–26" format, while the MoS now says it should be "pp. 224–226". It's pointless nonsense and I'll leave it to you to decide whether you need to bother or not.

???? - I must go read...I read somewhere the two digits were ok.....damn... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That's it: all very minor fare and I look forward to supporting shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - subject to my cop-out for being a subject ignoramus. Nicely written, covers everything I would expect it to and meets the FA criteria as far as prose is concerned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

reviews from neophytes are necessarily to analyse accessibility...and thx ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Image review - as this already has three reviews, I'll give an image review, but maybe continue with a full review if this stalls. Sources and licences look good, but I have some comments on image use. FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• You write the juveniles can be reticulated. Why not show it? We have this photo:[41]

I am stunned at how I missed that after looking for images of young sneks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• You show a snake wrestling with a lizard, but why not use this photo from the same series, which is closer to them?[42] I see the snake's head is shown better in the image you use, but maybe crop it then, which would also get rid of the watermark.

have changed images - will get to an image editor soon.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the watermark. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• This sign, if really free, could be nice under Venom:[43]

The author Frederick McCoy circulated it in 1877 as an educational poster, so yes it is free and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

• Why is the taxobox image's caption downsized? Not exactly easy on the eye.

Not me, undone Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• If you want to collapse the long synonym list to save space, you can do as in for example red rail.

yes/great idea/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• All links to sources are working
• Formats

• Page ranges: In his general review, SchroCat indicated the MoS requirement that page ranges should be given in full, e.g. as 149–150 not 149–50. It's a very minor issue but nonetheless, probably worth complying.

done. I've done two digits for years but failed to find the supporting guidline. Not a big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 3: publisher details missing

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 22: publisher details missing

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 30: "South Australian Museum" should not be italicised

for some reason, using the "work" or "website" field in "cite web" format does this. Not sure what to do about it. Open to suggestions Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 31: "Australian Reptile Online Database" should not be italicised

see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Cited texts: The ISBN format of Greer is inconsistent.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Quality and reliability: Ref 21 is a self-published source. What makes this qualify as a high quality reliable source?

Professor Jaky Troy is an expert in the field Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Subject to the above, the sources look to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability per the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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) 1 June 2019 [44].

---

Maryland Tercentenary half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... another coin, this one with a man with dubious dress, especially his collar. This is my solo nomination article, as Gadsden Purchase half dollar should be promoted soon no doubt.Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Support – Up to the usual standard of this series. Remarkably readable for an article on a – forgive me – dry subject like numismatics (I chuckled at the attempt to sanitise the Italian slogan), well and widely referenced and beautifully illustrated. There are two "a number of xxx"s in fairly quick succession, but otherwise I have no comment on the prose. I don't see how this article could be bettered. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 17:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Meets the FA criteria, is well written and nicely illustrated. The only point to consider (not that it sways my support) is that you have the rage ranges in the "pp. 217–18" format, while the MoS now says it should be "pp. 217–218". It's pointless nonsense and I'll leave it to you to decide whether you need to bother or not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Usernameunique

Infobox

• Images seem somewhat small in full size, any particular reason?

That's all we have. Bobby131313 uploaded them years ago, and he's more or less inactive today. We have very few image sources on coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Background

• Intro is a little abrupt. How about "The Maryland Tercentenary Commission, formed in 19XX, desired..."

I don't see a founding date, so I've played with it some.

• the Tercentenary celebrations — I don't think you need to capitalize "Tercentenary" here. Also, this is the second use of the word in this sentence; you could probably drop one.

Done.

Legislation

• a Maryland Tercentenary half dollar — Same re: capitalization.

Avoided.

• and passed without any recorded discussion ... and the bill passed without further discussion. ... and the bill passed without debate — Any of these three times, was there a vote for which any numbers were recorded?

No. That very rarely happened on commemorative coins. Mostly they went through uncontested, if they got as far as the floor of Congress.

• The bill was brought to the House floor on March 20, and passed without any recorded discussion. The bill was transmitted to the House of Representatives — I'm a bit confused, it went from the House to the House? Based on the rest of the section, it seems as if the March 20 date is actually when it was brought to the floor of the Senate.

My goof. Good catch. Fixed.

• That committee made report — Made a report?

rephrased.

• this was merely pro forma — Is the lack of italics (pro forma) intentional?

Yes. I think it's passed into the English language enough that italics are not needed.

• It became the Act of May 9, 1934, authorizing 25,000 half dollars — Is this the official title of the bill? If so, a manner of making this clear (e.g., italics, capitalization, or quotation marks) would help.

Rephrased.

Preparation

• Worth red-linking Hans Caemmerer?

If we don't have an article on Moore, I think Caemmerer is way down the list. I don't know if it's worth it.

Design

• their joint work on commemoratives — Perhaps "on commemorative coins".
• Michael Kittle, in his blog for the American Numismatic Association — Does Kittle work for the Association? If so, there's probably a way of phrasing this that doesn't have to include the reference to this being a blog post.
• the painting may show someone who is not Lord Baltimore — What is the basis for this claim? Any commentary by art historians?

Cut Kittle's entire contribution. I don't see where he's getting that from.

It's an intriguing point, too bad there isn't more.

• The obverse shows ... The reverse side shows — Is "reverse side" correct, and/or should it be "obverse side" as well?

Both are correct.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• the arms of Lord Baltimore quartered — What does "quartered" mean here?
• The state motto appears — Where? On the ribbon thing under the seal?

The above two addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Production and distribution

• Between two and four pieces are known in proof condition — What accounts for the range?

Because it's not always clear if a coin is a proof coin, it may not have been submitted to the experts, if it's in a collection it won't be making news until it's sold. Up to 4 is the figure for many of the commemoratives of the 1930s. That sort of uncertainty. Many Mint records were destroyed in the 1970s.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• One such specimen sold at auction for $109,250 in 2012. — May as well include the auction as a source. Also, might be worth asking Stack's Bowers if they would issue the images under a free license.

At one time I did write to them and other auction houses, and got no response in most cases and "we'll let you know" (still waiting) in a couple of cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• The stamp isn't mentioned outside of the image caption. Was the Tercentenary Committee involved with it, and if so, perhaps worth mentioning in "Background"?

My sources on philatelic are not good. Swiatek & Breen illustrate it but don't mention a specific connection.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Found this and this through Google, seems like they were connected. This probably isn't a reliable source for purposes of citing, but has a lot of information that could lead to other sources.

References/Sources

• The Congressional Record should be available online without paywalls.

Most of it does not appear to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Footnote 10 is here (just click on the "pdf" link on the left to see the text). Footnote 11 is here, and footnote 8 is here. These also all appear to be part of volume 78, not volume 80.

That will be useful. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Just checking that Flynn 2008 was issued without an ISBN.

Yes.

Overall

• Looks good, Wehwalt. Comments are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I think I"ve addressed everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. Comments on two minor points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed those now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for that website on the Congressional Record. Already adding it to next coin article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Happy to help, Wehwalt; I look forward to the next one. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources appear to have been checked out and dealt with during the general review. For the sake of formality:

• Spotchecks not carried out
• Accessibility: no issues
• Formats: no further issues
• Quality and reliability: no issues. The sources appear to meet all the requirements for quality and reliability to meet the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Maryland tercentenary half dollar commemorative obverse.jpg and File:Maryland tercentenary half dollar commemorative reverse.jpg: Who is the creator of the photo?

Bobby131313 was the creator and uploader. He did not explicitly state a license but we've had this several times at FAC and I made an inquiry at MCQ a while back, and it's accepted that such are suitable images.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• File:Maryland Tri Cen 1934 Issue-3c.jpg: The vague source information needs to be improved.

I uploaded a fresh version and included that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Images seem all to be pertinent to the article topic. No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added the alt text, hopefully that is everything. I think we're good to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I should add that I don't add alt text to the infobox because it has captions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Sturmvogel_66

• I think that all of the other reviews must have caught everything because I'm not seeing anything that needs to be addressed.
• No DABs, Redirects and external links OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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) 1 June 2019 [45].

---

SOLRAD 2

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that SOLRAD 1 has passed the FAC process, I have updated SOLRAD 2 to the same level of quality (I hope!) I hadn't planned on going past GA for SOLRAD 2, but thanks to a great new cite from User:Kees08, I was able to add a lot of interesting information, and it turns out SOLRAD 2 was pretty important even if it didn't actually make orbit. Since much of the text is identical to that of SOLRAD 1, a good deal of SOLRAD 2 has essentially already passed FA muster. The big differences are the lede and the Mission sections. Enjoy! --Neopeius (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No hurry, but if the folks who gave SOLRAD 1 a gander could take a look at SOLRAD 2 at their leisure, I'd be obliged. :)

@Maury Markowitz: @Balon Greyjoy: @Nick-D: @CPA-5: @Mike Christie: @Kees08: --Neopeius (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

I'll do this one this evening (CET). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You're amazing! :) --Neopeius (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• over Cuba and instigating official protest from the Cuban government Unlink Cuba and capitalise government.

Why is Cuba unlinked? Also, having done some scouring, it appears that government is only capitalized when a proper noun. For instance, the Government of Cuba but not Cuban Government.

• Is it? Because I saw some editors using (including myself) government capitalised. May I ask you which ref you used it can help me about this issue. I always thought it was capitalised. Also I think Cuba should be unlinked because here in Europe they know some infomations of Cuba. Of course I do not know or Americans know where Cuba lies or some infomations of it - by MOS:OVERLINK.

I'd like to keep Cuba. I delinked China. And here's a source for decapped government.

• Thanks for the ref. Sadly it is a dead link on my screen. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

How vexing! Try here @CPA-5: --Neopeius (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Great, thanks for this information. Cheers.

• In 1957 the Soviet Union began deploying Link Soviet Union.

10-4

• President Eisenhower approved full Link Eisenhower.

Right-o

• I see two kinda USes the first in This allowed the US Air Force to plan its entrance as US. The second is in northwest of the U.S. Navy's Guantanamo Bay base as U.S..

Fixed

• Eisenhower cancelled the project and implemented British cancelled.

Huh! Learn something every day (though I double-taked on that -- I thought you were saying the British canceled SOLRAD, and I was like, "That's kind of presumptuous of them!")

• the complete solar spectrum.[9]:64–65[9]:5–6, 63[10] merge both 9 citations in one citation.

Ugh, yes. And fixed in SOLRAD 1, too.

• of its predecessor, SOLRAD/GRAB 1[14], Suggest moving the citation outside the comma here.

For sure.

• to observe the sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light If I'm not wrong then it should be "to observe the Sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light"

Absolutely

• spherical and 51 cm in diameter No Imperial/US units?

Right again!

• same scientific experiments (18kg versus 19kg) Same as above and there should be a space between a number and a unit.

Must you ALWAYS be right? :)

• providing 6 watts of power Link watt.

Watt's that you say?

• photometer mounted along the equator Link equator.

Okay.

• light in the 1050-1050 Å wavelength I'm sorry if I don't understand this one. But why are there two 1050s? Also shouldn't it be "light in the 1,050–1,050 Å wavelength"?

Criminy. It's 1350.

• broadcasting on the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz) Unlink S band there is one already used previously in the body. Also this MHz is the first one so please link it.

Actually, the sentence at the end of the first paragraph was superfluous once I added the other language, so I killed it. Moved the MHz link.

• was sent on 108 MHz Unlink MHz.

Yawp

• Some 20 kg No Imperial/US units?

Of course there are! (now...)

• The Cuban Army post at Holguin Link Cuban Army.

We have a link for everything!

• sealed sphere of some 40 pounds Do you mean the unit pound or the currency pound?

It's a quote... but what do you think? :) I don't think SOLRAD 2 carried money in it. Nor does America use the pound.

• was sold to the People's Republic of China Unlink People's Republic of China.

Why? I am genuinely confused -- why does the Soviet Union get a link but not Cuba or China?

• China on the other hand is a popular country even childeren do know some infomations and where it lies so it shouldn't be linked - by MOS:OVERLINK

• In response to the Cuban government protest --> "In response to the Cuban Government protest"

Again, internet research suggests government is not capitalized after an adjective.

Here you go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, @CPA-5:! Thank you so much. :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Looks great I reckon this one is ready for my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

image review

• All three diagrams would benefit from being scaled up

done

• Suggest adding missing alt texts

done

• Should use |upright= rather than fixed px size

done

• File:SOLRAD1schematic.gif: if this is uncredited how do we know what the tagging should be? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It's from | NRL's website and I changed the WikiCommons file to reflect that.

Thank you @Nikkimaria:! --Neopeius (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Balon Greyjoy

Nice to see you nominating another article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• When you say that future SOLRAD flights were programmed to avoid Cuban flyover, are you referring to just during the launch, or the spacecraft's entire lifetime in orbit (I'm assuming it's the former)? I would make that clear, as I assume the satellite would otherwise make passes over Cuba eventually

Fixed, thank you.

• In the background section, I would provide a quick intro about the SOLRAD/GRAB satellites being used to detect SAM radars, and then go into the background of the radar detection. I understand that you're trying to build a narrative about how the US eventually decided to used SIGINT/ELINT satellites, but I found myself asking "How does this tie in?" throughout the first paragraph, and I had the added benefit of knowing the general properties of the satellite.

I've drafted a better narrative, both in that paragraph and the following one. I don't want to lose detail, but I think it flows better now.

• Not sure about this one (hopefully can get some feedback from other editors), but is it general practice to use the official Russian reporting names/numbering for SAMs, or the NATO reporting names? I admit that I'm biased towards the use of the NATO reporting names, but I think most readers of a US Air Force program would more likely recognize "SA-2" or "SA-2 Guideline" over "S-75" (my vote is just for "SA-2")

I'm not married to any convention. I don't think it should stall FA status, but if consensus is ever reached, I'm perfectly fine with someone changing it after the fact.

• Do you have any details on the electronic reconnaissance aircraft that the Air Force was using? I think linking to the individual types of aircraft would be useful.

I do not.

• I would either remove the part about the Air Force planning its entrance routes, or expand upon it. Right now, it comes across as only part of the story. I think the significance of knowing the locations of enemy SAM sites is important enough, so my vote is to just remove it. If you wish to expand, indicate the use of the entrance routes that you are referring to (I'm assuming it was hypothetical entrance routes in case of hostilities breaking out).

I agree, and I have changed the wording accordingly.

• I would change "but the information collected was not particularly detailed" to something that just states that the information couldn't be used to locate the SAM sites. I think any collection of SAM radar signals is not going to be detailed, in that you are just getting the rough EM wave characteristics and a line of bearing, but that can be used to locate the SAM site.

Better wording.

Had an inadvertant few days away. Back at it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would combine the first two sentences about the submarine antenna, and just say that Mayo developed an antenna that allowed submarines to detect the radar from anti-submarine aircraft

Fixed.

• I would change "was given an official go-ahead" to something like "was approved." "Go-ahead" is a bit of a colloquialism

fixed

• How significant was the news leak and what changed between Tattletale and Walnut? It doesn't make much sense that the program was cancelled and then immediately restarted, just with a different code name.

I moved the heightened security to make more sense -- basically, Ike canceled, and Walnut was the same project but with heightened security. I've elaborated. Hope you like.

• American launches aren't classified now either, just the payloads. I would clarify this a little more.

According to my sources, this is not the case. While news of launches might have leaked (it's hard to hide a rocket launch), the launches themselves were classified. Prior to launches being classified, only payload contents were classified (and disguised by some cover, e.g. Discoverer and SOLRAD)

• Remove "Fortunately" from the start of the sentence, as it's a subjective word.

Fortunately, I don't mind doing so. :)

• Instead of saying "roughly a duplicate of," maybe us "similar to" and then list the differences. I think that makes it more clear that there were some differences from the beginning.

The problem is I don't know how the two differed. There is virtually no information to that regard. They had the same equipment listed in the various sources but a difference in mass. All of the SOLRADS were "similar to" each other, but SOLRADs 1 and 2 were very close. Thus "roughly a duplicate of" is the verbal solution to the problem I came up with.

• How delayed was the rocket launch, and how many glitches were there? I don't think the betting pool is necessarily indicative of how delayed it was; formal/informal wagering over the likelihood of a launch/takeoff/etc. is pretty common.

Insufficient data. Long enough that the lone source on the matter thought it noteworthy.

If you wish to include it, I would shorten it to just say they were taking bets; as it's not clear what $1-per-person means (my take is that each person bet a dollar on a given time, but that's not self-explanatory).

Done.

• I would remove the italics on "did" and take out the sunny sky, as weather played no factor in the rocket's demise.

fixed

• I would remove "However" before "the Thor first stage" as it's not an event that is contrasted with the previous sentence.

I like it, narratively. The rocket launched despite the holds. The weather was good. BUT THEN TRAGEDY STRUCK. The "However" indicates something bad is about to happen.

I would argue that you don't want to be using foreshadowing-type terminology and phrasing in these articles to tell a narrative. Per WP:EDITORIALIZING, it's good to avoid words like "However" as that can imply a relationship when there is none. While the initial launch and clear weather were positive signs of a launch, they were pretty unrelated to the failure of the launch.

I think that's an overly assiduous interpretation of WP:EDITORIALIZING :) If this is the only difference of opinion on this article, I think we're in good shape!

I disagree, but one "however" isn't enough to dissuade my support for this article.

• Similar to my comments about overflying Cuba, when you say that future SOLRAD flights were programmed, I'm assuming you mean for a launch? How would a launch flying south have a more northerly course?

Fixed. (and the launch never went DUE south. Just south enough to fly over Cuba until the flight path was modified.)

That's all I have for now! Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Thank you very much for the help! Please let me know what you think -- the changes I've made in the Background section, I can migrate to SOLRAD 1 to improve that article. --Neopeius (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Neopeius: My apologies for forgetting to come back to this. I have added two comments. Nice work improving the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: You're a busy man. I'm just grateful for all of your help! Are we good to go? --Neopeius (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Neopeius comments

@Nikkimaria: Hi, folks! Thank you for your comments. I have jury duty this week, so I may not get around to addressing them immediately. I just wanted to let you know so you didn't think I was ignoring you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC) @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

SC (Support on May 16, 2019)

@SchroCat: Thank you for visiting! :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A fair few bits and pieces to cover here:

Lead & IB

• "and was destroyed, raining debris over Cuba and instigating official protest ..." and ...and looks like a bit of a run on. "and was destroyed, raining debris over Cuba, which instigated official protests ..." may work better (note plural: an official protest (singular) or "official protests" (plural)

Fixed.

• I see you have a "start of mission" in the IB. Is there and "end of mission" or "outcome parameter that could be added?

Added a "Destroyed" parameter, thank you. :)

Background

• "plan its entrance": "plan its possible (or) potential entrance"?
• "In March 1958,[3]:4" I looked at this initially because I never like seeing a citation after only three words of a sentence. Perhaps moving this to the end of the second sentence (to sit alongside ref [2]:364 would work better)
• "After a news leak": an approximate date would work well here, just for context. (Either here, or following "the project was restarted")
• The two paras "After a news leak" and "The study of the Sun's" could be run together as they are essentially on the same point
• I'd be tempted to scale up File:Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity.svg a little – it's not at all clear on such a small scale
• "Martin Votaw": just a word or two of introduction would work wonders: "NRL engineer Martin Votaw" would give enough context
• "Fortunately": it's a minor and petty thing, but that's NPOV. "Fortunate" according to who?

All of these issues are addressed by Balon Greyjoy above (great minds!) so I will fix them per his suggestions. This will necessitate fixing the language in SOLRAD 1, too.

Spacecraft

• "GRAB 1,[14], spherical": no comma needed after the ref

Fixed.

• "in diameter[8] slightly lighter": comma needed after diameter

Fixed.

• "solar cells[4]:a1-4. The..." Full stop before the ref

Fixed

• "the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz).[13]:29,32 over" Is that a full stop? If so, it should be a capital letter for "Over..."

Should have been a comma. Thank you. :)

Mission

• "so many holds in the": this may be an AmEng thing, but my BrEng eye expects to see "hold-ups"

Hold is a term of art specifically dealing with launch holds. I believe my usage is correct. (What I see Kees said below -- thank you, Guardian Angel!)

• I think its more space vernacular than AmEng vs BrEng, 'The launch vehicle is in a built-in five minute hold' would be an acceptable usage for example. Kees08 (Talk) 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• "SOLRAD 2 did launch": no need for the italics: "SOLRAD 2 launched" works much better

Fixed

• "19:50 UTC[12]," comma before the ref

Fixed

• "Some 20 kilograms (44 lb)[19]": Again a ref after a few words of a sentence. This citation supports the position that "some 20kg is equivalent to 44Lbs". If you want to connect the 20kg to the fragments that fell over Cuba, it needs to be at the end of the sentence. I'll also point out that when I look at http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19601205#!&pid=26, I don't see the article titled "Transit Launch Fails".

The reference cited is the only one that gives the mass of the debris. The problem is there's no way to put a citation in between numbers of a convert template.

I still have a problem with that citation. We don't need a citation for basic maths (we automate the process with a convert template most of the time), so it can come out. As the Avian Week link doesn't have an article titled "Transit Launch Fails", and the page contains no reference to 20kg it isn't needed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely does have a small piece called "Transit Launch Fails" on page 26. However, reading the article again, I think they are just citing what the Cuban report said, so I've eliminated the problematic reference and language, thank you.

Ah, that's a different link altogether - you should have ignored the http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19601205#!&pid=26 link and done the citation as a journal, linking to the specific page. Anyway, that's moot now it's been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Negatory. If you have an account, that link takes you right to that page. :) I was lucky enough to get an account! --Neopeius (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(I downloaded the page from AvWeek and hosted it on my own site so you could see it)

Sources etc

• Is there a reason you are using {{rp}}? The documentation says "This template should not be used unless necessary", so I wonder what makes it necessary here
• You have a few instances of pages as " 142,149", without a space in between. Although you are partially consistent in not including a space, the addition of one works better, I think. (I saw partially as there are examples of the spaced "5–6, 63–65")

I have added spaces after commas both here and in SOLRAD 1. I use {{rp}} to identify pages within particular references (rather than listing the same reference multiple times for different page numbers. How else would I do the citation?

If you use the {{sfn}} template it drops everything into the right place and bundles the same pages together in one number. It's partially a matter of personal choice (so I won't push it here), but the MoS advises not to use it "unless necessary", and I don't see the need here. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I prefer rp to sfn is all. :)

No rush on these: I see you are on jury duty, so whenever you get round to this is great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help, @SchroCat:! I will try to get to the other issues this weekend. Busy week! @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: --Neopeius (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - all good from me on prose. I am not a subject expert, so won't comment on the coverage, but it passes the FA criteria on prose grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thank you :)

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licensed.

• Could you use "upright", not px, to size images. (DM 21)

Done.

• Transit 2A and GRAB 1.jpg sandwiches the infobox. Maybe move it to the right, below the infobox, and drop Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity.svg down a little?

I'd rather not move the images. These are the same positions as in the FA-approved SOLRAD 1, and if I move them, they will no longer be in their relevant sections. It's a big infobox. There's not much I can do about it. :)

It sandwiches on this article because you have made all of the images (much) larger. If you revert them to the same size as the images in SOLRAD 1 the issue will probably go away.

But I was instructed by the other image reviewer that they should be bigger (actually, I wasn't even the one who made the images that much bigger...I just blew up the Votaw one, I think). Perhaps you could arrange the images as you feel appropriate and then let's see how it looks? @Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. I have changed the images to the size they were for SOLRAD 1 and moved one. It is a little difficult to squeeze so many images into the article, but if there are to be six, this minimises sandwiching. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks worse IMO, but up to you two. Kees08 (Talk) 18:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08 and Neopeius: I think that it looks better, but that is neither here nor there. It is now, barely, MoS compliant, and so I can sign it off for FA. I am more than happy to consider any different array, so long as it is MOS compliant. I think that this is going to be difficult unless the number of images is reduced. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough; you may want to have Nikkimaria check in on it since she had comments relating to image size earlier that are now overridden. I am pretty indifferent overall. Kees08 (Talk) 18:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. So long as it stays MoS compliant I am happy to support. Feel free to play around to get the image arrangement, but remember that sandwiching is not allowed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• All images need alt text. (Even if it is the same as the caption.)

Added. I'll have to do that with SOLRAD 1, too.

For the record, it is optional to have alt text. Although it is good to have. Kees08 (Talk) 06:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, SOLRAD 1, yes. @Kees08: That's not how I read the MOS: "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users."

Most recent RfC says not required but should be encouraged. Also, if you do not sign the line that you ping someone they do not get the ping. Kees08 (Talk) 17:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• I was unable to find Thor Able Star with Transit 3A Nov 30 1960 pad.jpg at [46], which may have been me. In any case, it would be better to have a direct link.

I'm not certain what you're asking. ^^;;

I thought that I was going mad, because I missed Kees08's comment below. They have sorted it out. You owe them a beer. Thanks Kees.

I've now had an opportunity to see the new page, and I am compelled to say that I don't like it. I do very much appreciate your attempts to work with the MOS re: sandwiching. That said, 1) it says "avoid sandwiching" not "sandwiching is not allowed" and, of course, there is the Break All Rules directive.

Moreover, 3) it looks better the old way and 4) the photos actually illustrate their points the old way and 5) SOLRAD 1 has it the old way, and it made F.A.

If you do not feel you can sign off on the images the old way, I understand, and I will see if Nikkimaria, who did the first image review (and did not mention sandwiching) will sign off. Thanks very much again! :)

@Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Neopeius. In MOS:SANDWICH it says "However, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages or cha­rts that face each oth­er; or be­tween an im­age and in­fo­box, nav­i­ga­tion tem­plate, or sim­i­lar." I do not see how this can be read other than as to mean that an article with an image sandwich does not "meet[…] the policies regarding content", which I understand to be a requirement of featured article status. I don't consider WP:I don't like it to be sufficient reason to WP:Ignore all rules. Obviously, I am happy to be corrected on any of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

PS. It seems to me that the nub of the issue is the attempt to get six very large (four of them are upright=1.5) images into a 1,700 word article. They struggle to fit at the default size. Doubling this overloads the page. The obvious solution, other than reducing their size to the default setting, is to have fewer images. Just a suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to reduce the images to their default sizing, which is how SOLRAD 1 passed FA. I was specifically asked by another image reviewer to increase the size of the images (and, in fact, I believe they went and did it themselves). And I was also specifically asked by prior reviewers to put in the pictures that are there, and I think they serve the article.

So, I am splitting the baby, reverting the uprighted big images back to normal (except for the launch image, which does not have the sandwich issue being well below all the other images) and I look forward to approval so we can put this to bed. :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Neopeius. FWIW, I also think that all six images serve the article; note that I had made no prior mention of there being unnecessary images. I didn't know how you felt about them, so it seemed worth mentioning the idea. Personally I feel that the large images make the article look ugly and overwhelm the text, but that is irrelevant. No one cares about my sense of aesthetics. If anyone gets a vote on aesthetics, it is you; but, so far as I can see, only within the constraints of the FA criteria. I would have cheerfully signed off on the larger images if I could have seen a way to convince myself that they were within the MOS.

Currently there is, and will be on all platforms, a sandwich between Transit 2A and GRAB 1.jpg and the infobox. However, I am going to be Nelsonian and IAR. This is a great article, and much improves Wikipedia; I feel that, on balance, I can pass the image review in good conscience. Thank you for your flexibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I added the filename and a link to the direct image page. Kees08 (Talk) 16:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Gog the Mild: I am working my way through these backwards. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Weekend chores catching up to me. Next pass will probably be Monday. Thank you for your patience! --Neopeius (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No rush. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Just the sandwiching issue to resolve; which should be easy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

Some sources points were raised and dealt with in the body of the review. I have a few further issues:

• A limited series of spotchecks revealed no apparent problems with verifiability or close paraphrasing.
• Ref 3 is missing publisher details

Fixed

• Ref 8: I was unable to locate the source article in the link

It works if you have a login to AvWeek. One will have the same issue with all of my AvWeek links.

• Ref 10: The title in the ref is given as "Appendix A: Department of the Navy History in Space". In the link, page 157 of the source reveals "Intelligence Satellite Development by the Naval Research Laboratory" Is this the intended source article?

Correct, and page 157 is indicated in the citation.

• Ref 12: What makes "Jonathan's Space Report" a high quality reliable source?

He's been a space journalist for more than a decade, his master launch log is the gold standard, and I've yet to find any inaccuracies (as opposed to, say, Mark Wade's Astronautix site, which has lapsed)

• Ref 16: The source title in the ref is "Vanguard: a History", by Constance Green and Milton Lomask, but no page references are given. The link is to Lindbergh's "Foreword": is this the sources article?

Page references are there as s after the citation.

• Ref 19: What makes "Drew Ex-Machina" a high quality reliable source?

He's a reputable, long-time space journalist, and when I've checked his work with his sources, he's been reliable.

• Formats: I notice an inconsistency in the presentation of authors' names. For example, we have (ref 2) "James Bamford", and (ref 3) "McDonald, Robert A.". There are other examples of both forms. I suggest consistency is applied using one format.

It's what comes of using templated names versus just the author= field. Fixed so they're all last name first.

Subject to the exceptions raised above, the sources appear to meet the requirements of the FA criteria with regard to quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the source check! :) @Brianboulton: --Neopeius (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kees08

• Could use this newspaper if you want; I was not sure how often they flew over Cuba before, looks like this was only the second attempt (in case it is useful: One, Two

Added.

• Acronym not introduced while the NRL was heavily involved

Fixed.

• Should there be a comma after engineer for the appositive phrase? Reid D. Mayo, a Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) engineer determined

Yes, but that sentence sucks for clunkiness. Fixed. :)

More to come later. Kees08 (Talk) 03:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Is this like the 100 meter dash, where even though there are 100 meters, since it is describing something it is singular? It sounds weird to me that centimeters is plural four whip-style 63.5 centimeters (2.08 ft) long antennas

It is weird, but it's an artifact of the convert template...

• I would link range safety officer instead of range safety, which I know redirects to range safety, but if the range safety officer article is ever made the link will go to the right page. the range safety officer.

Sure.

• As a launch vehicle nerd, I think it would be good to get into the fact that the first and second stages were separated, and range safety blew up both of them. I was picturing one vehicle when I was imagining the scenario (from this source).

Added

• I think you should also add that a formal complaint was made to the United Nations, because I was specifically looking for that detail (maybe the last paragraph of that section?)

Added.

That's all I have right now, I am going to poke around a little more and see if I can find any more sources, but I'll likely support soon. Kees08 (Talk) 02:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Done! W00tiew00t and thanks. :) @Kees08: @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Support granted; I made a change to the destruction of the rocket, let me know if you have an issue with it. Kees08 (Talk) 06:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary

As of today, we're at four supports and completed image and source review (i.e. I have addressed all issues)

Is there anything left to do before elevation? I'd like to get this wrapped up so I can apply the changes to this article back to SOLRAD 1 before it hits the front page on June 22 :) Then I can go forward and finish the other SOLRADs.

Thanks to @Balon Greyjoy:, @Kees08:, @CPA-5:, @SchroCat:, @Gog the Mild:, @Nikkimaria:, and @Brianboulton: for your invaluable help! @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, the image review is not yet signed off. See "Just the sandwiching issue to resolve; which should be easy" above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review issue now resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And now it is resolved again, in the spirit of Wikipedia and with my thanks to the nominator for their flexibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Aw, garsh. Just tryin' to make this thing work. @Gog the Mild: @Laser brain:

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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) 1 June 2019 [47].

---

Horncastle helmet fragment

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The Horncastle helmet fragment is a tiny but interesting slice of Anglo-Saxon history. Its rich construction of silver, gold, and garnets, only hints at the likely richness of the helmet it once adorned; even the richest Anglo-Saxon helmets yet known, from Sutton Hoo and Staffordshire, have more rudimentary crest terminals than the Horncastle fragment. This 40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment was purchased for £15,000, and is now on display in Lincolnshire.

This article draws from all available sources to describe the fragment and place it in proper context. It passed a good article review last year, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from PM

This fairly brief article is in excellent shape, up to Usernameunique's high standards. I consider it meets the Featured criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged again, Peacemaker67. Thanks for the support. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Comment from Tim riley

A most readable and interesting article, clearly written with considerable erudition. I expect to be supporting, but a few minor points on the prose first:

• "likely was once attached" – unexpected and slightly jarring Americanism. The normal BrE construction is "probably was once attached". Ditto for the four *"likely"s later in the article (although for some reason "most likely" in this construction is not uncommon in BrE although the unadorned "likely" is).

• Done. Had actually been wondering about this, after this edit by Espresso Addict; before that, I had no idea that there was a difference in usage between probably and likely.

• Of the style guides I most often use, the 2015 revision of Fowler's Modern English Usage identifies "likely" as pretty much AmE. The Guardian's style guide says:

In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as "they will likely win the game" sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.

The AmE usage is arguably superior to the BrE, judged by two of Fowler's five criteria: "Prefer the short word to the long. Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance", but be that as it may, current BrE usage goes for the longer, Romance word. (I'll shut up now.) Tim riley talk 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• "can not be conclusively determined" – "can not" is probably OK but "cannot" is surely the normal way of writing it.

• Done.

• "and perhaps York" – this is fine as it stands in the lead, I think, but in the main text it seems to me to call out for a word of explanation – perhaps a footnote – to explain why you say "perhaps".

• Done.

• Just what was wanted, I think. Beautifully clear. Thank you. Tim riley talk 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• "venerated, eulogised..." – a splendid line, but to have a quotation like this with no inline attribution leaves it rather in a vacuum. Helpful to your readers to put it in context by identifying the author: "as the archaeologist XYZ writes..." or some such.

• Done (and in the related sections for Benty Grange helmet, Pioneer helmet, and Guilden Morden boar).

• "turn of the millennium Gundestrup" – as " turn of the millennium" is used as a compound attributive adjective I think it would benefit from hyphenation.

• Done. Had already done this in the related sections just mentioned, but must have missed this one.

Nothing of great consequence there. I'll look in again and, I hope, add my support. –Tim riley talk 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and comments, Tim riley. Adopted all your suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Very pleased to support now. Meets the FA criteria in all respects, in my view. I thoroughly enjoyed reading and rereading the article. Tim riley talk 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Will have a look soon. At first glance, compared to how the rest of the article looks, the last section could probably be split into two paragraphs? Looks a bit like a wall of text now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, FunkMonk. Made it a second paragraph. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• " and set against the skull" Why skull and not head? Makes it seem as if it is depicted as skeletal.

• That was the wording in the source, but you're right, "head" works just as well. Done.

• "found by a Mr D. Turner" Being such a recent find, should be possible to find the full name?

• I've done some searching on this (e.g., looking for members of Lincolnshire metal detecting groups) without much luck. The next step might be to send out a couple "Hey, do you happen to know a Mr. D. Turner" emails, but I'd like to hold off on this for the time being.

• "As required of found objects" Required for? Otherwise it seems like the object has to do something?

• Done.

• Link boar and dragon at first mentions? Also Anglo-Saxon.

• Done.

• The full name of the subject is not mentioned anywhere in the article body. Could perhaps be good to mention it at the beginning?

• Done.

• Not sure about this but should "in their stable of symbols" be staple?

• I mean "stable" in the sense of "collection."

FunkMonk, responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - that's all I could find, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Didn't notice any license issues. All images appear to be in good sections and have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• Spotchecks not carried out
• all links to sources are working
• Formats:

• In the bibliography, the source "Record ID: PAS-5D5B56 - EARLY MEDIEVAL helmet" is listed out of alphabetical sequence.

• Done.

• WorldCat provides a OCLC for Chaney: 490832405

• Added ISBN 0-520-01401-4. Technically it's a 9-digit "Standard Book Number", since it's a 1970 book, but adding an extra 0 at the front seems to work.

• All sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, as required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Brianboulton. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• This is a first rate article, although I think 'Horncastle boar's head' would be a more informative title than 'Horncastle helmet fragment'.

• Thanks, Dudley Miles. You may be right about "Horncastle boar's head." The current phrasing is designed to maintain some consistency between articles (see Gevninge helmet fragment; Lokrume helmet fragment; Tjele helmet fragment). Guilden Morden boar does not fit into this consistency, although it is something of a 'named artifact' in the way that the others are not. The biggest danger is probably for fragments that are not necessarily from helmets (see the "?"s in this list)—for now the naming convention seems to work, but I may revisit at some point, especially if I create articles for some of the less clear fragments.

• Looking again I see you say "probably once attached to the crest of a helmet". As it is not certain I do not think "helmet" should be in the title. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Fair point. Per Dank, below, the best option seems to be to wait until promotion, and then change the title to "Horncastle boar's head".

• "turn-of-the-millennium". I took this at first to mean around year 1000, whereas I see you mean turn of BC/AD.

• That phrasing is really just a way of avoiding getting into the debate over when the Gundestrup cauldron was made. The previous sentence, with a reference to Tacitus "writing around the 1st century AD," should hopefully make clear which millennium we are talking about.

• I do not think that solves the problem as the previous sentence is in the previous paragraph. How about "late Iron Age"? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Late Iron Age is, I think, too vague—it also varies by region, so the National Museum of Denmark assigns the cauldron to the Early Iron Age instead. What about a mouseover effect, such as turn-of-the-millennium?

• I take your point about the different periodicity in Denmark but I still do not like turn of the millennium. More importantly, the source you cite, Foster, does not suggest a date for the cauldron. How about "probably dating to the end of the last millennium BC and citing [48], which dates it to between 150 BC and the birth of Christ. This source, the National Museum of Denmark, says that it was probably made in southwest Romania or northwest Bulgaria, so found in Denmark is a bit misleading. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• "including the twentieth". It might be worth adding that the twentieth was stationed in Britain (Foster, p. 19).

• Turned into "including the England-based twentieth," which based on the links seems a fairly uncontroversial point; I may need to look for another source for this though, since Foster (based on the Google snippet view, since I don't have it at hand) mentions them being stationed in Wales for a time, not England.

• Foster (which I have borrowed) says their HQ was Chester but they were probably also at the legionary fortress at Usk, Monmouthshire. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think you can say English-based. I would prefer "which was based in Britain". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• "The boar nonetheless persisted in continental Germanic tradition". I would delete the word "nonetheless"

• Done.

• "Its return to prominence in the Anglo-Saxon period, as represented by the boars from Benty Grange, Wollaston, Guilden Morden, and Horncastle, may therefore suggest the post-Roman reintroduction of a Germanic tradition from Europe, rather than the continuation of a tradition in Britain through 400 years of Roman rule.". This correctly quotes Foster, but the word "reintroduction" implies that there was a Germanic tradition in pre-Roman Iron Age Britain, and this cannot be right. So far as I can discover neither Foster nor any other writer says that there was German influence on Iron Age Britain. Leslie Webster in Anglo-Saxon Art treats the Germans and Celts as separate peoples and cultures. She discusses Celtic influence and says that Celtic style ornament appears on eighth century Anglo-Saxon metalwork, albeit rarely (p. 105). Maybe Foster meant the reintroduction of the boar tradition and used the word 'German' in error? Webster also says that the German peoples, including the Anglo-Saxons, were strongly influenced by Roman culture in their homeland before they came to Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• My memory of this line in Foster is that it is fairly cursory, and I could understand it being inaccurate as a result; after all, the point is tangential to the larger work. It may take a couple days to track down Webster—the only circulating copy nearby is unavailable—but if you think this would be solved in the interim by simply removing "reintroduction," I am happy to do that.

• That would be fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Done.

• Oppose. My comments not dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay on this; I had meant to dig up Foster and Webster, but haven't had the time and let this slip. I've responded to your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Dudley Miles, some responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I disagree on a couple of points, but neither are deal-breakers. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Oppose by Eric Corbett

Here are a few issues I spotted on a quick read through:

• "The 40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment ..." The hyphen shouldn't be applied to abbreviated units.

• Would you not still consider this a compound adjective requiring a hyphen?

• No. Eric Corbett 19:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Why not? I may well be wrong, but I am unclear on what the rule is for compound adjectives with abbreviated units. I would have thought it analogous to something like "San Francisco-based," where there is no hyphen after the first word, but a hyphen after the second.

• ... whereas "a horse head terminal ... does require a hyphen.

• Right, added.

• "The Horncastle helmet fragment represents a boar's head made of silver..." No it doesn't; there is no "boar's head made of silver" that it's a representation of, it's a boar's head made of silver.

• Reworded, but if we're nitpicking, nor is it "a boar's head made of silver"; it is a silver representation of a boar's head.

• Perhaps you would have done well to have said that in the first place then? Eric Corbett 19:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• The difficulty in doing so is then in working in the gilding and the garnet eyes into the sentence. They seem best treated with the mention of silver, for then the materials are treated together. Indeed, if the sentence read "...is a silver representation of a boar's head, parts of which are gilded, and with garnet eyes." then it would suffer the same flaw that you discussed earlier: It does not represent a boar's head that is gilded and has garnets for eyes, but rather is a representation that uses silver, gilt, and garnets.

• This is supposed to be an example of Wikipedia's best work, not an example of how we can't phrase something correctly. Eric Corbett 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• " a prominent mane runs down the middle and terminates in a blunt snout, indicated by three grooved and gilded lines" "Indicated isn't the right word here, maybe represented?

• I think "indicated by" is appropriate, meaning "shown," but have reworded to "defined by."

• "This is also gilded ..." Starting a sentence with "This" always introduces an element of uncertainty about what the subject being referred to actually is.

• Here, however, any confusion is tempered by the fact that the subject is the immediately preceding word, and that "skull" is the only singular noun in the preceding sentence.

• I don't agree. Eric Corbett 19:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• What else would you think "this" refers to? it is little different than leading of a sentence with "it."

• It's very different. Eric Corbett 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• The writing seems a little stuttering in places, as in "The fragment was found on 1 May 2002 in Horncastle, a market town in Lincolnshire, England. It was found by a Mr D. Turner, who was searching with a metal detector. That would be better recast as a single flowing sentence.

• I agree that that part is a bit choppy, although I wrote it that way because there are already so many parts in the first sentence that it was hard to find a flow. One suggestion is "The fragment was found on 1 May 2002 by a Mr. D. Turner, searching with a metal detector in Horncastle, a market town in Lincolnshire, England., but feel free to suggest others. In particular, I think where it was found is more important than who found it (especially when we only have an initial for his first name), and so would be inclined to place that later.

Eric Corbett 19:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick read through, Eric Corbett. Responses are above. Your comments feel quite minor, so the oppose is surprising. What is your reason for it? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• The FA criteria require that the article complies with the MoS, which it does not. Eric Corbett 19:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific, Eric Corbett? The MoS has 21 sections; I doubt you're referring to a failure to properly refer to compass points, but am otherwise at a bit of a loss. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would point you in general to FA criteria 1a, but as a specific example in reference to my first point: "a non-breaking space (never hyphen) separates a value and unit symbol" can be found at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers. Eric Corbett 20:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• That section is inapposite. The guideline means that "40-mm fragment" would be incorrect; it does not mean that "40 mm-long fragment" (or "40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment") would be incorrect. At any rate, it is striking that your example of why you oppose this nomination is how a hyphen is used. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• I gave you several other examples above that you have chosen to ignore. Eric Corbett 21:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• The prose has been sufficiently improved to allow me to support this article's promotion now. Eric Corbett 17:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

SN54129

• "Found treasure"—would appear to be treasure trove; link?

• Linked to Treasure trove#England, Northern Ireland, and Wales

• On that, why "It was reported as..."? Surely that gets decided legally if in any doubt, and if not, then just "As found treasure..."?

• The point I'm trying to emphasize is that the person who found it reported the find.

• "Dated to"—is this a WP:ENGVAR thing perhaps? I'm thinking either "dating" from or to?

• Changed to "dates from"

• "now known as The Collection"—unnecessary detail I think.

• Perhaps, but I'm trying to make clear that it being in The Collection despite having been bought by the City and County Museum does not reflect a change in ownership.

• Convert 15 grand; into what is your choice.

• Any idea of a good template? Tried using "To USD", but that one omits the comma (24000 instead of 24,000).

• "fragment on display"—public display.

• Done.

• I wanted to suggest you link "semi-naturalistic"; but a search shows little of any direct use without getting on toast. The nearest—semi-realism—leads to something both bizarre and crap in equal parts.
• "formed the terminal"—is this a speciaist term? If not, could we use "peak" or "tip" of a helmet?

• Maybe not specialist, but widely used. I've changed the first mention to "crest terminal" to make it a little more clear, whereas "peak" or "tip" would make it seem as if it went on the top of the helmet, not near the nose.

• Link Northern Europe?

• Done.

• "associating the boar with the gods"—"associating boars with the gods" would remove repetition.

• Done.

• Link garnet on its first use.

• Done.

• "The elongated head features a prominent mane running down the middle and terminating in a blunt snout"—atm this could be read as saying that the mane ended in a snout; perhaps (assuming I'm reading you right) "The elongated head, which features a prominent mane running down its middle, terminates in a blunt snout".

• Good point, reworded.

• "On each side above the snout are more grooved and gilded lines representing the mouth, including pointed tusks"—this almost beats one of mine for complexity; can we adjust to (again, something like) "There are grooved and gilded lines above the snout on both sides; these are thought to represent the mouth, and including pointed tusks". That "more" has to go, though, and I can't think of a way of working the tusks in. Perhaps a separate sentence.

• Reworded.

• "Two small eyes are formed with lentoid cabochon garnets set in beaded gold filigree work with a double collar"—chuck in a couple of commas? It's rather breathless.

• Done.

• "This is also gilded, and repeats on either side the pattern of a crouching quadruped with three toes on front and back feet and head twisted backwards, its jaws biting across its body and back foot"—can this be split?

• Done.

• Any reason D. Turner is only an initial Turner?

• Only his first initial was published; see discussion of this point in FunkMonk's review, above.

• Ah, "subsequently declared treasure"—partially explains my query above; treasure trove.
• "The City and County Museum, Lincoln—now known simply as The Collection"—clarify that it's the museum that's known as The Collection; atm it's ambiguous, and could imply that this single fragment is "the collection". A very small one  :)

• I think this one is probably clear enough as is—after all, if the name of the fragment was "The Collection," wouldn't that also be the title of the article?

• Link the august bodies the MLA and V&A.

• I'm sure the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association will be proud!

• "amidst a variety"—perhaps "alongside"?

• Done.

• Is AD necessary? MOS:ERA leaves it up to you.

• I think it's needed in places, considering there is also discussion of the BC years, and because readers' can't necessarily be expected to know what was happening in the 7th century AD, as opposed to in the 7th century BC.

• "the Sutton Hoo helmet...the Staffordshire helmet"—can you avoid the outbreak of helmets? You've managed it neatly in the following sentence.

• Done.

• "Hoo and perhaps York"—I ignored this in the lead, but here, it's begging for an explanation as to why it is only "perhaps" in the York helmet. Can the footnote be expanded a little to explain why the presence or otherwise of a boar is only a possibility?

• I'll look around a bit more, but I don't recall there being much more discussion than what is in the article already. The main thing, as I understand it, is that the teeth do not look like boar teeth.

• Might be worth linking Jennifer Foster per WP:REDYES; there's not much, but it's equally not impossible [49]).

• Done. That one's been on my to-do list for a while.

• " linguistically Celtic communities"—if you're drawing a distinction with Celts, say so; but are you?

• That's a revision to respond to Midnightblueowl's comment here.

• "The boar persisted in continental Germanic tradition during the nearly 400 years of Roman rule in Britain"—I can see what you're getting at, but it seems to be saying that something was happening in one country while something unconnected happened in another...perhaps give actual dates, following which you can fit in "during which time Britain was ruled, etc", if you think it necessary—bearing in mind you mention "Britain through 400 years of Roman rule" in the next sentence.

• Is this not clarified by the following sentence, "Its return to prominence in the Anglo-Saxon period ... may therefore suggest the post-Roman reintroduction of a Germanic tradition from Europe, rather than the continuation of a tradition in Britain through 400 years of Roman rule"?

• " the Anglo-Saxon boar appears to have been associated with protection; the Beowulf poet makes this clear"—well, if it makes it clear, then there's no need for "appears to" earlier; although I assume that what Beowulf says is at the interpretation of scholars, so perhaps something like " the Anglo-Saxon boar appears to have been associated with protection; the Beowulf suggests that...".

• How about "the Beowulf poet says as much"? I come close to overusing "suggests" as it is.

• Lastly, but most importantly, remember to insert this template at the top of the article.
  Happy days! Nice article, Usernameunique, hope this helps, cheers. ——SerialNumber54129 15:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129, many thanks for that thorough review. I think I've responded to all of your points above, adopting most of them. I couldn't get that template to work, though—perhaps you could add it for me? Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dank

• If the lead text stays like it is, then I agree with Dudley that the article title isn't quite right. I'm bringing this up because changing the article title later on can cause headaches. (I believe the coords prefer that you wait until after the article is promoted or archived before you move the article page.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused here. Are you suggesting renaming it now (because "changing the article title later on can cause headaches"), or after the end of this nomination (because "the coords prefer that you wait until after the article is promoted or archived before you move the article page")?
  • The lead says "attached it to a larger object, such as a helmet", so the lead is taking the position that we don't know that it was attached to a helmet. Assuming no further changes to the lead, then the article title should change, and the sooner the better ... but it will confuse the bots if it changes while a FAC is pending, so let's leave it alone until after the FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Johnbod, any thoughts on "Horncastle helmet fragment" vs. "Horncastle boar's head"? I like the consistency of the "... helmet fragment" article titles, but am leaning towards "boar's head" in this case, under the principle that "helmet fragment" is a conclusion," and "boar's head" is a type of meat description. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, i think it's better to avoid "in)-long". - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Reworded to The fragment is 40 mm (1.6 in) long and made of silver., which should do the trick.

Thanks for the comments, Dank. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil

Support on quality of research, and after minor ces; writing. A real pleasure to read, as always with this nominator. I realise I am posting after many unresolved prose reviews, which I have read through; this support is a culmination of those being resolved, plus bits and pieces since. Ceoil (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks much for the copyedit and support, Ceoil. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support Not much to say. This FAC looks like a well-trodden path. I've made some minor edits.

• "Garnet" why the cap?

• That (along with the contractions) were introduced in a copyedit above. Fixed.

• I might conclude the lede by saying something directly about the fragment.

• I could add something such as The Horncastle boar was presumably a continuation of this tradition., although much more and I think we would risk going beyond the sources.

• "The figure's head is twisted backwards, its jaws biting across its body and back foot, and has three toes on its front and back feet.[1][2]" Since technically the "its" in the final clause refers to "the figure's head" (heads don't have feet, mostly), I would start "The head of the figure ..."

• "The figure's head" and "the head of the figure" have the same flaw, I think. How about The figure's head is twisted backwards, its jaws biting across its body and back foot, which, like the front foot, has three toes.?

Looks generally good. I suppose there will be more scholarship directly about the fragment with the passage of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support, Wehwalt. Responses above. Agree re: more scholarship, which is inevitably a slow process. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Coord note

I note outstanding query related to Serial Number 54129 above but I think that can safely be left to post-promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.