Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2019

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2019 [1].

Norfolk, Virginia, Bicentennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin that had to be authorized twice, due to some misunderstandings in Congress. Passed through influence, twice, and an impressively cluttered design.Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I longed to find something to object to, chiefly from umbrage at the American appropriation of the name of Norfolk, but all I can conscientiously quibble about is the big mass of info box and quote box one on top of the other. If a less costive layout can be found it will make the page look more appealing. And I'd link "dogwood", which may be a common term in the US but is not known in these parts. But as to the content, it is a good read (a nice chuckle at the administrative cock-up, elegantly outlined), well and widely sourced, suitably illustrated and, as far as this layman can tell, comprehensive. Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 18:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve linked as requested and moved the quote box down. Thank you for the review and support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

Usual high standard, just a couple of quibbles you could address Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The bill was reported back to the Senate by Alva Adams of Colorado on June 20, with a report. — second report seems redundant and repetitive
Adjusted.
  • It was initially hoped that the initial bill —initially... initial is clunky
Done.
  • two spouses— unless they were Mormons, "two" seems redundant
Changed to a married couple. Thank you for the review and support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks done
  • Refs 7, 8 and 16 all link to a login page, so a subscription template or similar is required (as given in ref 6)
Done.
  • Page range formats should be consistent - compare 23, 24 & 26 with 30. I believe that the ref 30 format now carries MoS approval
Changed to match ref 30.

Subject to these minor issues, sources appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability, and are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the review, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Support by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • The only nit that I can find is in this sentence: In 1736, Norfolk was granted a charter as a royal borough by George II, and in 1753 the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie presented Norfolk with a ceremonial mace, making Norfolk the only American city to have a mace from colonial times. The "in 1753" should be set off by commas at the very least although I think that it would be better placed after "mace".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it as suggested, eliminating the need for more commas. Thank you for the reviews and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moise[edit]

  • "The bill was considered by the House of Representatives later the same day. Absalom W. Robertson of Virginia moved that the House pass it, stating that the bill authorized medals, but when questioned by Robert F. Rich of Pennsylvania, stated that the bill was for "silver coins"." Any information why he changed his story? Possibly a slip of the tongue, or a deliberate attempt to mislead? Moisejp (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a little further down talk of a push by some parties to get a coin instead of a medal, but it's not clear to me if or how Absalom's change of story was a deliberate part of this push. Moisejp (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that it was anything but an honest mistake made in the rush to get out of town. Thanks for the the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll have another look at the above on my second read-through. Still working on my first read-through. Another comment: "There was some controversy over the half dollar bearing as part of the mace the British Crown". Should this be "the half dollar bearing part of the mace of the British Crown" or maybe even "the half dollar bearing the mace of the British Crown" (it looks like the full mace)? I'm having trouble parsing "as part of the mace the British Crown". Moisejp (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified that ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning second read-through:

  • Lead: "The legislation required that all coins be dated 1936; thus, there are five dates on the half dollar, none of which are the date of coining, 1937." / Main text: "There are five dates on the coin, none of which is the year of minting, 1937." Sorry if I may be dense, but what are the five dates? I see 1936, 1636, and I think I see 1736. Are two of these years repeated somewhere else, and those are the five? I think it would be good if the specific five dates could be made clearer (again, apologies if it is clearly stated but I just missed it). Moisejp (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are three in the intermediate ring on the obverse, one on the outer ring at the bottom, and one on the reverse to either side of the mace.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, I see now. Well, those are all my comments and I'm happy to support. The article is very interesting. Note to coordinators: I also did several small copy edits as part of my review. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much obliged, thank you for the review and comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2019 [2].

Marchioness disaster[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those who remember it, the Marchioness disaster was a shocking occurrence. 51 people died after a large dredger ran over a night-time pleasure boat hosting a birthday party. After such a loss, the victims' families were treated shoddily by a stony-hearted bureaucracy: requests for an inquiry were denied; the hands were needlessly removed from the bodies; families were denied access to the remains; compensation was derisory. It took eleven years for decency to prevail in the form of an in-depth inquiry with far-reaching recommendations. It's the thirtieth anniversary of the tragedy this August, and time we ensured the article is the best it can be. – SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I do indeed remember it, with a shudder, and did not at all enjoy peer reviewing the article, but my few comments at the PR were duly dealt with, and I support the promotion of the article: it seems to me comprehensive, balanced, well and widely sourced, and meeting the FA criteria in every respect. Thank you, SchroCat, for bringing the article up to this level. Tim riley talk 17:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few items:

  • " The pleasure steamer Marchioness sank after being hit twice by the dredger Bowbelle, at about 1:46 am, between Cannon Street railway bridge and Southwark Bridge." I would consider cutting one or both commas.
  • " It took thirty seconds for Marchioness to sink; 24 bodies were later found within the ship when it was raised." I might cut "later". I think people understand that however long it took to raise, it was long enough for people to drown.
  • "some were former student friends" This reads a bit oddly. Were they no longer friends?
  • "In 1992 the families of the victims became aware that several of the hands had been removed from several of the bodies.[102]" I would cut the first instance of "several of" leaving "the hands ..." etc. I must admit it occurred to me to wonder how many hands the dead had to begin with, if several were removed.
  • "if he refused to hold the inquests, and he subsequently announced that they would go ahead.[105]
The resumed inquest " inquest or inquests?
  • "they stated that the agency "accepted that events which occurred in 1986 have no practical relevance on his current fitness".[123] The MCA also picked up on something that had been raised during the Clarke inquiry: that Henderson had forged certificates and testimonials of his service from 1985–1986. The MCA stated that they "deplored" the forgeries, which Henderson had used to gain his Master's Licence.[123]" These sentences seem to be in an odd order. I would expect, for example, the initial quote to come last.
Quite interesting. I hadn't known about this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. Your points all covered - hopefully suitably! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marchioness,_damaged_and_beached.png: the unique historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the subject, is historically significant - eg Tank Man. Also, possible to find a more reputable source confirming what this image depicts? That applies also to File:Damage_to_the_pleasure_cruiser_Marchioness.jpg
  • Tags now changed - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marchioness_overview.png: image description should include sourcing for your additions. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Nikkimaria - I'm much obliged to you, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supportfrom Nick-D[edit]

I remember this disaster being used as a key case study in an OH&S course I did (in Australia) about a decade ago, so it's an important topic to bring to FAC. I have the following comments:

  • "four of whom were crew or bar staff" - not sure about the "or" here as it suggests that the people sailing the ship were also running the bar, when the article later states that she had a crew of two and was also carrying two bar staff.
  • Can the "Marchioness" section go further into the ship's safety features, or the lack thereof? From my vague recollections of the training course, part of the problem was that she was not easy for passengers to exit and/or didn't carry enough life jackets.
  • I'd also suggest scaling up the map
  • "His senior in the department" - it seems better to use their title (perhaps after these words)
  • As the "Inquests and inquiries" section covers several investigations which took place over a lengthy period, I'd suggest splitting it into sub-sections. I'd suggest a sub-section for the flawed investigations in the 1980s and 1990s and one for the 1999-2000 inquiry which tried to set the record right. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nick. A couple I need to look some things up (and look closely at where to make the splits). Thanks very much for your other comments here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nick. I've addressed your comments - hopefully satisfactorily. Please let me know if there is anything you'd like worked on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I remember this too, and your article evokes it well. Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • She spent most of her life on the Thames etc —Doesn’t bother me, but I thought that we were supposed to refer to boats as “it” these days?
  • I thought so too, but I was pointed to WP:SHIPPRONOUNS, which says we’re ok as long as the use is consistent- SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • reconditioned to form an upper and lower saloon — sounds more like a rebuild than recondition
  • The ship's captain, Douglas Henderson, was 31; he undertook a Deep Sea apprenticeship until 1978 —odd stress to my ears, perhaps The ship's captain, Douglas Henderson, aged 31, undertook a Deep Sea apprenticeship until 1978?
  • "Second Mate" is capped, but not "captain" or "master"?
  • trimmed down —perhaps a gloss or link for we landlubbers?
  • six imperial pints —as in "I went down the rub-a-dub and necked six imperial pints"?. I’d prefer “six pints”, with a link to imperial pint
  • Done. (A problem with using the "convert" template, but I've bypassed that now. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merchant Shipping Act 1988—missing a preceding "the"?
  • English law provides no compensation for fatal accidents, other than for funeral expenses— Is it worth mentioning the Fatal Accidents Act 1976?
  • Yes. I'll be back with the sources tomorrow and I'll have a dig around for some info to add. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Jim, I'm much obliged. I've done the straightforward stuff, and I'll be back with the sources tomorrow, when I'll work on the remaining three points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the recondition bit as your call, otherwise no concerns so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jim. I've tweaked the 'recondition' part to say the upper works were rebuilt. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I participated in the peer review and made a few points there. I have since re-read the article and have a few more drafting points to suggest:

  • Lead: You should say who the "South Coast Shipping company" were. Also, the word "company" should be capitalised as part of the firm's title.
  • Lead final sentence: as written it appears that the increase in safety measures followed the 2000 report but I suspect there were more immediate measures taken in the aftermath of the disaster. Can you clarify?
  • Background – Marchioness: "run-up" requires a hyphen (per O D of E)
  • Background – Bowbelle: Para 3 begins: "At the time of the collision..." – clarify that this is referring to the Marchioness disaster rather than to the collision referred to in the previous paragraph
  • Collision section – 0.00am to 07.00 am: "at 1:49 am they reported to TNS that:..." I would replace "they" with Bowbelle, and delete "that", as what follows is a verbatim quotation, not a summary or paraphrase. Do we not know who on Bowbelle radioed this message? It sounds as though it was the captain
  • Reworked to show it was the captain, and deleted "that". - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inquests and inquiries - 1989 to 1997: It may be more accurate to say that the £6 million compensation was paid to the victims' families rather than to the victims. In the same section:
  • "liability to the crash" should be "liability for the crash" (although the words "for the crash" are largely redundant)
  • I would delete "by counsel for the organisation" as unnecessary detail and potentially confusing
  • "which meant that a full inquest would not take place in case it prejudiced any future trial". Suggest "could" rather than "would"
  • "four owners of Bowbelle": according to previous information Bowbelle was owned by East Coast Aggregates Limited, part of the larger RMC Group – I can't identify four owners
  • All the above in this section done - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1992 the families of the victims became aware that the hands had been removed from several of the bodies" - 25 is a lot more than several. And was it really three years before the families discovered this gruesome detail?
  • Yes. The families were not told at the time, and it only came out later. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compensation: I may be missing a point somewhere, but if the companies behind Bowbelle and Marchioness agreed to pay up to £6 million in compensation, why was action in the civil courts necessary to obtain compensation? Also, the statement "In most cases, the families of the Marchioness victims received little more than the cost of the funeral" implies that a lot less than £6 million was paid out.
  • Info about the "without prejudice" nature of the offers. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally this is a coherent account of a distressing event, and I look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian: I'm much obliged for your thoughts and comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, forgot to add my Support. Brianboulton (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks, Brian. I'm much obliged, as always, to your comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem[edit]

Some comments below with a few minor quibbles/observations, but I found nothing significant other than an unsourced sentence and an entry in the bibliography that need attention. The sources look to be of the necessary quality and reliability, and I saw nothing in a GBooks search to suggest that the article is not a comprehensive survey of available sources.

General

  • External links check: Obituary Eileen Dallaglio, Founder Marchioness Action Group (end of External links section), page not found
  • Last sentence in the Compensation section is unsourced.
  • This was added yesterday and I forgot to add the ref when I did it (big slap on the wrist!) Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New book added to the bibliography checks out fine. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography (Books)

  • The details provided for The Maritime Engineering Reference Book: A Guide to Ship Design, Construction and Operation are from two different editions that have different paginations (bolding indicates information provided in the bibliography):
1. 902-page edition published in 2008 by Elsevier with ISBN 978-0-7506-8987-8 (the Gbook link is to this edition);
2. 920-page e-book edition published in 2011 by Butterworth-Heinemann with ISBN 978-0-08-056009-0 Worldcat listing;
The difference in pagination might affect the page numbers in the refs, so I think this needs to be addressed;
  • How odd: now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less odd, now I look closer: the pre-tweaked version used the citation provided by http://reftag.appspot.com/ when the Google book link was added, so the masterfile used by the reftag contains slightly duff info (only slightly duff as Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier, which explains part of the confusion. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not familiar with that tool, but just about every source review I've done has these kind of inconsistencies when both GBook link and ISBN numbers are provided. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patrick Stephens, publisher of The Ships That Saved an Army: A Comprehensive Record of the 1,300 'Little Ships' of Dunkirk, appears to be located in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, according to Worldcat, not Sparkford, Somerset, as stated in the bibliography.

Bibliography (Journals)

  • doi link for Gibson's Toward an Intermediate Position on Corporate Moral Personhood is dead;
  • That works for me - can you try again? - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously just a glitch. Fine now. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: There's an OCLC number (537997776) available for Ships Monthly according to Worldcat, though I don't believe it's a deal breaker if it's not specified in the bibliography;
  • FYI: Also an OCLC number (71257254) and an ISSN number (2329-3179) available for Shipping and Trade Law according to Worldcat, though again, not a major issue.

Bibliography (News articles)

  • Cooper's Pleasure boat disaster on River Thames was a birthday voyage from celebration to tragedy is missing the publisher (Independent?);
  • Does Report calls for Thames Lookouts by the Guardian have no author info, or has that been mistakenly missed from the bibliography?
  • Just curious. Some news items have links but no page numbers (e.g. Ecott in the Guardian), most have page numbers but no links (e.g.Dyer in the Guardian). Any reason?
  • It depends on where they were found. Some of the articles pre-date the internet, so they are paper versions; some online articles don't make the newspaper. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thought as much. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Factotem (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Factotem, I'm much obliged to you. I think I have covered all the necessary in this series of edits, but please let me know if I've missed any, or something else comes to mind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. All good now. Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2019 [3].

Salih ibn Mirdas[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Salih ibn Mirdas, an ambitious and energetic emir from a powerful medieval nomadic Arab tribe in northern Syria who founded the Mirdasid emirate of Aleppo in the early 11th century. He ruled the city between 1025 until his death in battle against an equally ambitious Fatimid general. His sons and grandsons successively ruled Aleppo for another 50 years, with interruptions. Salih began his career seizing strategically-located fortresses in the Euphrates valley and confronting the Hamdanid holdovers who ruled Aleppo. He ultimately evicted the latter, but they were replaced by Fatimid governors. Later, when the disparate Arab tribes of Syria united for the first time in centuries, Salih used the momentum to attack the Fatimids throughout Syria and finally conquer Aleppo. He paid them nominal allegiance afterward. The historians of his time hold that Salih's emirate, held together by the strength and solidarity of his tribe, Shia Muslim in orientation and friendly to Christians, was well-oiled and just. I've been working on the article on/off since 2016 and it's currently a GA. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use |upright= rather than fixed px size to scale images
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Salih_ibn_Mirdas_gold_dinar_1028.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaia (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nikkimaria, not sure what you mean. Any idea how or what kind of tag I need for this? —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pictured object will be in the public domain due to its age - you just need to add one of the PD templates based on copyright expiration to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I’ve added the PD-100 years template for the original work. Let me know if this satisfies the requirement. —Al Ameer (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

Impressed at first read-through. Back in the next day or so after close perusal. Tim riley talk 19:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim riley. Looking forward to your thoughts/suggestions. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have only two small points on the prose:
  • "Newfound" – the article is in AmE, and perhaps "newfound" is OK therein, but it looks very odd to an English eye.
  • "executed and confiscated the estates of numerous..." – for clarity I'd make this "executed, and confiscated the estates of, numerous..."

That's all from me. Happy to support. A most readable article; thoroughly and widely referenced; as well illustrated as I imagine is possible; balanced in content; seemingly comprehensive, to this layman's eye; meeting the FA criteria in my view. I enjoyed reading this excellent and instructive article, and I hope we can look forward to more FACs from the same editor. – Tim riley talk 22:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks for the glowing remarks and your support for this nomination. I made the change suggested by your second point on the prose. As for the first, I like "newfound", but if you have a word that makes better sense, I'll take your suggestion. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"newfound" is for all I know OK in American dictionaries, but it looks odd to a non-American. The Oxford English Dictionary hyphenates the word: "new-found" Tim riley talk 23:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Looks interesting, will have a look soon. At first glance, I wonder why one of the photo captions doesn't state the date of the photography, when all the others do? FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you’re gonna take a look at this, considering your experience in the topic area. I’ve made the captions consistent as far image dates are concerned. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Aleppo in infobox capion?
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation for footnote 2?
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nothing else is known about Mirdas" I assume this refers to Salih ibn Mirdas's father, but readers might think it refers to Salih ibn Mirdas' own early life or something (if they interpret Mirdas as a "last name in this sentence).
Should it be “him”, “his father”, “Salih’s father” or “Mirdas ibn Idris”?
I would just spell out the name. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latter was strategically" Why not just "the town"? "The latter" implies you could mistake the man for a place.
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with local toughs" Thugs?
Yes. I think “toughs” is more neutral than “thugs”, but if you don’t see a problem with the latter, I’ll use “thugs” instead. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware "toughs" was a word, what does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Toughs is a word, but Bianquis uses “roughs”. Should I just change it to “ruffians”? —Al Ameer (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ruffians is probably closer to the source. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why spell out Aziz al-Dawla at every mention? Should only be necessary the first time (as you do with other names)?
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aziz al-Dawla was assassinated" By who?
Clarified. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zakkar views Salih's destruction of Aleppo's walls as a tactic" Earlier you just say the towers of the walls?
Clarified. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who played a secondary role to an amīr" Maybe amir should be explained too (or spelled "emir"), as emirate is spelled with an e here (readers might not make the connection), and you also mention "Banu 'Amir".
Done. Just changed it to “emir” throughout. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further down you also say "and several emirs from other clans", so might be best to just say emir throughout.
See above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hassan ibn Mufarrij is spelled out twice in succession.
Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Homs is a much more common spelling than Hims, should it be used?
Done, did the same for Ba’albak/Baalbek. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which continued, with occasional interruption, until 1080" Who took over then?
This is a very interesting point I had considered adding then didn’t out of concern for focus/concision. The fact that you’ve raised it makes me believe my original consideration was correct. After the Mirdasids, another Arab emir, the Uqaylid Muslim ibn Quraysh took over for a year and then was rid of by a Turkic ruler. The reasons it’s interesting is because, as Zakkar and Bianquis note, the end of the Mirdasids signaled the end of Arab rule in Syria. From that point until World War I 800 years later, a series of Kurdish, Turkic or otherwise non-Arab dynasties/states would control this region. I will find a concise way to mention this in the article about the founder of the Mirdasid dynasty. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be very nice for historical context, I'll support once it is added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the map and extra context does it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and helping improve the article FunkMonk. —Al Ameer (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • The sources appear to be of the appropriate scholarly standards of quality and reliability. About two-thirds of all references are to a single source
  • Yes, Zakkar’s highly comprehensive work on the Aleppo Emirate is apparently the ultimate secondary source for Salih’s biography and actually appears to be a major source used by Bianquis, Lev and Amabe as well. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few minor presentational points:
  • Bianquis and Crawford both require subscription for access. The (subscription required) template should be added
  • De Slane is out of alphabetical sequence in the bibliography
  • Lev publisher location is missing
  • Likewise for Sobernheim
  • Although google links are included for a number of the source books, they do not usually include the reference pages in their previews and are therefore somewhat worthless. Spotchecking was thus extremely limited. I did, however, see the sentence: "The fall of Sidon, in particular, alarmed the Fatimids, who had largely prioritized control of Syria's port cities over the inland towns and feared that other ports would subsequently recognize Bedouin rule" cited to Lev, p. 51. I was unable to see where this statement is supported by the source.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for spotting that. I was a page number off. It’s pages 52 and 53. Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All sources issues resolved satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Constantine[edit]

Glad to see this here, I will start reviewing it shortly. Constantine ✍ 08:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone through the article and made a few minor copyedits, feel free to revert.
  • The EI2 article on al-Maʾarrī was not written by Gibb, but by P. Smoor
  • IIRC, the Citadel of Aleppo as it stands today (or rather, stood until recently) is mostly an Ayyubid-era structure. This should be noted in the picture, otherwise one might assume that it looked like this during Salih's lifetime.
  • @Cplakidas: Good point which I hadn’t considered. The same goes for the Rahba fortress image, which was also an entirely new Ayyubid construction. I’m trying to formulate a concise way to modify this, could you suggest a rephrasing of the caption? Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Al Ameer son: Something like "The present structure/The structure as depicted in the photograph dates from the XX century" should suffice. Constantine ✍ 12:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is the occasional inconsistency of terminology between English and Arabic, e.g. wazir vs vizier, or amir vs emir. I would suggest standardizing it, and, at least for the terms that are relatively well known in English (emir and vizier), to use the English forms throughout, with the Arabic term in parentheses at the first occurrence.
  • Done. I’ll just omit the Arabic entirely for those terms. Let me know if there are others that would fit this category. Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it is a fine, very detailed, and well written article. I am familiar with the events mostly from a Byzantine/Fatimid perspective, but couldn't find anything missing, and I think it is easy to follow even for the lay reader. I'll have another look in a couple of days, and if my comments above are addressed, will be happy to support then. Constantine ✍ 12:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine, your input is always highly valued. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On looking through the article again, I realized that it is missing a map. If you don't have the time/skills to make one, you can use the option of simply pinpointing the locations on a map of Syria (cf. what I did in Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)). Constantine ✍ 12:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a map is sorely needed. I have a request pending from Ro4444, but I’m not sure if that will happen or not. I lack the skills unfortunately. I’ll try the way you mentioned for the Fatimid invasion article. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: I've added a map like the one you mentioned in lieu of a more detailed map that better depicts the contemporary political scene, which I hope to add in the near future. What's really needed is a detailed and accurate map of the 11th-century Mashriq showing the Byzantine, Fatimid and Abbasid states and the constellation of Arab emirates and tribes (Mirdasids, Uqaylids, Numayrids, Mazyadids and others) that controlled the region in the decades prior to the ascent of the Turkic powers and Crusaders. Such a map could be applied to numerous relevant articles. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Yes, such a map would be valuable, I may start one when I have a bit more time on my hands. I've also had another look, and cannot find anything really missing. One final thing, you have Sayf al-Dawla in the "see also" section, and though I can guess why, for the average reader that might not be clear; perhaps add a brief description, "Sayf al-Dawla, founder of the Hamdanid emirate of Aleppo" or something like that? I am nevertheless switching to support as this is not a critical issue. Well done, once again. Constantine ✍ 20:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support ;) I added the description. Al Ameer (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2019 [4].

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiyo's first airstrike was a failure and her second and last was a disaster. The ship had a peculiar history as she rarely conducted operations with her aircraft aboard as the IJN adopted a policy of flying carrier air groups from land-bases to minimize the risk to its carriers in 1943–44. She missed the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands because of an generator fire and survived one torpedo attack before being sunk by another during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a year ago and I've just updated it a bit to satisfy the FA criteria. As usual, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unlinked or unexplained jargon and look forward to working with reviewers to fix any issues identified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

I reviewed this at ACR a year ago. It was a fine article then and it seems only to have got better. A handful of picky points, but a support anyway; well up to standard.

  • "each approximately 153 metres (502 ft 0 in) long, 15 metres (49 ft 3 in) wide and 5 metres (16 ft 5 in) high" Can I suggest that given the "approximately" and the main measurements being to the nearest metre, the inches in the conversions are spurious accuracy?
  • "The remaining aircraft of her air group (16 Zeros and 17 D3As) were flown off for Rabaul, on the island of New Britain, on 23 October where the fighters escorted bombers attacking Guadalcanal the following day." Should that be ',from where ...'?
  • I think it worth a reminder of the date in the final paragraph. One has to read the paragraph two above in some detail to work it out.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Really? It's in the first line of the first paragraph of the section. Thanks for reviewing this so promptly. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • In exchange for a 60 percent subsidy of her building costs by the Navy Ministry "American percent"
    • Not sure what you mean here. Is "per cent" a Britishism?
  • Yes "per cent" is used in British Oxford English [5]and some Australians uses it too.
  • sets with a total of 56,250 shaft horsepower (41,950 kW) No metric horsepower?
    • Most times, my sources never use PS because it's so close of Imperial horsepower.
  • I see understandeble.
  • Hiyō's flight deck was 210.3 metres (690 ft 0 in) The "in" isn't necessary.
  • each approximately 153 metres (502 ft 0 in) Again the "in" isn't necessary.
  • The hangars were served by two aircraft elevators. I'm not sure but the Brits uses lift instead of elevator. So my question is. Is this really the official name of the lift? Because in the "Aircraft elevators" section of the elevator's article doesn't say it is the officially name. There is even no ref to support this claim.
  • As a result of the lessons learned from the Battle of Midway Hmm "American learned".
    • Okay, this one truly surpasses my knowledge of BritEng, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to. Can you unpack this cryptic remark for me?
  • Yes the Brits uses both but it is more commen to use learnt same with the British word dreamt and not dreamed or burnt and not burned. However by Oxford you only use the word "learned" as an adjective not as a verb which isn't the case - see link. [6]
  • a dozen 12.7-centimetre (5.0 in) Again the "in" isn't necessary.
  • This latter system was fitted on the port side of the hull, outboard of the rear elevator. The Brits uses lift instead of elevator.
  • their launching point 180 miles (290 km) north of Lunga. shouldn't the metric unit be first? Or do you mean nautical miles? if not why isn't there nautical miles? If yes why are there not miles in it?
  • At 05:15 each ship launched Hmm was this the local time or Japan's time?
  • when Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa learned Again "American learned plus Vice Admiral"
  • the Japanese turned away to the northwest to regroup American northwest"
  • Vice Admiral Marc Mitscher ordered Again "American Vice Admiral"
  • 56,250 shp (41,950 kW) In the infobox no metric horsepower?
  • 6 × twin 12.7 cm (5.0 in) dual-purpose guns In the infobox the oh isn't necessary.
  • Belt: 50 mm (2.0 in) In the infox the oh after the two isn't necessary.
  • The Americans recaptured Attu before the fleet could depart to counterattack. "American counterattack" - see link [7]

That's me Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sturmvogel 66: Hey Sturm, you know you forgot two of my comments. The first one is in the when Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa learned. You forgot to change the American learned with learnt. Second is you forgot the The Americans recaptured Attu before the fleet could depart to counterattack. sentence where I mentioned to replace the American counterattack with the Britich one (counter-attack). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Captions are fine. Kees08 (Talk) 07:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking these out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, should be good on images. Kees08 (Talk) 00:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Not sure it makes sense to simply state "Aircraft carried: 53" given the variance
    • By their nature aircraft carrier capacities vary depending on the mix of aircraft aboard.
  • Be consistent in use of & vs "and" in short cites
    • Hoist by my own petard!
  • What makes combinedfleet a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's co-owned by a published expert on the topic and it cannot be edited by outsiders. Thanks for checking on these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "with the loss of 247 officers and ratings." I might add something like ", "about a fifth of her complement."
  • I would add some sort of introductory phrasing, say, "After conversion from an ocean liner, ..." to the start of the second paragraph of Design and description.
  • In "Construction and career", I might make it clearer that (as I surmise) she was never finished as an ocean liner, but was purchased and converted while still under construction. Also, can anything more be said about what she would have been as an ocean liner? Did it resemble some of the line's other ships?
  • Don't have much info available, but I've added most of what I've got.
  • "In the meantime, Captain Michio Sumikawa relieved Beppu on 30 November.[14][16]" I would cut the first three words.
  • " as was Sakamaki and his staff" I would say "were" not "was"
  • "The ship was under repair at Yokosuka until 15 September, which included the installation of additional 2.5 cm Type 96 AA guns," Technically, "which included" refers to nothing. Suggest changing "was under repair" to "underwent repairs"
  • Reworked the whole sentence, see how it reads now.
  • "The ship arrived there on 22 December and disembarked her aircraft before proceeding on to Saipan to deliver more aircraft.[14][20] " From Singapore to Truk, fine, but Saipan is not "on" given the direction, but involves something of a reversal of course.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading this so closely. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

Not much, mostly nitpicks:

  • I wonder if the launching field should be moved from the Izumo Maru portion of the box to the Hiyo portion
  • It seems somewhat disjointed to jump basically from "designed to be converted" to "After her conversion" - it would be worthwhile to explain a bit of what happened
    • What do you mean? Why the IJN purchased her when it did? No idea, none of my sources address that issue. They talk about the covert program for converting ocean liners to auxiliary carriers, but I'm saving the details on that for the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rear Admiral Kakuji Kakuta's flagship" - as I recall, the MoS advises against three links next to each other, so you might refactor to "flagship of Rear Admiral Kakuji Kakuta"
  • "the New Zealand minesweeper Moa" - New Zealand doesn't seem right to me, but I can't think of what would be the correct demonym - "the Kiwi minesweeper Moa"? haha
  • Link submarine, torpedo, boiler room. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, linked in the lede, OK.

All done except for one noted above. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2019 [8].

Lorde[edit]

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC) and De88[reply]

This article is about Kiwi sensation Lorde, who has released two studio albums and received widespread plaudits from critics and audiences alike. I and De88 have worked on the article since January based on previous PR inputs, and now believe the article is ready for the gold star. — HĐ (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Resolved concerns from Nikkimaria
  • suggest adding alt text
  • Added
  • File:Lorde_signature.png: signatures are typically eligible for copyright protection in common law countries like NZ
  • Removed after considering its role in the article
  • File:Royals_Lorde.ogg: FUR should be completed
  • Done
  • File:Lorde_wax_at_Madame_Tussauds_Hollywood.jpg is currently tagged for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed, awaiting further notifications from Commons — HĐ (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Does the article still need revisions regarding its images? De88 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved concerns from Aoba47
  • Something about the word “product” in this part (Universal Music commercially released the pair's first product,) sounds strange to me. I have never seen the word used to reference a music release (i.e. an extended play) before, but that could just be me. The same question applies to when you use “product” in the body of the article (i.e. a product of her and Little's collaboration).
  • Reworded to "collaborative effort". May still not be the best word choice, but I hope it conveys the idea better.
  • Thank you for the update. I think it works, but I will leave that up to the other editors as well. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include the year that Feed was first published in the prose.
  • Added
  • I have a question about these two phrase “Year twelve” and “Year thirteen”. I am an American so I am completely unfamiliar with how the education system is structured in New Zealand, but in the articles linked with these phrases, the numbers are both spelled out in numerals. Does that make a difference?
  • I think not. They can either be numerals or spelled out in the words "twelve" and "thirteen".
  • That is what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure since I am unfamiliar with the system. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by this part (During this time, she began writing songs), because the previous paragraph mentions how Lorde performed original music. Wouldn’t it make more sense to move that sentence (i.e.  She later performed her first original songs at the Victoria Theatre in November 2011.) to connect these two ideas together. I was initially confused when reading the first part, because I had thought that she had already written music and I had to double-check the dates.
  • Revised the flow
  • I would link “EP” on its first use in the lead and the body of the article.
  • Done
  • I would revise this part (After being freely downloaded 60,000 times,) to something like “After being downloaded for free 60,000 times” as the current wording sounds a little awkward to me. The current wording brought up a somewhat funny image for me of people being forced to download the EP, as opposed to when they could just “freely” do so on their own accord.
  • Agreed. Reworded — HĐ (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about the paragraph on her performances in the “Public image” section. The topic sentence (i.e. Lorde's onstage persona, particularly her signature unchoreographed dancing, has attracted polarised reception from audiences.) is very good, and the two Fader sentences following it provide a very good understanding of the praise for her performances. However, I think you should add a bit about why people do not like her performance style. You mention in the topic sentence that it polarized audiences, but you go on to only mention a positive review. I would find a negative to balance it out.
  • Added bits of information
  • Do you think you should include a small part about how Lorde responded to the South Park parodies? I am not sure if that is too off-topic, but I was just curious.
  • I even think the inclusion of South Park parodies is unnecessary. The episodes are indeed mentioned a lot, but the contents of the parodies focus on Lorde's looks i.e. she looks older than she's supposed to. I want to hear your opinion on this anw
  • I understand. That's why I was uncertain about adding the reception. I think the inclusion of the parodies is good as it currently stands, because it is brief, but I would guess that some people may only know Lorde or were at least introduced to her through the show so it would be helpful to keep it if that makes sense. I will also leave that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the article. Just make sure to keep updating it as I would believe her career will only continue from this point on. I have only focused on the prose, and I have not looked at anything related to the images or the sources themselves. I hope this helps at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your comments are very much appreciated :) I have addressed your concern as above. Please feel free to add more comments! — HĐ (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. I remember that Lorde was compared to Lana del Rey by music critics, and Lorde said something about Rey's music being "unhealthy". I am not sure if it is appropriate for this article though, but I wanted to raise it to your attention. Hope you have a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that information is better suited for “Royals” since that song was a reaction to the hip hop-influenced artists she was listening to at the time (e.g. Kanye, Jay-Z, Lana, etc.) De88 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense to me, thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in pretty good shape, but at times the quality of the prose and depth of coverage fall short of FA standard. I have the following comments:

  • "Bearing fascination with aristocracy in her stage name" - this is a bit clunky
  • I have yet to find better wording... Would you mind suggesting an alteration? — HĐ (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Drive-by comment by KJP1. Agree it doesn't work at the moment - looking at the source, [104], I think it's saying something like, "Her stage name indicating her early fascination with royalty and aristocracy, she is known for..." It's still not great prose, but it is clearer as to meaning.) KJP1 (talk 09:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the comment! I have revised the sentence to make it clearer :) — HĐ (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She has sold over 5 million albums, as of June 2017, and 17 million songs, as of November 2014" - this seems very dated
  • Removed songs sales in the lead — HĐ (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also appears towards the end of the article. It would be much better to update these figures. Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very hard to update figures when Billboard provides nothing and the only figures available happen to be in forums. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it hard to believe that there have not been publicly-available sales figures for a fairly major artist in over two years. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me, I have looked to the ends of Google searching for any recent sales updates... nothing. I spent several months typing specific keywords to find sources to no avail. Anticipated a sales update for Pure Heroine fifth anniversary and nothing was updated, unfortunately. De88 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lorde is not very appealing to the mainstream like other big names i.e. Taylor or Gaga, so I don't think this is unusual. But the five million album sales as of June 2017 is fairly updated imo — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • June 2017 is the month her most recent album was released (on 16 June), so it doesn't seem very recent. The downloads figure is very outdated. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I understand your concern, and I myself want to include the most recent sales figures, I regret to say the current sources are the most recent and reliable ones. — HĐ (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this time, Maclachlan tried to put Lorde with a succession of songwriters" - also a bit clunky
  • Removed "succession", replaced it with "different". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded, hoping that this time it conveys the idea better — HĐ (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid not: the current structure is both over-complex, and inaccurate (producers produce, not songwriters). I'd suggest something along the lines of "During this time, Maclachlan attempted to partner Lorde with several different producers and songwriters, but without success". Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed — HĐ (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After being downloaded for free 60,000 times, the EP was commercially released by UMG in March 2013" - the relationship between the two things here is unclear: did the 60,000 downloads automatically trigger UMG to release the EP, or did they sign up to do so when the EP proved successful?
  • I added bits of info, hope it helped — HĐ (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue hasn't been addressed. The current wording (with the very exact number) implies that this was automatic. "Maclachlan viewed the decision as sensible because it helped promote Lorde to a considerable number of audiences before establishing her name in the industry" is also wordy for what it does (and "a considerable number of audiences" seems a bit odd - a "range of audiences" seems better). Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reconstructed the whole part — HĐ (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Amidst her solo activities, Lorde joined the surviving members of Nirvana to perform "All Apologies" during the band's induction ceremony at the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame in April 2014" - this seems a pretty major achievement (I imagine that virtually any musician born since the late 1970s would have wanted this gig). Why did the Nirvana artists select her?
  • I added comments from two of the band's members; I also added bits of info on Pure Heroine's lyrics that led to plaudits from the media and the band — HĐ (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded to "which contrasted with the mainstream music scene" — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the 2016 Brit Awards in February, Lorde joined the surviving members of David Bowie's final touring band in a performance of "Life on Mars" in tribute to the late English singer" - ditto
  • Removed "in tribute to the late English singer" and added "tribute" before performance. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not addressed, and "Bowie's son Duncan Jones appreciated her performance as "beautiful"" doesn't read well. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean the reason why Lorde was selected? If so, I have added bits of info — HĐ (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later that month, she co-wrote and provided uncredited background vocals" - the source doesn't say that her singing was uncredited.
  • Although she is not credited on Gone Now, no source explicitly states "uncredited vocals". Removed this. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album produced two further singles" - not sure about this?
  • Do you mean the wording? It's perfectly fine imo — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The album didn't "produce" anything: it's an inanimate object. Lorde's label released two other singles from the album. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording now implies that there were other singles. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What reason give Lorde give for cancelling her concert in Israel? As this led to some controversy, she presumably explained her rationale - or if she didn't this should also be noted.
  • Her reason was stated in the article: "...an online campaign by Palestinian solidarity activists supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really - why did she make this decision? (e.g. what were her specific concerns?). Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good, but "did not explicitly indicate her reasons for cancellation" isn't grammatically correct - "her reasons for cancelling" or similar would work better. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Contemporary critics perceived her music upon the release of Pure Heroine" - this is a bit over-complicated, and written in the passive voice
  • I restructured this sentence a bit; I'm not sure if it's passive voice because the sentence is (to me) clearly in active voice — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? I think the sentence sounds perfectly fine. That said, I want to have your suggestion — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Melodrama was a departure from the singer's signature minimalist style" - as it was her second album, it seems a bit of a stretch to say that it represented a break in a "signature" style, especially when the article previously notes that Lorde and various critics don't see her music as belonging to a specific genre.
  • Reworded to simply "its predecessor" — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "detailing that it was" ... "Vice analysed that" ... "Lorde detailed that the foundation" ... "expressing that she should be" - also a bit clunky.
  • Reworded — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Songwriting for "Tennis Court" is the exception; Lorde wrote the song's lyrics on an instant instrumental track" - this is unclear
  • Changed "instant instrumental track" to "after its melody was produced". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's less clear I'm afraid, especially given the specific meaning of "produced" in the music context. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to have your suggestion on alternate wordings Reworded — HĐ (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the singer clarified herself" - when had she said anything which needed clarifying? She appeared to be explaining her approach.
  • Reworded — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical reception of Lorde is generally positive" - the para then only presents praise. What are the more critical viewpoints?
  • "Critical reception" here refers to reception/analyses of credible critics, which is not necessarily negative/disapproving. — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Generally" implies there's been unfavourable commentary, which I believe is the case. The article is pretty positive about this artist, when the article on Pure Heroine notes it received a few 3 star reviews. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pure Heroine was her debut, so a few critics were unsure if she could crack into stardom. I could not find any negative comments regarding Lorde's musical style or lyrics. While the artist has been the darling of music journalists, I opt for "generally positive" because I don't want to sound biased by phrasing it as "universally positive" or similar wordings — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that I don't follow that logic. Her first album received some luke-warm reviews, and her second album some 4 star reviews, so there's obviously some commentary arguing she could have been doing things better. This should be discussed. If it was to be the case that all commentary has been favourable as you state, the article should also state this rather than present readers off with a misleading statement. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her signature unchoreographed dancing" - is it really "signature"?
  • OK fair enough. The use of this in the NYT is particularly compelling. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has attracted polarised reception from audiences" - bit wordy ("has polarised audiences" does the same thing)
  • Given Lorde's musical style, why is anyone commenting on her on-stage dancing? She's not the type of musician who performs dance routines, and it seems surprising that anyone would expect this.
  • "NPR placed her at number 12 on their 2018 poll" - if it was a poll, wouldn't she have placed 12th due to public votes, rather than have been placed there by NPR? Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "readers" before poll. I think that fixes the issue regarding whether it was a poll voted by NPR's writers or readers. De88 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afraid not. She placed in the NPR poll - unless they rigged it, NPR didn't place her anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Nick-D:, we believe we have addressed your concerns as above. Your comments are very much appreciated :) — HĐ (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an extra comment, "The media has dubbed her the "voice of a generation"" isn't quite right - the actual line in the news story is "Lorde’s sharp narrative observations – on both the single, and her critically acclaimed follow-up album, Pure Heroine – have led to her being labelled the voice of her generation". The quote is a bit off, and the source doesn't attribute this to "the media", though it's probably not too long a bow to draw. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for further inputs. In the meantime, would you mind crossing out the addressed concerns or grouping them into a collapsed list? That would facilitate our works better :) — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already identified the concerns I regarded as unaddressed above. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with HĐ. It becomes very difficult to determine which comments still need to be addressed and which need to be fixed with a laundry list of sub-comments. De88 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not standard practice to strike or collapse FAC comments. The ones I've re-raised above are still "live". Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, we believe we have addressed all of your concerns, except for critics' description of Lorde's music upon the release of Pure Heroine. We would like to hear your suggestion of word choice — HĐ (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those changes all look good. I'd like to see a source review before supporting though given that the two sources I looked at didn't fully support what was referenced to them. Sorry for the slow response - my Wikipedia time has been limited over the last few days. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind telling us which sources did not support what was referenced to them so we can improve them? De88 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the two issues above. Both are now resolved, but I think that a full source review is needed. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, given Brian's source review below, would you say that all your concerns have been addressed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Yes they have been. I'm pleased to support this nomination, and apologise to the nominators for not doing so earlier. Nice work with this article, and with responding to my comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ArturSik[edit]

Resolved concerns from User:ArturSik
  • I would spell out all numbers 0 to 9 in words and everything else in numerals for consistency
  • "After being downloaded for free 60,000 times," - don't think we need "for free" since we already know that from previous sentence
  • Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lorde's debut studio album Pure Heroine including the single "Royals"" - I think "containing" would work better
  • Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no mention of her golden globe nomination in the prose. While it appears in the 'Achievements' section I think it should also be mentioned in the section about her contribution to the soundtrack.
  • Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lorde joined the surviving members of David Bowie's final" - I would reword that since it starts off exactly like the sentence about her performance with Nirvana. maybe something like "At the 2016 Brit Awards in February, Lorde and David Bowie's final touring band gave a tribute performance of his 1971 song "Life on Mars"."?
  • Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In August, she announced on Instagram that her then-upcoming second studio album had been written and was in production stages" - since the album has already been released I don't think we need that here, it's belongs in the album's article
  • Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lead single from the album, "Green Light", was released in March 2017 to widespread acclaim;" - here I would start off this sentence with "The lead single from her second studio album Melodrama, "Green Light"...."
  • Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and then I would get rid of "Lorde revealed the title of the album, Melodrama, simultaneously with the release of the single." completely
  • May I ask why? I think that bit should be included — HĐ (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I got carried away with editing the entire article. I should have consulted with you over this. De88 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Haha that's fine. Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HĐ: it's redundant; when I was writing my featured article I was given a great advice, to consider what information included in the article will be significant in 50 or 100 years. I personally don't think it's relevant when she revealed the album's name. ArturSik (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she added an "e" after the name Lord, which she felt was too masculine, to make it more feminine" - add the bolded word
  • I think "feel something + adj" is grammatically correct — HĐ (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider replacing the picture in the "2012–2015" section for one that faces the article, there's plenty of choice
  • Replaced — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove link for Grammy Award in 'Achievemtns' section as it's already been linked in one of the previous sections
  • Done by De88 — HĐ (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's it from me. ArturSik (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Took care of each suggestion, except for replacing the image in the "2012–2015" section". I'll leave it up to HĐ to revert or change any of the edits I made using these comments. De88 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing all my comments. I support this for promotion. ArturSik (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comments are very much appreciated. Thanks so much for your input :) HĐ (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis[edit]

Resolved concerns from User:SatDis

Well done with the article - it's succinct and informative, and not too long. All of the references appear to be without issues also. Just a few comments, mainly nit-picky grammar points. Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.

  • Make sure there is always a comma before "including" or "such as", especially in the lead.
  • I'm seeing some inconsistencies with "Maclachlan" - is it lower case or upper case "L"?
  • Consider placing the accent above "cafés"?
  • Does Year thirteen need a capital for "Thirteen" as it is in the link? Same for Year twelve. Also, perhaps don't say "finishing" Year 13 if she didn't start it? Maybe "return to attend" or similar?
  • For Melodrama, can you rephrase "record charts" to something like "album charts"? I interpreted "record" as an "achievement"; a bit confusing.
  • It's worth considering having the dates for the tours read as (2013–14) and (2017–18) for ease of reading. That's just my preference, of course it's up to you.

Just out of curiosity, has Lorde been pursuing any projects post the Melodrama tour? SatDis (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: Thank you for your comments. Went ahead and took care of pretty much all the suggestions you pointed out sans the one about the year dates for her tours. Normally, I would place year dates on tours but it feels kind of odd to do so when her tours are referenced as common nouns (e.g. "international world tour"), rather than proper nouns (e.g. Pure Heroine Tour, Melodrama World Tour). I do not know if there is a Wikipedia policy that mentions this. If so, let me know. De88 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@De88: Looks good! Apologies, I was referring to the "Tours" section at the bottom of the article; I should've been more clear. I agree with you on the common nouns.SatDis (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Oh, yes. I know what you mean now. Going back to your last question, Lorde pretty much vanished from social media after she faced several controversies and went into hiding since her tour ended. The only news I heard was that her next record would be "born around the piano". No future collaborations in the works, though some suspected a song with The 1975 after their manager liked a tweet mentioning Lorde and the band. Nothing ever came into fruition. De88 (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @De88: Thanks for the reply and for addressing the comments. I support this nomination. I was wondering if you could provide a quick review for my article at Hi-5 (Australian band)? It would be greatly appreciated, even if it is just a few comments. Regards. SatDis (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Quality and reliability
  • The sources are largely made up from newspaper and magazine articles (on and off-line), major broadcasters, and a few well-chosen websites. They appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability.
  • Verifiability
  • I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verifiability and close paraphrasing. Most checked out satisfactorily; a couple of minor issues:
  • Ref 61: "Later that month, she co-wrote and provided background vocals for American indie pop band Bleachers's song "Don't Take the Money", taken from their album Gone Now". No mention of Gone Now in the source.
  • Ref 89: "During the recording process, Lorde stated that Frank Ocean's 2016 album Blonde inspired her to experiment with using an "anti-chorus." No specific mention of experimenting with "anti-chorus" in source.
  • External links
  • All links to sources are working, according to the external links checker tool
  • Formatting
  • There is inconsistency in the use of retrieval dates for archived links. In many such cases retrieval dates are omitted for such links but in others (refs 11, 16, 106, 109, 110, 111, 128) retrieval dates are included. I would prefer to see retrieval dates added in all such cases (there have been past discussions about this) but in any event it is necessary to be consistent.
  • Regarding retrieval dates for archived links, we only add them for currently "live" links. For permanent dead links (or potentially so), we leave out retrieval dates. — HĐ (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: I don't think it makes much sense to have a "bibliography" with a single entry in it. This source has two citations, both to the same page. It would be tidier if these refs were formatted along with the other footnotes.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Took care of your comments. Switched out sources to match descriptions of Don't Take the Money's inclusion on Gone Now and re-wrote sentence about "anti-chorus". I will leave the last two comments to @HĐ: De88 (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your concerns have been addressed by now. Thanks so much for the suggestions. — HĐ (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2019 [9].

Jaekelopterus[edit]

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest of the ancient sea scorpions, and among the most famous, Jaekelopterus was an active apex predator that measured a massive 2.6 meters in length. This is my first FA nomination, the article has been through a GA review, a peer review and has been copy edited. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review. This FAC nomination is pretty significant also in being the first of a sea sciorpion/eurypterid, a group which has otherwise been long neglected on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One comment, though, it would be good to have a source for the size estimates used for the size comparison image in the Commons description. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced the size estimates :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another question I missed, who does the name "howelli" honour? FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That info is likely in the original paper (Kjellesvig-Waering & Størmer, 1952), which I have been unable to access thus far. It very probably honours invertebrate paleontologist Benjamin Howell (1891–1976)(1,2), I'll see if I can access the original paper somehow or find the etymological information elsewhere. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked for the paper at WP:RX? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know this existed, I've put up a request! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very effective, I've gotten some really obscure papers there, they even do scans of papers that are not online. Probably good to know the details of the original description in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah yeah, that was pretty fast. I was right about Benjamin Howell and I've added it as well as added what exactly the original J. howelli remains contained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Jaekelopterus_pretelson.png needs a US PD tag and an author date of death
  • File:Eurypterus_cropped.png needs a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All done; I changed Eurypterus_cropped.png to another image (that is sourced). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack[edit]

Seems to have quite a number of prose issues:

  • based on observed differences in the genital appendage. Though this feature has since proved to be a misidentification – first "differences" in plural, than "this feature" in singular, doesn't fit together.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the ratio of body length to chelicera length match – matches
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • posteriormost – needs link, or simply replace with hindmost.
Chenged to hindmost. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This group of highly derived ("advanced") eurypterids differs from other groups by a number of features, especially in the chelicerae and the telson. – Which group, do you mean the genus Jackelopterus?
Specified so that it is clear that it is the Pterygotidae family that is being referred to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chelicerae of the Pterygotidae are enlargened and robust, clearly adapted for active prey capture, with chelae (pincers) more similar to the claws – do you have four words here for the same thing (chelicerae, chelae, pincers, claws), or what is the difference?
"Chelicerae" are the entire limbs, "chelae" are the actual "claws" (but usually take the form of smaller "pincers") in other groups. Perhaps this could be said in a better way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with well-developed teeth on the claws, than to the chelicerae of other eurypterid groups – I do not understand the use of the word "than"
Replaced "than" with "relative". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • clearly distinguish it – needs to be "-ishes"?
Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • lacks median distal indentation – too technical, maybe reword with "is not bifurcated at its end" or something more comprehensible?
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • centimeters, unmineralized – here you have American English, in other instances British English; this needs to be unified (based on the original state of the article)
I'm not a 100 % certain on the differences between American and British English. I've tried to go for British English now, there probably are things I've missed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • pretelson – can you link/explain?
Explained it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • pretelson to be very characteristic of Pterygotus – do we need the very?
Not really, removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • differing very little – again, what does a "very" add here?
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jaekelopteridae" – is it written in brackets in the sources? Such brackets have a specific meaning in taxonomy; if the name is simply out of use, it is not written in brackets.
It's not, removed the brackets. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • pterygotidae – should be in upper case
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggesting that members of the group were very lightweight in construction – this is still referring to arthropods?
Replaced "members of the group" with "pterygotids". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • positive allometry – link/explain
Linked and explained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, positive allometry has not been demonstrated in eurypterid chelicerae as a whole in any other eurypterid genus – does this mean that isometry has been demonstrated instead, or is it just absence of evidence?
Unsure, the source simply states that it has not been demonstrated. I would assume isometry would hold true for the rest in regards of the chelicerae but I don't have a source for that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, the size estimates around 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) remain the most accurate estimates on the maximum size of the species yet – From the many opinions on the matter, you decided that a specific one is fact. This is not a neutral point of view; all views should be presented without preference.
I'm not sure if two opinions qualify as many but 2.5 is repeated in other papers without much comment. I've changed it so that it is made clear that it being the most accurate estimate is also an opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • making it unknown if the eurypterids had developed true direct development. – this wording implies that direct development was not the original stage for eurypterids (that they just developed it; that it was not present in their ancestors). If this is not inteded, I would reformulate.
Reworded a bit, the intention was that it was unknown whether they were true direct developers (e.g. NO morphological changes post-hatching) or not (some smaller changes such as additional segments and such). Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • denticles, out of which two were assumed to be juveniles – I would split the long convoluted sentence into two sentences, it would make it much easier to read.
Split it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The morphology of the chelicerae are – "chelicerae is"?
Oops, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • length–width ratios measured in juveniles and adults were not as extreme as assumed – don't understand this. Do you mean "not as disparate"?
Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the fossil deposits from which Jaekleopterus fossils have been discovered – I think you can get rid of one "fossil" here.
Got rid of the first one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • where J. howelli fossils has been discovered – "have" been discovered.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • had very high visual acuity – Do we really need the "very"? That would mean "exceptionally high", but how is this warranted?
Removed "very". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • including a large specimen with the right eye preserved from the uppermost Siegenian and a small and likely juvenile specimenfrom the uppermost Siegenian – you give a level of detail here that is not provided for other parts of the "palaeobiology". If these specimens are of special importance, I would state why. If not, consider removing it.
They are of special importance because of the detailed preservation of their eyes, could be removed if you think it's necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it for the prose review; if the comments above can be addressed, I think the prose is fine as far as I can see. If time allows I will provide the required source review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Some paper titles are in title mode (capitalisation troughout), should be put in lower case. Also, species names need to be in italics. Example: "Hallipterus excelsior, a Stylonurid (Chelicerata: Eurypterida) from the Late Devonian Catskill Delta Complex, and Its Phylogenetic Position in the Hardieopteridae".
Fixed. Words that should be capitalized (taxonomic names, place names etc.) were kept as capitalized. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • J. howelli is much smaller than J. rhenaniae, reaching 80 centimetres (2.6 ft) in length.[6] – In citation [6], the link to the supplementary informaiton is not working (I guess this is where to find the cited info?)
Yes, in this case the supplementary information was a comprehensive list of eurypterid size estimates. Link should be working now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even stergites and sternites (the plates that form the surfaces of the abdominal segments) are generally preserved as paper-thin compressions – I don't see where this is covered in reference [1].
The second paragraph of the "discussion" section? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check if you misspelled "tergites"? This is why I didn't found it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, looks like I did. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • making it unknown to which degree the eurypterids had developed true direct development – the source seems to suggest something different: that eurypterids may hatch with their full complement of opisthosomal segments and appendages, thus being true direct developers like arachnids, and not hemianamorphic direct developers as in xiphosurans (from the conclusions section).
Wow, looks like I messed that one up. I've replaced the previous sentence here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • likely preyed upon smaller arthropods (including their own kind) and early vertebrates – This, to me, looks like too close a paraphrasing of the source (original: "probably fed on early vertebrates and smaller arthropods, including their own kind"). Suggest to have the word "cannibal" instead of "their own kind".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the rest seems totaly fine, all sources are of high quality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

A few minor points on the prose:

  • The article seems to be in AmE, but we have "metres" and "centimetres" throughout, which, perhaps wrongly, I take to be BrE rather than AmE. Quite prepared to be corrected on this point.
  • "enlargened" doesn't seem to me to be AmE, BrE or AnyE.
  • "Størmer erected a new family" – unexpected and rather odd verb.
  • "moulting" – looks like BrE, but perhaps this is an aberrant AmE spelling – I just mention it to be on the safe side.
  • " fossilised" – ditto.
  • "menoeuvrability" – seems definitely dodgy in its spelling, me judice

That's my lot for now. Shall look in again. Tim riley talk 22:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed "manoeuvrability" and I replaced "erected" at both instances with "created" which should also be correct and less strange. As for the rest, I am unfamiliar with most of the differences between british and american english, it is supposed to be in BrE currently. It would probably be for the best if someone other than me went over it and checked for this seeing as I've tried and failed a few times now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to check the text as BrE, and will do so tomorrow and report back. Tim riley talk 23:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice of you, many thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but please check you're happy with my (few) changes. I hope to add a few general comments on the text soon. Tim riley talk 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I thought the article was going to be heavy going for a layman, but in fact it presents its large amount of technical information very readably. One is relieved to find that one will not bump into a Jaekelopterus rhenaniae on a dark night. My only quibble is that you explain what a metastoma is at the second, not the first, mention of the word (and you don't need two links to its article). With the usual caveat that I know nothing at all about the subject (you'd be astonished how often this is the case, or then again perhaps you wouldn't) I am happy to support the promotion of this article, which is a good read, widely and thoroughly referenced, well illustrated and apparently comprehensive. Tim riley talk 12:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've moved up the "metastoma" explanation and removed the second link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support - I have read a few of these eurypterid articles and they've been pretty good - I think a few would be in striking distance of FA-hood. This one is no different. Queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chelicerae and compound eyes of Jaekelopterus indicate it was an active, powerful predator with high visual acuity, and it likely represented an apex predator in the ecosystems of Early Devonian Euramerica. - my initial query was about "represented" and replacing it with "was", but then I thought it was repetitive, maybe "The chelicerae and compound eyes of Jaekelopterus indicate it was active and powerful with high visual acuity, most likely an apex predator in the ecosystems of Early Devonian Euramerica" or something...
Yeah, changed it to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....the strata in which Jaekelopterus fossils have been found suggest that it did not dwell in marine environments proper. - I think would flow better if mentioned where it did live rather than did not live.
It "not living in" marine environments was to contrast with it being called a "sea" scorpion, but I guess it living in fresh water would work just as well here. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rest looks good WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I gather this would be Ichthyovenator's first FA if we're successful here -- if that's correct, a belated welcome to FAC from the coords! One of the hoops we ask newbies to jump through is a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, so unless I've missed something above, we'll need a reviewer to perform that before we look at promotion. A request can be added to the top of WT:FAC, or one of the reviewers above might like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did check for that in my source review above; I looked at a good portion of the sources used. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, tks Jens. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2019 [10].

Compulsory figures[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about compulsory figures in figure skating, the now-defunct discipline from which the sport gets its name. I submitted it for FAC back in November 2018, but it stalled because it didn't get enough reviews. It was suggested that I wait until after the holidays to resubmit, which I've done, so it's my hope that It doesn't stall again. It has been through an image and source review. Thanks for any and all input. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

I have read through this article, and I think it is of the required standard. I'm not sure why it failed to attract sufficient reviewers. My only problem with the article is the "Demise" section, lacks a bit of coherency. I needed to read Loosemore to understand it.

  • I suggest moving the bit in the previous paragraph starting with "After 1968, figures began to be progressively devalued." into the "Demise" section as its first paragraph.
Done.
  • The bit about "lack of public accountability" had me puzzled until I read Loosemore's article. All sports where the judging is subjective have problems with "dirty judging". (I presume figure skating has taken measures to mitigate this, like discarding the highest and lowest judges' scores.) The point is though that lack of public accountability stems from it not being televised, so the public could not judge. This should be added so the reader can follow the logic.
I believe that I've clarified the logic, as per your suggestion. Actually, figure skating attempted to do just as you state with the old 6.0 system, but it didn't work, as the judging scandal at the 2002 Olympics demonstrated. That's why they changed it to the new International Judging System, and there are still problems with bad judging.
There's an article on that. Who knew? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it was a turning point in the sport. I'd like to someday tackle it, since it was so important historically. My overarching goal is to tackle 6.0 system and ISU Judging System before the 2022 Olympics, so that people have a reliable place to learn about it, since the new system is so complicated and potentially confusing. I have a slew of other articles to tackle first, mostly to better acquaint myself, like articles about the different elements and individual competitions and figure skaters. It depends, of course, on my life and my level of RL busyness, but I'me having fun in the meantime.
Having fun is more important than anything else. From the statistics we've gathered on the Paralympic articles since 2012, it seems highly likely that 6.0 system and ISU Judging System will attract high numbers of page views - much higher than any athlete article - when Beijing rolls around. Partly because they will have an international readership, but mostly because people will turn to the Wikipedia when they don't understand what they're watching. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think three years is a good target. Also on my target is some athletes' bios, first Tara Lipinski and Johnny Weir, since their articles are pathetic and as commentators, they're the faces of the sport these days. And Alysa Liu, whose article I created at the request of her friend, a fellow skater and WP editor. This last Olympics in Peongchang was the first time I watched the Paralympics, due to an involuntary period of unemployment. I loved it, especially the gold medal sled hockey game. I'm not a hockey fan at all, but it was one of the most exciting competitions I've ever seen. I admire those athletes so much, and I admire you for the work you've done for the articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific examples that Loosemore gives would be well worth including.
I've struggled with this issue as I've worked on this article and other figure skating articles. Other writers cite other examples of the discrepancies between skaters doing well in the free skate and not well in figures and losing competitions due to the weight of figures in scores. I've found that the examples vary with the date of the articles written about them. For example, Loosemore and Kestnbaum cite Janet Lynn, but the L.A. Times article cites Debi Thomas. I'm sure older sources, which we don't have access to, cites other examples and other skaters. Remember, WP articles are a summary of the sources. For these reasons, I've hesitated using specific examples.
  • "countries with an affluent middle class or government-supported training for athletes having more of a competitive advantage over less affluent and smaller countries with fewer ice rinks and resources". Well, yes, but...
    1. I'm willing to hazard a guess that the third world countries are not well-represented among the 31 voting NOCs.
    2. The implication is that the US dominated the sport, but I'm not seeing the evidence of that.
    3. The high (and rising) cost of training, equipment and competition is an endemic problem across many sports. I raised this issue with the IPC myself. (Part of the problem is that manufacturers of the equipment are frequently important sponsors.) All winter sports fall into the really expensive (and rarely played in most countries) category. But more importantly...
    4. I don't see how this helps. How do you practice figure skating without rinks?
      I'm not sure what you're asking from me, but I'll respond to your list items, anyway.
    5. Yes, third world countries aren't a strong voting block in the ISU, but it was the smaller countries that got figures removed. It took decades for them to band together and get the vote through.
    6. Loosemore states that North America dominated figure skating (the U.S. and Canada); Kestnbaum also includes Russia and Soviet-bloc countries. This article isn't about how individual skaters and countries did in compulsories; it's more of a general article about the topic.
    7. The IPC?
      Sorry, the International Paralympic Committee. The deployment of expensive equipment escalates the cost of competition, sometimes to the point of excluding poorer countries. It isn't the only obstacle though. Facilities like skating rinks, velodromes and swimming pools cost money to build and maintain. The Europeans like to peg qualification in sports to performance over a series of tournaments. Easy for them with so many countries nearby; prohibitively expensive for much of the rest of the world. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      True-dat. Some skaters' solution is to move to another country to train. For example, most of the top ice dancers now live and train in Toronto, as do the skaters that Brian Orser trains. Heck, Nathan Chen facetimes with his coach while studying at Yale. But even that's expensive. Scott Hamilton was so poor, he had to depend on the support of philanthropists to fund his career, and Rudy Galindo's family sacrificed being able to buy a house to fund his career.
    8. The answer is you can't. Smaller and poorer countries have fewer rinks, so there are fewer opportunities to practice skills that take longer to master. Again, I'm not sure what you're asking me to clarify.
  • I would include her point that once figures were dropped from the Olympic program, rinks cut back on the time they allocated to them. Which in turn would have made them difficult for athletes to practice.
Yes, right. Added a line to clarify.
  • And the irony that the US, which decided that figure were too boring to televise, voted to retain them. Do you know the reason for this?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kestnbaum quotes Scott Hamilton, who said that the demise of figures could "kill the sport" (p. 87) because of the economic ramifications for coaches and for rinks. I suppose I could include it, and I will if you tell me to do so. However, I didn't include it because no other source states it in that way. And Hamilton was wrong, of course. (Personally, I think that the modern emphasis on multi-rotational jumps have replaced figures in the economics of figure skating. Learning complex jumps requires both coaching and rink time, which puts poorer athletes and countries at a disadvantage. But that's just the opinion of one well-informed non-skating fan.)

Hawkeye, thanks for the review and let me know what else you'd like me to do/change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am happy with these minor changes. I think this is great work. I note that source and image reviews were undertaken during the previous nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Yes, the reviews were done before. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licences and have suitable captions and alt-captions. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Going through the source reviewer's comments from last time I see no problems. Little has changed since they gave a pass. In particular, I agree with them re providing the page numbers for books in-text and, emphatically, how multiple refs are ordered. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain[edit]

Reading through now, and will leave comments soon. --Laser brain (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "The circle was the basis of all figures, and increased in difficulty." I didn't follow the meaning here. Did you mean something like, "The circle was the basis of all figures, which increased in difficulty."? I'm also struggling with the use of past tense here. Even though they aren't used in competition, they still exist as a discipline, correct? So, "The circle is"?
I've struggled, as a non-skater, with explaining, describing, and summarizing the sources and concepts about figure skating in general. I think what "increased in difficulty" means is that variations of the shape of the circle becomes progressively more difficult. The lead, up to now, was the only place in this article that described circles and other shapes in that way; instead, the first section describes the increase in difficulty. I think the easiest way to deal with that, in the lead, is to remove the phrase, which I've done. I also changed some of the tenses as per your suggestion.
  • "Compulsory figures are also called 'patch', which refers a reference to the patch of ice allocated to each skater to practice figures."
Changed.
  • "demonstrating their mastery of control, balance, flow, and edge" Are you confident that readers will understand jargon like "edge" without definition or link?
No, so it's a good idea to provide a link; done. ;) The other items in that list are self-explanatory, I think, but please point out any other jargon that I've missed.
  • "Each figure consisted of two or three circles, all tangent other than a brief interruption due to the change of feet, in their continuous tracing." I had trouble parsing this sentence. I'm unclear about the meaning of "in their continuous tracing".
Again, more non-skater difficulty. I also think that the source itself is unclear. I think the solution is to remove everything after tangent, which meant that I had to change the wording to: ""Each figure consisted of two or three tangent circles", since I think that the other information is elsewhere in the article.
  • "Turns needed to be skated with a single clean edge up to and after the turn, but with no double tracings, no skids or scrapes, or any illegal edge change either before, during, or after a turn." Needs revision for parallel structure
Done.

This is an excellent history and worthy of Featured status, pending a bit of polish and clarity for the uninitiated. I made a few minor edits while reading. I look forward to supporting soon. --Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Laser brain:, for the review, comments, and ce. They were very helpful and much appreciated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks great! --Laser brain (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • Does the caption for the lead image require a period/full-stop since it is complete sentence/thought?
Fixed.
  • For this sentence (were formerly a segment of the sport of figure skating, from which the sport derives its name), is the “of the sport” part necessary. I am just curious as I would imagine that most people know that figure skating is a sport and there is somewhat a repetition of “sport” in this part. Could it be cut down to just “were formerly a segment of figure skating,…)? Apologies in advance if this is obvious.
No, it's a valid point. There are actually people who doubt that figure skating is a sport, or at least the ice dance part. Those people are fools, for which I have two words to say in response: Nathan Chen! ;) I changed it as per your recommendation, except where it talks about figure skating as a sport, since like other sports, it can also be recreational.
  • I have a rather nitpicky question about how numbers greater than ten are represented. Sometimes they are shown in numerals (i.e. for approximately the first fifty years of the existence of figure skating as a sport) while other cases use numbers instead (i.e. compulsory figures made up 60 percent of the total score at most competitions around the world). I have always been told in the past to keep this consistent with one particular pattern. I have noticed that the numbers are used primarily for percentages.
    The relevant guideline is MOS:NUMERAL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I am already aware of the guideline. I posted the above comment as it was something that I had been told about in past GANs and FACs. I do not personally care either way, but I just wanted to leave a note about it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed as per your recommendation. The only times it happened was when talking about the "first 50 years" of figure skating.

Wonderful work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Apologies for any silly questions or comments. I am extremely unfamiliar with figure skating, but living in Florida for a majority of life did not allow me to come in contact with it that often lol. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Ah, thanks, I appreciate it. I eagerly anticipate your support. No, Florida is definitely not a hub of figure skating in the U.S., although I'm certain there are indoor ice rinks there. Myself, I grew up in Calif., which surprisingly, is where many skaters train. I just grew up watching it on TV, especially during the Olympics. Now, I watch it throughout the season and have even attended three U.S. Nationals, all of which were life-changing, seminal experiences for me. The World Championships start this week; you should check it out, especially when the above Nathan Chen skates. I love figure skating and I'm lovin' writing about it on WP. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments and clarification. I greatly enjoyed reading through the article. I should definitely look up some indoor ice rinks. I used to know a girl in high school that practiced pretty seriously in a rink about an hour or two from my hometown. Ice skating was always my favorite part of the Olympics tbh. Surya Bonaly and Michelle Kwan are some of my personal favorites; I will definitely check out Nathan Chen in the future. I support this for promotion. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Do not feel pressured though; I always feel like a jerk for asking lol. Either way, I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

FAC coordinators: Is there anything that I'm missing, or something I need to do that I've missed? Getting worried that this article will fail again... Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC) @WP:FAC coordinators: Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's too much danger of that -- should be able to go through it this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ian, and for your service to WP and FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind -- we try! Look I think we're about there but perhaps we could paraphrase a couple of quotes, and attribute one or two inline:
  • "that would prove fundamental to the development of school figures" -- could we paraphrase to that contributed to the evolution of school figures or some such?
Done.
  • each of "progressively greater difficulty" -- perhaps each of increasing difficultly or something like that?
Done.
  • "intimately familiar with how subtle shifts in the body's balance over the blade affected the tracings left on the ice" -- cited to Kestnbaum but is it her opinion or is she quoting someone else?
Yes, it seems to be her opinion, without reference to someone else.
Tks, I tweaked a bit further based on that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No prob -- just FTR, as this brief discussion and my tweaks to the article seem to have proven quite uncontroversial I see no need to recuse from coord duties, so will be promoting shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2019 [11].

27th Infantry Division Savska[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a largely Croat-manned Yugoslav division that began to mutiny before German units crossed the Yugoslav border in force during the April 1941 invasion of that country. Fifth column elements even took over a city before the division completely disintegrated in the face of an overwhelming German armoured assault. This article went through GAN and Milhist ACR in 2015–2016, and has been further improved thanks via the FAC of its higher formation, 4th Army. It forms part of a Good Topic on the 1st Army Group that I am slowly moving towards Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • No alt text for the second map.
  • No duplinks.
  • No broken links.
Lead[edit]
  • "was a very large and unwieldy formation" Optional: remove "very".
  • Generally I agree with this, but it was large by a wide margin over its equivalent British formation, so I'm going to stick with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and largely manned by Croat troops" "manned by" seems odd. 'made up of'?
  • "the division also lacked modern arms and sufficient ammunition" Could this be a separate sentence?
  • "a series of preliminary operations against the Yugoslav frontiers". Being picky, they weren't "against" the frontiers. 'along'?
  • "A planned counterattack delayed the Germans for a day" "A planned counterattack" implies that it never happened. If the Germans were delayed by it, then I assume it did. Suggest deleting "planned". Reading the rest of the article I see that the planned attack on the 7th never happened. That of the 8th seems to have lacked any actual attack. The German delay mentioned in the lead doesn't seem to crop up in the article.
  • "the German panzers with overwhelming air support brushed aside" Should "with overwhelming air" be within commas?
  • "(99 mi)". Optional: spurious accuracy. Suggest sigfig=1.
Operations[edit]
  • "was largely in its mobilisation centres or moving to concentration areas" Optional: 'to its concentration areas'.
  • "By the evening, German successes along the Hungarian border made it clear to the Germans that the Yugoslavs would not be resisting stubbornly at the frontier." This reads a little oddly after the previous sentence. Perhaps ' German successes eleswhere along the Hungarian border'?
  • "to begin seizing bridges over the Drava right along the 4th Army front" I am honestly not sure what "right along" means in this context. Along the whole Army front?
  • "who refused to resist the Germans which they considered their liberators" Either "which" -> 'who' or "Germans" -> 'German forces'.
  • "The continuing mobilisation and concentration of the division and the whole of the 4th Army". Optional: 'and of the whole of the 4th Army'
  • "attached to the 1st Army Group which had survived an early morning raid on their airfield the previous day," Comma after "Group".
  • "the divisional cavalry battalion", "the divisional cavalry squadron". ?
  • "The majority of the 81st Cavalry Regiment, which were army-level troops, was on the road from Zagreb to Koprivnica" This reads a little clunkily to me. Maybe "which were army-level troops" to 'which was an army-level formation'?
  • "3.1 mi" Spurious accuracy?
  • "Of the other units involved in the counterattack, most were only at 25 percent of their full strength due to Ustaše-influenced desertions sparked by the rebellion within the 40th ID. Two battalions of the 36th Infantry Regiment deserted during the day." "involved in the counterattack" - I am left confused as to whether these units actually attacked. Or even if they came into any contact with the Germans.
  • "but was attacked by German tanks on the outskirts, captured and detained" Optional: "captured and detained" -> 'and captured'.
  • "(99 miles)" 1. Spurious accuracy? 2. Inconsistency between "mi" and "miles".

An excellent piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Gog. You have picked up on quite a bit of unclear prose, greatly appreciated. The counterattack petered out, and was frankly pretty half-hearted except for the cavalry, so I've added that, and the fact that it held up the Germans just for the night of 8/9 April. I think I've got everything. Here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: A pleasure to contribute towards the article. One small niggle remaining:
"When the attack on the bridgehead at Zákány was eventually launched, by the time the attack petered out only the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and …" Maybe remove the leading "When", or insert something before "by"?
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, that was a bit clunky. Fixed, Gog. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

I will have a look in this one this evening (CET). CPA-5 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No active year(s) in the infobox?
  • The wartime organisation of the VKJ was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–37 shouldn't it be 1936–1937 instead of 1936–37?
  • one of 100 mm (3.9 in) light howitzers, one of 65 mm (2.6 in) or 75 mm (3.0 in) mountain guns the "0" isn't necessary.
  • and two of 75 mm (3.0 in) or 80 mm (3.1 in) field guns. the "0" isn't necessary.
  • Please correct me if I'm wrong but do you Australians not uses north-western or north western instead of "northwestern"?
  • Please correct me if I'm wrong but do you Australians uses percent or per cent? Because the article uses both per cents.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. I have addressed all your points. In response to your questions, I think usage varies in Australia, I'm sure the government style guide decrees one or the other, but as long as it is consistent in the article, I think it is ok. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: Hey PM, I couldn't find anything else so I'll give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kaiser matias[edit]

  • Always enjoy reading your articles, and this one is no exception.
  • Though should note I'd move the link to U.S Army so it only links in "note a" and note "note d" and "note e." Kaiser matias (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Time to seek a source review I think, if you haven't already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Will do this weekend. You can reciprocate at the Aldrin article if you like. Or don't, it is fine; it will not affect the speed or veracity of my review. Kees08 (Talk) 16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would, except I have no idea about astronauts and have avoided reviewing them as a result, and looking at it, I'm not sure about the use of Aldrin's memoirs in a FA. Happy to be convinced otherwise, of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; the source review ended up getting performed. The memoirs are a tricky bit, generally are acceptable in astronaut FACs for some reason (often are co-authored which helps probably). Anyways, to the review.
  • Formatting
    • I poked around and can find no issues. I checked a couple of ISBNs to verify the accuracy of the citation parameters, and found no errors.
    • I suppose Geografski institut JNA (1952) could use a language parameter.
  • Spotchecking
    • Did not find anything while checking worth noting

So should just be adding a language parameter then we should be good to go. Kees08 (Talk) 02:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks very much for this review, Kees08! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good to me. Kees08 (Talk) 17:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: this looks good to go. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2019 [12].

Echo parakeet[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about what was once considered "the world's rarest parrots", since saved from extinction. This is my first nomination of a living species, after years of only nominating extinct ones, but I had so many relevant sources about it lying around from writing about other Mascarene birds that are now extinct that I thought this would be a good place to start. The article also covers an extinct subspecies, after their two articles were merged following some recent studies that demonstrated their close relationship. We don't have many good photos of this species, but I think the other photos included here are relevant and good enough until we get replacements. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

This looks strangely familiar. My, what wonderful prose. ;-) Disclosure: I copy edited this article for GOCE.

Hope it's not too much of a conflict of interest, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Réunion parakeet" bolded (rather than red-linked) when the article is not about it? It is made clear that this is a different subspecies.
Because we generally cover bird subspecies in the species articles, and both are covered fully in this article (there is really not much if anything to say about the Réunion subspecies which isn't mentioned here). FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is needed for the images.
Will get to that... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now added, can't say how good it is, though... FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow, although it looks pretty good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The specific name eques is Latin, and refers to the military colours of a French cavalryman" will not mean a lot to most readers. How about 'is Latin for horse, and refers to the green uniforms of French cavalrymen'?
Equus means horse, eques is cavalrymen. In any case, I can only say what the source says, to avoid OR. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you wrote 'The specific name eques is Latin, and refers to the French cavalryman' or similar it would be fine. My point is "The specific name eques is Latin" explains the "cavalryman" bit, but not "the military colours". Now I know, or can surmise, why the colour of the parakeet reminded French naturalists of a cavalryman, but I think that you need to either spell this out or remove it. As it stands, the senrtence begs a question.
The source only says "From Latin eques referring to the military colours of a French cavalryman." I agree it is very vague, but I'm not sure it's an improvement to remove the information (and it would fail the comprehensiveness criterion). FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. OK. Your call. Leave it as is.
  • "A deep, quiet "werr-werr" and a "prr-rr-rr" purr has also been heard from a female landing in a tree." Does that mean that there has only been a single reported instance of either of these calls?
At the time of that publication, based on field notes, yes. So I'm not sure if I can reword it so it sounds like a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a single occurrence of something merits mention. It would seem to be "going into unnecessary detail".
It is significant enough that later sources also report it (including the 2017 book: "On two occasions Jones heard a deep, quiet purring call from an adult female just after alighting in a tree"), so it would seem like an oversight to leave something out that several sources mention. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Ah, if it has been heard twice by a single observer, I agree with you. Change the text to reflect that and I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, added, but it is unclear from the source whether it was the same adult female that was heard, or two separate ones, so it is hard to not be vague... Now reads: "A deep, quiet "werr-werr" and a "prr-rr-rr" purr has also been heard on two occasions from a female landing in a tree". FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That reads ok to me. I can live with a low bar on notability, but a single occurrence seemed a bit much. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could cites be put in number order, eg "Though now sedentary, the parakeet may have moved between areas seasonally in search for food; if cyclones had stripped trees of fruits, for example.[12][14][1][20][23]".
Heh, I usually don't do this as it doesn't seem to be specifically recommended anywhere, and I don't personally find it worth the time. I have no problem if others choose to change the order, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
  • "with variation and intensity of the colours probably signifying fitness" Could "fitness" be linked to Fitness (biology).
Sure could, now is. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "being fed by a parent with intervals of up to 79 minute" -> 'minutes'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Psittacula parakeets employ mobbing behaviour by groups clustering together to noisily scold animals" "by" -> 'with'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "Rose-ringed parakeet on Mauritius; this related species was introduced around 1886, and competes for nest-sites and probably some food." Colon, not semi-colon.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it may have excluded the echo parakeet from expanding and adjusting its feeding ecology to the changing environment by entirely occupying this niche" You say "this niche", but I am unsure what niche you are referring to.
Added "this more generalised niche". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as the invasive species brought with them" I think that a brief mention of the way(s) the invasive spices helped drive the various parakeets to extinction would be appropriate here.
It is outlined in detail under threats, but added "(through predation and competition)". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
  • "The New Zealand conservationist Don Merton (who had faced similar problems with birds in his homeland) was invited" Was invited where, and/or to do what?
The source doesn't say where (though it would be Mauritius), but I added "to help". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK
  • "six previously unknown echo parakeet breeding groups were found in the Black River Gorges" Any idea of the sizes of these six groups? Or of the total number of birds in them?
The source doesn't say, unfortunately (I would love to have more information about this discovery, but the sources are pretty vague). FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A shame.
  • Wondering why a copy edit had been reverted I discovered this from you. "I have one question, you changed a sentence to "It was discovered that from clutches of three or four eggs, only one or two chicks would fledge", when it said only one chick would fledge before, how come? The source says "The biologists found that though females typically laid three or four eggs, usually only one chick fledged." " Apologies for not replying, but you didn't ping, so I didn't realise it was there.
In answer, earlier the article states "Two of the young are normally raised." I do realise that raise is not the same as fledge, but their seemed to be a contradiction. Especially as it seems clear that more than one chick is left in each nest - the parents could more easily raise the brood they were left with - which seems pointless if only one "usually" fledges.
The problem is inconsistency in the sources. It would appear that the mortality changed between the time these sources were published/compiled (now that the population is more stable, more young are probably raised naturally than when the population was low and not assisted by humans), but that is just speculation on my part. As is, the sources just say different things, so we can't really "adjust" to what we think might be the correct number. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I shouldn't have done that, I should have queried it on the talk page. I'm not too happy about the "inconsistency", but both need mentioning and, as you say, you can only go with the sources.
  • "Rats, African giant land-snails, and crab-eating macaques prey on parakeet nests" Would it be clearer to say 'prey on parakeet eggs and chicks'?
Yes, and this actually lead me to revise the sentence further, spinning off the following: "African giant land-snails (Achatina spp.) can suffocate chicks with their slime while entering nests in search of shelter or food." FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Two queries from me left above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who a couple of weeks ago would have struggled to tell a parakeet from parakinesis I have been educated by this well written, detailed, admirably illustrated article. To this layman's eye it seems to be well balanced, and the nominator has been scrupulous about not going beyond what the sources say. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Though this is probably not the best place to begin if you want to learn about parakeets in general, it does give a pretty good introduction to the conservation effort for endemic species on Mauritius. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Gog the Mild, it just occurred to me it might be relevant to mention that this species lived alongside the dodo, which is itself an icon of extinction, and a symbol of conservation. So I wonder if you knew that when reading the article, and whether you think it is relevant to mention somewhere? FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. Absolutely yes, it should be mentioned. Maybe briefly under Decline - "Many other endemic species of Mauritius and the other Mascarene islands were lost after the arrival of man"? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll add it then. I listed other extinct animals from the same islands in the articles I expanded about other extinct Mascarene species, but since this one still lives, I thought it would be too much. But the dodo is so famous and so tied to extinction that it warrants a mention. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:View_of_the_Mauritius_roadstead_-_engraving.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed, Nikkimaria, didn't see this section for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: You requested an image review but looks like one is here? Might want to remove from Current Requests. Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, seems I forgot it because there are usually many more issues... FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or apparently I didn't even notice it... FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The extinct Réunion parakeet of nearby Réunion (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) was historically considered to be either identical to the Mauritius population or a distinct species, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA… — a bit clunky with two many "species", perhaps something like ’The relationship to the extinct Réunion parakeet of nearby Réunion (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) was historically unclear, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA…
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the three are grouped among the subspecies of the rose-ringed parakeet —I don’t understand. How can they be subspecies of a different species?
Yes, technically they should be subspecies then, but it seems they are not formally considered such, perhaps for practical reasons. It is also possible Psittacula krameri will turn out to be a species complex, but the sources don't specify either... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • red orange (x2) —I would have thought red-orange or reddish orange
Changed to red-orange, in line with the source. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like other Mauritian birds, the echo parakeet is tame, more so during winter when food is scarce; they become more wary during summer, when food is more readily available, and it becomes more difficult for humans to approach the birds. —switches from singular to plural mid-sentence
Changed all to plural. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • therefore not due to for example inbreeding—"for example" between commas I think
Added comma. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • tropical nest flies—unclear what this redlink is for. Is it a species, a different taxon, or just a generic term?
It refers to a specific species of fly (Passeromyia heterochaeta) that we don't have an article for... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd prefer to have that in parenthesis, though, since few if any readers would know what the name refers to, so "tropical nest fly" has to be spelled out somewhere. But if I give both common and scientific names for the fly, it looks inconsistent with the other animal species names, which are mainly just common names. Should I give scientific names for all species mentioned in the article, perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my FAs I usually give common names only unless it's something like an obscure disease or insect which doesn't have one, when I give the binomial. I've never had problems at FAC doing that. In practice, if it's possible, I'll write a two-line stub to avoid a red-link, but that's not always feasible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to avoid any confusion, I just added scientific names to everything (was already given for most of the parrots, so good for consistency). FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Ref 19: missing page reference
It is an ebook without page numbers, I was told here[13] that I only had to list the chapter or section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 20: requires pp. not p.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30: missing page reference
As above, an ebook without page numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and with the exception of the minor issues raised above, are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as mentioned above, the pange ranges are missing because the sources are ebooks. I anticipated this might become a problem during source review, but was almost ridiculed when I brought it up at the FAC talk page.[14] FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's comments[edit]

This is excellent and I have very little to complain about. From a quick scan:

  • Moult is in ecology and behaviour and would more likely benefit from being in description, as it relates to anatomy/morphology not behaviour.
I'm a bit on the fence about this one; the source has info on moulting in its own separate section. Since the seasonal moulting in this species doens't change the plumage pattern, I'd argue it has more to do with physiology (which I'd put under behaviour) than physical appearance, and that the description section should be more about features that can be used to identify the bird. I'll try to see where other sources place such info. At least FAs like Black-necked grebe and Barn owl also cover moulting under behaviour (Atlantic puffin deals with it in both sections, because it becomes much different physically according to season). FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bigger issue is the lead, which is very ropey at the start. It starts by presenting the name of a subspecies as name for the species and then describes its range in contemporary terms rather than holistically. It only later concludes that the Reunion subspecies is a subspecies. I am skeptical at best of introducing a species range at the start using the term endemic without making it explicit that that is a relic distribution. I would suggest something like:
  • The echo parakeet (Psittacula eques) is a species of parrot endemic to the Mascarene Islands of Mauritius and formerly Réunion. It is the only extant native parrot of the Mascarene islands; all others have become extinct due to human activity. The species has two subspecies, nominate Réunion parakeet (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) and the Mauritius subspecies, sometimes known as the Mauritius parakeet. The relationship between the two subspecies was historically unclear, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA of echo parakeets with a single skin thought to be from a Réunion parakeet.
Good point, it's always difficult when the nominate subspecies is extinct (similar case in golden swallow). I took your wording, but excluded "nominate" since this is explained by the text below "As it was named first, the binomial name of the Réunion parakeet is used for the species". FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber's comments support[edit]

Very little to complain about. I might use "living" rather than "extant" but not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now changed throughout (three places). FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, forgot about this. all good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Sources[edit]

Feeling free to leave comments ;) It is difficult to verify claims from cited sources because:

  • Several paragraphs have number of citations at the end but none within, so it is unclear which statement is supported by which source. It can be that all sources that appear at the end of para support all claims within it, but that is not the case with at least first para of Taxanomy.
Often it is because several sources are used to support different parts of the same sentence, but I have spread some out where it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Cheke, A. S. (1987) is a 84 page long chapter. It is cited twice. So it will be better to give specific page numbers. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, rechecking, it seems to be only dealt with on two pages, so restricted it quite a bit... FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no other comments. AhmadLX (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I forgot to ping Brianboulton about the ebook issue. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 March 2019 [15].

French battleship Bretagne[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bretagne 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. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized and remained in 1st-line service. She was briefly deployed in search of German commerce raiders and blockade runners after the start of World War II. The ship blew up when Perfidious Albion attacked the French fleet in mid-1940 to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Germans. Parsecboy and I have extensively reworked the article recently and it passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this month. We believe that it meets the FA criteria though we'd like reviewers to look for any stray AmEng and unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Use |upright= rather than fixed px size to scale images
    • Removed altogether as its unnecessary
  • File:French_battleship_Bretagne_NH_55630.tiff: given your response at ACR, would suggest using a different tag to represent the image's status, if no pre-1924 publication can be identified
    • Well, that's the issue - we only have the supposition that the photos are Neeser's work based on the context (i.e., the photos are in the US Navy's collection, they appear to be from the same set as those explicitly credited to Neeser, etc.), but they have not explicitly credited him - that's why I've left it at the generic {{PD-US}} template, since we can't for certain say it's Neeser's work. I suppose I can reach out to them and see if they can clarify, but I don't know what kind of response I'll get (or when). Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bretagne_October_1916_Q58294.jpg: again, given response at ACR, this tagging would not appear to be correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll upload the higher-res version from the NHHC, but that'll have the same issue as above. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in fine shape. A few comments from me:

  • Is it necessary in an individual ship article to say that the ships of the class has different types of boilers? Surely with this one only her boilers matter?
  • "and became the flagship of"
  • when the first increase in elevation is mentioned, it isn't clear what range they had before the modifications.
    • Generally I reserve gun performance data for the class article. Is it better just to say that the increase in elevation increased the range, without providing specifics, or to add the original range for comparative purposes?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • were each of the 75 mm AA guns replaced by four 75 mm AA guns, or were the two guns replaced by four AA guns in total?
  • what rank was Paul Teste at the time?

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • is 3rd Cruiser Division notable? Redlink?
  • Perhaps say who Darlan was when he is mentioned? Particularly as he became a noted collaborator?
  • when you say "outnumber", perhaps "overmatch" would be the best description?

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking this over. See if my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the exact dates could be stated in the last two image captions, as you do in some of the other captions?
  • "of 28,000 metric horsepower" Horsepowers?
    • No, horsepower isn't pluralized
  • "were able to rescue all but three of her crew" How large was the crew?
    • I'll let Sturm handle this one - I don't have Jordan & Caresse in front of me at the moment.
Ok, I'll support after Sturmvogel 66 has responded to this (I realise the source might not specify). FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't specify.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "part of her forward hull armour was removed to make her less wet forward" What does wet mean here?
    • Reworded
  • "cover for the Otranto Barrage" Why only explicitly stated in the intro?
    • Mentioned in the body
  • "the British attacked the ships there" I think it might be important enough to note in the intro that the crew rejected surrender?
    • Good idea
  • "and broken up for scrap" Only stated in the intro.
  • Support - looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by L293D[edit]

  • The four forward 138 mm guns were removed, and their casemates plated over, because Bretagne was so wet forward that they could only be worked in good weather. - the term of a ship being 'wet' might not be known to the average reader.
    • I think that TheEd17 already fixed this for me; see if it suits. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review The sources are all very reliable and high-quality, as usual for Sturm-Parsec articles. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The ed17[edit]

  • Support overall, great work as always. The following are only minor points.
  • Not really thrilled by the semi-colon in the opening sentence... are the sister ships important enough to be named there?
  • What about the drydocks forced the turrets closer to the ends of the ships? (Was it a beam restriction? Length?)
    • It's complicated. To save time, the same hull form was repeated in the Bretagne's as in the Courbets, which was length-constrained and the need to put a main-gun turret on the centerline required more space along the centerline than the wing turrets used previously and forced the turrets closer to the ends. I want to save that explanation for the class article and don't want to get too down into the weeds here.
      • Gotcha, that makes sense. Might be worth a footnote with a link to the class article when that's done.
  • There's a bit of a gap between Bretagne's arrival in Mers-el-Kébir and its loss. Do we have no information on anything that happened during that time?
    • Swinging at her moorings, as far as I can tell.
  • The loss section could use a bit of context for the seemingly out of nowhere surrender of France. (I know, but I'm trying to put myself in the mind of someone unfamiliar with the history here.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, the reader is already informed that France and Germany at war in September '39, what more can I add that's relevant to the ship itself? Working in the causes for the surrender itself isn't really appropriate, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm coming at this from a narrative concern, even if not directly of relevance to the ship—I'm hoping you can add a small bit of info about how quickly the French mainland's defense fell apart. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a bit to the lede to cover this. Not entirely happy with the wording; feel free to tweak as necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I added a line to the body to make it clearer there as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA-5[edit]

I was at the A-class review and I think it meets the FA-class criteria. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Just on source formatting, I think you need to spell out which state Mechanicsburg is in. Won't hold up promotion though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2019 [16].

Alf Ramsey[edit]

Nominator(s): Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!, The Rambling Man (talk) and User:Egghead06 22:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the only England manager to have won a major trophy.

It's a high quality piece of work, mainly thanks to The Rambling Man and another former editor, whom I remember fondly and would love to see editing again - and if you see this, you know who you are, your work here is appreciated and you are always welcome to drop me a line.

I invite scrutiny, constructive criticism and support - if due. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS If anyone knows how to add TRM as nominator, please do. I'm too tired/stupid. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Dweller and TRM, as discussed, a few questions and suggestions...

  • an agrarian village - wlink agrarian?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramsey would describe - described
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the 100-yard and 200-yard dash - would 'dashes' look silly, or add 'the' before 200?
    Added "both" before "the" and that seems to work? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • boys as old as fourteen; his nine-year-old brother Len v the 14-year-old Ramsey - not sure numerals/words
    I think it's the "cats and dogs" MOS thing, it's okay as long as it's a single word (e.g. fourteen) but don't mix numbers and words in a single sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ned Liddell, a scout from Portsmouth - wlink scout to Scout (association football)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • League South - is only linked in caption
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • first campaign following the war - "campaign" a bit odd here when discussing army and war
    Need Dweller's creative input on this... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    !!!Made me laugh. Great spot. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • then a hat-trick - wlink
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramsey's entire professional playing - is entire needed?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • an away match at Newcastle United. - against?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • his final competitive appearance for Southampton - did he play in friendlies or remove competitive?
    Yes, see the following sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spurs - need to add it as (Spurs) at first mention Tottenham?
    No likey. I thought about replacing with Tottenham (I hate using nicknames) but that led to a quick repeat, so I'll let Dweller cope here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. That's tricky. It's infantile to put "Tottenham ("Spurs")" or similar in the text, and a footnote wouldn't be noticed, unless we switched format to Roman numerals for it. How about wikilinking the first instance to List_of_football_club_nicknames_in_the_United_Kingdom#England? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • His understanding of the game and authority on and off the field led to his teammates nicknaming him "The General" - change "his" to Ramsey's (last subject is Rowe)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They had missed the first three World Cup tournaments in the 1930s - "missed" is ambiguous, better word declined, refused or similar?
    Tried a re-word. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Football Association in London - add (FA)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • grabbed a shock lead on 37 minutes - at?
    I think this is probably fine as a BritEng phrasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • hit the woodwork numerous times - pipe to goal structure (or maybe everyone knows what woodwork refers to
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • had one effort that appeared to cross the line not given - add commas after effort and line
    I'm not sure this is necessary really, perhaps if we added "but was" before not? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, it's okay. JennyOz (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramsey scored his third and final international goal in the game, from the penalty spot - Move "from the penalty spot" to beginning of sentence, all three were penalties?
    Not sure I see an issue with this, Dweller? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, agreed it's not the finest prose. Reworked. A few other fixes done at same time, such as helping contextualise Ramsey's comments about "four goals" --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • had won a total of 32 caps, - wlink cap
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramsey, Nicholson, Burgess and others - Burgess not yet named or wlinked
    Ron now mentioned in full and linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • among sections of Tottenham's support - what does support mean, supporters and/or managers etc?
    Supporters. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • but in the Spurs dressing room - apostrophe ie Spurs'?
    Replaced with Tottenham. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • today Zimbabwe - now?
    Removed in toto, let the link speak for itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ipswich were a ticky proposition - tricky?
    Fixedy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • style goals - eg in excess of 100 goals v scored over sixty goals
    Aligned. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • two years after winning the league title - most places has cap L
    Not sure about that in this context, I'll defer to Dweller on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Made consistent. Capital when a title, l/c when not. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • he formally took charge on 1 May 1963 - date is in full in previous para, perhaps first instance could just be May 1963
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • captained the side for the first time away against - comma after time
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramsey's first competitive match - but what about the previous game, was it a friendly?
    Yes, clarified. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3–0 down at half-time, Bobby Tambling - start sentence with At half-time...
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramsey insisted that he pick the team himself and included seven players who would go on to win the World Cup in 1966 - sort of ruins the next section. Maybe just 'seven players who would be in the 1966 World cup squad' or similar
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • before France scored two more - 'goals' not mentioned so 'twice more'?
    Re-wrote this bit, too much detail for my liking. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two difficult situations arose from the final group match, however. - however not needed?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • selected young Geoff Hurst as Greaves's replacement, once again seeing potential in the young West Ham forward - when seen before?
    Not sure, removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4–4–2 - wlink
    Linked 4-3-3 which came first. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the midfield now boasted Nobby Stiles and Bobby Charlton in the centre - is "midfield" same as "centre"?
    No, centre is part of midfield, as (e.g. in 4-4-2) you would have a left midfield, a right midfield and two centre midfielders. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argentine v Argentinian
    Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a violent quarter-final - was it physical as well as "violence of the tongue" (per his article)?
    Both. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • stopped his players swapping shirts - add end of game tradition (I s'pose everyone know what it means)
    Added something along those lines. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2009 autobiography, "Greavsie", - the quote marks shouldn't be in italics?
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a fluent and skilful Portuguese side - wlink nat team
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A particular example of this was Alan Ball - I'd drop "of this"
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • never showed signs of tiredness - tiring?
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • fullback v full-back
    Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • forbade his players to lie down on the pitch to rest - what's that about, during a break before extra time? What was score at that stage 2-2?
    Noted that 2-2 earlier, and yes, between end of full time and the start of extra time, usually a brief respite, a few minutes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe after "on the pitch to rest" add 'before extra time'? JennyOz (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • goalkeeper, Chelsea's Peter Bonetti. - sea of blue 3 wlinks, goalkeeper is already wlinked
    Well strictly there's an unlinked "'s", and now removed link to goalkeeper. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gordon Banks had been taken ill - was ill
    "had been taken ill" is regular BritEng, to kind of indicate that it was sudden and disruptive, rather than just chronic and predictable. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • had let an innocuous shot - seemingly innocuous?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • by topping a qualification group - 'their' qualification group?
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • England then faced West Germany again in a home-and-away knockout match - is that 2 matches?
    It is, I don't like this wording at all, I'll let Dweller have a look at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and I just read Two-legged tie so now I get it! JennyOz (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • England's qualification group for the 1974 World Cup, consisted of just Poland and Wales - plus England
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for a World Cup finals since 1938 - remove "a" or "final" singular?
    No, this is okay, the finals are the last games of the tournament after qualification. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • were a massively improved team - "massively" not encyc, 'very much improved'?
    Just removed "massively". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramsey had asked for the Football League games to be postponed - explain why? were England players required to play for their club teams ie he wanted them rested/in camp/not subject to poss injury?
    I guess your explanation is exactly right, it's a modern theme even now, the resting of players from their day jobs to maximise England's chances. Added some text based on the source. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brian Clough described Polish - explain who Clough was
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • goalkeeper Jan Tomaszewski as a "circus clown in gloves" - why? any relevant response/backlash?
    He was unorthodox (added) and well, the backlash was he played out of his skin and won the game for Poland. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • who made many crucial saves - aren't all saves crucial?
    Not if you're 5-0 up (say). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • before bringing on forward, Kevin Hector - was that controversial ie to sub who?
    Just controversial to not bring on more attacking players until five minutes to go in the game which England were losing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • first time in the national team's history (England did not compete in the three pre-War World Cups, but that was because of a boycott of FIFA by the English FA). - this is also explained at para starting "Ramsey's first taste of playing as an international..."
    Removed and added new source. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • refused to take his place - vehement of 'declined'
    Not sure I'm seeing the issue here. It was a vehement decline. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I couldn't see the source and any context, I didn't understand what the word "refused" was relaying. If a player refuses to leave the field after being given a red card or a child refuses to go to bed, they are in the wrong. OTOH if someone refuses a second serving of cake, it's a different meaning ie a polite decline. So when I read (past tense) that Ramsey refused to take Bell's place it sounded like he was being naughty. Maybe soften "refused to take his place" with "refused the offer to take his place"? JennyOz (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okeydokes. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • was a good stepfather to her daughter - he and Rita/Vic not have any children together?
    Not that I'm aware of. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was a Freemason of Waltham Abbey Lodge from 1953 until 1981, when he resigned. - also mentioned and linked (uncapped) 2 paras above "Ramsey was an active freemason."
    Removed repeat. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Ramsey's retirement from football management, he continued to live in Ipswich - Ipswich the place needs its first link up at "Ramsey returned to Ipswich to spend time"?
    Linked first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The location of the funeral in Ipswich rather than in London was regarded as a snub - regarded by who, is it suggesting Alf had pre-arranged the location?
    That's not speculated upon or expanded upon in the source. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • is a street in Ipswich - near stadium?
    Expanded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramsey was listed in the top ten best British managers - "top" is redundant
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy - it's rather horrid to end the article's prose with that quote?
    I completely concur. I will ask Dweller to find some counterpoints! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. There's a negative quote, followed by lavish praise to end. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I already fixed it, sorry for the confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • quotes - check punc, some are not LQ?
    Pardon? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant MOS:LQ (which I only think I understand:)) Some examples to check:
    "Until I travelled to Cornwall, the longest journey I had undertaken was a trip to Brighton by train," he recalled. - should comma be moved ie ...Brighton by train", he recalled. (There are no more of his words following in the sentence.)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "That set the tone for Alf's war," Leo McKinstry suggests - ditto
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...are in trouble," the journalist Nigel Clarke recalled him saying. - ditto\
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Under Rowe, Alf became far more than a defender," comments McKinstry. - ditto
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    never get into a situation that exposed him".[39] - full stop should be inside quote marks?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardaker who said: "It is a football match, not a war". - full stop inside? JennyOz (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs eg in refs 94 to 96 - what do those page numbers mean?
    Pretty common parlance: pp. 10– means "page 10 onwards". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people have their first name repeated after first mention, so many I'm wondering if 'normal' (and many of those have multiple wlinks) eg Walter Winterbottom, Billy Wright, Bill Rochford, Bill Ellerington, Terry Paine, Martin Peters, Ian Callaghan, Ray Crawford, Geoff Hurst, Jimmy Greaves, Bobby Moore, John Connelly, Alan Ball, Nobby Stiles, Jimmy Greaves, Bobby Charlton, Leo McKinstry. NB I understand they may be intentional. I didn't include mentions in lede or tables for these and the following other duplicate links.
    Usually only repeated if "sufficient prose" has elapsed to make it necessary to reassert it. If you have any specific issues, please let me know! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • some national teams are linked more than once in prose, eg England, Germany, Scotland, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union (and one is piped Soviet Union, one USSR), Switzerland.
    Now just the once. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wembley (1923) wlinked 3 times
    Now just the once. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • F.C. clubs multi links, West Ham, Leicester, Birmingham, Liverpool
    Now just the once. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • captions - some are frags?
    I think I got 'em, but feel free to just tweak anything I missed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • quote box - Eric Day, one of Ramsey's Southampton team-mates - all others are teammates
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget I'm not very au fait with football terms and am fine with you to bypassing comments where that is obvious. JennyOz (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz thanks so much. I've addressed and responded to most of them, a handful for my esteemed colleague when he gets a moment. Look forward to round 2! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so far both, just adding another comment, JennyOz (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding at Legacy - the European Coach of the Year (association football) has been named the Alf Ramsey Award since 2001?
    I would definitely do that if I could find a decent reliable source for it... any ideas? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's weird. I found nothing in a search for either manager or coach of the year. JennyOz (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi JennyOz, how do our updates look? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the blockquote: Alf tended to speak in a very poncey plum-in-the-mouth way. It was all "Oh hello Rodney and how are you?". To me it was all complete bollocks., should the internal quotes (ie around oh hello rodney sentence) be singular even though outer quote marks aren't visible? (MOS doesn't seem to address at MOS:SINGLE or at MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.)
    I really don't know. If it's not addressed by MOS I guess it's a personal choice as long as the article is internally consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed that quote attributed to McLynn ("he was a humourless...") from Guardian. I don't think they are literally his words. They appear in a subhead blurb written in third-person, probably by a sub-editor as a summary of what is in McLynn's article. Therefore quotation marks aren't appropriate? (Though I have no idea what punctuation treatment would apply.)
    No idea how to handle that. The Guardian is reporting what McLynn said. I think the only option might be "According to The Guardian, McLynn considered Ramsey to be "a humourless...", but I'll leave this to Dweller to fix, he needs to feel involved, after all! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we have to second-guess the RS. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dweller and TRM. I've replied re original comments above. All else you've answered, thanks! I've added 2 new comments for your consideration. Looking good! Regards, JennyOz (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz all done, bar the very last one which I've made a suggestion and pinged Dweller on. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dweller and TRM, I am happy to support this nom. Special gratitude for explanations! Regards, JennyOz (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Kosack[edit]

  • What's the source for his height in the infobox?
    Good spot, have tweaked per the best RS we have. If it's an issue it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening two sentences use England four times in quick succession, sounds slightly repetitive maybe.
    Mildly tweaked, but happy for anyone else to have a further go at it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • pupils aged from four to 14. I think the mix of words and numerals is to be avoided when referring to comparable figures in the same sentence.
    Indeed, the "cats and dogs" paradigm. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • played a total of 90 league and six FA Cup appearances for Southampton, does played and appearances work together here? I would of thought a player "made an appearance" rather than "played an appearance" if you see what I mean.
    Agreed, made "made" rather than "played". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • concrete bid, slightly informal? Perhaps, an official approach or offer?
    "official". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In relation to the above bid, did Ramsey reject Wednesday?
    It's not clear if it was personal terms or simply Southampton looking for better offers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Tottenham section, the word season is left outside the links to the relevant season page where as it is included in the earlier parts of the article. I would try and keep the links consistent throughout.
    My mistake, I think just one instance remained, as I tried to fix this already. Hopefully now done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Yugoslavia to the national side in in the England international section.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the England international section has a sentence that begins "and refused to accept." I'm guessing somethings missing from there or it's meant to be connected to the previous one?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The England international section spans 1948-1952 but is positioned between his Spurs career. Wouldn't listing it separately to his club career be more appropriate? Like Kevin Beattie for example?
    That would make sense to me, I'll ping the co-nom, Dweller, to see what he thinks before making a wholesale change. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Doing it now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walter Winterbottom is linked twice in the opening paragraph of the England section.
    Indeed, and removed repeat of his first name too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • West Germany are not linked in relation to the 66 final but are linked further down for the 1970 tournament. Swap the links to the first mention.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alan Ball linked twice in the 1966 World Cup section.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, I genuinely enjoyed reading that. A few minor points I noticed above. Kosack (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kosack, many thanks for your comments. I've addressed all bar the snipping out and reinserting of the England career, I'd like my cohort to opine. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All my issues have been addressed, happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ImmortalWizard[edit]

I will be doing mainly spot checks and verifiability of sources. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the 1966 World Cup, ref 101 doesn't talk about the his "tactical awareness" and the players' position.
    Good spot. This source could be added usefully. Except it talks about 4132 not 442. The bit about Ramsey offering to quit over Stiles could also be worth including, what say you, The Rambling Man? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, since this user has advocated long term bans on me, I'm not inclined to comment further or deal with this objectively, so I'll leave it to you Dweller. I'm perplexed as to why someone who has made such open scathing comments about me personally would seek to comment on a FAC with which I'm deeply involved. And she's not the only one doing this. It's all a bit odd really. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll amend. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He stuck to his guns and kept faith with Greaves's replacement, Geoff Hurst, who vindicated Ramsey's" - bit subjective and I suspect WP:SYNTH. Maybe the video ref in 103 supports it completely, which I don't have access to.
    This seems self-evident to me. I'm pretty sure I can easily find a source who says something like this, but you're asking me to reference it being light when the sun came up. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked ref 130, but couldn't find any support to England being the favorites of the 1972 World Cup.
Assuming you mean the 19702 World Cup, this source says "Journalists ranked England as favourites to retain the World Cup, although I suspect this reflects the hyperbole and unrealistic expectations that have always followed the national team." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can't find the ref you mentioned being used so far. Hopefully it will be cited in-line. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding his sack in 1974, I think it would be worth mentioning his negative publicity mentioned in ref 104, since the previous manager quit similarly and it's mentioned.
    I'm not sure what this means. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It seems that some of the FA's officials had long held grudges against Ramsey." The tense of "It seems" bothers me and is quite vague. Maybe rephrase it better?
    Good spot. Clarified. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I merely found ref 146 here (pay for full access) and it's published in 1977 not '76. Otherwise it's fine. I would recommending archiving the older news articles for better access.
    Fixed, thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ImmortalWizard Hi, thanks for your comments, I'll wait until you're finished (please indicate when that happens) before I fix any issues. Obviously the article is a big picutre thing so it'd be best to hear from you about all your issues before starting out on anything. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ImmortalWizard thanks again, your comments here seem to have come out of the blue, but are very much appreciated. Regardless that many have asked why you're commenting here, I personally welcome your input, and look forward to focusing on your comments to make this a featured article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately, it was my first major FAC involvement and I opt to close here. The prose is well-written apart from being subjective here and there with some buzzwords and weasel words. I schemed through a couple of the FA essays, especially this one, regarding source checking. I think fact checking is quite often overlooked, understandably because of being painful and time killing. However, I think we should aim for more to enhance credibility and reader' interest. Overall, the article is neat and look passable. Since it's my first FAC review, I would appreciate constructive feedback from both the nominators and other editors. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly assumed good faith, so my review might not weigh much in hindsight. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think. Thank you for the comments. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ritchie333[edit]

I reviewed this for GA and thought it was in pretty good shape even then, and I am pleased to see the article at FAC, which I know the nominators have wanted to do for some time. With the issues addressed above, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would prevent me from supporting this; hopefully if I get time I will look into the article in more depth and report back anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The word "manager" followed by "managed" in the opening two sentences jars a little bit, but I can't think of any alternative that works better right now.
    I think that was a fair call. I've amended by inserting some info about playing, to break up the repetition a little more. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is the lead now starts off by talking about his playing career, then switches to mentioning his managerial career which he is far better known for; unfortunately, again I haven't got an ideal solution to that, so maybe what we've now got is the best we're going to get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Ramsey's position as England manager was confirmed in October 1962, he formally took charge in May 1963" - what was the reason for the delay?
    A good question. I presume it was so he could fulfil his commitments with Ip5w1ch, but I don't have RS to support. The Rambling Man, any ideas? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Ipswich were in serious trouble by October after all the euphoria of the previous season. Alf believed it would be wrong to walk out suddenly on his team at a moment of deepening crisis. He therefore stipulated that he would only take the England job at the end of the 1962–63 season. (McKinstry, p. 199). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything else, once those two issues are looked at I'll be happy to support. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a support from me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for this result of teamwork. Good read, even for someone unfamiliar with the sport, and well sourced. I don't know how to solve that - late - he spent time with his wife of whom we haven't heard before. I am also not happy with "West Germany" piped to a team without "West" in the name, but that's probably eggy just for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. On the wife, look one section up, in the personal life section, where his marriage is detailed. The Germany/West Germany thing is about anachronism. At the time it was called one, it's now called the other. It would be wrong to call it by the wrong name here. When linking through, the article explains the name. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, I wasn't into sports in English-speaking countries. Did they really say "West Germany" then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not just with regard to sport. Yes, absolutely. That's what the country was called in English sources until unification in the 90s. No idea what it was called in German. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was “der Bundesrepublik Deutschland” Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. See West Germany! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know that article, and was on the talk page when I was young, because that's sloppy. Was it called that in sports announcements, that's my (admittedly ignorant) question. Guess what, when you live in what was called by some West Germany, you just called it Germany, and your passport said Bundesrepublik Deutschland, - in the eastern part similar, - of no relevance to this article. Would they say: "the hymn of West Germany" in a match? Would results say "West Germany"? Learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And in all contexts, not just sport. Example. I found it was quite an effort to remember to say "Germany" without prefix in the early 90s. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly adding an additional nominator, sorry Egghead06 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lemonade51[edit]

minor at that:

  • Under sacking, "The disappointments of quarter final exits from major tournaments in 1970 and 1972," should quarter-final here be hypenated?
  • "Ramsey suffered a stroke on 9 June 1998, during the 1998 World Cup," rather on the eve of the tournament -- it kicked-off on 10 June. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lemonade51 thanks, addressed both of those comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments[edit]

I don't see where the images have been reviewed, so I've requested one and provisionally a source review. Unless, JennyOz, can I take from your comments that you looked through all the sources for formatting and reliability? --Laser brain (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laser_brain, Nope, afraid not. Looked at a few but not a proper source review. JennyOz (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain looks like we're good to go now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re. images, yes -- think we still need the source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. Let us know if/when this is completed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

It seems like all images are pertinent to the section they are in; no comment on captions. Most images have no ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More on sources[edit]

Some verifiability checks have been carried out, but there are other sources issues. For example, the link in ref 105 is dead, and the link in 106 goes to an unrelated page. Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton those have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I even got IABot to add archive refs to 67 other references. The joy! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've run a general eye over the references, and picked up a few further points:

  • Ref 113: link returns a 404 error message
  • A few missing retrieval dates: 83, 93, 108, 159, 162, 189, 190.
  • Retrieval dates are inconsistently provided for book references. See for example, 95 96, 97 et al, and compare e.g. with 115, 117 et al
  • I am unhappy with the use of open-ended page ranges. These have been justified earlier in this review on the grounds of common parlance, but they are not helpful from a verification point of view. For example, "pp. 10–" could encompass virtually the whole book. Some of the books for which open page ranges are used are linked to unpaginated versions, so these page references are unusable in these cases. Chapter references would be more useful.
  • While on this topic, in ref 124 the page reference is given as "pp. 38–" but p. 38 alone supports the statement in the article. Similarly with ref 143 where "p. 301" would suffice.

Subject to the above, the sources meet the required quality and reliability criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the eagle-eyed review, Brianboulton and for your hard work fixing things, The Rambling Man --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm here for Dweller... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are we all done now? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinators, we appear to be done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Thanks, taking a look now. --Laser brain (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 27 March 2019 [18].

Southampton Cenotaph[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? and Hchc2009 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's another war memorial in another city, again by Lutyens. This was his first (it was already in progress when Lutyens got the commission for its much more famous sibling in London). In many ways informed those that followed, and in others it's a complete one-off. Either way, it's a big piece of the puzzle in the story of Lutyens and his war memorials.

Hchc wrote most of it and took it to GA in 2012. I expanded it with some new sources, some of which only came out during the centenary of WWI, and took it through an A-class review at MilHist and now I believe it's up to FA standard. As ever, I'd be very grateful for any feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM[edit]

I looked at this closely during Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to nitpick about then. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • suggest adding alt text
  • Suggest scaling up both images in History slightly. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Another very nice article in a superb series. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, and could only find two points to pick up on:

Design
  • "abstract, beautiful design": this is a bit too POV, unless you can say who considers it so
  • "thus till anonymised": still?

Support. That's it from me - I presume you'll do the right things on these two (the first is a little less clear on how to deal with it), but neither should stop a support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gavin, thanks for the support. I fixed the typo. As for "beautiful design", it's a description of Lutyens' technique rather than an opinion in Wikipedia's voice, but I'd welcome any suggestions for making that clearer without straying too far from the source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harry, Nothing has come to mind in the last day, but I'll mull it over and see if inspiration strikes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Zawed[edit]

I briefly reviewed this article in respect of its images during the Milhist ACR. Having looked at it again in greater detail, I think it is FA standard. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll review this in more detail later, but here's one thing I noticed: Lutyens argued against the committee's initial proposed location on Asylum Green in favour of Watts Park, which the committee agreed to: I found this difficult to parse, though I eventually decided it's unambiguous. How about "Lutyens persuaded the committee to abandon their initial proposed location on Asylum Green in favour of Watts Park"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple more copyedits, but have no more issues to raise. Once the minor issue above is addressed I'll be glad to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie - Mike, Harry appears not to be in a position to deal with this at present so Usernameunique and I are seeing if we can respond to concerns. I've tried a re-wording as follows, "Lutyens argued successfully against the committee's initial proposed location on Asylum Green in favour of Watts Park." Does this work? KJP1 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improvement. To be honest I like my proposed rephrasing better, but it's not enough to withhold support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique[edit]

Lead

  • Jewish community being unhappy that the memorial featured a Christian cross — This makes it sound as if Jewish Southamptoners made the decision to be excluded, but later on in the article it makes it sound as if they were excluded by others.
This is rather topical, in view of the discussion here, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Citation tools and GBooks links! I see the text is available as a snippet in Google books, here, [19]. I think this makes pretty clear that Jewish names were "excluded", although there may have been an element of self-exclusion in that Jews would have felt unable to commemorate their dead on what had been made, by the inclusion of the cross, an explicitly Christian memorial. Lutyens fought, and mostly won, the same battle on the same grounds in relation to the war graves in France and Belgium. "All that is done of structure should be for all time and for equality of honour, for besides Christians of all denominations, there will be Jews, Mussulmens, Hindus and men of other creeds, their glorious names and their mortal bodies all equally deserving enduring record and seemly sepulture".(Amery et. al., Lutyens, 1981, p=150) I'll try a, very slight, rewording, perhaps with a footnote. KJP1 (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have now reread and I think the prose follows the source. It's not 100% clear to me, but I think the act of including the Christian cross had the effect of excluding the Jewish dead, rather than there being a specific prohibition. I've added a footnote which Harry can remove if undesired. He thought we'd put rather too many in Sissinghurst but he may accept one! KJP1 (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • The war had a profound effect on him — How so?
A number of reasons: firstly he, like many others, was appalled by the sheer scale of the carnage and the death toll. Secondly, he moved in the aristocratic circles that saw particularly heavy losses, proportionate to their numbers, as they made up the officer class. Then, as a prescient man, he saw that the War would bring to an end the England in which he had grown up and prospered, the market for large country houses taking a distinct downturn postwar! But that's enough OR, let me go and find a quote. KJP1 (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have tweaked the wording and put in what I hope is a suitable quote. See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioning

  • with a proposed budget of £10,000 — What's that in 2019 pounds?
  • The template defaults to comparisons over time using the Consumer Price Index or Retail Price Index; this is only safe for comparing Consumer Price Index values over time: e.g. staples, workers' rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets) etc. - large war memorials are definitely out of scope. :) The template will allow to compare using a GDP inflator, but you need to be sure that you're happy with what that statistic is actually telling you, and whether or not its appropriate for the comparison you want to make, or indeed useful for the purposes of this article. (For comparison, a GDP inflator will give you equivalent to £546,000 in 2019; a CPI version will give you equivalent to £518,000 in 2021). For these purposes, I wonder if an average wage comparator would be more appropriate - tellingly, those comparison measures would equate £10,000 in 1918 to just under £2m today. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at a few of Harry's other memorials, Manchester/Leicester, I see he doesn't use a comparator template in these either. Perhaps there's just not one that "works", although £10,000 (1918) to £2M (2019) sounds sort of "right" to me. KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Changing the start date from 1918 to 1920 also happens to result in wildly different calculations, so another reason to just let the £10,000 stand by itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the project was completed on time — When was that?
1920, added. KJP1 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design and symbolism

  • Watts Park — Worth a stub?
Lord, you don't ask for much! Watts Park, Southampton. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Above and beyond, KJP1. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several points here where you include 4 or 5 citations after a number of sentences, and I wonder if you could place them with more precision at the exact sentences they support.
This is Harry's style, and has been accepted in his many previous FAs. Like you, I prefer to tie my refs to the specific sentence to which they relate but I don't think it needs changing. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Agreed and removed. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names of the dead — How many names?
2,368. Added with cite. KJP1 (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • abstract, beautiful design ... the beauty of the design ... Lutyens' abstract, "beautiful" portrayal — Calling it beautiful feels like commentary.

History

  • Jewish names were predominantly excluded from the memorial — Why? Whose decision?
See above. KJP1 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another stone was laid by the Cenotaph in 2018, dedicated to Daniel Beak — Why did they decide to single him out for an individual stone?
  • Seems like this is because he survived the war, and so wasn't already commemorated, but that his actions were considered significant enough to merit commemoration. Clarified that he survived the war. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's exactly that. Southampton-born and a VC holder. I've expanded a little further. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small metal plaque mounted on a concrete plinth was installed by Southampton City Council in the 21st century — "in the 21st century" is pretty vague, coming as it does after a line about a 2018 addition.
  • when it formed part of a national collection of Lutyens' war memorials. — Do you mean to say that Historic England decided at this time to specifically designate a collection of Lutyens's war memorials?
Exactly so, in 2015, when all of Lutyens' 44 memorials were listed, and many of those already listed were upgraded, e.g. II to II*, II* to I. [20] KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you know what you're doing with all these Lutyens articles, HJ Mitchell. Couldn't find much to nitpick about. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

Having now read it through a number of times, and being confident it is FA standard, I'll take the liberty of adding my Support. KJP1 (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that no response is evident to Usernameunique comments and HJ Mitchell doesn't seem to have edited in almost a month. If the nominator has become inactive, we'll have no choice but to close this unless someone else wants to volunteer to shepherd it across the line. --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, forgot to mention I wiki-mailed Harry over the weekend and have had no response as yet. If he's away for longer then I'd hope someone could take this over as it seems on the home stretch even though comments remain unaddressed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Laser_brain and Ian Rose, if my comments are the last unresolved part of this nomination, I'll see what I can do by the end of the week to address them myself. Most were pretty minor. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Laser_brain, Ian Rose and Usernameunique - Usernameunique, I've some, though not all, of the sources and may be able to help. I'll take a look but it'll be later today/tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, thanks for helping with this. What you say about Jewish names makes sense, and if you could clarify it in the article, that would be great. Everything else is relatively minor, but it seems that this part—suggesting, as it does, sentiments of bigotry—should be particularly clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique - My absolute pleasure. The article warrants a star and it would be a pity for it to fall by the wayside because Harry's busy IRL. I think, between us, we've now addressed all but one of your, and Mike's, issues, provided you're ok with the Jewish names. The only outstanding one I can see is the use of "beautiful", as in "abstract, beautiful design". I absolutely get the concern, which I see was shared by SchroCat. However, I'd be reluctant to take them out. Harry obviously thought carefully about them - see his discussion with SchroCat - and they are linked to a source which I don't have. What do you think? KJP1 (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Good to see the helmet on the front page yesterday!
KJP1, it would certainly be a shame for a few minor points to get in the way of this nomination. What do you think of my rewording regarding the Jewish names? I think this makes the lead (which mentions the reaction of the Jewish community) more consistent with the body. I've also removed the exact number of names from "Design and symbolism" (which you added on my suggestion), because on reflection this seems a nuanced issue—the number has changed over time, and the names are now predominantly listed on new glass panels—that is better treated in "History." Finally, I'm happy to leave the use of "beautiful" for Harry to think about at a future date. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the note about the Emesa helmet! Was fun to see that featured.
Usernameunique - I think it reads very well, and it's certainly supported by the source. So I think we're done, but we can let Ian/Laserbrain have a look. I've never done a DYK! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, KJP1. I agree that we're covered the significant points. Added my support above. And it seemed that after going to the trouble of creating the Watts Park article, you may as well get a DYK out of it! --Usernameunique (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 and Usernameunique, thank you kindly for all of your last-minute work to push this over the line. --Laser brain (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No issues evident from limited spotchecking
  • All sources links working
  • No presentational issues

The sources appear to be well chosen, and of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 27 March 2019 [21].

1989 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 76th edition of the Tour de France, a three-week stage cycle race through France. The 1989 edition is known as one of the closest fought and more memorable in the history of the event. The article passed its GA review in late October. Apart from alt captions, not much more work has been done to the article since I felt it met the FA criteria as it is. I am very much looking forward to your suggestions and comments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier work on the article has been done by BaldBoris, EdgeNavidad and Socheid. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Fignon image
@Nikkimaria: You mean cropping it to focus on Fignon or just making it bigger? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just use |upright= to make it bigger. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I chose factor 1.2, do you think that is big enough? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd maybe do 1.3. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Route_of_the_1989_Tour_de_France.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Have added a source for the route on the commons page of the image. Please check if this suffices. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Would you give a support for this nomination or do you not weigh in on that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not on an image review, no. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

A couple of minor notes on source formatting, though I have not done a source review:

  • Why put Chauner & Halstead in the footnotes and not in the sources?
From my time at university, I have taken the habit of only listing sources in the bibliography that I reference more than once. That is why I have Moore's biography of Millar and the Chauner & Halstead book only as a footnote. I am unsure if there is an official Wikipedia policy on this, but I find that a good solution for not bloating up the bibliography with books that are not essential for the article topic as a whole. Feel free to disagree though, I am open for debate! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; just wanted to check it was deliberate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not consistent about putting locations in the books -- McGann & McGann and Chauner & Halstead do not have locations but the other books do.
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an ISBN for Augendre?
No, as far as I know, the Historical Guide is given out every year at the Tour and published online by L'Equipe. Since it is not sold, there does not appear to be an ISBN. Will tackle the comments below as soon as I can. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-source comments follow. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I screw anything up.

  • I'd suggest making it "aerodynamic handlebars" rather than just "aerobars" in the lead; it's not a term I've ever seen and there's no link, so I had to scan the rest of the article to figure it out.
Reworded.
  • Did LeMond use the aerobars in the prologue or just in the later three time trials?
Clarified.
  • I see from a note that Fignon was disqualified from another race for using this equipment. Is there enough of a controversy over the aerobars for it to be mentioned in the lead?
@Mike Christie: I would say the lead is quite long already, and the controversy around their usage was mainly on how much benefit they actually gave LeMond rather than wether or not he was allowed to use them. I have however amended the footnote to reflect the history of the regulations concerning this (as far as I could find). Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not expected that LeMond would be able to make up this deficit on the 24.5 km (15.2 mi) stage. However, he rode the distance at an average speed of 54.545 km/h (33.893 mph), the fastest time trial ever ridden in the Tour de France up to that point, and won the stage. Fignon's time in the stage was fifty-eight seconds slower than LeMond's, costing him the victory and giving LeMond his second Tour title. The final margin of victory was only eight seconds. I think there's some repetition and wordiness here that could be eliminated. How about "LeMond was not expected to be able to make up this deficit, but he completed the 24.5 km (15.2 mi) stage at an average speed of 54.545 km/h (33.893 mph), the fastest time trial ever ridden in the Tour de France up to that point, and won the stage. Fignon's time was fifty-eight seconds slower than LeMond's, costing him the victory and giving LeMond his second Tour title by a margin of only eight seconds."
Done.
  • Twenty-two teams of nine cyclists would be 198 riders, but apparently only 189 entered the race -- is that a typo?
Fixed.
  • strongest favourite: would just "favourite" work? Or "a strong favourite"?
Done. Also tweaked the wording for Fignon.
  • In the lead you mention the prologue and "the other three time trials"; in the body you say "In total there were five time trials including the prologue". I assume this is because one is a team time trial, but I think this should be clarified in one place or the other -- e.g. "the other three individual time trials" in the lead would do it.
Done.
  • since they only allowed three support points for the rider on the bike: might be worth citing the relevant regulation in a footnote. Are these handlebars allowed nowadays? Have the rules changed since then?
@Mike Christie: Have included that in the footnote above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would at least wikilink "bidon", if there's a suitable target, but it might be better to substitute a word that will be understood by non-aficionados. Similarly for "feed zone". Is there a glossary article for cycling terms? Or perhaps you could put in a couple of footnotes?
Done.
  • while Erik Breukink retired: since you're not mentioning all retirements, you might make it clearer why this one is worth mentioning -- perhaps "while Erik Breukink, one of the pre-race favourites, retired"?
Done.
  • and the stage was earmarked as being the decisive part of the race overall: "earmarked" doesn't seem like quite the right word. Not sure what the source will support, but perhaps "expected" would be better. How about "Stage 17, which finished at Alpe d'Huez, one of the most famous climbs in cycling, was expected to be the decisive point of the race"? I'm not crazy about the slightly journalese "led the peloton to", and this wording avoids multiple uses of the word "stage".
Done.
  • At the half-distance time check, LeMond had taken 21 seconds out of Fignon's lead. Out of sequence, surely, since it appears Fignon was after LeMond in the time trial, not before? Or at least it should be rephrased not to imply that LeMond was known to be ahead of Fignon by 21 seconds at that point.
Done.
  • He ended with a time of 27:55 minutes, the fastest time trial he had ever ridden: 27:55 is a time, not a speed; shouldn't we give his speed if we're going to say "fastest"? Or are all time trials exactly the same length?
I have calculated his average speed and added it. However, I calculated it myself, it does not come from a source. Don't know if that constitutes OR?
  • The organisation had categorized some climbs: what does "the organization" refer to?
I have now given the name of the Tour organisation in the first section.
  • with more points available for the higher-categorized climbs: if I recall correctly, hors catégorie is the hardest, and fourth-category is the easiest, so I would say "more difficult" to avoid a non-aficionado assuming that "fourth" was the hardest because it's a higher number.
Clarified.
  • You cover the intermediate sprints classification but there's no explanation of how it worked, and no narrative of it during the race. I don't know anything about it myself so I'm not sure what it is or what you should add, but it seems odd that there's no coverage at all.
Nobody really cared about the classification, which is why it was abandoned the year after. That's why there's basically no sources for it. I have expanded upon all of the classification as far as I could.
  • Any reason not to give the leadership by stage of all the classifications? You only give three; I'm not saying you need to -- perhaps there's a consensus that these are the important three -- but I thought I'd ask.
@Mike Christie: I removed the young rider classification because no jersey was worn, so listing it would have been misleading. I removed the team classification because it had gaps in it and I could not find a source for that information. I am hoping that the stat book that EdgeNavidad mentioned below will give me that information so that I can verify all of that. We'll see, the book should arrive today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no success here, although the book does provide the infos which EdgeNavidad listed below, which I am in the process of including.

Generally this looks pretty clean, and I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I think I have tackled everything for now, please see if anything still needs to be done from your point of view. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good with one exception: the point about "LeMond had taken 21 seconds out of Fignon's lead" is that it sounds to the reader as if anyone watching the race would have known this -- that at the halfway mark, it was clear that LeMond had made up 21 seconds. That's not true, though; it wouldn't be known until Fignon reached the half-way mark later. Presumably what happened was everyone could see it was a very fast time trial, but it was Fignon's ride that was the truly exciting one, because that was when the time comparisons could be made. That doesn't come through in this description.
@Mike Christie: Well, the way I have phrased it now, it clearly says "when he [Fignon] reached the half-distance time check"; at which point it was clear what the time difference was. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It currently says When he reached the half-distance time check, LeMond had taken 21 seconds out of his lead. The previous sentences have mentioned both Fignon and LeMond, so I read this as "When LeMond reached". If you make this "When Fignon reached", that would resolve this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re the calculation question: no, that's not OR; it's a straightforward calculation so anyone can verify it and it doesn't need a separate source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the concerns I raised have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EdgeNavidad[edit]

I checked if there was (according to my expertise) information missing on this page. I specifically looked at the information on rules and classifications. For reference: I used this book and searched for 1989. I found a few things that are currently wrong in the article, and several details that are currently not in the wikipedia article while I feel they should/might be mentioned:

  • The Tour organisation did not "choose to automatically invite the eighteen best-ranked teams in the FICP Road World Rankings", but they were convinced/forced by the FICP. The Tour wanted to re-use the system that they used in 1988, but the FICP wanted them to use the FICP ranking. In return, the Tour was allowed to be 23 days long, in stead of the 21 days that the FICP originally requested. (Not very detailed in that book, but I found another source.)
Clarified, thank you very much for the sources!
  • There were no time bonuses at all. Not for stage winners, nor for intermediate sprints. Something that I feel should be mentioned somewhere.
According to van den Akker, intermediate sprints did give time bonuses, which I have included. I also included that no time bonuses were given at stage finishes.
Indeed, intermediate sprints gave time bonuses in the first half, I missed that. :)
  • LeMond's ADR team was seventeenth in the team classification. In no other year (as of 2018) did the team of the Tour winner finish lower in the team classification. (I don't know if this is important enough to include.)
Included.
  • For the points classification, time trials and mountain stages gave 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 point. Flat stages gave 35, 30, 26, 24, 22, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 point.
Included.
  • After the first stage, Da Silva lead the points classification, not Lilholt. They were tied in points, but Da Silva had won more stages, which was the first tie-breaker. Still, Da Silva would not wear the green jersey in the next stage because Da Silva wore yellow. Lilholt would wear red, because he led the intermediate sprints classification, so Kelly, third in the points classification, would wear green. Da Silva also lead after the second stage.
Included.
  • For the mountains classification, the points were:
HC: 40, 35, 30, 26, 22, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1
1: 30, 26, 22, 18, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1
2: 20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1
3: 7, 5, 3, 2, 1
4: 4, 2, 1
Included.
  • In the leadership table, the mountains classification leader for first three stages are wrong: currently it says N/A, Le Clerc & Le Clerc, but it should be Gianetti, Da Silva & Da Silva.
@EdgeNavidad: Can you give me a source for that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prologue, 1st stage, 2nd stage, all on Memoire du Cyclisme. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the young rider classification, Alberto-Luis Camargo was eligible, but his team forgot to enter him. Had he been entered, he would have won, but now Fabrice Philipot became the winner.
Included.
  • For the young rider classification, the white jersey was not used, but the leader was still recognizable, because he had the logo of the European Union on his shoulder.
Included.
  • For the intermediate sprints classification, in the first half of the Tour intermediate sprints gave 6, 4 and 2 points, and in the second half 15, 10 and 5.
Included.
  • For the combination classification, points were given based on the ranks in other classification (general, points, mountains and intermediate sprints): the leader got 25 points, the second 24 points, and so on until 1 point for 25th place.
Included.
  • The "Souvenir Jacques Anquetil" was used: a prize was given to the rider who wore the yellow jersey on the most stages.
Included.
  • The combativity award was in 1989 a classification based on votes given in each stage.

I lack the time to properly include this in the article, and I am afraid to break the prose. I won't vote on this article, because I think too much was written by me to be objective. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, thank you for bringing that source to my attention, I have been looking for these sorts of information actually. Will see that I include everything! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EdgeNavidad: All done now. Thank you very much for the help! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All seems to be included correctly! No objections from me for making this a featured article. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One afterthought: the article currently states that the Souvenir Henri Desgrange was won by Franco Vona. This is supported by a source. However, the articles on the Souvenir Henri Desgrange says the winner was Gert-Jan Theunisse, without source. When I looked for additional sources, I found reports that the Souvenir Desgrange was won by neither of them, but by Laurent Biondi. See newspaper articles from that time ([22], [23]), and Memoire du Cyclisme says that L'Equipe of 20 July 1989 reported this. ([24]). I think the newspaper articles from 1989 are more reliable than a report written in 2009, so I think this article (and the Souvenir Henri Desgrange) article should show Biondi as winner. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EdgeNavidad: Thank you for catching this! I was also confused by the Souvenir article, but put it down simply as a mistake (which it probably is). I will take a closer look at this tomorrow and then make the changes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EdgeNavidad: I've changed it and added the new source. There seems to be some confusion since the prize is not given out at the summit, but at the monument. Have corrected that as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias talk[edit]

Lead
  • The race was won by Greg LeMond (AD Renting–W-Cup–Bottecchia). There is no explanation of what the part in brackets means. Maybe on this first usage, write it out ("Greg LeMond of the AD Renting... team" and subsequently use brackets? Or at least put "team" in the brackets.
Done.
  • In the time trial stages, Fignon only managed to match LeMond in the prologue... Would Fignon have been expected to beat LeMond? This might be better cut to "... Fignon matched LeMond in the prologue..."
Done.
  • In the third paragraph, you say "..by fifty seconds..", "..was fifty-eight seconds..", "..only eight seconds.", but then "..more than 53 seconds..". Change this last one for consistency.
It is correct how it is written. The biggest margin was 53 seconds. LeMond made up 58 seconds on the final day, coming from 50 seconds back to 8 seconds up on Fignon.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. You write "fifty", "fight-eight" and "eight" out as words, but wrote "53" as a number. Just switch "53" to "fifty-three". Harrias talk 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, fixed!
  • by French Fabrice Philipot I'm not aware that "French" can be used like this, shouldn't it be "Frenchman"?
Removed this, his nationality is trivial to the information conveyed here.
Teams
  • 39 of the 198 cyclists... Per MOS:NUM, avoid starting a sentence with a number.
Done.
Pre-race favourites
  • Future five-time winner Miguel Induráin was riding in support of Delgado. This just seems like trivia to me. Does it have any significant bearing on the article at this stage?
Removed.
  • ...during four years of little results after 1984. I'm not sure about "little results", would "poor results" be accurate?
Have changed this to "with few victories".
  • ...the three-week Grand Tour in Italy... Why is "Grand Tour" in italics? The article (Grand Tour (cycling) doesn't use italics?
Done.
  • Bjarne Riis, aged 25, rode his first Tour de France, supporting his teammate Fignon.[16] Riis would go on to win the 1996 Tour de France, the year after the last of Induráin's wins. As with Induráin above, this seems out of place.
Removed.
  • ...made it seem that Roche was finding his form again. According to who? Without attribution, this looks like editorialising.
According to Tassell, which is the source given. I paraphrased here, since there are already quite a few direct quotes in the article.
Maybe change it to something like "...top-ten placing at the Giro d'Italia led Tassell to suggest that Roche was finding his form again." Harrias talk 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Hmm, not sure about that, since Tassell writes about it after the fact, so this would be misleading. I will have another look into the book tonight and see how to best phrase it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...ADS's financial troubles meant that, LeMond had not been paid... No need for that comma.
Done.
Route and stages
  • Link Wasquehal, Dinard and Col du Galibier in the prose.
Done.
Race overview
  • The opening prologue... I understand why it's written like this, but "opening" and "prologue" are synonyms, so I don't think it's necessary.
Done.
  • ...and, surprisingly, LeMond... Surprising according to who, otherwise it is editorialising.
Removed.
  • The dominant story of the day however was defending champion Delgado. Remove "however".
Removed.
  • ...but his efforts were brought back. This needs explaining in some way. I assume it means he was caught back up by the peloton?
Reworded.
  • ...Delgado fell further back, as he struggled to keep up and... No need for that comma, it might be better placed after "keep up".
Removed the comma. I am always confused with English comma rules (are there any?). Would the comma after "keep up" count as an Oxford comma? I usually do those, but aren't they just in "x, y, and z" situations?
  • ...taking the lead in the tour by... Should "tour" be capitalised here? It's been capitalised most other times?
Done.
  • LeMond's surprising victory... Again, according to who?
Removed. It was surprising, but I am unsure now if Tassell specifically said so here.

Completed as far as the start of the Pyrenees section, but now my laptop battery is running low, and I have no charging point here. Harrias talk 13:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thank you for your comments! I have adressed everything above, please feel free to go through it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Will you find time to do the rest of the article as well? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Have been in hospital, but should hopefully be back to this in the next few days. Harrias talk 23:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Oh! I hope it wasn't too serious. Get well soon! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Do you think you can find the time to stroll through the rest of the article in the coming days? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pyrenees
  • ..putting any work in to counter attacks.. It should be "into" not "in to".
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..where Delgado was provoked by an over-enthusiastic spectator and threw a bidon at him. He then attacked but.. Given the first sentence effectively describes Delgado literally attacking a spectator, can we use a different word to "attacked" in the second sentence, for clarity.
Changed to "moved clear". BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transition stages and Bastille Day bicentenary
  • ..almost certainly in his hands, Dheanens misjudged.. Typo, misspelt "Dhaenens".
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..as did his only remaining teammate, José-Hipolito Roncancio, meaning that the Kelme squad was entirely out of the race. Saying both "his only remaining teammate" and "the Kelme squad was entirely out of the race" seems a little tautologous; can it be tightened a little to remove the repetition?
Changed to "..the only remaining Kelme riders abandoned, pre-race favourite Fabio Parra and José-Hipolito Roncancio." BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the fact that it was the Bastille Day bicentenary at all relevant to the race or this article? It is included in the title, and clarified in the prose, but it doesn't seem to have had any impact on the race at all? To me, a mention that Stage 13 was on Bastille Day, a national holiday in France would be the most information needed, the rest just seems like padding.
Removed. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alps
  • Out of interest, were there multiple people with the surnames Millar and Mottet, as you often refer to these two by their full names, even after they have been mentioned quite a few times in the article previously, but you don't seem to do it much, if at all, with others. If there isn't a reason for that disambiguation, it'd be worth checking throughout for this. (Particularly relevant for Millar, as the less times we can "fully" deadname her, the better.)
For each section I put the full name at the first instance and removed surnames in the following mentions. I recently asked about this here, but didn't get a clear answer.BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..sight of the World Championships one month later.. Site, not sight.
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • American media, traditionally not overly interested in cycling.. This needs a supporting reference.
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..he became the highest-paid cyclist in the history of the sport.. There's a few statements like this that need clarifying: the highest-paid cyclist in the history of the sport ever, or until that point?
I added a reference for this and clarified two others. Were there more? BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Classification leadership and minor prizes
  • ..were given 6, 4, and 2 bonus seconds respectively.. Given the riders wanted the lowest time, am I to assume that these time bonuses were subtracted from their times?
Added (time subtracted) after "time bonuses". BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..45 for the winner down to one point.. Per MOS:NUM these comparable number should be presented in the same form, so "45" and "1" (or vice versa). Similar in the subsequent sentence.
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Why "van_den_Akker 2018" rather than "van den Akker 2018"?
Done. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; finished to end of article. Harrias talk 22:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC) @Zwerg Nase: Just a heads up that I'm done with my review, pending any further responses from you. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate any critique you might be able to offer on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979/archive1. Harrias talk 11:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: I've stepped in and sorted the remaining comments out due to the urgency and Zwerg not replying today. BaldBoris 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Thank you for your comments, which were of great help! I'll take a look at your FAC, but just a heads up: I have no idea about cricket, since I am not British or living in any other Commonwealth nation... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

Noting that I reviewed this article for GA status.

  • The 1989 Tour de France was the 76th edition of the Tour de France, a race of 21 stages and a prologue, over 3,285 km (2,041 mi). ===>>> The 1989 Tour de France was the 76th edition of the Tour de France, one of cycling's Grand Tours. The race consisted of 21 stages and a prologue over 3,285 km (2,041 mi). (It's worth mentioning what the Tour de France is.)
Have added this and some more information about the importance of the Tour, including a source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about just "one of cycling's Grand Tours and generally considered the most famous bike race in the world." I think the claim that it's the biggest sporting event is a bit too much for the lead, especially given that it's just a specific edition of the Tour, and not the general Tour de France article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tour organisers relented, but in turn were allowed to run the race over 23 days instead of the original 21-day period given by the FICP. ===>>> The Tour organisers had initially relented, but gave in to the demand in return for being allowed to run the race over 23 days instead of the original 21-day period given by the FICP.
I am unsure why you propose this change. Writing it like that would make it sound like the two things happened one after another and not simultaneously.
Ah, I thought it was one after the other. I feel like the "but" doesn't belong. How about: "The Tour organisers relented in exchange for being allowed to run the race over 23 days instead of the original 21-day period given by the FICP." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split that paragraph into two after the above sentence.
Done.
  • Next to Delgado, good chances of overall victory were also given to Laurent Fignon ===>>> Next to Delgado, Laurent Fignon was also given a good chance for overall victory.
Done.
  • Kelly had never been a strong contender for the general classification, despite an overall victory at the 1988 Vuelta a España: next to targeting a high place in the overall rankings, Kelly hoped to secure a record-breaking fourth win in the points classification. ===>>> Kelly had never been a strong contender for the general classification, despite an overall victory at the 1988 Vuelta a España. Aside from targeting a high place in the overall rankings, Kelly hoped to secure a record-breaking fourth win in the points classification. (two sentences)
Done.
  • In the race overview, the stage numbers should all be spelled out (e.g. "five", "six", etc.) or all of them should be numbered, rather than some having numbers and others having words.
All numerals now.
  • Sean Kelly meanwhile lost more than five minutes to LeMond, having to throw up after about 20 km (12 mi) of the stage. ===>>> Sean Kelly meanwhile lost more than five minutes to LeMond after having to throw up after about 20 km (12 mi) of the stage.
Done.
  • He passed away in 2010 following a short battle with cancer.[82] <<<=== I would leave this out, as I don't think he died because of this race.
Removed.
  • In all, during the race the leader changed seven times. ===>>> During the race, the leader changed seven times.
Done.
  • The organisation had categorized some climbs as either hors catégorie, first, second, third, or fourth-category, with the lower-numbered categories representing harder climbs. ===>>> The organisation had categorized some climbs as either hors catégorie (beyond categorisation), first, second, third, or fourth-category, with the lower-numbered categories representing harder climbs.
Done, although with BE spelling.
  • In the event, the classification was won by Fabrice Philipot (Toshiba), who had placed 24th overall. ===>>> Instead, the classification was won by Fabrice Philipot (Toshiba), who had placed 24th overall.

Will support after these minor comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: Thank you for your comments! Have worked most of them in, one question is still open, see above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added replies to the first two points above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: Both good suggestions. Have incorporated both. Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

This has been open over seven weeks and probably should've been archived but perhaps we're closer to promotion than it looks on first glance. I think we can take EdgeNavidad comments as supporting promotion despite it not being explicitly stated, and if Harrias can finish up then we might get over the line. Mike Christie do you think you could take on a source review for reliability as well as formatting? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: That would be great! I would hate to have to do a second round with this article... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, could we list it for the source review at the usual place, and then I'll get to it if I find time this weekend? I've been busier than usual IRL recently and have been slow to meet commitments already made, so I'd rather not promise anything. With luck someone else will come along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Have done so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: Status on addressing outstanding comments? --Laser brain (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I've taken care of them all as I'm sure you want this archived. BaldBoris 03:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain and BaldBoris: Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation last week which prevented me from tackling the comments. If any more work needs to be done, I'll do it today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I think it should probably be good to go? What do you think? Maybe we still need an expressive support from Harrias? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Verification: A couple of points arise from a sample spotchecks exercise:
  • Ref 1: "The 1989 Tour de France was the 76th edition of the Tour de France, one of cycling's Grand Tours and generally considered the most famous bike race in the world." The source article is about the 2018 Tour: "It's the 103rd edition of the race". Isn't there a more relevant source that could be cited?
Done. BaldBoris 03:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10: "Before the 1989 Tour began, Pedro Delgado (Reynolds), the defending champion, was considered a strong favourite to win the race. He had taken the title the previous year in convincing fashion, with a lead of over seven minutes. Prior to the Tour, Delgado had also won the 1989 Vuelta a España, and was therefore considered to be in good form." Apart from mentioning Delgado as one of several favourites, the source does not support the information cited to it.
Done. BaldBoris 03:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality and reliability: Overall the sources appear to meet the required standards of quality and reliability.
  • External links: All links to sources are working, according to the external links checker tool
  • Ref 28 goes to a page: "All about year 2018" – not 1989
Done. BaldBoris 03:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting
  • Ref 95 missing retrieval date
  • Ref 105 missing page ref
  • Ref 111 missing retrieval date
  • Ref 116 ditto
  • Ref 118 ditto
  • Ref 119 ditto
  • Ref 120 ditto

Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Sorry to butt in, I just want to help out. I've fixed "missing page ref" and replaced the "All about year 2018". I had originally added the refs that you state are missing the retrieval dates. As I've said at the recently passed 1962 Tour FAC, "Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates." Per Template:Cite news#URL. The source text in old newspapers or books cannot be changed, so a retrieval date is of no benefit to reader. BaldBoris 22:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the archived links carry retrieval dates, and it is necessary to be consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the Dutch newspaper links at either Delpher or KrantenbanZeeland.nl cannot be archived. Including a retrieval date for these just for consistency doesn't make sense to me. BaldBoris 23:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: I've taken care of your concerns and added new refs. BaldBoris 03:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated point: Why, in the lead, is Fignon described as "former two-time Tour winner"? Surely he remains a two-time winner? Perhaps "previous" would be a better word. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BaldBoris 03:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [25].

Francis Willughby[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I live about 20 miles from Willughby's former home, and the publication of two major books in the last few years made it a no-brainer to write about the "first true ornithologist". Many thanks to Shyamal for invaluable help with sources, and to aa77zz for a detailed pre-FAC review, comments and additional sources, which have greatly improved on my original versionJimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aa77zz[edit]

I had my say at the review on the talk page. This is a well written article that I enjoyed reading. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Willughby_ray_europe.jpg: base map link is broken
  • File:Palazzo_Publico_Bologna_by_Ferdinand_-Cospi.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Pepys_copy_of_Willughby's_Ornithology.jpg, File:Willughby_Ornithology_Title_Page.jpg, File:James_Edward_Smith.jpg
  • File:Playingcardsvanda.jpg should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

I enjoyed this article enormously, and look forward to supporting its promotion. A few very, very minor quibbles about points of drafting:

  • Lead
    • Is it correct to refer to "Great Britain" before the Act of Union in Seventeen Hundred and Something? (Question asked from a position of flawless ignorance.)
  • GB is a geographical entity as the largest island, but changed to England and Wales for clarity Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Willughby had suffered a number of episodes of illness" – perhaps a slightly roundabout way of saying "suffered bouts of illness"?
  • Early life
    • Forgive the idiot question, but if our man spelled his name in the odd way he did, how come his dad didn't?
  • Spelling of names was still fluid in the 17th century, although not as much as it was a little earlier in Shakespeare's time and it seems to have been a personal quirk of FW
    • Last sentence of first para – what a treat to see the absolute construction used so elegantly!
    • "with James Duport, who shared the Willughbys' royalist sympathies in the English Civil War, as his tutor. John Ray" – possibly the result of reading late at night, but by the time I got to the end of the sentence I had to go back again to pick up the thread, particularly as the phrase "fellow-commoner with John Ray" (I missed the comma lurking under the citation) put it into my head that Ray was his fellow commoner; perhaps something on the lines of "his tutor was John Ray, who shared the Willughbys' royalist sympathies in the English Civil War"?
    • "Ray was elected as a Fellow in 1667" – of Trinity, presumably, but it could be clearer.
  • Cheshire and Wales
    • "Willughby left his companions when he fell ill at Gloucester while they continued" – would it not be more accurate to say they left him? "Parted company", perhaps?
  • Europe
    • "Spain, which he considered backwards" – shouldn't that be "backward"?
  • Later life and death
    • "and it has been suggested" – recently or ages ago? If it's still a current possibility it might be nice to say so.
    • "died at the age of nineteen, while his daughter ... married the Duke of Chandos" – must have put a damper on the wedding celebrations. I'd beware of using "while" to mean "and" or "although". As Fowler puts it, "the temporal sense that lurks in while may lead those who use it into the absurdity of seeming to say that two events occurred, or will occur, simultaneously which cannot possibly do so". ("The Dean read the lesson, while the Bishop preached the sermon").
    • "a patron of naturalist Mark Catesby" – an unexpected and rather unwelcome false title.
    • "present at the interment with the family" – theoretically ambiguous. Nobody will really suppose he was interred with the family but it might still be safer to say "present with the family at the interment"
  • Birds
    • "Emma Willoughby" – as with our man's father, one wonders why his widow spelled her surname differently.

That's my meagre harvest of comments and queries. I'll look in again soon, when I hope and expect to give my hearty support for promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 23:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased to support the promotion of this article. Highly readable, unobtrusively stylish prose, balanced, well and widely referenced, and as far as this layman can tell comprehensive. I enjoyed it a lot, and learnt all sorts of things too. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. I'll be happy to do a source review if someone more expert doesn't volunteer. Tim riley talk 09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Chiswick Chap[edit]

This looks a very worthy FA which I will read now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is really very little to add to the comments already made:

  • It might be worth linking Ray and others in the image captions.
  • "it has recently been suggested" - always a hostage to time's wingèd arrow. Perhaps "in 2018 it was suggested".
  • The leaf-cutter bee of the image was described by Kirby in 1802.
  • Maybe add the date of Smith's opinion, 1788, to the image of Smith.
  • "previous writers, such as Conrad Gessner". Might be worth glossing him, e.g. "the naturalist Conrad Gessner" or by mentioning his Historia animalium.
  • It might be worth saying that "Ornithologiae libri tres" means "Three books of ornithology" (explaining why the title begins with a pesky genitive).
  • "a handwritten book containing wildlife paintings from Leonard Baldner." The paintings were by Baldner: it'd be nice if that could be clarified without making the sentence too clunky.
  • See footnote i. Although some extant versions were indeed painted by Baldner, that's not the case with FW's copies. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the main species' descriptions": the apostrophe is not needed, we can use species as an adjectival noun.

That's about it from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks from me, and congratulations on a fascinating article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

What a great topic.

  • I wonder if a link to game studies or similar would be appropriate in the lead?
  • Dablink in the map caption
  • "Sir Francis Willoughby" Is that spelling deliberate?
  • "The tables they produced were used by Wilkins as part of a unifying scheme later published as An Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language in 1668." Tables of what? This isn't completely clear to me. Plants and animals? But the book is about language?
  • I've expanded to make it clearer. The study of language was important to Wlkins in his search for a way to rationalise the terminology of animals and plants. The idea was sound, although it had some batty aspects the way he tackled it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the MOS calls on us to use Title Case for book titles - unless there's an exception for dated works?
  • Check punctuation and flow in the sentence beginning "Although Ray claimed"?
  • I've tweaked this slightly, although to be honest I'm not sure what's wrong with the punctuation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The journey through the Alps was arduous, with poor mountain tracks, bad weather and little food except bread, and it was 6 October before they reached their destination, where Skippon listed 60 species of fish and 28 kinds of birds he had noted in the Venetian markets." Reference?
  • "He also disliked the land and the people: almost desolate... tyrannical inquisition... multitude of whores... wretched laziness... very like the Welsh and Irish" Why italics rather than speech marks?
  • "The first child, Francis, died at the age of nineteen, while his daughter Cassandra Willoughby" It's not clear who the his refers to, here.
  • "having to defend a bitterly disputed inheritance put him under more strain" Do we have any more information about this?
  • You link will at the second mention, not the first; I'm not sure I'd bother at all.
  • "to help achieve this aim" What aim, sorry?
  • Would it be possible to include a bit more mention of his game/mathematical work in the life section? The impression we might get is that basically all his work was biological or linguistic.
  • The problem here is a lack of material. Although he was a competent mathematician, he wasn't primarily active in that field, and little survives; his work on probability in games might have been important, but no trace of any manuscript survives. His interest in games was unknown until that manuscript was found in the Nottingham archive in the 1990s, and as far as I know isn't mentioned by Ray and only tangentially by Cassandra Willughby. Birkhead (2018) has fewer than five pages in a 300+ page book on this aspect, which I think fairly reflects that all we have is the manuscript of the Book of Games. As far as surviving sources go, virtually all his other known work was biological or linguistic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " had less knowledge, patience and judgment than Ray" Again, why italics rather than quotes?

Really great read; I've learnt a lot. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is everything resolved from your perspective, Josh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose and Jimfbleak: Please don't hold up anything on my account; I'm afraid I probably can't go back through this today and then I'm going to be away for a few days. I'm happy with Jim's responses; a glance at the article suggests that the pictures (all right aligned) look a little crowded in places, but there may not be a suitable solution to that. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose:, with regard to the image placement, I've always gone for align all right in my FAs without previous problems, and I think the guidance to alternate was abandoned long ago. I think all the images are relevant, although the final one, of J E Smith, could be sacrificed if it's an issue, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

An impressive article, just a few quibbles:-

  • "Ray was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1667, but was excused the subscription because of his relative poverty." it seemed curious to go back to Ray after you have dealt with Wilkins.
  • "Near Llanberis they were shown a local lake fish ..." he probably visited Llanberis long before he got to West Wales!
  • Although they doubled back from Anglesey to Llanberis before heading south, that isn't obvious, now tweaked to clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..the study of languages was and writing systems was part of this philosophy,.."- this sentence needs attention.
  • "to buy a handwritten book containing wildlife paintings from Leonard Baldner." - you don't mention the subject of the book here, and give the impression it was illustrated by Baldner but written by someone else.
  • Tweaked sentence and footnote to make it clear Baldner wrote the text. Baldner drew the illustrations in some copies, but not FW's, see footnote. There's discussion on the talk page at the last bullet point of aa77zz's comments. Although FW had two copies, we don't now when he obtained the second one. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to Middleton Hall when Francis Willoughby died? I would have expected Thomas Willoughby to inherit.
  • All the children were minors at his death, so his widow was legally the owner until they were old enough, and when she remarried her awful husband ran the estate as he saw fit, all three children leaving home because of his general unpleasantness. When Thomas reached majority he inherited Wollaton Hall, which he restored, but it took some time to get access to Middleton. The first para of "Insects" mentions that. I don't think Thomas or his sister ever moved back to Middleton, but it remained in the family until it was sold, as was Wollaton, in 1920 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lost text looked at probability with regard to card and dice games." - "looked at" does not seem quite right.
  • Having reached the end of the article, I went back to the lead and thought it a very good summary of the rest of the article. Altogether an excellent read! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article meets the FA criteria and I have added my support above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your helpful comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks not done
  • All links in sources are working correctly
  • Ref 55: I can't see where this is defined in the cited sources
  • Ref 71: requires p. not pp.
  • Ref 100: should be "Johanson et al" for consistency
  • Ref 108: does not appear to be defined in the cited sources

The sources appear to be of the appropriate high quality and, subject to the minor issues raised above, are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton many thanks for your review. I've fixed the oversights at refs 71 and 100. My practice in this and my previous FAs is to list books (which may have multiple references to different pages) at "cited sources" and web pages and journals just as simple references, since journals give an article page range rather than individual pages. I think I've been consistent on this, with, for example 56, 104 and 106 being treated similarly. The only difference I can see with the two journal refs you quote is that Birkhead, Charmantier and Ogilvie also have entries in the cited sources book list, but these two journal refs don't come from those books. I may be completely missing something here, my apologies if that's the case Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood – all OK. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [26].

Battle of Bergerac[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first nine years of the Hundred Years' War had created an expensive stalemate on all fronts. Then the Earl of Derby arrived in Gascony with a small force. Within three weeks he had smashed the French force assembling at Bergerac and captured the town, marking the start of sixteen months of spectacular success. One of my earlier efforts, but I have worked at it and been encouraged by the comments it received at ACR. @Buidhe, CPA-5, Sturmvogel 66, and Tim riley: were kind enough to comment at that stage and may wish to do so at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

  • A marker for me to come back shortly. - 22:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Slightly later than I intended, but...

Gascony
Done.
Plans
  • Do we need the ellipses around the "if there is war" translation if you don't have it in the original?
I think that I am failing to see your point - apologies. Are you suggesting that the ellipses should (simply) be removed?
Yes. I don't think you need them, particularly as they are not in the original (beginning and end quotes are always of dubious value in quotes anyway, but particularly so here). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Gone. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Two very minor points to consider, but whether you act on them or not, this is still a supportable candidate. Nice work. - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Thanks for both the review and the support. A query above re one of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Lead caption should use "18-century" as the adjectival form. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thank you. Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • I'll check DABs and external links while I'm here, both OK
  • add |lastauthoramp=y to Crowcroft to match the ampersand used in the cites. And to Vale since the book has two editors.
  • The sources are known to me as high quality and the bibliography and citations are properly formatted aside from the minor issues given above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Thanks for taking a look at this. Both additions made. I have also added page numbers to the Rogers article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in good shape, Gog. I have a few comments:

  • the lead needs work. Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence needs to properly introduce the article. Suggest something like "The Battle of Bergerac was fought between Anglo-Gascon and French forces at the town of Bergerac in August 1345 during the Hundred Years' War." Obviously insert links as needed. I suggest following this with the chronological narrative of the lead beginning at "In the ninth year..." and inserting the details about the commanders and the taking of the French by surprise into the chronological narrative of the lead at appropriate points.
Working on it. I have rejigged it, although not as you suggested. See what you think.
I don't think this addresses my point or criteria 2a. The first sentence doesn't properly introduce the article, place it in context of who fought it, or the war in which it was fought. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Third attempt. I think (hope) I have cracked it.
  • when Bordeaux is first mentioned, state that it was the capital of Gascony there instead of later
Done.
  • link infantry
Done.
  • link siege engine for siege equipment
Done.
  • link Arras
Done.
  • link men-at-arms at first mention, delink later one
Done.
  • suggest "Exactly where the battle took place is also unknown."
Done.
  • the Anglo-Gascon cavalry? are these men-at-arms?
Yes. As it says in the first sentence of man-at-arms, "A man-at-arms was a soldier … who ... served as a fully armoured heavy cavalryman". I have not gone into detail as a) it seemed clear to me b) it is Wikilinked c) it seemed to me to fall foul of "going into unnecessary detail". If, contrary-wise, you feel that the article misses "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" then I could add a paragraph on weapons and equipment earlier on?
  • No, I mean that the layperson would not know that the cavalry were the men-at-arms. I suggest just using men-at-arms here, and avoiding introducing a new term. Of course, there were also mounted archers, which are a form of cavalry, and a charge would not have been conducted by them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Understood. "cavalry" replaced by 'men-at-arms'.
  • who was the author of the St. Omer Chronicle?
No one knows. Nor if it was written by an individual. Usually referred to as "the St Omer Chronicler".
  • Clifford Rogers can just be Rogers at second mention per MOS:SURNAME
Done.
  • Henri de Montigny should be mentioned earlier in the body as the commander of the French force, and linked at first mention in the body
Done.
  • the point of the sentence in parentheses beginning "This more than covered..." is lost on me. Was this Derby's residence in London? Even if it was, it isn't clear to me why this is germane.
Removed. (It was intended to give a reader a feel for the value of the ransoms, but apparently it mors confused than enlightened, and so is gone.)
  • Once you've introduced Derby, he should probably be just Derby thereafter?
Done.
  • suggest "[a] superb and innovative tactician"
Done.

That's me done. Great work on this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, many thanks for the thorough examination. All fixed, bar the lead which I am working on would be grateful if you could have another look at, and men-at-arms/cavalry which I have discussed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: The lead and "cavalry" addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Re-reading for FAC I have been as interested and impressed as at previous perusals. A splendid piece, concise, at less than 2,400 words, but evidently (to a layman) comprehensive, well written, neutral in tone, suitably illustrated, and widely and authoritatively sourced. I look forward to more from Gog on the various punch-ups of the Hundred Years' War, and for now will just support. Tim riley talk 17:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim[edit]

Very little to quibble with. I wondered why you wrote large numbers in full, eg 100,000,000 litres instead of 100 million litres, but your call Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [27].

Scoops (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "the biggest blunder British science fiction ever made": a short-lived weekly boys paper that was born and died in 1934. The paper would be quite forgotten now if it were not the first attempt at a regular British science fiction magazine. There's little of literary value to see here, but I hope it's interesting for its own sake. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique[edit]

Lead

  • published by Pearson's — Why no link?
    An oversight; now linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearson's cancelled the magazine because of poor sales; the last issue was dated 23 June 1934 — You could mention that only twenty issues were printed.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history and contents

  • This section feels a bit long. Perhaps turn the first paragraph into a "Background" section?
    Normally I try to keep "Publication history" and "Contents and reception" separate, but here I found it difficult because it's natural to delay the discussion of the end of the magazine until the problems with the content have been discussed, so yes, it is a little longer than I would prefer. I think a "Background" section with the first paragraph would look at bit too short, though. I can make the change if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • science fiction (sf) — Are you sure you need to abbreviate science fiction?
    I use the abbreviation when I find myself writing "science fiction" out in full too many times; I assume that if I'm tired of writing it, readers are getting tired of reading it. The highest density is in the last paragraph where "science fiction" occurs twice and "sf" five times in nine sentences. Do you think removing the abbreviation wouldn't make that paragraph harder to read? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sf" feels a bit in-worldy. Up to you, but I might consider finding ways to spell it out and rephrase other mentions (see, e.g., the edit I just made).
    I'd like to leave this for other reviewers to comment on before making a change. Since you posted, Josh edited the article in the other direction, adding more uses of the "sf". Specialist sources such as SFE3 use the abbreviation, and I think it doesn't hurt for a reader of a topic to be gently introduced to some of the terminology. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - I didn't realise there was an ongoing discussion, otherwise I wouldn't have touched it. I think I would prefer not to abbreviate, but that's just a personal preference. I do feel, though, that if you are going to abbreviate, you should abbreviate consistently (hence my edit). Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and removed the abbreviation since you both suggest doing so. Usernameunique, I saw your edit but didn't see any other opportunities to substitute "genre" as you did. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the vision of Jules Verne — link?
    Done. I had a vague memory that the MoS forbade linking from quotes, but I was misremembering. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scoops would publish stories that "...look ahead — You don't need the elipsis; the fact that the l is unaltered (i.e., not [l]ook) is indication enough that you're quoting mid-sentence. Also, you don't begin Mike Ashley's quotation later with an elipsis.
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • they did not understand the new genre — How so?
    The source says "But the editors obviously had no understanding of American science-fiction. Instead of imitating the American genre magazines, they assembled a conglomeration of story-types from the general boys' papers. These included aviation stories (perhaps influenced by the American air war pulp magazines), menace stories, invention stories, hero stories, and similar subgenres." Bleiler presumes that the reader does understand American sf, which may not be true for all readers of this article, but it's not easy to see how to clarify this given the source. Do you think this requires some expansion? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is W.O.G. Lofts?
    He is mentioned by both Ashley and Bleiler without explanation. Apparently he had access to some of the company records and original contributors and is the source for some of the story attributions; he is also the reason we know about the arrangement with Speaights. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's got a good obit here, for your footnote. ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll stub an article on him in the next day or so using that; very interesting. I think I can just call him "a researcher" for this article, and link him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now stubbed and linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you have Scoops', and sometimes just Scoops, when it's possessive.
    I added the apostrophe to the only one I could see that was missing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the event — In any event?
    I decided to just cut the phrase; I don't think it's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic details

  • Scoops was published by C.A. Pearson — Above, you gave his name as C. Arthur Pearson.
    Fixed -- the sources are inconsistent on this. If I had copies I'd use whatever form the magazine itself used. (But see below!) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the magazine is now rare and commands high prices. — How high? Any relevant sales history?
    Bleiler doesn't give amounts, but there are copies for sale right now for $40-$100. There's also a complete bound set available for $340 (which I'm negotiating with the dealer for). Perhaps this is isn't a high enough price for the rarity to be mentioned, but Bleiler mentions it so I thought I'd include it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can find a website with a sold listing (e.g., an auction), it might be worth adding. Totally discretionary though. It's just hard to figure out, without context, whether "high" means $50, $100, $500, or $1,000.
    I'll have a look and see if I can find something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Ashley 2004: Does "The Gernsback Days" really run from page 16 to page 254?
    Yes -- it's really two books in one cover; one is a collection of reminiscences by Lowndes, and the other is Ashley's history of the magazines. I listed it as a jointly edited book for lack of a better idea on how to represent it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short article, but looks like you're been beat out for the top prize. Maybe add a bit to Tropical Depression Ten (2005)? --Usernameunique (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

——SerialNumber54129 08:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. I usually make 1,000 words my minimum bar for FA rather than GA, and this squeaks over that. Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, Mike Christie. A few comments above. One other thought: would it be worth including a chart listing the 20 different issues, their dates, and perhaps their contents (or contributing authors)? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that that might overwhelm the article. Here is an online index; perhaps I could just link to that in an "External links" section? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. You could undoubtedly get away with a list of Scoops issues article too, if you're so inclined. Anyways, no further suggestions, so you've got my support. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
External link now added. I had to use a different link; the one above doesn't have a stable URL. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Scoops_1934_February_10_first_issue_cover.jpg needs a more complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded it and replaced both the "n.a." entries. That was generated by the upload wizard when I selected "magazine cover", so perhaps the wizard should be updated to make it clear that it doesn't generate a sufficient FUR by itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I am surprised they are still copyrighted; when will they fall out of copyright? Kees08 (Talk) 15:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this it's 70 years after the death of the author/artist, as far as I can tell. The artists would have had to have died by 1949 for them to be out of copyright, which is not particularly likely. A 25-year-old artist in 1934 might well be alive in 1994, so copyright might not expire till 2064. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT the likely copyright expiration would be 2029 in the US. For works by unknown authors during this time period in the UK, copyright expiration is 70 years after publication, meaning it's already PD in the UK. However, it became so after the URAA date, meaning that copyright was restored in the US and extends to 95 years after publication. See WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. I was worried I got this one wrong, but the difference is between UK and US copyright, right? Kees08 (Talk) 02:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - assuming the copyright wasn't renewed (haven't checked) the copyright would have expired in the US, and since the US is country of origin as well, that one's good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just one minor point. In the publication history section, is it worth linking science fiction, given the subject matter? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked it in the lead instead. Thanks for the review and support; also for the BrEng correction -- my BrEng is a bit unreliable after 30 years across the pond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • As suggested above, shouldn't science fiction be linked at first mention outside the intro too? FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "school fiction" I have no idea what this is, anything to link?
    I'm amazed to discover that the target article does not appear to exist yet. Take a look at Billy Bunter or Malory Towers to get the idea; this was a huge genre in children's fiction for many decades in the UK. I've redlinked it, but given you were baffled, perhaps a footnote saying "stories typically set in boarding schools"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote will be redundant once the article is created, so should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this UK or US English? I see izing/ized", though I would expect more typical UK "ise", since this is a strictly British publication. But I know "ize" is acceptable in the UK too, so perhaps it's deliberate.
    It's supposed to be UK English, though my instincts are a bit corrupted after decades on the left side of the Atlantic. I'm OK with leaving "ize" in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C.Arthur Pearson is linked twice in the article body.
    Unlinked the second one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for an science fiction" A?
    Fixed. Left over from when it was "an sf". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to start an science fiction" Likewise, and once more, am I missing something here? One of the quotes even says " to support a professional science-fiction magazine".
    And fixed, per above.

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [28].

Smythe's Megalith[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the Medway Megaliths, a series of Early Neolithic chambered tombs located in Kent, Southeast England that are part of the world's oldest tradition of stone construction. I brought an article on another of the Medway Megaliths, Coldrum Long Barrow, to FA status a while ago, and thought I'd try to get this article to join it. It is presently rated as a GA. This is not a particularly long article, and should be of interest to folks intrigued by archaeology and the distant past. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary thought Since the article has lots of unillustrated stretches, it would benefit from some photos of comparable structures that still exist. Otherwise, looks good. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good idea. I've added a photograph of the Coldrum Long Barrow which shows a similar chamber. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Smythe's_Megalith_Illustration.png: is the given source the first known publication of the image? What information is given in that source with regards to copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is. I've added said information to the image file itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay - given that information, the URAA tag doesn't apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

  • I pretty much enjoyed the read, and could not find a single issue. Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

  • The writing is excellent; have made some trivial edits, but this is very sparing and clear indeed. Especially the 1st para of the "Design" sect, with all the measurements, could have been heavy going to a casual, non specific fact seeking reader, but to the nominator's credit, it all flows quite easily and holds interest.
  • Certainly comprehensive, esp. in terms of appropriate setting of the megalith in their specific local & British Isles historical context, while also giving a clear indication of the wider European historical setting.
  • Sourcing also first rank, noting that all of the authors I looked up were leaders in their field. Would wiki-link them however in the sources sect. to their wiki bios.
  • I dont see any issue with ref formatting. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I see a lot of duplinking, you can highlight them with this script:[29] I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Kent in the infobox?
  • I wonder why Kent and the country aren't mentioned under "location". If I didn't read the intro first, I wouldn't know any of this. Would best to have all the following information form the intro there: "near the village of Aylesford in the south-eastern English county of Kent."
  • Borders on images are discouraged, so I wonder if this[30] image could be cropped, and all images moved to Commons?
  • I think that the border improves the image in this instance, although I certainly won't object if anyone removes it from the picture (or creates a better quality image that my rather amateur attempt). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was placed to as to prevent" A bit awkward. Was placed as to? Was positioned to prevent?
  • "divide the chamber into two" In two?
  • " in breadth" Width might be more typical, or what does the source say?
  • "was the skull of a mole" Placed there by humans, or had it just died there?
  • Articles could also be linked from image captions. There are now many unlinked names and terms.
Links in the intro, article body, and captions are considered separately. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "termed "Structure 4806" by its excavators" When?
  • "under-jaws" Lower jaws, mandibles? I have never seen the term "under-jaw" before.
  • I've double-checked the sources on this point as I'd never encountered this term before either. Apparently the original report did say "under-jaw". However, I think that it must be a reference to a mandible; I mean, what else could it be? I'll make the alteration in the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it certainly refers to the mandible, but must be some kind of archaic term that is better replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and two portions of the ulna" An ulna? Ambiguous now as to whether it was pieces of one or two ulnae.
  • I think that here is ambiguity as whether these are two pieces of a single ulna or two separate ulnae. I've switched the prose in the text from "ulna" to "unlae" anyway, as I think that the plural works better here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A jaw bone containing" Upper or lower? Especially because you already mentioned jaws.
  • I've changed this sentence so that it starts: "Analysis of the recovered teeth showed that the molars were worn down …." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around 200 metres away" Needs conversion.
  • "Christian zealots" Zealot could be linked.
  • "cannot be publicly accessed" Why, who owns it now? We also seem to have a photo from there, taken by a user?
  • There is no public access onto the actual farmer's field where the monument once stood. Obviously, one can look at the field from the adjacent trackway (from where this photo was taken). Do you think that I should alter the prose in the article accordingly? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maidstone is linked twice in the same sentence.
  • I always read the intro last, but from reading the article, it is never explicitly stated the monument was destroyed, which it should be. The article body only says "The workmen threw most of the human remains to the side", but not what happened to the stones.
  • The paragraph above that ends with "The stones were then removed, likely with the assistance of horses". Do you think I need to add more here to make the destruction more explicit? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in that first part of the "Discovery and investigation" section. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1920s, the archaeologist" - "included it in his 1924" If it was found in 1922, I'm not sure "in the 1920s" is justified, it could basically only have been within the following two years...
  • Ah, there's a little confusion here. It was discovered in the 1820s, not the 1920s, when Crawford looked at it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah *facepalm* FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the stones that were later found, mentioned at the end of the article?
  • I'm afraid that I have no idea. If it is ever revealed in publication I will ensure that the Wikipedia article is updated accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that's what i could find. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • A couple of minor presentation points:
  • Ref 57: pp. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • In the bibliography, Philp & Dutto are listed out of alphabetical sequence

Overall, the sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, Brian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber[edit]

  • Read it and enjoyed. support on comprehensiveness and prose. Only quibble was that I'd try and get the estimated dates of construction/use in the lead but not a big deal Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [31].

IFF Mark II[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first IFF system to be used. IFF is an important technology, it's what keeps jets from pilling into each other (as long as the pilots listen to it!), and this is the device that started it all. It underwent a MILHIST A-class a while back and I've been letting it stew for a while since. But it seems it doesn't have much more it needs, so it's time to bring it here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments from me, although I am completely out-of-my-depth with the tech stuff:

  • the use of italics for sector and blip is non-standard, quotes would be better, or just plain text would probably also be ok.
  • I'm not sure about the use of "Battle" on its own. Suggest using "Battle of Britain" at each instance.
  • the second sentence of Note a needs a citation.
  • it is a bit unclear to me, is there an article for the Mark I IFF? I see there is one for the Mark III.
  • Rather than one History section, I think a Background (Previous efforts and Mark I), History (Mark II) and Aftermath (Mark III) structure would be better.

That's all I have. A well-written and succinct article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Just saw these comments now. I give up on trying to understand MOS on italics, so I'll use quotes in these cases - in this case sector does not mean sector so I think that's worth noting. I changed all references to Battle of Britain. The second statement in the note is referenced in the main body. Mark I and Mark II are almost identical, so they are both covered in this article; cf. ASV Mark II and AI Mark IV. I've never quite decided if I like the compound articles, but can't convince myself separating them out helps anything. In contrast, Mark III is a very different device. The History section is meant to be read as a largely chronological story of this device's genesis and fadeout, so I normally put it all in one section with subsections. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PM, are you satisfied that your comments have been dealt with? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support

I reviewed this article at A-class, and believe it meets the standards. I endorse Peacemaker67's suggestions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've read this through and can find very little wrong; I've made one minor copyedit. I'll read it again tomorrow and expect to support then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I read through again and made another small edit. Succinct and clear, and as far as I can tell, comprehensive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian[edit]

Having first heard of IFF when I read war comics as a kid, and finding it such a useful idea, I can't resist recusing coord duties to review. Don't hesitate to let me know any concerns with my copyedit; aside from that:

  • "The system was much more likely to work than the Mark I because the pilot could not forget to tune it" -- do we mean that it generally didn't require tuning so that as a rule the pilot didn't need to remember? As written it sounds more like some alarm that'd go off ensuring he tuned it...
Well it would, if by "alarm" you mean "AA exploding around you". I've re-worded this section.
  • "Even when IFF was available, its general unreliability made it difficult for controllers to trust it" -- this kind of pulled me up short because up to that point the impression I'd received from the Mark II subsection was that this was a useful system but "general unreliability" seems to say otherwise. Did I miss something?
The timeline I think - this is referring to the BOB period when the unreliable Mark I was in (some) use. I've touched it up to make it more obvious.
  • Regarding content as opposed to to prose, my first comment is that I was somewhat surprised to find such a succinct article on the subject. I think it provides a good overview but I wonder if there's room for more detail in places, for instance:
  • Where there any notable cases where the system was used but failed somehow and Allied fighters attacked friendly aircraft? I don't mean like Barking Creek where it wasn't used at all...
  • I suspect hundreds - even in Korea IFF was considered suspect to the point they ended up assuming all aircraft were friendly. But this is more about IFF in general than Mark II specifically, I'm not aware of any Mark II specific incidences. Closterman's famous example was Mark III. I think that's simply because Mark II wasn't in service for that long.
  • Aside from infiltrating Allied bomber formations, did the Germans have any other methods for spoiling the system? For instance did they ever try duplicating it (perhaps using captured Allied planes as a starting point)?
  • Yes, but again, not for Mark II. They did have one for Mark III (and IIRC, the Japanese had it too) but I'm not sure of its operational experience. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those changes Maury; assuming Brian is happy with the responses re. sourcing I'm happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Only minor issues/nitpicks:

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Citations 2 and 3: Can you clarify who the publishers are?
@Brianboulton:I'm just using the patent template which I assume lists the correct info. I'm not sure a "publisher" detail adds anything of value.
  • Citation 6: the link is worthless as the preview does not include the source pages
I have updated the link.
  • Citation 9: link goes to Google search page
Fixed.
  • Citation 15: per MoS, "Imperial War Museum" should not be italicised
I am once again relying on the cite template for this, is it really the case that the template violates the MOS? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a MoS problem, it's to do with your choice of parameters within the template. You have chosen "website= Imperial War Museum", but the IWM is not a website, it's the organisation that publishes the website, the address of which is www.iwm.org.uk. So you could use "publisher= Imperial War Museum" or "website= www.iwm.org.uk". Either would be correct, though my personal preference is for publisher=. which is more informative. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Doing a walk-through to assess readiness for promotion and I've taken the liberty of fixing this. --Laser brain (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to the minor issues raised above, the sources appear to meet the required criteria for quality and reliability and are consistently presented. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [32].

Sinking of SS Princess Alice[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the SS Princess Alice (1865), a pleasure steamer that operated on the Thames in 1860s and '70s; In September 1878 she was hit by a coal carrier and sank in around four minutes. Between 600 and 700 people died. There are strong echoes of the late 20th-century tragedy that befell the Marchioness. This has recently been re-written extensively and any comments and suggestions are very welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Wehwalt[edit]

Many thanks Wehwalt, for your comments, which were helpful, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I began reading this purely out of curiosity as I'd never heard of it, and then decided I'd like to review in earnest. Not that anything major leaps out, it seems like a good succinct account of a very unhappy incident -- some of my copyedit may reflect subtle differences in AusEng v. BritEng, so happy to discuss any concerns there. Because it's early days, I'll park my review there and try to come back after a few more people have had their say. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ian, many thanks for the copy edit. No complaints from me on the changes - they all seem to be appropriate in BrEng too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Been a couple of weeks now, checked changes since I last reviewed/copyedited and see no reason not to support, only conditional on a clean source review , which I think is still needed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ian - I'm most obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim[edit]

Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and my few and minor queries were dealt with then. On re-reading the article I think it meets the FA criteria, and I support its promotion to FA. A grim tale, told without sensationalism but unflinchingly; amply and appropriately illustrated; and evidently comprehensive. Tim riley talk 15:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, your earlier comments were most useful. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Princess_alice_collision_in_thames.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • Images with the UK-unknown tag should include indication of what research was done to try to ascertain authorship - eg. have the images been credited to anyone?
  • File:'Princess_Alice'_(1865)_beached_after_being_cut_in_two_in_a_collision_(1878).jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Nikkimaria. The top three are all done, the bottom one is something of a problem as we have no idea who the author was. Can you advise which would be the best tag to put on it given that? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Kablammo[edit]

Support. Meets all criteria. Kablammo (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Kablammo - and for your earlier edits and comments on the measurements. Cheer - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I never could resist a shipwreck. I've confined my comments for the present to the infobox and lead, and will get to the rest presently.

  • Infobox: The statement "140 years ago" is time specific, and becomes ever less accurate each day that passes. It doesn't seem necessary and I suggest you delete it.
    • It's coded so that each 3 September it automatically changes. - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead generally. Could do with a bit more basic information, particularly as you have chosen the mini-infobox format (which is fine by me). For example, did the collision occur in daylight? Between 600 and 700 people died: were they all from the Princess Alice with no casualties from the collier? How many of the Alice's complement survived? Any subdivision of casualties as between men, women and children, or between crew and passengers? No doubt much of the information is found in the article, but the most important aspects need to be summarised in the lead.
    • I've added a little more. The main point added is that there was never a headcount made, so they've never worked out how many died. Neither of the two main sources (Thurston and Lock) give a precise figure for the number lost, or breakdown of the know dead. - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say in the first paragraph that the collision took place on the River Thames, but when discussing the sewage question in paragraph 3 you refer to "the location it was released into the sea". Shouldn't that be "into the river"?
  • 2nd paragraph: "On her homeward journey..." You need to specify this particular homeward journey with a date reference, e.g. "On her homeward journey on 3 September..." otherwise it reads as if this was the only homeward journey the ship ever made.
  • 3rd paragraph: Can you clarify the nature and purpose of the updated equipment provided to the police? I assume it was to do with rescue and recovery but I may be misreading

Enthralling if rather distressing reading. More comments to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian, and I look forward to more comments. There are a number of parallels with the Marchioness here - which is at PR, if you can brace yourself for it. 30 years ago this year, and still shocking. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing....: after a full readthrough I have only a few further comments to raise:

  • According to the lead, the Alice broke into three parts, but according to the main text she "split in two and sank"
  • We read that shortly before the collision the helm of the Alice was entrusted to an inexperienced passenger-seaman by the name of Ayres. This fact is not referred to again and is not mentioned in the subsequent reports. I am surprised by this, as the proximity to the accident seems significant; was Ayres's role, or the actions of the captain in appointing him, ever questions or raised as a factor leading to the collision?
    • Surprisingly not. The two main sources don't refer to him at all, and his name doesn't come up in Guardian or Times coverage of the inquiry (as Ayers or Ayres) - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the £35,000 public subscription would have been distributed to the victims' families rather than to the victims, as stated.
  • I'm still not clear as to the role and responsibilities of the Marine Police force, either generally or in the wake of the accident. "Responsibility for the Thames", as stated in the lead, seems rather too broad and perhaps could be slightly expanded on in the text.

I've tweaked to say "policing the Thames", with a footnote lower down. - SchroCat (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. A chilling article, well put together, and I look to support when these final points have been considered. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All my concerns now answered. Fine work. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

My apologies, meant to get to this a while ago. I commented fully at PR, here and the subsequent changes have further polished what was already an excellent article. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks KJP1 - I am much obliged for your comments at PR, where they were most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "84 (45 women, 21 men, 12 girls and 8 boys)" - those numbers add up to 86?
Oops! Good spot - 6 boys: it's a poor quality scan. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Foley and Halliday meant to have the same publisher and location? If so, should be similarly formatted
  • What makes bhandl a high-quality reliable source?
  • National Lottery is a dead link
  • All done - Many thanks, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129[edit]

Clearly, I must oppose, as SchroCat, it would seem, can't even be bothered to invent new rivers, he merely writes about them.

  • I only slimmed down the docks to river size, rather than inventing them! Anyway, Goran has now got rid of them altogether. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Np, I was chuckling over your earlier reply, that's all  :)
It's only very minor, and there isn't much we can do without loosing an image altogether. That's always possible, but I think they're all good at illustrating the point. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also on images, you swap in and out of using both |upright and |alt=; I'm thinking consistency?
They're doing two different things: one is size, the other is alternative text. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed—I mean, some articles use |alt= while others don't, and some use |upright= while others don't.
We don't need alt text for all images (either because the caption says all that is needed, or is the image is just for illustration); upright is only missing from one image, but we don't need to control the size of that one, so it's OK without it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree.
  • The "Aftermath" section is (rightfully) humungus; how about a section within it—perhaps for the inquest (The first two weeks of Carttar's inquest... would be a good break—and might create a bit more space re. the sandwich).
I'll have a think on that: the problem is the inquests start much earlier than the suggested point (at para three). We could break it at "Running at the same time as the coroner's inquest was a Board of Trade inquiry", I guess, although that's way down the section. What to call the first subsection tho, as it covers both inquests and the raising of the vessel? - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This, perhaps? It's really the chunky quote from the inquest that bloats the section, and there's nothing that can (or should!) be done about that.
Hmmm... I'm not a fan of that, mostly because the sections cover a little more than the subtitles suggest
Disagree.
  • Re. References, the websites could do with archiving for posterity, and there's some identifiers needed on the papers. However, although I think the archiving's important, I often can't be arsed with digging out OCLCs for old newspaper either, so meh.
Yep, I keep forgetting about the website archiving, so I'll get onto that shortly. Newspapers have dates, which is much better than the OCLC system - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The links that can be archived have been now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great article: gutted I wasn't here sooner. If I remember rightly, I once commented to you, something like, that the event was a massive part of eastend history and all it's got is some small memorial in a churchyard. It may only have a small memorial in a churchyard, but it's now got the Wikipedia article it deserves. The Princess Alice will be remembered again. ——SerialNumber54129 15:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these. There are a couple of points I'd like to mull on further, but I'll get onto the archiving shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks SN - I'm much obliged. Thanks also for the CB tag you added earlier - that's a useful one to know! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [33].

Mukhtar al-Thaqafi[edit]

Nominator(s): AhmadLX (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a controversial revolutionary from Second Islamic Civil War. The article is comprehensive and well cited, and was copy-edited recently by a GOCE contributor. Overall, seems to meet the criteria. Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Al-Mukhtar_al-Thaqafi.jpg: is anything more known about the provenance of this image?
I did search about that when nominating for GA, and did that again after you pointed to the issue, but I could not find anything on its origin. I contacted the website that hosts the image inquiring about origin of the painting and its current copy-right status. They responded that "The images were published in Iran and Iran does not abide by copyright law", which is not true I think. Paintings, written works etc are copyrighted in Iran. AhmadLX (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guidance for our purposes is Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Countries_without_copyright_relations_with_the_United_States. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to this page, this image is PD in US. But in Iran? I don't know. It says "it is longstanding Wikipedia policy to respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. What this means in practice is determined case by case..." So I don't know how to proceed with this. Your opinion? Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commons requires that images be free/PD in country of origin as well as US, which means that we need to consider its status there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would I remove it from the article then? AhmadLX (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it likely still to be under copyright in Iran? If so then yes; if no then it should be possible to find an appropriate tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the type of painting I can say it is old enough to be PD in Iran, maybe a couple hundred years old, but I can not prove it.AhmadLX (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mirror_writing2.jpg needs a US PD tag
Done. This image comes from the portal template however, and they keep changing it from time to time. AhmadLX (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kufa_Mosque_in_Iraq.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mukhtar_al-Thaqafi_Control_on_Iraq.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this. Added new file with ref.AhmadLX (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source and prose review Support[edit]

  • This is extremely well written.
Thank you ;) AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the authors of the sources used have wiki articles, so can be presumed to be of high quality. The books are all restively recent.
  • Ref 51 (Fitzpatrick) is displaying a Harv error
Fixed. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: Some give the location of the published others not. Be consistent
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with linking publishers; either all or none.
Linked where article on publisher exists. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some ISBN are of the 9780720490053 format, others 978-0-720-49005-3 Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For Howard Ian K. (1990), ISBN 10 exists in dash format. For Wellhausen, Julius (1975), I couldn't find dashed ISBN ;) I don't know how to fix that :D All others are in dash format. Could you please help in this regard? Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi AhmadLX, you can make all ISBN numbers with 13 digits and dashes as follows: Go to http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter. For 10-digit ISBN's you can convert them 13-digit ISBN's with dashes; for 13-digit ISBN's without dashes, you can first convert to 10-digit and from there convert again to 13 with dashes. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I did that (manually), but it didn't work. If you search such isbn on google you don't get the book. With this tool, again same result. For example, try this original undashed isbn and this converted dashed isbn.AhmadLX (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. For you the expectation is the user can copy and paste the isbn into Google and the book will come up cleanly as the first search result. I’ll admit I’ve never given much thought to that side of things, but you make a good point that it could be a worthwhile consideration, if that is indeed how most people use the isbn numbers. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and he too went to Basra - Left hanging; where, what, why Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I originally meant: Ibn al-Zubayr sent new governor to Kufa. Mukhtar bribed him and threatened to use force if he [the new governor] didn't go back. Instead of going back to Mecca, the new governor went to Basra since he did not want to face ibn al-Zubayr.AhmadLX (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Havent check, but then say that so, much clearer. Ceoil (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. AhmadLX (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and asked for permission to rise to avenge the death of Husayn and to secure power for him - would also drop "to rise" as is implied.
Removed. AhmadLX (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fearful of Mukhtar's activities, ibn Yazid imprisoned him - "activities" is vague.
Was going to change, but you already did it. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering Mukhtar obedient, ibn al-Zubayr sent Umar ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith as governor to Kufa. - is "sent" the right word here. "Appointed" seems better. Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: During his rule, he killed several people involved in the murder of Husayn. He raised the social status of local converts to Islam. - really jarring. Can you disentangle so we don't get such opposites in such proximity. Ceoil (talk)
I was thinking to join them with "and":D These are the only important things that he did after coming into power. If I move one in either direction, wouldn't it affect the sequence? AhmadLX (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the sequence is historically accurate, then yes. If the record is vague, then phrase so its less bizarrly put. Ceoil (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this okay? AhmadLX (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The men took this as confirmation of Mukhtar's claims and returned to join him - The men. Presumably they were his army, and more or less slaves. Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They were some Alid supporters from Kufa, and their loyalties were not with him but with Alids. AhmadLX (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered; can we be more descriptive than "the men". Ceoil (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about replacing The men with They, which refers back directly to people just mentioned in previous sentence? Clarified.AhmadLX (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My quibbles above notwithstanding, this is very impressive, and am a Support on sources and prose. Ceoil (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for support and the time and effort you put in reading the article, comments and ce. AhmadLX (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now......

Although he had pro-Alid tendencies from a young age, it is reported that in 661, when Muawiyah was approaching Iraq, and Hasan ibn Ali, injured by a Kharijite near al-Mada'in, was brought to Mukhtar's uncle's house, he suggested that his uncle hand Hasan over to Muawiyah to gain political favour. - this sentence is long and unwieldy. I had to read it a couple of times to take it in. recommend splitting.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky - I am totally unfamiliar with the main players in the story so got a bit lost, but then again I can't imagine someone coming to this article cold without having read some other related material. Still, I do think that in the Early life section, some comment on how these people link to Mohammed would be a good thing, just to set the context. It doesn't have to be long.
Except Umar, who is well known and already described as the second caliph in the text, I have tried to relate important persons in the story with Muhammad. AhmadLX (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mukhtar's movement impacted later Shia sects. - is "impacted" the right word? Surely more like "influenced"?
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of going back to Mecca and face ibn al-Zubayr,... - grammar --either "Instead of going back to Mecca and facing ibn al-Zubayr," or "Instead of going back to Mecca to face ibn al-Zubayr,"
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mukhtar came out of the palace accompanied by nineteen people, (the rest had refused to fight), and was killed in action - "killed in action" suggests he was killed in conflict....?
Changed to "killed fighting". Is that okay, or it should be just "killed"? AhmadLX (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if a 19 people come and face an army it's not a battle or contest in any normal sense - they would have cut him down fairly readily. Maybe just "killed" if there is no other information. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sources say he was attempting sortie. Anyway, changed to "killed."AhmadLX (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yeah it is a tricky one...
Many people consider Mukhtar a liar who claimed prophethood and consider him an enemy of the Alids - could we get rid of a "consider"?
Changed. AhmadLX (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise no prose-clangers outstanding....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall, tentative support on prose as it reads well now. I am really unfamiliar with the characters and subject matter so will take that on good faith, asuming that someone more familiar with islam will opine on that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Casliber. @Al Ameer son: Can you have a look please? thanks AhmadLX (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

Good work has been done here, so it's great to see the work that's been carried out to bring the article to this point.

  • "Born in Ta'if, Mukhtar moved to Iraq at a young age" - If it wasn't "Iraq" at that point in time, I think that should be made clear. Maybe specify the name of the state at the time and then put "(modern Iraq)" in brackets after it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Arabs called the region as Iraq. Historians refer to it as Iraq as well as Mesopotamia. Should it be changed to Mesopotamia then? AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't object to it being called Iraq if that was the term used at the time. However, perhaps the current link is misleading, as it takes us to the article about the Republic of Iraq. Might it be better to link to something like History of Iraq#Middle_Ages? Obviously, it would be ideal if we had a whole article about Medieval Iraq that we could link to, but I don't think that we have one yet. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, it links to modern Iraqi state:D My mistake, sorry. History of Iraq#Middle_Ages is itself a summary of Muslim conquest of Iraq. Wouldn't it be better to link to Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#Conquest_of_Mesopotamia_(636–638)? AhmadLX (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to History of Iraq#Middle_Ages.AhmadLX (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Mecca" - I'd recommend Wikilinking Mecca. Not essential, but some readers might be unfamiliar with it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later Shia sects" - I'd definitely Wiklink "Shia" and maybe give a brief explanation here. There may be readers unfamiliar with the Shia and Sunni division. (Oh, I see that you Wikilink "Shia" on its second appearance; I'd ensure it is Wikilinked on the first mention instead.) Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked on first instance. As for explaining the term, there is a compromise. The term is a bit complicated and explaining it may affect brevity required for lead. Linguistically Shia means party. They were a political faction (i.e. supporters of Ali, during the first civil war). But after murder of Ali, this party started taking a unique religious colouring, and following murder of Husayn and Mukhtar's revolt, they became a religious sect, and the term Shia took this meaning thereafter. Wherever in the article first meaning is required by the context, I have used "pro-Alids" or "Alid partisans". For the latter meaning, I have used "Shia" with link. It can be explained a bit in the body of the article. What do you say?AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Added explanatory notes. AhmadLX (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "killing of murderers of Husyan" - perhaps "killing of Husyan's murderers"? That avoids the slightly repetitive nature of the pre-existing text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved sentences around a bit, so now no repetition of "of". AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Any further comments?AhmadLX (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend dividing the very lengthy second paragraph in "Background" into two as I think that that would make it more appealing for the reader, and towards the end of the article various scholars are named ("Hugh Kennedy writes", "Moshe Sharon describes") and it might be worth explaining who these people are (i.e. "The historian Hugh Kennedy writes") however these are minor points and I would not want them to hold up promotion. Well done on this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Midnightblueowl. Changes done. AhmadLX (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Al Ameer[edit]

Great work on the article so far. I've made some, sporadic minor edits in the past few weeks, but I'll take a comprehensive look today and throughout the week. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General points

  • Arabic terms that are not proper nouns should be italicized i.e. mawālī
Done, except where it appears in quote.AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances of "ibn" should be capitalized when it's the first word in a name, so "ibn al-Zubayr" should be "Ibn al-Zubayr", "ibn Aqil" → "Ibn Aqil", etc.
Sources either write that as "b." or as "ibn", unless it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. So i have used "ibn".AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: I disagree. I don’t mean when “ibn” is in between two names like “Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr”. Nearly the all the sources capitalize “Ibn” when it stands alone as in “Ibn al-Zubayr”. Anthony, Daftary, Dixon, Donner, Hawting, al-Abdul Jader, Kennedy, Sharon all capitalize “Ibn” when it begins the name, regardless if it’s at the beginning of a sentence or not. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right , changed. AhmadLX (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arabic article “al-“ should be lowercases unless beginning a sentence, so “Al-Mansur” should be “al-Mansur” and so on.
Had overlooked that. Thanks.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, the pipe links Umayyad caliphate should be Umayyad Caliphate, Alid should be Alids, Kharijites should be Khawarij. I’ll do these ones now, you can do the rest as you find them. At the end of the review I’ll do a once over. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bibliography should be sorted alphabetically.
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yasir Suleiman is the editor not the author. The author is Adel S. al-Abdul Jader. And in this case the chapter (The Origin of Key Shi’ite Thought Patterns in Islamic History) should be cited as well. —Al Ameer (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Done.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Early life section, it’s worth mentioning that his father belonged to the Banu Thaqif. His mother should be mentioned too—I believe she was also of Thaqif—because it’s mentioned in the infobox.
Mentioned tribe name and his mother in the article body; whether she was Thaqafi too, is not in sources.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have something, I’ll add it if I find it. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he have any known children or descendants? If so, it should be mentioned somewhere in the article.
Perhaps he did. One religious source (Majlesi), as discussed in relevant section, talks about his son without naming him. Since RS don't say anything about it, it can't be added, I think. AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation number 2 (Watt 1960) needs a page number. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a journal article, so I have kept the page numbers with the full citation, as with other journal citations. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The specific page number should still be mentioned in the citation. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtar uprising

  • No need for "Mukhtar" in the heading. Just write "Uprising" or "Revolt".
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For quick context, either at the beginning of this section or in "Early life", it should be mentioned (with source) that Caliph Ali was assassinated by the Kharijites and Muawiyah became caliph in 661.
Added. AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muawiyah was not supposed to" sounds naive, as rulers often do what they're not supposed to. I'd recommend changing it to "Toward the end of his rule, Muawiyah designated his son Yazid as his successor in violation of the treaty with Hasan ibn Ali, which stipulated that Hasan or his brother Husayn should succeed"
This is a bit tricky. Sources vary on details whether Hasan was to succeed him or if Shura was to elect new ruler. Examining what exactly the terms said, is better suited in the article on the treaty. Here, in my opinion, it suffices to say that according to the terms he could not have nominated successor (whether Shura elects new one or it is Hasan/Husain is left out).AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After his death, pro-Alid Kufans invited Husayn ibn Ali to lead a revolt against Yazid" should be "This angered Husayn's partisans and after Muawiyah's death, pro-Alid Kufans urged Husayn to lead a revolt against Caliph Yazid".
Nomination disturbing the Kufans is mentioned in the preceding sentence. AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Kufa to investigate the political environment" should be changed to "to assess the political environment in Kufa".
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest changing "at his house" to "in his home"
  • Rewrite "The latter was sent by Yazid to replace Nu'man ibn Bashir as governor, since ibn Bashir, as Mukhtar's father-in-law, was benign towards ibn Aqil and his followers" to "The latter was appointed to replace Mukhtar's uncle, Nu'man ibn Bashir, as governor due to Ibn Bashir's benign attitude towards Ibn Aqil and his followers."
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably worth briefly mentioning that Ibn Ziyad was something of a committed Umayyad loyalist so as to give a better idea why his arrival forced Ibn Aqil to launch his revolt prematurely.
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tried" → "attempted"; "surrounding areas" → "Kufa's environs"; "defeated" → "unsuccessful"; "could return" → "returned"
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "brought to the governor", change "where he" to "but". And no need for "any".
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the last two sentences in the first paragraph to "While Mukhtar was imprisoned, Husayn was slain by Ibn Ziyad's forces at the Battle of Karbala. He was afterward released upon the intervention of Abdullah ibn Umar, an influential son of the second caliph and Mukhtar's brother-in-law, and ordered to leave Kufa."
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part of the section needs more dating. In particular, mention that Muawiyah died in April 680 and Husayn was killed in October 680. If the sources have a date for Ibn Aqil's execution, I'd mention the month and year of that too.
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Al Ameer (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last sentence of the first paragraph about Mukhtars release and expulsion needs a citation.
Was cited, but somehow it was rmvd in recent editing. re-added.AhmadLX (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kennedy page 81 citation in the first sentence of the second paragraph just mentions that by the time Marwan I came to power Ibn al-Zubayr consolidated his control over the Hejaz while his brother was attempting to do the same in Iraq. You need a citation that directly supports that Ibn al-Zubayr revolted against Yazid and established his caliphate. I can help with this if necessary.
Added another ref.AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace “... that he consult him on important matters and award him a high post; ibn al-Zubayr refused him” with “... that he be consulted about important matters and awarded a high post, which Ibn al-Zubayr refused”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For better flow, add “then” between “Mukhtar” and “left for Ta’if”.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the sources mention any reason why Ibn al-Zubayr accepted Mukhtars homage after one year? Seems too random. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added reason. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be clarified that Ibn al-Zubayr only revolted against Yazid but actually waited until Yazid’s death in 683 to declare his caliphate. I suggest replacing “The Umayyads retreated after learning of Yazid’s death” to “After Yazid died in November, the Umayyad army retreated and Ibn al-Zubayr proclaimed his caliphate.”
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part about Mukhtar learning of the Zubayrid takeover of Kufa, the Kufans looking for their own leader and Mukhtar claiming he was the man they were looking for needs to be rewritten. I’d suggest “After learning of the Zubayrid takeover of Kufa and its inhabitants’ quest for a leader, Mukhtar pursued the role.”
  • I know this was briefly discussed above, but I propose you rewrite the sentence about his meeting with Ibn al-Hanafiyyah as: “While in Mecca, he sought permission from Ali's son, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, to avenge Husayn’s death and secure power for Ibn al-Hanafiyyah.”
It is already mentioned in this section. Perhaps you missed it ;) AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read this again. Not sure what I missed. I still think it needs to be written clearer. It’s a bit garbled as it currently stands. Al Ameer (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace “who he thought had not kept his promise” with “who he felt had reneged on their agreement”
  • No need for “Once back”
Rmvd. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line “perpetrators of the Karbala massacre” seems POV. Its not previously mentioned that there was a massacre at Karbala, only that there was a battle and Husayn was slain.
I used term massacre as sources almost unanimously call it as such, so I thought it was uncontroversial term. Changed now. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name for Sulayman ibn Surad should be consistent after the first full mention of his name. Right now there is “Sulayman”, “Suleiman” and “ibn Surad”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • “In response, Mukhtar was critical of the Tawwabin, as he considered their actions premature and hence destined to fail“ should read “In turn, Mukhtar criticized the Tawwabin’s actions as premature and destined for failure”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: ”had no experience in war” → “militarily inexperienced”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: ”were now looking to Mukhtar” → “shifted allegiance to Mukhtar”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”contain this threat” is vague and a POV, rewrite as “contain pro-Alid agitation”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Al Ameer (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @AhmadLX: I copyedited the first passage of "Relations with Ibn al-Zubayr" and am going to do the second passage, but I first need to know if the sources used are saying that Mukhtar's offer of support to Ibn al-Zubayr was duplicitous? Was the offer just an attempted ruse from the beginning? The passage makes it seem so. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some (eg. Dixon) say he was not sincere in his allegiance, while others (eg. Donner) say he was sincere. I have tried to avoid the discussion of his motives altogether. AhmadLX (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought of the wrong passage. Yes, regarding post-revolt letters, sources tend to portray that he was double-dealing.AhmadLX (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Thanks, I will copyedit accordingly. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death

  • Since there are no articles currently about the battles at Madhar or Harura, or articles about the locations themselves, we need a bit of context, particularly where these battlefields were located.
Will check sources for this. @Al Ameer son:Added, although did not add sources intentionally (Wellhausen 1901 and EI2 Vol. 5 respectively), as this is uncontroversial stuff, and adding new source for this will only increase clutter.AhmadLX (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For context, it should be noted that Ibn al-Ashtar was in Mosul (from what I remember reading before) at the time of Mus'ab's siege of Mukhtar in Kufa. (And obviously all changes/additions need to be sourced.) --Al Ameer (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned, based on Source already present. AhmadLX (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are Shurahbil ibn Wars and Abbas ibn Sahl? Even very brief descriptions would suffice. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: So far, I have tried to keep the article as focused and as compact as possible, with the density of a neutron star :D But based on comments from reviewers in this FAC, several details have come to be expounded. As such, I now think that a explanatory note on nature of Mukhtar's claim of Mahdi, and one on the nature Mawali may also be appropriate. What do you think? AhmadLX (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: I agree. Add what you feel is appropriate and we’ll copyedit it after. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • What is the Khutarnia?
A village near Kufa. Added note. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Yamamah and Najdah have not been linked elsewhere in the article, it should be linked in the block quote.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, throughout the article, all quotes should be directly cited, at least at the end of the sentence.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once these last few points are addressed, I’ll give the article one more full read. —Al Ameer (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: Any further comments? AhmadLX (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was waiting for changes proposed in the FAC, including those of other reviewers, to be implemented before I do a full re-read and give my final thoughts. Things seem to be wrapping up so here are my notes:
  • ”Against the Umayyads” should be “Against the Umayyad Caliphate” in the first passage of the lead. This is for brief context, especially since you mention a couple sentences later that Ibn al-Zubayr was a “rival caliph”.
  • ”Caliph” should be linked in its first instance in the lead.
  • Need quick context for who Ali was in the lead. Either write “son of Caliph Ali (r. 656–661)“ after Husayn ibn Ali or after Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah. I prefer after Husayn because it comes earlier in the paragraph.
  • Instead of pipelinking “in October 680”, just write “Battle of Karbala in 680”
  • Replace “murder” with “killing” for neutrality.
  • For better prose and comprehension, change the “He took power” and “During his reign” sentences to: “He took over Kufa in October 685, after expelling its Zubayrid governor, and later ordered the execution of of those involved in the killing of Husayn.”
  • Write “Mukhtar’s death” instead of “his death” and “by the forces of” instead of “at the hands of” for clarity and precision.
  • “had far-reaching consequences” → “would have far-reaching consequences”.
  • For better flow, reformulate the Kaysanites bit as: “After his death, his followers formed a radical Shia sect, later known as the Kaysanites, who developed several novel doctrines and influenced later Shia ideology.”
  • Replace “Later” with “The” because you already write “went on” which implies later. You should also mention the year of the Abbasid Revolution. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. Ali's intro with Ibn Hanffiyah, since Husyan is more famous wrt to Muhammad himself and has been introduced as such. Adding Ali there would introduce confusion b/c of many names I think. AhmadLX (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine. Thanks for the quick response. Please see the two unresolved points I raised above about the page number of the Watt journal citation and the sentence formation about Mukhtar’s meeting with Ibn Hanafiyya.
Also, since you mention arbitration twice in reference to the talks between Muawiyah and Ali, it’s confusing when you immediately mention “arbitration” in reference to the talks between Ali and the Kharijites. Maybe use a different word for those talks. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. AhmadLX (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the journal citations, the specific page number(s) should be used not all the page numbers for the entire article in the journal. Assuming this gets addressed, you have my support. Thanks for devoting your efforts to this subject area and to this historic figure in particular. I’ve only done a minor spot-check, but I’ve been editing the same topic area and have found this article to be factually accurate. It is comprehensive, focused and finely-sourced. My concerns have been addressed, the main one having been the prose since Featured articles need to meet the highest standards for this criterion. I believe that has now been met. That being said, I’m glad FunkMonk has turned his attention here as an extra pair of eyes. Good luck ;) Al Ameer (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Al Ameer. Pages done. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

I think the article is on a very good way, but it can still be improved in terms of accessibility and comprehensibility. For somebody with little background knowledge it is somewhat difficult to follow. I made some suggestions below.

  • Above all, I would recommend to start with a "background" section, outlining important past events leading to the political situation Mukhtar was facing.
Where should such a section be added? Before Early life? New section on background added. Section "Early life" incorporated into it. AhmadLX (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, the article frequently mentions the Umayyads, but a bit of background on the general situation of the Umayyads at this time would be really helpful. There is a helpful map in the article, including a green region labeled "Abd al-Malik". I guess those are the Umayyads, but Abd al-Malik is not mentioned in the article.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead: He took power in 685 – here it was not clear to me what precisely he did rule. The whole Arabic empire? Obviously not. Please specify.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Husayn ibn Ali should be properly introduced and, above all, linked in the main text as well. Introducing him in the lead is not enough.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is oftentimes ambiguous, and I was not able to read and comprehend it in one go. Especially, it is often not clear to whom a given sentence part is referring, especially when you make use of the word "he". Examples below:
  • retaliation for Husayn's murder – You sometimes call him "Ali", and sometimes "Husayn". It would reduce potential confusion to stick to one, and use it consistently.
They are different persons. Husyan was son of Ali. "Ibn" means "son of", so Husayn ibn Ali = Husayn son of Ali. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • his elder son Hasan became Caliph – whose elder son? Reads as it would refer to Mukhtar, but I guess it instead refers to Ali?
Yes, clarified.
  • He was afterward released – I suggest "Mukhtar was afterward released" for better reading flow. While reading, I had to pause to think who "he" is referring to.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the murder of Husayn ibn Ali, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, a son of a prominent companion of Muhammad, Zubayr ibn al-Awam, secretly started taking allegiance – I had to pause here as well: Quite convoluted sentence, and difficult to comprehend in one go, because of the many names.
Removed one name and shortened a bit. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most pro-Alid Kufans supported Ibn Surad because he was Muhammad's companion and refused to join Mukhtar. – This is ambiguous. Who refused to join Mukhtar? Ibn Surad or the pro-Alid Kufans?
Kufans. Clarified. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • attack on Medina with the ultimate intention of ousting the caliph. – There where two caliphs (a caliph and a rival caliph), so which of them was ousted?
Ibn al-Zubayr. Fixed. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the same time, Sulayman ibn Surad, a companion of Muhammad and an Alid supporter, rallied a group of people, who called themselves Tawwabin, to fight the Umayyads to atone for their failure to support Husayn during the battle of Karbala. – Where took this place, in the same city? Was it local only?
Clarified. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the mawālī – could do well with a short explanation/definition in brackets.
On the first instance in lead, we have a short description and a footnote. The note can be moved down I think. Or?AhmadLX (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, didn't see that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Abbasids used this as a propaganda tool during their revolution to boost their legitimacy and appeal to pro-Alid masses. Two of Muhammad ibn Ali's sons, as-Saffahand al-Mansur, would eventually establish the Abbasid Caliphate. – Maybe switch sentences for better chronology?
@Jens Lallensack: Sorry, I don't get this one. Abbasids claimed Imamate and used it for their propaganda while overthrowing Umayyads. When sucessfull, as-Saffah, and latter al-Mansur, became caliph. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all good then, I misunderstood. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people hold Mukhtar a liar – who is "many people"? This is a very vague, imprecise formulation. Judging from what follows, I would guess that this is somewhat restricted to Muslims, and perhaps to Sunnites? It certainly does not apply to modern non-Muslim historians? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for bringing up the points. I will address the issues soon. This last point is a bit tricky. Originally I had used "Sunni", but actually no source specifically names any sect/group who consider Mukhtar liar. So I removed "Sunni". But it can be made "many Muslims" instead of "many people". Changed to "many Muslims". AhmadLX (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what got me confused about Ali and Husayn was the lead, as Husayn ibn Ali is introduced twice there (in the first and in the third sentence). Perhaps it would contribute to the flow if the second mention directly refers to the first mention to not sound as if a previoulsy unmentioned person is introduced? Even better would be if both mentions could be combined. Maybe you could delete "in revenge for the death of Husayn ibn Ali, a grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, at the Battle of Karbala" from the first sentence and merge that information with the introduction of Husayn in the third sentence. In the first sentence, you could instead state that Mukhtar ruled most of Iraq for 18 monthes before being killed or something similar that is more general and summarizes the whole article. But these are just ideas to think about, the decision is yours.
Agreed. What about this? AhmadLX (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the fixes so far, and good work with the background section, this is a great improvement especially for those unfamiliar with the topic. I added just one more suggestion above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I am supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jens. AhmadLX (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • This has already gotten a lot of commentary, but since this seems to be the first biography FAC by the author and is a subject I am somewhat familiar with (several reviewers have expressed their unfamiliarity), I think an extra review is in order. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes should also have citations (three are missing).
Two missing ;) Added ref to one. the other one doesn't need ref IMO. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph under "Counter-coup" Does not have any citations. I assume it is the citation used for the following quote, but then it should be repeated before the quote too.
Added. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Brother in law)" Why capitalised? You also say "(mother)" for example.
Changed. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image seems to have no author or date info, so I have nominated it for deletion. It could very well be a recent, copyrighted artwork.
I can't find its source, so if it is deleted, I will be pleased AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from Medina to Kufa" I think you could state where both are located.
Image added, includes other useful locations as well. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to lead a revolt against Yazid and Husayn subsequently" I think you could have a comma before and Hussein", had to read the sentence a few times to see what you were getting at.
Separated. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsequently sent Muslim ibn Aqil" You could state their relation.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mukhtar attempted to gather supporters from Kufa's environs" This seems to be a key point in the story, but do we know anything about his motivation for this?
Per sources, he was sincere in his support and the fault was Ibn Aqil's. According to plan, they had to wait for Husyan's arrival. Mukhtar was away when Ibn Aqil came in open. But once arrested, Mukhtar denounced Ibn Aqil's activities. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this could somehow be expanded in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned briefly. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "five hundred mawālī (sing. mawlā)" I think this term could be explained in the parenthesis. Seems you do this in the intro, but it should also be in the article body (the intro is just a summary of the article).
Explained in brackets and note moved down. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Territory controlled by Mukhtar (685–686)" You could state which colour in the caption.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this US or UK English? I see both "rumour" (UK) and "defense" (US), for example. You also say "ize" instead of "ise".
UK ;) Thanks for pointing out. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the troops absence" Troops'? Absence of the troops?
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They accused him of robbing their prestige" I wonder what kind of source the following quote is ultimately from?
The sources that the following quote is supported with. Added here as well. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was killed" Any info on how?
Sorry, I don't get this one. You mean something like "fighting"? AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean was he killed during battle or executed? FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
During the battle. It was mentioned, but was removed on another reviewer's suggestion. Re-added. AhmadLX (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is much better to be specific. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many Muslims hold Mukhtar a liar" Seems like a pretty broad statement? Muslims of specific sects, or wider than that?
Initially I had used "Sunni", but no source names any particular sect, so I removed it. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shias, on the other hand, regard him a sincere" All Shias, or some? This also leads me to think you should specify the above; some Sunni Muslims?
Only two sources, as far as I know, deal with this: Inloes (2009), an article by a Shia scholar in Journal of Shi'a Islamic Studies and Anthony (2011). Former doesn't specifically say "Shia", but since she is a Shia herself, so IMO it is okay to take her own views as representation of views of Shia Muslims. Anthony mentions of the reverence that Shia have of him, but doesn't say anything about if some or all of them hold him high. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later known as the Kaysanites" Link in intro.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "revered by Shia because of his support for the Alids, but condemned by many others as a false prophet" You reverse the orde rof these sentiments in the legacy section, why not be consistent?
Because refutation requires prior statement of claims that are being refuted. Reversed order in lead. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but condemned by many others" Many others means who? Sunni Muslims? Why not be specific?
Same as above. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FunkMonk. AhmadLX (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Subject to my own walk through the article, I'm looking to close this out soon -- @Nikkimaria, Midnightblueowl, and FunkMonk:, is there anything outstanding from your perspectives? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will read the rest of the article today. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image is currently tagged for deletion on Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image removed from the article. AhmadLX (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [34].

Buzz Aldrin[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) and Kees08 (Talk) 01:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, and the second-most famous astronaut. He's still alive, so this is a BLP. The article has passed an A class review that included image and source reviews. Some of the images in this article are iconic and stunning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Been waiting for this one.
  • "Born in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, Aldrin graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, in 1951, with a degree in mechanical engineering. " the many commas slow down the prose significantly. I would cut "at West Point, New York" and use no commas after the one following "Jersey". Most people know where the USMA is and if they don't, the lede of the Aldrin article is perhaps not the place to inform them.
    That's not what the cadets told me when I was there. They seemed to think that most Americans hadn't heard of the place, and were taken aback that foreigners knew so much. Removed "at West Point, New York" but retained the parenthetical comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I am uncultured, I never associated USMA with West Point and think they are two different things until I look them up. Could we keep West Point but remove New York? Maybe I just need edumahcated...I blame rural high schools. Kees08 (Talk) 21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep West Point with the link. It may come of my growing up only about 20 miles away and being taken to an Army football game by my dad...--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, as a Brit, I've heard of West Point and I know what it means (though not necessarily where it is); likewise Annapolis for the naval academy. I wouldn't intuitively know you ment West Point if you just referred to the USMA, so I think it's worth retaining. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back for now, if anyone feels strongly about removing it, I will not make a fuss. Kees08 (Talk) 19:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was accorded numerous honors, " as Dr. Aldrin is still going, I would say "has been accorded"
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was born January 20, 1930, in Mountainside Hospital, in Glen Ridge, New Jersey.[1]" I'd cut down on the commas and change the first "in" to "at", thus, "was born January 20, 1930 at Morningside Hospital in Glen Ridge, New Jersey". The "at" seems more natural to me. I see a tendency to overuse commas in this article IMHO, example being "His selection as one of fourteen members of NASA's Astronaut Group 3, was publicly announced on October 18, 1963."
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was a Boy Scout and earned the rank of Tenderfoot Scout.[7]" Our article is not clear on the subject, but my recollection is that until the 1970s, when you joined, you became a Tenderfoot. Thus, I'm not certain on the "earned" bit.
    Changed to "with the rank of Tenderfoot Scout". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sam Johnson, who later became a prisoner of war in Vietnam; the two became lifelong friends." as they are both alive, is this the best phrasing?
    Deleted "lifelong". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Korean War" is not linked on first use.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning that at MIT he was there at the same time as Dave Scott, who was also selected in Group 3? Did they have contact?
    I never knew this until now. Mitchell and Duke were at MIT around this time too. Nine mentions meeting the others in their memoirs. I will add a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was Aldrin's initial assignment as an astronaut, prior to his getting a flight.
    Hawkeye must have gotten this one; I added another reference to it at least. Kees08 (Talk) 03:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but in this case that was a dead end, as it would be Gemini 13 which did not exist; the last scheduled mission in the program was Gemini 12.[40] " You're effectively saying the same thing three different ways. Suggest consolidation.
    Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the delay between parabolae imposed a rest period." Well, more I think that they had to wait several minutes for the next brief period and pulled several G in between.
    Shouldn't it be only 2 G? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I flew on the vomit comet! In the current plane, you get 20ish seconds of zero-g, a teeny bit of time to transition back to the floor, some time at 2 g, and then a teeny bit of time to transition back to zero-g. Reichl says, "As well, in each case there was an approach phase lasting several minutes between the individual parabolas. As a result, unlike in space the astronauts automatically had a rest period between stages." It sounds like the original plane, which I do not believe was designed with the parabolas in mind, had to have a multi-minute long level period between parabolas. I added some verbage to the article to try to make it more clear. Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and created workstations that he could anchor his feet into.[45][46]" I would say "where" for "that" and cut "into".
    Good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gemini 12 was launched from Launch Complex 19 " It might be worth saying where.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Gemini Agena Target Vehicle was launched about an hour and a half before.[47] " I would say "had been" for "was"
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead, the Agena's secondary propulsion system was used to allow the spacecraft to rendezvous with a total eclipse over South America on November 12, which Lovell and Aldrin photographed through the spacecraft windows.[47]" Rendezvous with a total eclipse? A bit strange to read. And was it solar or lunar?
    Linked Solar eclipse of November 12, 1966. WHAAOE! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More could be said about why Aldrin was selected for Apollo.
    I can tell you a great deal about how Group 3 was selected, but don't know anything about why. Is there something that you think it should say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Wehwalt might have meant selection for Apollo 11. Is that right Wehwalt? Kees08 (Talk) 21:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for 11, though not just that he was backup for 8.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An effect of this was that while the CMP usually occupied the center couch on takeoff, Aldrin occupied it rather than Collins, as he had already been trained in it before Collins arrived.[56]" Trained in the center couch? I know what you mean of course but it could be fixed up a bit.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apollo 11 was the second all-veteran multi-person crew on an American mission,[57]" I would make it clearer you mean spaceflight veteran.
    Re-worded. The term "veteran" is not so closely associated with the military in Australia.
  • "that doctors diagnosed as requiring surgery.[54]" I would boil it down to "and required surgery".
    Elaborated a bit on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, there was little support for Aldrin's views among other senior astronauts who would command later Apollo missions, and who may have been the first to make a lunar landing had Apollo 11 failed.[59]" I think the tenses are all getting mixed up here.
    Cut the sentence back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aldrin and Armstrong did not have time to perform much geological training. The first lunar landing focused more on landing on the Moon and making it safely back to Earth than the scientific aspects of the mission. The duo were briefed by NASA and USGS geologists. They made one geological training expedition to west Texas. The press followed them, and a helicopter made it hard for Aldrin and Armstrong to hear their instructor.[61]"I might say "Armstrong and Aldrin did not have time for much geological training. The mission was to focus on successfully landing and making it safely back to Earth rather than on science ..." and I would shorten "geological training expedition" to "geology field trip"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More could be said how the training and intense media attention in the runup to Apollo 11 affected Aldrin.
    We put that bit about the field trip in to elaborate on that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More could be said about Aldrin's role in the landing. I might even mention he spoke the first words on the Moon. I might also shorten the discussion of the communion.
    The communion seems to mean a lot to many people, so I am reluctant to cut it back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I cut it back a teeny bit, removing some excessive detail. Kees08 (Talk) 00:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This mission allowed Aldrin to maintain his record EVA duration until it was surpassed in the Apollo 14 mission. He was also the first person to urinate while on the Moon." All that is swell, but I'm not sure this information is well placed here. I would get on with the moon walk and reserve such trivia for later in the discussion of Apollo 11.
    Moved it down a bit Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, two paragraphs on the camera issue and none on what the astronauts (Aldrin in particular) did on the lunar surface? I think you're burying the lede (MAN WALKS ON MOON) under (ALDRIN NOT AN EGOTIST). Did Aldrin take part in the phone call from Nixon? Gather moon rocks? Help set up the EALSEP or whatever it was called? Those are at least as important as whether he peed. A choice quote about the moon from one of his books would be something to be considered.
    @Kees08: Do you want to have a go at this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I will give this a go soon. Kees08 (Talk) 06:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7 and Wehwalt: What do you guys think of the work I did? I trimmed the religious bits more, trimmed the photography tidbits, expanded what Aldrin actually did on the surface. This was a good suggestion and needed done. What do you think of the edits? Kees08 (Talk) 21:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though the chance of bringing back pathogens from the lunar surface was considered remote, it was still a possibility." We had this discussion on Collins. It was not a possibility, but it was thought it might be. I would add "thought to be" after "still".
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and flown to the aircraft carrier USS Hornet,[94] where they spent the Earth-based portion of 21 days of quarantine.[95]" Similar comment to Collins. They did not spend 21 days aboard the Hornet.
    Added "the first part". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time there was great stigma ..." I would start by mentioning he was experiencing feelings of depression again and then mention the stigma.
    Moved the sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might make it clearer what he was hospitalized for.
    Depression. He was in the loony bin. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He attempted to help William Holden, whose girlfriend Stefanie Powers had played Marianne, a women with whom Aldrin had an affair, in the TV movie version of Return to Earth." Unclear if what is meant is help with the movie or with the drinking.
    Added: "with his drinking problem" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saw one of the four detached spacecraft adapter panels. " You could make it clearer what these are, or where they came from.
    They were the panels surrounding the LM. Not sure how to word this. The text has been cut back at the request of another editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a little bit back to compromise. Kees08 (Talk) 00:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How has Aldrin been making a living the past 47 years or so? More generally, the organization of the material on the post-NASA stuff seems a bit random.
    Mostly from being Buzz. He collects money for making appearances. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Congressional Gold Medal, with Apollo 11 crew and John Glenn inscribed" Maybe "depicted" for "inscribed"?
    Their names are inscribed, their images depicted. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the video game both in the text and in the listing of works he's been part of?
    Removed from the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this here since I was working on Wehwalt's comments when I noticed it...we have his first words on the Moon as 'Beautiful view!", when really that was his first words when he stepped on the Moon. (page 211 in Chaikin) His first words on the Moon were "Contact" I believe. I will fix it when I think of the right wording, unless someone else gets to it. Kees08 (Talk) 03:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? From the Apollo 11 Lunare Surface Journal:
Buzz tries to jump up to the bott:om rung and doesn't quite make it on the first try.] 109:43:01 Armstrong: A little more. About another inch. (Pause)
[Buzz jumps up to the bottom rung.]
109:43:06 Armstrong: There, you've got it.
109:43:08 Aldrin: That's a good (last) step.
109:43:10 Armstrong: Yeah. About a 3-footer. (Pause)
[Buzz jumps back down to the footpad.]
109:43:16 Aldrin: Beautiful view!
109:43:18 Armstrong: Isn't that something! Magnificent sight out here.
109:43:24 Aldrin: Magnificent desolation. (Long Pause)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so it is semantics, but his first words on the Moon would be when he was in the craft. Maybe saying they were his first words after he stepped foot on the Moon (while technically not true, is close enough I think) would work better in the article. Kees08 (Talk) 07:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the words to be "Contact light". Incidentally, you may want to mention his presence at the recent State of the Union speech, I believe as Trump's guest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The recent changes hit the notes I was looking for. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I reviewed this at A-class and my comments were all addressed. This is an excellent article and clearly meets the FA criteria in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "engineer, former astronaut, and fighter pilot". Why qualify astronaut with "former" and not engineer and fighter pilot? Maybe "former engineer, astronaut and fighter pilot"
    He retired as an astronaut so the former is clear there. He still does engineering work (see Buzz_Aldrin#Mission_to_Mars_advocacy). Fighter pilot is a little tricky, he flew recently but was in the back so I do not believe it counts as being a fighter pilot. Hawkeye7, what do you think, former fighter pilot or fighter pilot? Kees08 (Talk) 20:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can say "former". This is why I prefer writing bios in the past tense, even for living people. Especially in the case of someone 88 years old. However I got rapped over the knuckles by the AOC for describing someone as a former Olympian. Apparently, there is no such thing as a former Olympian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • plebe. I have not heard of this term before and I cannot find an article which explains it. I suggest "plebe (first)"
    The article is United States Military Academy#Rank and organization. I've read (and written) so many article on West Pointers that it hadn't occurred to me that the term might not be well-known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whereas Michael Collins had a successful EVA on Gemini 10, which suggested that the order in which he had performed his tasks was an important factor." This is not a grammatical sentence.
    Inserted conjunction. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gravity-gradient stabilization test" I do not know what this means. Is there an article it could be linked to?
    The article is called gravity-gradient stabilization. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whose girlfriend Stefanie Powers had played Marianne, a women with whom Aldrin had an affair, in the TV movie version of Return to Earth" As his movie career has not previously been mentioned, I would spell out that this was a screen not a real affair.
    No, Aldrin had a real affair with Marianne. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aldrin continues to research this concept" This is presentism. In view of his age, if he is still working on it then he will probably soon stop.
    Well, it is still current. We'll update the article to re-word things like the aforementioned first sentence if and when the time comes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These points are minor niggles in a first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though "engineer, former astronaut, and fighter pilot" needs revision. If I understand Hawkeye correctly, he agrees that Aldrin is not currently a fighter pilot. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Have read through article several times and made a few minor edits for grammar and style. The details appear well fleshed out and comprehensive and I feel this article reflects our best work.--MONGO (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I know images and sources were looked at during the article's MilHist ACR but I'd like to see a FAC regular like Nikki or Jo-Jo give both (or one each!) a look before we consider promotion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, images:
  • File:Buzz Aldrin in the cockpit of an F-86 Sabre.png and File:Buzz Aldrin in the cockpit of a Lockheed T-33A Shooting Star.jpg: I am not seeing the files in the source.
    I've updated the source slightly to [35] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gemini 12 recovery.jpg It's easier to check the license when the source isn't a direct link to the image.
    Right, must have missed that. Replaced w/ DVIDS and Archive.org sources Kees08 (Talk)
  • File:Congressional Gold Medal Astronauts.jpg: Are we sure these aren't copyrighted? Some mints do not fall under PD-USGov.
    I am having issues finding this out, Wehwalt do you know of a definitive way to find out? If not I will contact the Mint. Kees08 (Talk) 20:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The person who did the original design was not a Mint employee but was a contractor under the Artistic Infusion Program who by its terms conveyed all copyright interest to the government. The design was converted to three-dimensional works needed for the striking of medals by two employees of the United States Mint. It is my belief that the latter means the medal as a whole is free of copyright as a product of the federal government, but I can't say it with certainty. There is no mention of unusual copyright restrictions on the Mint's page on this medal. So I would say it is overwhelmingly likely to be copyright free, but I can't say it with certainty.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Medals were struck under Public Law 111-44 which says "The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That just means the Mint is authorized to strike them, as it may strike national medals and may not prepare private medal dies under 31 USC 5111(a)(2), which goes back to Congressional reaction against Franklin Peale in the 1850s. It's in every bill for a Congressional gold medal, probably.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certain that the medal is US government copyright, but given how the article is not short of images, I have removed it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone on their live chat indicated they are indeed public domain, however that is obviously not sufficient for our purposes. I have emailed OTRS and the Mint for confirmation that the images are indeed public domain. Kees08 (Talk) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the AIP program Terms and Conditions:

Contractor must (without assistance, payment or prompting from the United States Mint), obtain all consents necessary to ensure that the United States Mint, without further action, will own all rights in the design and its drafts, at the time the Contractor executes the applicable rights transfer agreement.

The medal's image is owned by the U.S. Mint, which is itself a unit of the Department of Treasury. As per USC Title 31, Subtitle 4, Chapter 51 Subchapter 2, Section 5111:

Minting and issuing coins, medals, and numismatic items. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury— (1) shall mint and issue coins described in section 5112 of this title in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to meet the needs of the United States; (2) may prepare national medal dies and strike national and other medals if it does not interfere with regular minting operations.

The Secretary of the Treasury prepares the die and strikes the medal (of course it's actually some employees underneath the Secretary), but the law dictates it's done by the Mint and therefore USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 applies. The image's rights were transferred to the Mint, but the medal itself is a work created by the mint's employees. And the U.S. Mint is a part of the Department of the Treasury. And all works created by an employee of the U.S. Government in pursuance of their duties are in the public domain. The image of the medal is in the public domain. I think getting confirmation is a perfectly fine idea, but I don't think removing the image before that confirmation is received makes any sense at all. All available evidence points to the image being public domain.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever responded to my email from the Mint was not very helpful; just said they could not verify and gave me a phone number to call (which does not help for OTRS purposes). I am convinced it is very likely (like 99% chance) PD, I believe Wehwalt, Hawkeye, and Shibbolethink are in agreement as well (but do not let me speak for you if you disagree), so as long as Jo-Jo Eumerus is in agreement I think we are fine on this one. Kees08 (Talk) 04:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like everything has got ALT text but I wonder if it can be simplified - ALT text often only needs something like "Logo-bearing plaquette of the Gemini mission". Everything looks pertinent as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: What do you think of adding this by the mention of Life magazine publishing it? Kees08 (Talk) 22:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's already on Commons at File:EJECTION_OF_A_MIG_PILOT_-_This_unusual_sequence_of_photos,_taken_by_gun_camera_film_of_a_U.S._Air_Force_F-86_"Sabre"..._-_NARA_-_542261.tif Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect I will add that in. It is briefly shown at the beginning of the Apollo 11 documentary (spoiler alert?), in case you have not seen it yet (just got back from it). Kees08 (Talk) 04:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I added the photo above, if you could review that too. I plan to get to alt-text later this week. Have your points been sufficiently addressed, or would you like to see any additional work on them? Kees08 (Talk) 08:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

License seems good; do we have a direct link to the source page? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is on the page in the Record ID section (I am not a big fan of how the file page looks; might try to clean it up some). It is here for your convenience. Kees08 (Talk) 08:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to convey today the adulation accorded to fighter pilots who sot down MiGs. And while Armstrong is lauded as a great pilot, it is sometimes forgotten that Aldrin was the better stick-and-rudder man. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: No rush whatsoever, but I believe your concerns have been addressed (outside of alt text). If there is anything I missed let me know so I can work on it. Kees08 (Talk) 02:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Quality and reliability:
  • The sources used are very broad based, and overall appear to represent the required standards of quality and reliability. An exception is Ref 5. The Sun is a red-top sensationalist tabloid newspaper and cannot be considered as a high-quality reliable source.
  • Ref 213: What makes Trailer Addict a high-quality reliable source?
    It did not even support the statement, so I removed the statement with it. The really cool video is Aldrin training Lightyear to fly on the station, if we did include something it should be that. Kees08 (Talk) 07:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the YouTube video as an external link in that section Kees08 (Talk) 17:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links to sources:
  • Ref 184: Returns "page not found"
  • Ref 186: ditto
  • According to the link checker tool all other sources links are working
  • Verification. I carried out a random sample of spotchecks, most of which checked out satisfactorily. In a few cases there are minor issues:
  • Ref 1 supports "Edwin Eugene Aldrin Jr. was born on January 20, 1930, at Mountainside Hospital in Glen Ridge, New Jersey". According to the source it was the Montclair Hospital
    Right, that source is not correct. I replaced it with a more recent source that has more detail on it (and is correct). Thanks for finding that. Kees08 (Talk) 17:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 67 supports "Propelled by a Saturn V rocket, Apollo 11 lifted off from Launch Complex 39 at the Kennedy Space Center on July 16, 1969, at 13:32:00 UTC (9:32:00 EDT)". the source gives the EDT time, but the UTC time may be based on OR. Also the source places the launch at Launch Pad 39A.
    Launch Pad 39A is one of two launch pads in Launch Complex 39; the other is Launch Pad 39B. Most launches are from 39A; 39B was only used by Apollo 10, the three Skylab Missions and Apollo-Soyuz. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 171 supports "In 2018 Aldrin was involved in a legal dispute with his children Andrew and Janice and former business manager Christina Korp over their claims that he was mentally impaired through dementia and Alzheimer's disease." It seems that the main basis of the dispute was financial; Aldrin alleged they stole money from him and filed the suit after the children petitioned to take control of his finances. The sentence should be extended to include this point.
    Apparently the situation ended three days ago. Let me do a little digging and maybe write a paragraph on it. Kees08 (Talk) 18:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting
  • Ref 98: "The American Presidency Project" should not be italicised. It is not a printed medium, nor is it a "work". Suggest use "publisher= " in template
  • Ref 144: "nj.com" is what is published, not the publisher. I believe the publisher should be given as "New Jersey On-Line LLC".
  • Ref 172: "retrieved" should be "Retrieved"
  • Ref 176: needs publisher information
  • Ref 203: Space.com should not be italicised – see e.g. Ref 13

Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I think we have addressed the comments, thanks for the review. I do not believe converting timezones is OR and would qualify as simple math. Let me know if you have any additional comments. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 18:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No further comments - sourcing is fine. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Should be good here. Kees08 (Talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [38].

Hathor[edit]

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hathor is the party girl of the ancient Egyptian pantheon; love, sex, music, booze, and fancy foreign jewelry are all part of her job description. She also has udders and a tail. Go figure.

Joking aside, Hathor was probably the most important goddess in ancient Egypt for most of its history. Aside from the handful of non-English sources listed in the further reading, this article includes pretty much all the significant sources on the topic, and I think it conveys the significance of the subject well. A. Parrot (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Holy cow, really excellent stuff. Doing some light editing as I read through; tis ok to revert, but may be a few days however before I get to this properly.

  • Once Hathor was firmly established in the Old Kingdom, she rose rapidly to prominence - I cant parse this; what does firmly established mean; it seems to me "came to prominence", so some of the sentence is redundant.
Appropriate choice of exclamation. Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement Hathor was the mythic counterpart of human queens is quite obvious and bland as it is proceed by As both the king's wife and mother of his heir. - I misread this. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and he depicted several priestesses of Hathor as though they were his wives - Mentuhotep was not an artist.
I was avoiding the passive voice, but I suppose it's necessary here. Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the First Dynasty, Neith was the preeminent goddess at the royal court,[105] but in the Fourth Dynasty, Hathor became the goddess most closely linked with the king.[106]. Why "but", given the distance between the first and fourth dynasties. Then we say "The dynasty's founder" without clarifiying which one of the two. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've specified that it was the Fourth Dynasty's founder. The other problem is the product of a slight disjunction between the sources. The Hollis source in the latter half of the sentence treats Hathor as directly supplanting Neith in the Fourth Dynasty, but the evidence for Neith's importance to the royal court mostly comes from the First Dynasty, and Lesko, cited for the first half of the sentence, only refers to First Dynasty evidence. Evidence for the Second and Third Dynasties is so sparse that it would be hard to evaluate whether Neith still held her First Dynasty status then. Now that I check Wilkinson 1999 there is some evidence that Neith remained important in the Second and Third. If it said "During the Early Dynastic Period…", that would include the Second Dynasty and, under some definitions, the Third. What do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I've now changed it to "During the Early Dynastic Period". What do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dendera was Hathor's oldest temple in Upper Egypt dates to at least to the Fourth Dynasty,[129] and after the end of the Old Kingdom surpassed her Memphite temples in importance. Hard to parse. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 39 instances of the word cow, are you always refering to the female of the species, or could it be varied with cattle, bovine etc in places. Doesn't really matter, just was born on a dairy farm, and work for a milk producer, and the repetition is a bit bla as we have 50 words for snow. Ceoil (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I haven't been this tempted to crack a Monkey Island joke in years... I've varied the wording a little, so that there are 20 instances in the readable prose and 24 in the wikitext. For obvious reasons, we are talking about a lone female most of the time, so it's hard to reduce the repetition more than that. A. Parrot (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Do you have any further comments? I hope I'm not pestering, but it has been nearly a month since your last edit here. A. Parrot (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry; my concerns have been dealt with...happy to Support. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Nice to see a steady flow of ancient Egypt articles, Wikipedia will be a great resource for such info in a few years! Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a bunch of duplinks, you can detect them with this script:[39]
The duplicate links are either in captions in the iconography gallery, where the script apparently doesn't read them as regular image captions, or (in the case of Temple of Edfu, Kingdom of Kush, and Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt) a long distance apart. I've always been skeptical of the hard link-only-once rule, believing that readers who want to click a link shouldn't have to scroll up through two thousand words of text to find the last place the linked term showed up. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, none of the duplinks that script shows me are in any image captions, it specifically ignores those. They are mostly in the latter part of the article body. Can't say I personally feel strongly about the issue, but the WP:duplink guidelines are pretty clear. I can understand your argument, but then again, why only link these arbitrary terms again and not others? FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them. A. Parrot (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the caption of the infobox image could state what it was based on (as is stated on Commons).
I've added a caption, though I'm not sure about the current wording; see what you think of it. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lana Troy" You present a researcher in the previous sentence, why not this one? Should be consistent throughout, haven't checked the rest of the article.
Adding "the Egyptologist" every time a new Egyptologist is named can feel intrusive and clunky. In this article there aren't that many scholars named, so I've added that introduction for Gillam and Graves-Brown, as well as to Troy, although I think it feels awkward there. That leaves the three names in the Festivals section. I've changed the text to imply that the three opinions come from within the Egyptological community, but I'm very reluctant to introduce them individually, which would be repetitive. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "identifies a passage in the Pyramid Texts" Perhaps relevant to give the age of the text?
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After her first datable appearance" Which was what? Unclear from the preceding text.
Changed to "In the Fourth Dynasty…"
  • "supplanted an early crocodile god" Name?
This is difficult. Fischer's book Dendera in the Third Millennium B.C. gives the name of this god, but only in transliteration: ı͗ḳr if we follow Fischer's transliteration, or jqr if we use the system more common on WP ancient Egypt articles. If the name were instead transcribed to fit into English running text, as is that of Hathor and most other Egyptian deities, it would probably be Iqer, but given how obscure this god is, I don't know if any Egyptologists have done so. How do you want to treat it? A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as is then. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which Lana Troy interprets" You don't need full names at second mention. Again, haven't looked for this elsewhere, so worth checking through.
Fixed. Given how rarely this article mentions individual scholars in the body text, I don't think this problem crops up elsewhere. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sends the Hathor as the Eye of Ra" Why "the Hathor"?
A typo. Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carolyn Graves-Brown puts it" Present.
Done; see above. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After some time, Hathor exposes herself to Ra" What is meant by "expose" here?
Changed to "exposes her genitals". A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In two New Kingdom works of fiction" I guess they were not intended as fiction? Like any of the other religious myths?
No, they were definitely fiction: short stories. Should the article clarify that? I'm not sure how to do so. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hathor's maternal aspects can be compared Isis and Mut," Compared to?
This wording was introduced in one of Ceoil's copyedits and I'm not entirely sure which wording he was aiming for. I've changed it to "Hathor's maternal aspects can be compared with those of Isis and Mut" for now. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • yet there are was many contrasts" Are was?
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They Egyptians sometimes" The?
Yes. Corrected. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of several interrelated goddesses" What is meant by interrelated?
I had in mind the close connections between the goddesses described just below, but I suppose it's an unnecessary word, so I've deleted it. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was often regarded as a specialized manifestation of Hathor" In ancient texts or by modern scholars?
Apparently in ancient texts. The modern sources don't state this very clearly (the citation for this passage only says "…Imentet often appears to be only a manifestation of Hathor or Isis"), but captioned images of Imentet in tombs like that of Horemheb or Nefertari label her as Hathor. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link sycomore?
It is linked, in both the lead and the body. "The milky sap of the sycomore tree…"
  • Various words are in italics, why not uraeus?
It's subjective; some Egyptological sources italicize it and some don't. For what it's worth, "uraeus" appears in my dictionary (New Oxford American), whereas the terms I italicized, such as naos and menat, don't. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Sistrum?
It was linked in its first appearance (as sistra), but I've moved the link to the following sentence, where it's more noticeable. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a hard time understanding why the content of the "Foreign lands and goods" and "Worship outside Egypt" sections are divided? Seem to overlap ins scope?
  • For example: "In the Kingdom of Kush, a native Nubian state that developed after the collapse of the New Kingdom, Hathor was regarded as a mother to the Kushite kings." and "he independent Kingdom of Kush, which emerged in Nubia after the collapse of the New Kingdom, based its beliefs about Kushite kings on the royal ideology of Egypt. Therefore, Hathor, Isis, Mut, and Nut were all seen as the mythological mother of each Kushite king and equated with his female relatives, such as the kandake, the Kushite queen or queen mother, who had prominent roles in Kushite religion" seems to be essentially the same info, duplicated for no apparent reason.
I've cut the redundancy.
Regarding the larger question, the first section is about the Egyptian belief that Hathor was the goddess of foreign countries. It was an important part of Hathor's character as the Egyptians perceived it. The second is about the worship of Hathor outside Egypt, primarily by non-Egyptians. Some passages may need to be moved from one section to the other to make the distinction clearer, but they shouldn't be combined. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the sections "Afterlife" and "Funerary practices" have some seemingly duplicate text, such as "Ancient Egyptians prefixed the names of the deceased with Osiris's name to connect them with his resurrection... In the Third Intermediate Period (c. 1070–664 BC), Egyptians began to add Hathor's name to that of deceased women in place of that of Osiris. In some cases, women were called "Osiris-Hathor", indicating that they benefited from the revivifying power of both deities." and " Beginning in the Third Intermediate Period, Hathor's name was prefixed to the names of deceased women in texts on burial equipment and funerary monuments.[92] Women were thought to take on the form of Hathor as men were thought to take on the form of Osiris, as signs that they had joined the retinues of those deities."
Cut. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that's all I could find, I'll let the experts take over from here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr rnddude[edit]

  • I'll get around to helping out with the review for this article, I hope, in the coming days. This is just a placeholder. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several sources that have some or another error showing up:
  • Missing identified (ISSN, JSTOR, etc): Cooney (Dec 2010), Hollis (2009), McCain (2011), Poo (2010), Stadler (2008) and Vandier (1964–1966). Allam (1963) is missing an OCLC and Derchain (1972) is missing an ISBN. These should be added if at all possible.
I've done these, except that the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology articles (McClain, Poo, and Stadler) don't seem to have identifiers of that sort. Here is a page listing the identifying information for a UEE article. Derchain has no ISBN (I'm guessing that ISBNs got established later in Europe than the US), so I provided its OCLC.
A. Parrot my apologies, I had that problem with UCLA myself. They have a registered ISBN and OCLC number: [40]. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing page numbers for book chapter: Derriks (2001), Finnstead (1999), Fisher (2012), Frandsen (1999), Goedicke (1978), Graham (2001), Griffiths (2001), Harrington (2016), Hassan (1992), Hoffmeier (2001), Lesko (2008), Manniche (2010), Morris (2007), Morkot (2012), Ritner (2008), Sandri (2012), Schneider (2007), te Velde (2001), Thompson (2001), Vischak (2001), Woods (2011), Yellin (2012), and Posener (1986). I consider this low priority because page numbers are provided in the specific citations, but it's a good practice and makes the source more directly accessible. It's a bit of a pain running through a 600+ page volume of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt trying to find the few pages on a subject. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page ranges added. A. Parrot (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a brief walk through the sources. I'm familiar with several of the works and authors, and these are all high quality. The ones I'm not familiar with are published in well-known journals (Studien zur Altaegyptischen Kultur [SAK] or Journal of Egyptian Archaeology for example) or by respected publishers (Oxford, Cambridge, University in Cairo, etc). The few where I wasn't familiar with publisher or author (e.g. Carolyn Graves-Brown), I did a quick background check on the author and they came up as qualified scholars in the field of Egyptology or Archaeology. Overwhelmingly, the sources used have been published in the past 20 years, with a smattering published within the past 50 years. This indicates to me that the scholarship used is up-to-date. I only have a few of these sources, but I can do spot checks for them if desired. It won't be as extensive as the one I did for Userkaf several entries below. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple comments regarding image captions:
  • IB image alt caption: you mention the red disk that's between the horns, but not the cobra that envelops it. No mention of here holding a was-sceptre or ankh sign either.
Added. I'm never sure how much detail to include in alt text. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt caption for "File:Plaque of a woman giving birth assisted by Hathor.jpg" in Popular worship is missing a word: Plaque showing a woman squatting while cow-headed stand at either side <- while cow-headed what stand at either side?
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other captions and alt captions are fine. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Do you have any further comments? I hope I'm not pestering, but it has been a month since your last edit here. A. Parrot (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at all, thanks for pinging me. I do apologize, February has been a rough month for me and I took on two FACs around the same time. Yours and Iry-Hor's. If at all possible I'll try finishing up the source review with spotchecks during the weekend. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one further comment, but otherwise Support. Hoffmeier 2001 is from Volume 1, not Volume 2, of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. I spent ten minutes reading through pages 507-508 to find what Hoffmeier was being cited for before I realized that those pages correspond to the Necropolis article in Vol 2. Goddamn it. I spotchecked the other articles from the OEAE and they all check out. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry about that! I corrected the Hoffmeier entry, and Serial Number 54129 has fixed the capitalization problem with the Woods article. A. Parrot (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • Hathor's name, ḥwt-ḥrw or ḥwt-ḥr, – maybe link to the respective language article?
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hathor's name, ḥwt-ḥrw[15] or ḥwt-ḥr,[16] may allude to this aspect of her character. – Is there a known meaning for these words?
I've rearranged the text in this paragraph to clarify. There are two possible readings, one of which is more common. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As demonstrated by her name, – relating to the above: this requires that the meaning of her name is known. But "Hathor's name […] may allude to this aspect […]" does sound like speculation, not definite knowledge. Reading "as demonstrated by her name" I would assume that this meaning is known?
Changed to "As suggested by her name…" A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The water of the inundation, colored red by sediment, was likened to wine, – as the inundation is mentioned here for the first time, I would specify that it refers to the annual Nile inundation.
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atum, a creator god who was said to contain all things within himself, was said – would one instance of "was said" enough here?
Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • seen from the front rather than in the usual perspective of Egyptian art – will be obvious for most, but I would still mention what this usual perspective is.
I called it "profile-based". The exact art-history term seems to be "twisted perspective", but we don't have an article for that term, and without a link, "profile-based" was the clearest way I could think of to describe it without digressing. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beautiful Feast of the Valley – can this be linked, or briefly introduced?
That's weird; I thought I had checked whether there was an article about it and saw that there wasn't. Now I see that it's been there since 2006! Linked. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to see another mythology article here. One of my favorite topics. The article is of high quality throughout, my above nitpicks notwithstanding. Thanks for that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

  • It look like Mr rnddude gave sources the once-over but I'd like to confirm if this counts as a signoff on formatting and reliability.
  • Image captions have been discussed above but I don't think I saw a review for licensing.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding point 2, I mentioned alt-captions but at the FA level I'm not confident to check for image licensing requirements. Regarding point 1, I probably shouldn't say "brief walk". I know many of the authors listed such as Lesko, Verner, Smith, Goedicke, etc are reliable sources and I use them regularly myself. I didn't feel the need to linger on them besides checking where and when they were published, and I'd have more to say if they didn't appear here, than for the fact that they do. I spent more time searching the names of authors I didn't know, such as Greaves, Yellin, Robyn, McClain, etc. I was able to find them as members of faculty of reputable institutions in each case. Even Brett McClain who was a bit more difficult to find, I managed to track down to University of Chicago in, say, ten minutes. I have scripts to identify formatting errors in citations and references, and the ones identified have been addressed. Thinking to my last FAC, I hadn't checked for capitalization consistency and that won't show up as a script error. There's only a single instance of a book chapter that is in sentence case: "zšš wꜣḏ scenes of the Old Kingdom revisited" from "Old Kingdom: New Perspectives. Egyptian Art and Archaeology 2750–2150 BC. Proceedings of a Conference at the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge, May 2009". Other book chapters like "Household and Domestic Religion in Egypt" and "The Cultic Significance of the Sistrum in the Amarna Period" are all capitalized. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding images:
This seems to be the closest I can get to the source page without registering for the site; I reached the photo via Google Images. A. Parrot (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this URL to https://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/ancient-egyptian-art-and-architecture/deck/3861125, which, as I said above, is the best I can manage. A. Parrot (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: As the file description says, the facsimile is of the Papyrus of Ani (13th century BC) and was made by E. A. Wallis Budge in 1890, so there shouldn't be any copyright problems there.
However, File:Narmer Palette, Egypt, c. 3100 BC - Royal Ontario Museum - DSC09726.JPG and File:King Menkaure and two goddesses, plaster cast of original in Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Egypt, Giza, Valley Temple of Menkaure, Dynasty 4, c. 2490-2472 BC - Harvard Semitic Museum - Cambridge, MA - DSC06126.jpg are photographs of reproductions, not the original sculptures, and I'm not sure when the replicas were created. I used these because Commons' photos of the original objects are either of inferior quality or dubiously licensed. Before nominating, I asked about the Menkaure statue at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/January#Plaster cast of a public-domain sculpture and was told it should be OK, but I forgot about the Narmer Palette replica, which doesn't seem to be a cast. Do either of these images need to be replaced? A. Parrot (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recall an extensive discussion on Commons about dinosaur images in a similar situation, commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Dinosaur_skeletons_copyrighted?. I think these images are fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALT seems OK and files are in good places. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: So is this good to go now? A. Parrot (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: is anything else needed here? A. Parrot (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, I'll aim to run through the FAC list in full some time this weekend. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

An addendum to sources comments included earlier in this review.

  • Quality and reliability:
  • The article is very extensively referenced, and the sources appear to meet all the required criteria for quality and reliability.
  • Verification
  • Because relatively few of the sources are accessible, spotchecking has been limited to a few instances, none of which raised any issues.
  • The link in Kendall 2010b does not seem to be working
Yes, the entire site seems to have gone down (except, oddly, the PDF that is Kendall 2010a). I've added archive links to 2010a as well as 2010b, just to be safe, and will keep an eye on the situation. A. Parrot (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting: a couple of minor points:
  • Retrieval dates have been used inconsistently, with regard to books. Sometimes you provide it, sometimes you don't. There is no need to include retrieval dates for any of the book links, and personally I would remove all of these. But in any event, you need to be consistent.
These aren't really books. User:Citation bot changed the citation templates for articles from the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, which only exists online, from {{cite journal}} to {{cite book}}. I'm guessing it did so on the grounds that they have ISBNs, which I added on User:Mr rnddude's advice. @Brianboulton: should these be treated as books, journals, or websites? Any advice would be appreciated. A. Parrot (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat lists the UCLA source as a "web document". I don't really know what to advise here to be entirely honest. SAK is a scientific journal that publishes works with an ISBN, for example, so having an ISBN doesn't automatically mean we should be using the cite book template. I guess that in this circumstance the sources should be cited using the cite web or cite book templates though. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking just as a fellow editor here, I'm afraid Citation Bot often does more harm than good. I would use templates appropriate to the source: if a print book (whether scanned and online or not) then Cite Book; if purely a web source then Cite Web; if a journal (whether it has an ISBN or not) then Cite Journal. I gather you can disable Citation Bot by putting {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} at the top of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the suggestion. I've put that template at the top of the article, and I've changed the UCLA encyclopedia's templates to {{cite web}} with an access date and an ISBN. My reasoning is that the encyclopedia is purely online and its articles are meant to be periodically updated. I'm not sure if those periodic updates would entail a change to the article's publication date, so an access date may provide necessary precision. And, despite being online, it does have an ISBN. This solution is consistent with the citations for the encyclopedia at Isis, the FA I have written whose citation format received the most scrutiny, so I hope it's satisfactory. A. Parrot (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billing is out of alphabetical sequence in the "Works cited".
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I believe that sources are good to go, and I would not hold up the article's promotion on account of these few points. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2019 [41].

Black mamba[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had a fairly long and checquered history, having been listed thrice and delisted twice as a GA, found to have copyvios, and much of this was done by a now-banned user. Descpite the 3rd GA coming after the user's removal, it was interesting how some problematic residue was still left. Two of us have had a go at overhauling along with some helpful peer review comments. I also feel it is important to get articles that kids like to stick superlative facts in (eagles, most poisonous snakes, supergiant stars) at a "stable version" type level to deal with future arguments. We promise to fix any issues real pronto! Have at it! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images appear to be appropriately used and licensed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I did it, but I did an image review as well and confirm all images are appropriately licensed. (sometimes I just want to review snake pictures, okay!?) Kees08 (Talk) 07:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thx again! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

linked to Asp (reptile) now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly does "labials" mean? Is it just the snout? Why does Upper labials to eye say "4th (3rd and 4th)" 3rd and 4th what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just above is a link to Snake_scale#Nomenclature_of_scales. hence they are scales along the lips. If we linked all the scales it'd be a sea of bluelinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments by Samsara[edit]

  • "It is diurnal and is known to prey on birds and small mammals, including hyrax and bushbabies." "Including" gives no sense of why the two species are mentioned. Are they particularly common prey items? Then say "especially" or the most suitable analogue. This is repeated later: "It mostly preys on birds, particularly nestlings and fledglings, and small mammals like rodents, bats, hyraxes and bushbabies." Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we perhaps writing from the perspective of the Northern world, for whom hyraxes and bushbabies are exciting, but birds, rodents and bats are considered mundane and not worth identifying to genus level? Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the scalation diagram, the link to where the notation is explained is vastly insufficient, as even the contents of the linked document do not put the reader in any position to understand the significance of the contents of the diagram, i.e. as it stands, it is data provided entirely free of context. E.g. are any of the numbers indicative of adaptations to particular habitats or ways of life? Do they in any way inform the taxonomic placement of the species? Etc. There need to be a few additional sentences to give any value to that section, for the lay reader. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • yes, scalation is often used as a distinguishing feature for snake species. I am trying to find a source to add this to article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC) damn that was hard! I found many many books that gave keys but nothing that specifically stated what was needed until I found a page from the South Australian Museum. Anyway, now added for context Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It may share its lair with other snake species, such as the Egyptian cobra." Knowing that the Egyptian cobra is ophiophagous, I feel there may be more explanation needed of how this relationship works. Later on, the converse problem surfaces: "They generally prefer warm-blooded prey but will also consume other snakes." Furthermore, "Young snakes have been recorded as prey of the Cape file snake." So, some kind of special truce with the cobra? Perhaps they are deadly to each other, and conflict typically results in both snakes dying? Would be nice if a source could be found with more details. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't find any information on this. Should I just remove mention of it? LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say yes - it can always be added back later when a source has been found. Samsara 14:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During mating, the male will slither over the dorsal side of the female while flicking his tongue. The female will signal its readiness to mate by lifting its tail and staying still. The male will then coil itself around the posterior end of the female and align its tail ventrolaterally with the female's." Inconsistent style: "his tongue" for the male, but "its tail" for the female, and then back to "it" for the male - decide on one style, and follow it (I grew up with texts in which "it" was used consistently, but of course Attenborough does it the other way). I note that the first sentence may be felt to be ambiguous if "it" were used, so the sentence may have to be changed if "it" is preferred. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like the adults, juvenile black mambas can be deadly." In many sources about snakes, this statement would be accompanied by the comment that young snakes, being less experienced, may strike more readily. If applicable to the black mamba, should probably be included. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The black mamba is recorded to live up to 11 years, possibly longer." Isn't the intended meaning, "and may live longer"? Hopefully, there is no doubt about what maximum age was recorded. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The black mamba is the most feared snake in Africa because of its size, aggression, toxicity and speed of onset of symptoms" Also because of the speed and perhaps lightness or fast-acting analgesia of its strike, but that might need a specific source to lift it above the level of synthesis. In a very well-documented case, a young British victim at the Southern African Wildlife College in the Kruger area died when the attempt was made to remove a black mamba that had come indoors. The victim reported having felt a very light touch on its leg correction: reported in the Telegraph as being on the hand, which turned out to have bite marks, and was convinced by teachers that it must have been a dry bite. Now that I'm writing this out, I'm wondering if this case should be covered since it received a fair amount of news coverage. [42][43][44] It appears the relevant section was removed. The Daily Mail and Mirror sources should be replaced with those given above, otherwise the section seems mostly well-written (we can talk about finer points down the line). For NPOV to be fulfilled, this or an equivalent section needs to be there. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • last night, by the time I got round to editing it was really late and I was tired - I wanted to read and digest. We have been in two minds about this material and decided to remove it, but do not feel strongly and am happy to see included if you feel it improves the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed a dubious bit (I don't reckon he would have survived an arterial bleed without medical attention!). Thanks for ferreting out better refs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The peak period for deaths is the species' breeding season, during which black mambas are most irritable." Probably wouldn't hurt to repeat the month range from over half a dozen paragraphs up. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earlier version I referred to also seems to have rather different LD50 estimates. I wonder how there can be such a discrepancy. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • some of those old ones, such as intraperitoneal, are rarely used or cited. Others on that page had unclear sources, which I trawled through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now also wondering about the difference between the current phrasing "Bites were very often fatal before antivenom was widely available" and the earlier one, "before antivenom was widely available, the mortality rate from a bite was nearly 100%". Which version is true to the cited source? It seems the earlier cited statistic of 7 out of 7 black mamba bites being fatal is consistent with the "nearly 100%" figure. The relevant paragraph from the originally used source reads: "Before the advent of black mamba antivenin, a bite from this fearsome serpent was 100 percent fatal, usually within about 20 minutes. Unfortunately, antivenin is still not widely available in the rural parts of the mamba’s range, and mamba-related deaths remain frequent." Selection of sources should be NPOV, as should the resulting text. The new source used in the text is behind a pay-wall for me for the next few weeks at least, and the abstract does not seem to reflect the relevant section. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, there is a full-text available here to look at. If you scroll down to line 99, you get "Bites from D. polylepis are reported to have a very high fatality rate if the victim is not treated ". I am wary of saying 100% fatal on the basis of 7 /7 deaths as the older version had. "nearly 100%" is not right as it possibly is 100%. "very often" I tried as meaning "almost always". Anyway, I am open to suggestion here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Casliber: Pinging just to make sure the below is noticed. Samsara 02:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps if you mean "almost always", it is best to write "almost always". Samsara 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos on the molecular details. Those two paragraphs are very interesting and well written. My perception of them may be biased. Samsara 19:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to say in closing that when I decided to look at this article, I was not expecting to have to extensively write on the subject of how venomous one of the most venomous snakes is. The LD50 value and typical envenomation doses alone do not really leave much room for doubt there, and I wonder how the tone of the article with respect to this point could change so much over time. One of the FA criteria is stability, and I hope there are no serious concerns to be had about this. To be clear about this, I hope to be convinced that we can arrive at a version that is not going to leave this article a battleground between snake apologists on the one hand, and those wishing to sensationalise on the other. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • this article was a battleground for several years and owned by a now-banned sockpuppetteer (e.g. see Talk:Black_mamba/Archive_2 for big argument about LD50 which spilled over into ANI) who loved flowery speech and argued in support of some dubious sourcing, and had some wild claims I took on this page as I was curious about how difficult it would be to polish the article after this period. It has been a real effort to go over everything (much more onerous than I expected) and some of the old edits might still exist in the article. Making matters more difficult is the issue of the LD50 - they vary by route (SC vs IV) and whether total toxin or elements are used. Trying to unravel sources and where the information came from originally has been one of the biggest challenges of getting this article to this point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara, anything more? LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See new section below. Samsara 01:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • First formally described by Albert Günther in 1864 – not a complete sentence.
dunno how that happened, tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • who spelt the name Dendraspis polylepis. – Using the word "spell" is a bit irritating. Better use "erected the species" or something similar. Currently it gives the impression as if the original scientific name would have had a typo.
ok the problem is that it is an orthographical variant to how it is spelt now (somebody added an 'o'), which is why I used 'spelt' instead of 'erected'. Am still musing on this and best way to clarify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "mamba" is derived from the Zulu word "imamba". – But what does this word mean? Is it just the name for the snake? If yes, it could be stated for clarity.
I can't find any information other than that given. It seems to be just the name for the snake, but no source clarifies it one way or the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • that had been killed by Italian explorer – We usually say "collected" instead of "killed".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was subsequently regarded as a subspecies and is no longer held to be distinct. – Unclear: Is it now regarded as a subspecies, or is the subspecies no longer thought to be distinct?
the latter - a valid subspecies is still distinct, just less so than a species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on subspecies? If there are none, I would still mention this fact.
none are recognised as valid. Will think how to get this in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tail of the species is long and thin, making up 17–25% of its body length. Maybe it helps to add how the tail is defined in a snake? Not apparent to everybody.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given its length: Maybe vertebral count would be interesting to know?
No information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black mambas weigh about 1.6 kg (3.5 lb) on average. – Since it is a common feature in snakes and very relevant for its reproduction biology: Is there sexual size dimorphism? Or any other differences between sexes? If they are equal, this fact deserves mention.
No mention of that anywhere. In fact I could only find one source mentioning weight at all. One should assume they are similar size if not stated overwise. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of text in the scalation section would be nice. E.g., what about the size of the scales? The second part of the species name indicates that there is a unusually high number of scales?
sigh....nothing coming up....will keep looking.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rival males compete by wrestling; attempting – use comma here instead of colon?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of more than 900 bites – This is referring to the previous sentence, and could be formulated as such (e.g., "Of the more than 900 bites …").
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a pity that sources do not reveal more on the description. I give my support now for the well-written article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Not my area of expertise, but snakes are interesting...

  • Suggest turning abbreviations off in the convert template, at least for first use.
ok, done at first mention...not too keen on this but not strongly opposed so happy to go with flow... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The species is both terrestrial and arboreal This article is likely to be of interest to a lot of non-expert readers, including children and non-native speakers (and people looking it up because it was mentioned in Grey's Anatomy), so maybe explain those terms in brackets, at least in the lead.
added in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Danie Pienaar, now head of "now" is discouraged by the MoS because it goes out of date quickly
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that up a bit. He is still listed as head of science right now (i.e. "2019" in article text),[1][2] but as has been said, that document is undated and will be updated with a new person at some, perhaps distant, point in the future. Unfortunately, even a feature on him in the Independent[3] does not indicate the year of his appointment. Samsara 03:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • survived the bite of a black mamba without antivenom in 1998. Although no antivenom was administered redundancy
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a "moderate" black mamba envenomation You can probably lose the name; we wouldn't be talking about any other snake in this context. Also, what precisely was moderate? Does that refer to the amount of venom or something else?
trimmed...it generally means (presumptively) less venom as the symptoms presumably are less systemic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot to criticise, but noting that I've only really looked at the prose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. This looks comprehensive and well-written to my non-expert eye. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sanparks.org/conservation/scientific_new/savannah_arid/research_staff/default.php
  2. ^ https://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/conservation/scientific/organogram/
  3. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/africa/kruger-lions-escaped-south-africa-can-they-kill-humans-in-city-pretoria-scientist-danie-pienaar-a7810086.html

The range map[edit]

Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2019 is located in Africa
Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2019
class=notpageimage|
Distribution of black mamba in Africa
  • I just noticed the issue with the range map, and then saw that it was posted on the talk page. May I endorse the enthusiasm to resolve this issue? Various maps do circulate, such as [45] and a roughly similar Wikimedia one , one here which got made into the one on the right ->
Then there's one from the Beeb that's based on WWF Wildfinder data, described here and downloadable in a GIS format here, since they discontinued web access to it.
Points of agreement among the maps seem to be the exclusion of Ivory and Skeleton coasts and the Cape region. Beyond that, depending which map you believe, almost all of sub-Saharan Africa is covered. Of the Western part of the range, Citizendium writes "may or may not occur here", while the Commons file description says, "possible range in Western and Central Africa". I propose an expedition. Samsara 21:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After I posted the issue, a nice person made the map based on IUCN and added it. The old map lacked any range marked in west Africa. There are significant reasons why I'd not trust the citizendium one. The IUCN is possibly the most reliable source out of rhe ones mentioned. The toxinology one I had contemplated using and was flip-flopping until someone did the IUCN one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I thought the issues were understood. The text notes range in the Congo (DRC) and "south-western Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia". However, Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan are not labelled as range on the map, nor is the DRC. That's to say as much as half of the range indicated in the text may be missing in the map. This mismatch needs to be resolved. Samsara 23:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Minor additional point: Burundi is also mentioned in the text, but skipped on the map. Samsara 23:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised the toxinology one had been made into a map. That is certainly better....will substituteCas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Errr.....how do I get the map and overlay into the taxobox then....gotta run IRL....back soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, kinda. It leaves behind an additional set of frame lines, but it doesn't bother me, personally. Samsara 06:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxobox looks a bit jarring to me now. The map is very broad, and expands the whole box to an extent where it looks unbalanced compared to the photo above. could the map be made smaller for balance? FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have shrunk it a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

  • German-British—German-born British is clearer
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not totally convinced by the scalation section, seems a bit over technical, and I'd be running too fast to count the scales. Your call though
The scalation is essential to diagnosing to species level often - like spore print, size and shape for mushrooms Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the criterion for bite victims being notable the fact that they are white?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, let me try to answer that last one. The section afaik was not written by any of the current contributors. I suggested it be brought back because it had seemingly been removed without reason. Do you know of other bite cases for which we can find reliable sources? My concern after reflecting on this section is that it might give undue weight to survivors. Samsara 16:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
given the lethality of the bite, I reckon anyone who survives is significant. It is easy to forget that getting the antivenom is not so easy if bitten in a remote area far from transport etc. Littlejerry and I were really in two minds about keeping/removing individual bite victims. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a black female survivor at CBS and Huffington. I didn't think that section looked like the sort of thing that you or Jerry would write, but if it's to be kept, I think you should add this survivor to make it less about white males Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good find that, lots of important information there. added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, I can't see anything else problematic, so I'll support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by Samsara[edit]

  • I still feel like I want to read something about how the small scales are helping with some aspect of life history, like speed or mating... anything really that makes scalation read like something other than God's gift to taxonomists. Samsara 01:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen anything about this in my travels through black mamba material...frustratingly... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The black mamba is the most feared snake in Africa because of its size, aggression, toxicity and speed of onset of symptoms" Also because of the speed and perhaps lightness or fast-acting analgesia of its strike, but that might need a specific source to lift it above the level of synthesis. Samsara 01:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yeah...I know....have to stick to sources... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The black mamba and honey badger overlap for much of their range, and this believable eyewitness account says the badger can take a black mamba as prey. The account is certainly consistent with the way honey badgers are widely reported to take cobras and puff adders. This article contains the quote, "An article written a few decades ago also shows evidence of researchers who injected enough black mamba venom into a honey badger that would have killed two oxen and it apparently had no adverse effects on the badger." Perhaps that paper can be found and added - it seems at least a reasonable suspicion that the justification for the described experiment would be that this actually happens in the wild, and that the paper would say so. Samsara 02:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC) ok found and added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samsara? LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Opabinia[edit]

I reviewed this at peer review, so already got most of my nitpicks out of the way. Just a few points -

  • I wasn't quite sure how to interpret the range map until I got to the distribution section. I take it that brown-striped area represents the inconclusive observations in Senegal. I'm not sure how to decide the boundaries for that area if it's really based on such sparse reports, but in any case the map caption could mention that the red areas are confirmed and that the brown area is unconfirmed?
mentioned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a ref missing/accidentally dropped in the second paragraph of the distribution section? The sentence about inappropriate antivenom doesn't seem related to the material about unconfirmed observations. The source at the end of the paragraph is dated 1983, which is fine for reporting 1950s observations but pretty old for which antivenoms get used where.
good point - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmed cases of survival without antivenom are interesting (yeah, I see what you meant now about the systemic-bias issues - ie whose cases get reported in places we'd use as sources) but I feel like the individual examples are sort of imbalanced - there's a lot of little details (did Layton notice symptoms 20 minutes after the bite, or was it 30?) yet some medically significant details aren't described. For example, in Pienaar's case, he was bitten in South Africa, and apparently got advanced medical care - why didn't he get antivenom? Isn't the South African National Health Laboratory Service a major producer of antivenom? (I know the sources might not cover that, but it seems really strange.) The HuffPost citation for Adomo is a dead link (should be this one, right?) In the Laita case, is profuse bleeding that "pushes out" venom really a thing? In general, these all seem to be sourced to media reports rather than case reports in the medical literature - I know this is the notable bite cases section, but some of the medical details are pretty hazy. I see from the above comments that there's been some discussion about adding/expanding this section, and it's not a key point IMO, but personally I'd give it another editing pass now that it's been written to trim it back a bit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok I have given it a run though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After reading that HuffPo article, I'm curious where they got the 30,000 annual sub-Saharan Africa snakebite deaths. Based on the 1957 to 1963 numbers from South Africa (the distribution of black mamba in SA is roughly representative of the distribution in sSA - black mamba absent in large parts of the country, but these also being much less densely populated, on average), I would then expect there to be about 10,000 deaths from black mambas annually. The HuffPo statement does roughly match the assertion in the other cited source, which gives ocellated carpet viper caused deaths as 20,000 annually, with black mamba listed as "runner up" without giving a number. Still, I feel we need to know and ought to be able to state whether it's 10,000, 5,000 or actually fewer than that. Sorry if I might be starting to sound like a barrel without bottom, but I really think we should be comprehensive on this point. Samsara 06:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't put my finger on why this bugs me, but I'd trim the stuff about Layton to something like "he complained of blurred vision within an hour of the bite, and collapsed shortly thereafter[refs]" - there's no indication anywhere else in the article that these are significant differences in the timing of symptom onset, and it looks like the kind of minor detail that media reports are often inconsistent about. I'd also add some more in-text attribution to the Laita stuff - something about "snake photographer claims he was bitten, never sought treatment for this normally-fatal incident, and realized after the fact that he had photos of the snake in the act" seems enough like a PR/marketing story not to tell it quite so much in Wikipedia's voice.
Also agree that if there are good sources on the number of deaths, the article should indicate the number. (IIRC one of the papers I looked at for the venom stuff did have some numbers, though I can't remember which one - I can look later if that helps. I'd try to stick with the medical literature for that one, not media articles unless they cite their own sources.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
begun trimming notable bites more. I have felt uneasy about them and the comments are good. Agree some sort of census with some data on numbers of snakebites would be good...am knackered now as nearly 1am here. more tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok I am finding only case reports and studies which don't examine numbers of each species bitten. all input appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis and Samsara: Furthermore, this paper is pretty scathing about the lack of research on the black mamba and snakebites in general in Africa. There is a Crisp 1985 paper that is used in Hodgson 1996 to note somehow numbers of deaths from mamba bites but I can't access it and it is only two pages long. All the literature appears to be mid 80s and older....sigh. Sadly I can't include what I can't find. I could use the Kenya case report (I guess) to highlight that literature is lacking...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few options that I haven't found the time to try:
  • Get access to the above-mentioned paper somehow so we know what it says
  • Contact the authors of the other sources to inquire what sources they were working off. The HuffPo author can be contacted through Twitter, the Reptiles Magazine writer is a book author for whom I haven't so far found direct contact details, but some of his publishers are listed here.
Samsara 20:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to the African Snakebite Institute (Marais is the principal), tweeted the journalist (couldn't message her), and will get have sent a request for an interlibrary loan for the article, though it is only one page long so suspect it is just a case report. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's going the distance! Sorry I haven't gotten back to this, I've been really busy IRL... will take a look tomorrow to see if I can find the paper I was thinking of, though now that I think of it, it may have been that one you linked on the Kenyan case report. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no replies as yet. hence just have a think if there is anything else actionable I can do Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsara: the African Snakebite Institute (which has Marais as the director) wrote back and said, "Unfortunately there is no central supplier database that captures all the Black Mamba bites in Africa" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with a reliable source that makes a reasonable extrapolation - I think we knew before asking that not all African Black Mamba bites get logged - to suggest that such a thing would be possible at this point in time would be ludicrous (sorry if I'm offending anybody, but that seems close enough to a hard fact). This is why I suggested asking Jerry G. Walls - it seems likely to me that he was working off something in electing the black mamba the second worst African venomous snake. I think the key here is to actually find an answer to the question, not some reason for not answering it. If that was also your goal, I'm sorry you came back empty-handed. I'm happy to put some effort towards this, but my wiki time unfortunately will be coming in little chunks until the middle of the year. Samsara 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that maybe a reasonable extrapolation is also very very difficult. Johan Marais was one of the other authors, who heads the institute that just replied to me. I'll look for Walls. And if he gives his opinion...I can't really write pers. comm. can I though? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, my suggestion was always for sources, not pers. comm. Of course, as soon as he publishes it, it's a source. Samsara 23:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, but I was fearful of some communication of data that was a personal observation rather than a reference to anything published for that very reason (i.e. that we could not use it). Just imagine I said that sentence with a wry and self-defeated smile. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
finding contact details for Jerry G. Walls is proving tricky. Given this was in this magazine, I thought he might be part of this but his absence here suggests not...and nothing is coming up on google Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have now been able to update with figures from a peer-reviewed paper rather than a guidebook. It now goes from 1953 to 1979 so some improvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find that new passage confusingly written. This may be an example of data that's better presented as a table. Samsara 11:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried rejigging. I realise I meant to put the Zim material further up and tried clarifying the pre/post 1962 thing. It'd be an odd table - with bits and pieces everywhere and not terribly gridlike. Also not sure how it would go with the flow of the prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's confusing even so. We're now bundling a number of factors together - (1) did they have symptoms of systemic envenomation, (2) were they "ill enough" to receive antivenom (more on that below), (3) did they receive antivenom, and (4) which one? Unexplained is why so many received (usually expensive) antivenom that had no effect. Was that unknown at the time? And why did so many make it through when receiving the ineffective antivenom, when the previous figure was 7/7 dying? That just seems really odd and conflicts with the general tenor of the article, which has been that a black mamba bite is nearly 100% fatal. To that effect, when you write, "15 people out of 35 ill enough to receive antivenom died", does that exclude people who died on the way to hospital, or where there was no intention to seek treatment? Is that also the case for the other antivenom figures? (I.e. are any declared dead on arrival and not given antivenom, not put on ventilators etc?) If so, I believe the phrase "ill enough" would need reconsidering, because those arriving alive at a hospital might be the mild cases. And if not, I'm just hugely confused at this point about how the discovery of two additional papers seems to have turned the article upside down. Samsara 15:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "100% fatal" material came from figures in a guidebook. Finally, we've found figures from some other papers (neither of which popped up on searches easily). It's still a very dangerous snake just not quite so lethal as the original contributor of the material. PS: You're right - the "ill enough to receive..." was me interpreting withiut evidence to back up that was what was meant. Now changed to reflect this. I don't see any contradictions now - it's still a highly venomous snake. I removed a "very" and can't see any other text which asserts a 100% mortality. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is the section of actual text (now refactored to remove "ill enough":
  • A survey of snakebites in South Africa from 1957 to 1979 recorded over 2553 venomous snakebites, with 75 confirmed as being from black mambas.
  • Of these 75 cases, 63 had symptoms of systemic envenomation and 21 died.
  • Those bitten before 1962 received a polyvalent venom that had no effect on black mamba venom, and 15 people out of 35 who received the antivenom died.
  • A mamba-specific antivenom was introduced in 1962, followed by a fully polyvalent antivenom in 1971. Over this period, 5 people out of 38 bitten by black mambas and given antivenom died
Do you still find this confusing? I will ping @Opabinia regalis: to offer an opinion too.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think I have much to add literature wise. I think my only suggestion for the current version would be to add a line (probably citing the discussion material in that Kenyan case report) about the relatively scarce data on the subject, as context for why we're presenting fairly old and variable data. (I don't think the "7/7 deaths" was really generalizable, and these are better even if not the most recent sources, so I don't think it's turning anything upside-down so much as just a statictics-of-small-numbers problem, plus selection bias in what gets reported in more general sources.) Anyway, I don't think I have further comments and I expect to be on wiki pretty intermittently this week, so support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, much appreciated........until I sling the next snek up at FAC :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Dweller[edit]

  • I'm also puzzled by the map. I see areas of black, green, red and beige. No brown at all. I guess red is where it lives and beige is where it doesn't. Maybe the black is "brown". So what's the green? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    the person who made the map used an Africa map which had greener tinge for more vegetated areas and browner for less - the demarcate red patches are the range, and the brown in west africa is uncertain range Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reader needs the map explained without coming here. Or pull it. Or replace it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong with this map I made on request[46]? FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, as far as I'm concerned. Just wasn't in the article when I made the comment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was more a question for the nominators, the map was replaced during the FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: That discussion is on this page. Samsara 18:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say this map issue is a big deal to me. We can't have an FA with an incomprehensible map. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IUCN map is missing parts of the range. @Samsara: can the current rangemap be overlaid onto a plain map of Africa rather than one with tints for deserts and jungles? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Done, to a first approximation (colours and resolution are reasonably easy to change). Samsara 21:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! @Dweller: is this version better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I could quibble over the brown looking black but a) I know I'm not great with colours and b) even if I was right (and I refer you to 1) nobody reasonably intelligent would be overly confused by it. Good stuff. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the black mamba had been known to missionaries[4] and residents[5] before 1860" multiple issues. Citations should follow punctuation. "Residents" is a very odd choice of word. Locals? Indigenous population? The order of inclusion implies a colonialist attitude. And even mentioning missionaries is ridiculous. What year is the very very earliest any missionary might have arrived in the area, compared to the year a local person might have noticed a black mamba. To that point, 1860 seems several thousand years too late a date. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    actually now you put it like that, the whole sentence looks rather obvious (and lame). It'd be interesting if there were any interesting stories but we didn't find any. so removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dweller: @Casliber: I don't think there's any rule that punctuation has to be before a reference. It's only that if reference and punctuation are in the same place, there's a prescribed order. From Wikipedia:Citing sources: citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods (full stops) and commas. (emphasis mine) So it only applies if the punctuation is already adjacent. References mid-sentence are perfectly fine as in that sentence. Samsara 19:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who spelt the name Dendraspis polylepis" The body text hasn't yet told us what the correct spelling is, so this is jarring. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As this is merely an orthographical variant, to make it less jarring I have removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does imamba in Zulu mean, or is it just the name of the snake in Zulu? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Several dictionaries give the translation simply as "mamba". It most likely means the black mamba specifically as none of the other species clearly overlap the current or traditional Zulu-speaking areas, at least if we're basing this on the current range of the snakes. Wiktionary additionally suggests that the same word exists in Xhosa. I'm not too hopeful that the derivation of this specific word has been the subject of a reliable source. Dictionaries of Zulu that I've seen have not included etymology. Samsara 19:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, if the sources are silent, there's not much we can do --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomy section explains "mamba". The description says they're rarely black. One of the two sections ought to deal with why, given this, are they called black mambas. And if we don't know why, can we say that we don't know why? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say we don't know why as that'd be OR. All we know is what is written. I don't know if it is unknown or not Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scalation section includes lots of unexplained and unwikilinked technical terminology. This suggests to me that this is not encyclopedic content, but is scientific textbook territory. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you click on the Snake_scale#Nomenclature_of_scales link it describes and illustrates the scales. Scale patterns, like spore prints in fungi and all sorts of other keys, are fundamental to describing a snake down to species level. All snake guidebooks discuss them. I'd link the scale types themselves but then I'd be linking bolded terms that are functioning as headings which MOS frowns upon...In other snake articles this segment has been a paragraph of prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "from to" structure of the paragraph of geographic distribution is very hard to follow, being especially confused by over proliferation of names. Either name all the countries or give us a from to structure, relying on the map for the rest. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The black mamba's distribution contains gaps within the Central African Republic, Chad, Nigeria and Mali." I haven't a clue what this means. Do you mean that there's a sweep of territory it occupies, but there are gaps within that territory comprising those countries, and if so, is this a comprehensive list? Can we explain it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it make sense to say first the type of places the snake lives in and then list the countries, because the former presumably explains the latter. --11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Distribution going before habitat is typical for animal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have an estimated population number? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    sadly I haven't seen one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the wild, black mambas seldom tolerate humans approaching more closely than about 40 metres (130 ft)" I find it difficult to believe that a black mamba can detect a downwind human being at 40 metres, especially in a forest environment. I also take small issue with "tolerate" but I can't put my finger on why! I think it's because it implies it'll do something (expel the human, run away) when actually, won't it usually try to hide (and therefore tolerate the human presence) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source just states that and them describes what it does when threatened (fleeing and threating). LittleJerry (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do they swallow their prey whole like most snakes? (In case that seems like stating the obvious, the article does note they are oviparous) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's an image showing it swallowing prey. LittleJerry (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe that's a serious response, is it? You can't rely on the image. First, and most importantly, it's not verifiable. And secondly, Creme Eggs made an entire ad campaign out of the notion that different individuals eat things differently. It's not an unreasonable question/inclusion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over 2553 venomous snakebites" is odd. It's a very very specific number undermined by seemingly being unspecific. Go for 2,500 if it's not certain? And surely it's "more than", not "over". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno why I wrote that - it was a series of 2553 snakebite cases. period. "Over" removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it'd make more sense to talk about venom more generally before delving into the numbers of affected/killed humans --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I sort of am in a different way. The flow is "it's really poisonous" --> "so poisonous that this many people have died"(i.e. general stuff about how dangerous it is) --> then more specific symptoms and signs --> then more specific components and toxins. I did muse on placing the deaths further down the section...but after which paragraph would I put it? At the bottom seems too far down.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Black mamba venom does not contain protease enzymes" Why would I expect it to? Pretty sure there are other things it also doesn't include, like Marmite and custard. Is this stated because other venoms commonly do? If so, say so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unlike many venomous snake species" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "severe course" Severe what? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    a severe course of envenoming. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems unecessarily opaque technical language unrelieved by wikilink. Only 7,000 Ghits for the term. Why not replace "Early neurological symptoms that indicate a severe course of envenoming" with "Early neurological symptoms that indicate severe envenoming" or "a severe condition" or "a potentially severe case" or similar? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    trimmed as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We treat Bulbar palsy as a symptom, when it isn't. Try "and symptoms of bulbar palsy"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    its a set of diverse neurological symptoms - added "symptoms of" now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "polyvalent" is jargon and needs some sort of explanation or wikilink --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    linked now - it's the standard word for an antivenom that works for more than one genus of snake Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " is used to treat black mamba bites from many localities" unintentionally implies that it doesn't work on bites from some places. Do you mean "in many"? Seems an odd commercial inclusion. Is it the only one available? Why is it only available in some places but not others. I'd consider deleting the whole section of text. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why that qualifier is there. Removed now. Is important in the scheme of things as first polyvalent antivenom was ineffective against black mambas Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Danie Pienaar does not appear to be notable, so why is his bite considered "notable"? There is an awful lot of text there about an incident that occurred to a non notable individual. Same objection for the other cases mentioned. Our article says that of 75 cases recorded only 21 died even in the days when useless antivenoms were being tried, so cases of survival shouldn't be remarkable per se, and neither should cases of death. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinion is split on the "notable victims" section. I flip-flopped in ruminating about it before removing it. Samsara preferred it in. All are notable in that they have been discussed in the media (as is evidenced by references). To me, Layton's case highlights the minimal local symptoms, which in his case proved fatal, Laita as he took a photo of it (links are interesting), the Kenya case because it really shows how isolated parts of Africa are. Pienaar probably has the weakest claim but he was the head of South African National Parks Scientific Services. The other thing to remember is that black mamba bites aren't that common really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the relevance of note a to the text it follows? Is it implying that being "a snake of medical importance" doesn't mean what I thought it did - I thought it meant that they make medicines from some aspect of the snake. The note implies it's given that status because of how venomous it is, although ironically the note diminishes that point. In any case, I think more/better explanation is given for "snake of medical importance" - could be a link to some text in a WHO article or add it to the note, if it's hard to be pithy --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add have added something as a footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • there's a typo in note b --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • query - is the venom administered through those fangs? Not mentioned. --21:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
All venomous snake use their fangs to inject venom. The sources I have appear to not feel the need to specify that the mamba does. LittleJerry (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<-Update. Rude of me not to have begun with praise for the article, which is really really good. I still have big reservations around that map. I'll try to finish my review today/tomorrow. Thanks for all the responses. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's it, thanks for your patience and a very interesting article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be happy to support when the issues have all been resolved. This is a corking article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller, done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • I carried out a series of spotchecks. Ref 28 supports the statement: "Bites are very rare outside Africa; snake handlers and enthusiasts are the usual victims". Source says "Although very rare in a European context..." and makes no mention of "snake handlers and enthusiasts". No other issues arise from my sample.
  • There are several mainly formatting and presentational issues:
  • Ref 8: should note source language is German
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12: publisher location missing
Decided to remove locations for all. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15: ditto
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19: returns the message: "Sorry, we can't find the page you're looking for".
damn, wish I had archived that. oh well, folks can just go to abstract Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21: not clear as to the nature of the source
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24: what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Not sure if numbers changed - WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization - is WHO official body, FN 25 is Jerry G. Walls, who has written many books on this and similar topics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34: publisher location missing
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39: lacking publisher
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Ref 41: ditto
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45: "BBC News" should not be italicised. Use "publisher=" not "work="
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 48: Likewise for "strange behaviours"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the sources appear to be well chosen, and subject to the above meet the required quality and liability criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I think we're about there so, subject to my own walk through the article, I'd expect to promote before the day is out -- any outstanding concerns pls speak now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, given this has been open seven weeks and the latest comments appear to have been addressed, I think it's time to promote and if there are any minor niggles remaining they can be dealt with post-promotion, and any discussion can take place on the article talk page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2019 [47].

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article was my first major attempt at a historical "biography", in so far as they are actually possible with this passing of time; it went through the MILHIST A-class review slightly over a year ago. It fell off the radar, but has recently received further polishing and should be ready for promotion. I've no idea, now, and looking back on it, exactly why I chose Buckingham to beef up back then; he's an interesting character but I can't remember recognising that! He began his life fighting for Henry V in France, and died defending Henry VI in England. Between those points he fought, argued, married, and heired, and went from being the voice of reason and conciliation in government to calling for war on opponents and urging death on his enemies.
See what you think; get stuck in. ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belated: I don't suppose it's the done thing, and is probably completely precious, but if this FAC passes, it should be dedicated to the one like User:Cassianto who(I knew I had it somewhere but could find the bloody thing) originally pushed me to take Buckingham further, but who is no longer with us to see the day...a loss that efforts such as this will never replace. Anyway, carry on. ——SerialNumber54129 14:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Your references and bibliography are beautiful. Nicely done. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I have very little to complain about here. Reviewers' work would be much easier if all candidates at FAC had this level of exhaustive research and preparation. A few quibbles, mostly with reference formatting (with a couple from prose). I will note that older material (such as Nicolas) and the two doctoral dissertations cited appear to be used in a responsible manner; authoritative modern sources carry most of the weight, as appropriate.

  • Davis (2004) appears to be missing a space in OxfordDictionary.
  • Dunham (1907): gGnealogy?
  • Griffiths (1981) has "Berkeley". Most of your US publisher locations have a state abbreviation (and you may want to make sure I didn't miss any others).
  • And actually, I see you have just New York for Zimbalist (2012). That one can go either way, generally speaking, but you do have "New York, NY" for Logan (1979).
  • There are two citations to doctoral theses: Ross (1952) and Stansfield (1987), but they're formatted slightly differently. If the Stansfield thesis is published (insofar as the other one is "unpublished"), then it would be better to find and cite the published version. But I suspect that's not the case, and they're both just being cited as theses (and you can probably drop "unpublished" from Ross for consistency).
  • Wiggins & Richardson appears out of alphabetical order.
  • Should the work authored by "The Greyfriars Research be alphabetized under "G" rather than "T"?
  • "The duke was buried shortly after at Grey Friars Abbey in the Northampton." I'm not always competent to judge British English, but should that last "the" be there?
  • The order of a few of the sections confuses me. We open with the bulk of his history, concluding with his death, then have a section dedicated to his "Character", then an "Aftermath" dealing with his estate after his death, then a discussion of "Family". As a result, in reading order, poor Humprhey is: alive, dead, alive, dead, then alive again. Perhaps it would be better to move §Aftermath between §Last years and §Character?
  • He left instructions for the foundation of a college. Were those carried out, and if so, was that college anything we can link to?
  • That lost play is interesting. Assuming it's the same Duke Humphrey attributed to Shakespeare, it's my understanding that most scholars think the titular character is Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (see its entry in the Folger Lost Plays Database – although the LPD is probably not actually a reliable source in and of itself).
  • And, my least favorite FAC quibble: you have at least a couple spots where multiple citations are used, but the reference numbers are not in numerical order ([26][1] in the bit about Joan of Arc; [114][110] in the Battle of St Albans).

I don't see anything that would preclude my eventual support, as I'm certain these are all minor issues that are easily resolved. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much Squeamish Ossifrage, for those suggestions: I've actioned all of them with this edit. The main thing, among all the typos and tweaks, is that I re-ordered that section—which reads much better in its new seat—and added a footnote about the college, which hopefully provides more background and detail; including the fact that his wife seems to have been more interested in remarrying than executoring!  :) I hope this is all OK for you; let me know what you think. Incidentally, your points about the out-of-order ref numbers was also attended to, in subsequent edits. Cheers!——SerialNumber54129 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Duke Humphrey, the Folger Shakespeare Library's Lost Plays Database is definitely a WP:RS reliable source, and the entry in question was written by David McInnis who is the Gerry Higgins Senior Lecturer in Shakespeare Studies at the University of Melbourne and has published books in this field. The LPD has an editorial board with similar experts: see their About us page. And Wiggins and Richardson are not in conflict with the LPD: they both think Gloucester the most obvious choice (especially if by Shakespeare: "Duke Humphrey" there is Gloucester), Buckingham a second choice, and a fictional "Duke Humphrey" a possibility. Both also say there is insufficient evidence this play even existed, what its actual title was (the Warburton list may well have contained descriptive "titles" bearing no resemblance to any published title page: e.g. "That one where Falstaff got drunk"), much less determine its subject. IOW, our article was simply off by two words: "May be", not "was probably". --Xover (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SC[edit]

Lead
  • "He acted as both King's bodyguard and chief negotiator Jack Cade's rebellion of 1450": missing "during" or similar after negotiator
Early
  • "wars"; and, like": the "and" isn't needed after a semi-colon
  • "whilst" - > "while" (~st is a little archaic/whimsical)
  • "made repeated claim to" - > "claims"
  • "travelled to France with the King for French coronation" – doesn't scan well. his French coronation; the French…, etc needed
  • "this time was carrying out defending Paris and its environs" - > "this time was carrying out the defence of Paris and its environs"?
Estates
  • "Marcher castle". Would a piped link to Marcher Lord assist those of us who had to go hunting round to find out what it was?
  • "with some debts still owed from 20 years early." -> earlier.
Affinity
  • "not only was Stafford unable to prevent" - > "not only was he unable to prevent"

Done to the start of Later career: more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks SC; coincidentally, many of your recommendations were also suggested below, and have already been done; those that weren't are in this edit. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike then... - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick spot from further down - Note 12: "The American antiquarian, I. W. Dunham": does his nationality matter? - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Later
  • 'to "hand it over to the son of one of his own councillors"': not sure we need that quoted – can be rephrased well enough
Roses
  • "From 1451, the King's favourite, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, had become": doesn't quite work:
    • "From 1451 ... EB served as ..."; or
    • "In 1451 ... EB had become (or just "became")..."; or
  • "Griffiths has called this position": anything wrong with "Griffiths called this position"?
  • "appointed York Protector of the Realm": had to read this twice before I realised "York Protector of the Realm" wasn't a title! Perhaps "appointed York as Protector of the Realm"?
  • "the 'Stafford knot'". Is it worth moving the image of the knot down to this section?
  • I'd consider "co-ordination" to be preferable to "coordination", but Tim riley is the best to check if it's a clear cut BrEng/AmEng thing
    • Not a BrE-v-AmE thing, as far as I know, but a problem withal. You can become seriously unhinged trying to work out what to do with "co" words - "operate" as well as "ordinate". A diaeresis just looks silly. You can use a hyphen, but then you get into a spot with antonyms: "unco-operative" and "unco-ordinated", anyone? Gowers doesn't muck about and goes for "coordinate"; Fowler on the other hand goes for the hyphen. On the whole I'm with Gowers, but there really is no right or wrong here. Tim riley talk 21:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last
  • "in April 1456 the duke": Duke?
Northampton
  • "The duke was buried": Duke?

That's the lot. I'll pop back in a day or so for a final read through. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks very much! All actioned; all things considered, I've followed you with "co-ordinate"—and worry about the antonyms as they occur! Although I see Tim's point too; if someone chages it in future it'll be understandable. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; another read though and I'm happy to support this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, thanks again SchroCat. ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I missed this at PR, and I am sorry to raise at FAC points that would have been better dealt with there. A few drafting points down to the end of "Estates":

  • "then-king" – I don't think this construction is usually hyphenated
  • "as historian Carol Rawcliffe" – clunky false title: adding a definite article will remedy it.
  • "Henry V had verbally promised him" – I think you mean "orally". Verbal just means "in words", whether written or spoken.
  • "now that the Pope had promoted.[12]" – is there a word missing here? I can't make sense of it as it stands.
  • "the largest single chunk of the duchy that to be delegated among the nobility" – I couldn't work out what this means.
  • "Writtle particularly was especially favoured by the duke" – which duke? If it's Stafford this is the first we've heard of his being promoted in the peerage.

More to come, a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 13:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come on the text, but that will require close scrutiny, and I'm coasting with something easier for now, viz. the bibliography:

  • Does the ODNB really lower-case the first duke but upper-case the second Duke?
  • For the C. Davies ref: don't we usually indicate which online sites are subscription only? You do for others on the list. For the ODNB there is a dedicated template: {{ODNBsub}}
  • M. K. Jones – is the thesis available for consultation? Otherwise isn't there a problem with WP:V? Ross 1952 and Stansfield 1987 likewise.
  • New Haven CT or just New Haven – we have both.
  • New York NY seems a bit gratuitous when we have Stanford and Athens without a state. Tim riley talk 13:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Thanks very much for looking in, Tim, it's generous of you (as ever)...I've attended to those aspects in the first run, doing as you suggest when you suggest it and endowing comprehensibility where you find it lacking, hopefully. The PR was over a year ago, and I'm not sure we had even "met" at that point! Regarding the refs, the important thing is consistency, so I've addressed the examples (and more) of capitalisation that you found, although as you note, consistency can also lead to oddities such as New York, NY; but omitting the latter would rather stand out, I think. The oDNB use sentence case for their titles so was adjusted. Theses are used per WP:SCHOLARSHIP (accessed via the Bodleian). ——SerialNumber54129 15:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comments on text

  • Affinity and problems in the localities
    • "Affinity" is blue linked in the sixth sentence. It has been explained earlier, and I don't think a link is wanted here, especially as the term occurs, unlinked, in the previous line.
      • Linked on first occurance.
    • "cost the duke over £900 a year" – is this still Stafford? Not a duke yet.
      • Stafforded.
    • "One of the most well-known disputes" – one of the best-known?
      • Done.
    • Stafford is prematurely duked throughout this section. If I may make a stylistic point, I'm not sure that what Fowler calls "elegant variation" is wanted in articles like this. I think "Stafford" and "he" (or other pronouns) will do very well and are much clearer. The reader doesn't then have to stop to think "which earl/duke? Don't be shy about repetition if repetition makes your meaning clearer.
I've stuck to Stafford; that piece of advice will come in useful in many other (hopefully!) future articles, as I'm always tripping myself up over what these chaps were called at various points in their careers. It's particularly difficult in thematic—rather than chronological—sections such as this. Thanks!
Please don't take my obiter dicta as authoritative! I'm sure your sources have a modus operandi that you can clock. Tim riley talk 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later career
    • "returned to France again" – am I forgetting a bit of the earlier narrative (old, Master Shallow!) or is this his first return to France?
      • Yes, it's the third trip: 1422 with HV who dies, 1430 for HVI's coronation and 1436 for the siege of Calais.
    • "Burgundian's" – why the possessive apostrophe?
      • Laphroaig, probably!
    • "Buckingham" – you call him this before we get to the point in the narrative when he was granted the title. You didn't oughter.
      • I now aint.
  • Family
    • I doubt if the books had twelve children.
      • Books of french letters, presumably "Buckingham and Anne"?
    • "the latter two twins" – well, two is the usual quota for twins.
      • "the latter twins"—done—is that OK when I've just listed three?
    • "However, sources conflict" – nothing wrong with the "however" here, but it's one of nine howevers in the article and one does begin to notice them. A bit of pruning wouldn't go amiss.
      • Reduced down to two.

Those are my few, and not very earth-shaking suggestions. As a Scouser one is of course biased to the Lancastrian side, and I have much enjoyed this thorough and lively article, and look forward to adding my support. – Tim riley talk 20:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, my lord of Lancastre  :) always appreciated, and, indeed, I'm happy—not to say surprised!—that it was a goodish read. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 21:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One last read through and then I'll report back here. Tim riley talk 22:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After another read-through I am happy to support promotion to FA. Well referenced, a good read, and all round meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

The images are all appropriately licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, lead image shouldn't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Righto: I removed the pixel amount from the IB, but there isn't an |upright= parameter; it hasn't broken the template though so I guess that's OK? Thanks for this! ——SerialNumber54129 11:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • Is there some Wiki-rule requiring 'December' to be missing from his date of birth in the lead?
I'm not going to action this just now; I think it did mention it some time in the past, but has ben removed...if that's the case, it might have been another reviewer, so will need to dissect the history.
  • "Humphrey was not only related to the powerful Neville family but many of the leading aristocratic houses of the time" Query: to my eye an additional "to" is called for before "many".
  • "He acted as both King's bodyguard and chief negotiator Jack Cade's rebellion of 1450 and helped suppress it." This sentence seems to have lost a word or two.
  • "Stafford spent much of the last few years of his life" Optional: I am not sure what "few" adds. Is it not inherent in "last years of his life"?
  • "Stafford eventually declared for his King". "his"? There were other people's? Maybe 'the', or 'Henry VI'?
Changed to: To/during/few/King Henry.
Notes[edit]
  • Note 5. "less than 50 years earlier, the Richard, Bishop of Chichester, had used 50 pounds (23 kilograms) in 1406". 1) is "the Richard" a typo? 2) is one of "less than 50 years earlier" and "in 1406" redundant?
  • Note 6. "for which Edmond received $10 in wages" "$"?
  • Note 7. "and access to the south of the main street was easily accessible" Possibly "easily accessible" -> 'easy'?
  • Note 11. "and on his death it had been inherited by his daughter, Buckingham's mother, and eventually to the duke himself." Possibly "to" -> 'by'?
Changed: "less...earlier"/£/accessible/passed
Main body, part I[edit]
  • "he had been too upset at the time to be able to remember.[12] Stafford was himself still a minor at this time". "at the time" twice. Optional: delete the latter?
  • "They did so based on Stafford's claim that Henry V had orally promised him this before Henry died" Reads, to my eye, a little clumsily. Possibly replace "Henry" with 'he'?
Tweaked.
  • "who had made repeated claim to deserve the title of Protector" Seems an odd construction. Maybe delete "deserve"? Or 'who had repeatedly claimed that he deserved the title of Protector'?
Recast the entire sentence.
  • "the earl attempted to be a moderating influence." 'Earl'?
  • "and the following year travelled to France with the King for French coronation" 'the French coronation'?
  • "Stafford's primary military role at this time was carrying out defending Paris and its environs" Delete "carrying out"?
  • "as this was an area of almost constant warfare, in real terms "the amount of revenue that could be extracted ... must have been considerably lower".[27] Since Perche was a frontier region, in a state of almost constant conflict," "of almost constant warfare ... of almost constant conflict"
  • "much of the north Midlands and Derbyshire" A minor point, is Derbyshire not considered to be a part of the north Midlands then?
  • "the largest single chunk of the duchy to be delegated among the nobility" Optional: "chunk" may be considered unencyclopedic.
Odd, I thought that had gone aeons ago.
  • "and it was perfectly placed for recruiting retainers" "perfectly" seems a little PoV. Perhaps 'well', or even 'very well'?
  • "Writtle particularly was especially favoured by the earl" "particularly was especially" reads a little oddly, possibly drop "particularly"?
  • "and his mother's half of the de Bohun inheritance, which was worth another £1,200. The latter also included the earldom of Buckingham, itself worth £1,000" It is not clear to me whether you have already counted the £1,000 in the prior £1,200, or whether it is in addition, for a total of £2,200 (or possibly more?)
  • "Rents, for example, were often difficult to collect. Even a lord of the status of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, for example" "For example twice. Consider dropping the second one? Or reword?
  • "when rendering his accounts for the years 1452–1453, noted that the Stafford was owed £730 by his reckoning" Did you mean to write "the Stafford"? (Has an s slipped off Stafford?)
  • "with some debts still owed from 20 years early" "early" -> 'earlier'.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done, some even agreed with[FBDB]  ;) May thanks for this chunk swathe Gog the Mild (in this edit). Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a better average than I usually manage. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Act 2, part i[edit]
  • Note 5 still refers to "the Richard". I will assume that you mean it, so no need to respond.
  • Note 6 still has $10. Likewise.
  • Note 7. "Access to the south of the main street was easily accessible" You changed this to 'easy' per my suggestion, then changed it back. I am not going to the (non-existent) barricades over it, so as above.
  • Note 11. Similarly, you inserted "passed", which I felt improved it, but have since removed it. Ditto.


  • "soldiering, as well as other duties, and often retained by indenture." Suggestion only: 'and were often'.
  • "One of the best-known disputes Stafford had with his local gentry was in his midlands heartlands" Earlier you refer to Midlands. Consistency...
  • "Around 1435, Stafford was granted the Honour of Tutbury" Wikilink "honour".
  • "In 1442, he had been on the committee that investigated and convicted Gloucester's wife, Eleanor Cobham, of witchcraft, and five years later he arrested the duke at Bury St Edmunds" "duke -> 'Duke'.
  • "This parliament also appointed York Protector of the Realm from 27 March 1454." Wikilink "Protector of the Realm" to Lord Protector.
  • "because the same year he ordered the purchase of 2,000 cognizances—the 'Stafford knot'—even though strictly the distribution of livery was illegal." I understand that, but I suspect that our average reader will understand neither the meaning nor the implication. Possibly reword a little less technically?
  • "Following the King's recovery, York was either dismissed from or resigned his Protectorship" Lower case P.
  • "Buckingham may have hoped that repeated negotiations would deplete the Yorkists' zest for battle, and likewise delay long enough for reinforcements to arrive" "likewise"?
  • " Buckingham may have hoped that repeated negotiations would deplete the Yorkists' zest for battle, and likewise delay long enough for reinforcements to arrive; his confidence in how reasonable the Yorkists would be[116] was misplaced. To achieve this, Buckingham made what John Gillingham described as an "insidiously tempting suggestion" that the Yorkists mull over the King's responses in Hatfield or Barnet overnight." It seems to me that "his confidence in how reasonable the Yorkists would be[116] was misplaced" would fit best at the end of this.
  • "A contemporary wrote that in April 1456 the duke returned to his Writtle manor, not looking "well plesid"." ' that the Duke returned"?
  • "Grey "welcomed the Yorkists over the barricades" on the Lancastrian left wing" The map shows Grey on the Lancastrian right.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Act 2, part ii[edit]
  • "They married into the Beaufort family, who were descended from the illegitimate children of John of Gaunt" -> 'which was descended'.
  • "Buckingham was depicted, during his son's lifetime, as "mounted in battle array" " "as" needs to go.
  • "in his Morte d'Arthur, based his character of Gawaine on Buckingham" "of" needs to go.
  • Having a last read through, can I suggest linking "caput", at the start of Estates, to Caput baroniae, and not Caput.

That's me done. You have written a magnificent piece of work. A thing of beauty is a joy for ever. [It is warranted that no butter was used in the production of this statement.] Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Gog, you're very (too!) kind. Just FYI, I liked most of your suggestions and have actioned (I think all of) them. The notes that you saw me change and then revert were a complete **** up by visual editor, it's scary sometimes how much it could change things without it even being noticeable ar the time. Thanks for both this and the image review, always a pleasure working with you! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cinderella157[edit]

Thank you, User:Cinderella157; I wasn't ignoring your talk page remarks, but I wanted to go back to the sources. Where they merely suggest something, this has now been attributed inline per WP:WTW, but in a couple of instances, I could have been more deliberate, and in those cases, they have been removed. Many thanks! ——SerialNumber54129 11:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re family section, there are errors in quoting Tait in footnote and too much repetition as well as dealing with the original issue. Please see suggestion here. You are welcome to edit there. It still requires tweaking for format and cross-checking references. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice job of work in the sandbox Cinderella157; you seem to have managed to lose a couple of hundred words too. For clarity,
  • I would tend to use Catherine as the preferred spelling as this is what I see most often, unless there is good reason otherwise. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeees...I favoured K as being more in keeping with the time Katherine Swynford, Katherine Neville being good examples of the time; but I'm not personally wedded to either, and perhaps the modern-day reader will prefer C.
It is a matter of what the sources say WRT this particular K|Catherine.
Your preference for Katherine for this particular K|Catherine does not appear consistent with the majority of sources referring to this particular K|Catherine. Your justification appears to be WP:OR.
It's not my preference, it's the preference of the most solid, modern scholarship (viz. Rawcliffe); I'm sorry if you'd prefer to wheel old bones out instead. In any case, since it's actually the same name no original research enters into the equation: the important thing is consistency backed by a source, and I have given you, dear Cinders, both. Meanwhile, if you could desist with your WP:ASPERSIONS and either make an actionable request or WP:DROPIT, that would be fine. This has, yet again, descended—rapidly—into an exercise in trivia. ——SerialNumber54129 07:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She occupied these lands for the next twenty years.[7] Humphrey, therefore, received a reduced income of less than £1,260 a year until he was sixteen. Why "therefore", given the condition lasted for 20 years and not 16 years? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, "therefore" must be one of the most misused words. How about merging the sentences into next twenty years,[7] and Humphrey received a reduced income of less than £1,260 a year until he was sixteen. ——SerialNumber54129 18:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It still leaves unanswered, what did turning sixteen mark? It gives the reader the impression that something changed from after that time but does not say what that was. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SN, Cinderella, is this resolved now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Yes, I think so; the family section has been trimmed—and attributed—refs tidied and unused sources removed. 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:EC2E:73EE:6345:487C (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:, though it still needs some tweaking. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well quite. 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:EC2E:73EE:6345:487C (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Some tweaking" =/= an actionable request, of course. ——SerialNumber54129 07:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, Dunham also places Humphrey as dying 1455 at the battle of St. Albans, rather than dying in 1458 either from wounds sustained in the battle or of plague. <- Either something has been moved or removed because the transition from listing progeny to a dispute over how Humphrey died does not gel at all. There's also a couple points within the sentence itself: 1) However implies conflict with what has already been said, but the conflict is with a statement three sections prior and is likely forgotten to the reader; 2) "also"? I don't know what the function of "also" is here, it's not like he is listed as having died twice by Dunham; 3) "dying 1455" <- minor, but shouldn't it be "dying at the battle of St. Albans [in] 1455"? or at least "dying in 1455" (you put "in" elsewhere); 4) "either from wounds sustained in the battle or of plague" <- the plague is mentioned beforehand, but from whence cometh the suggestion that he died of old battle wounds?
and "suggests" <- what's up with the scare quotes?
Humphrey (died 1458) <- does it bear repetition that he died in 1458? since it's been mentioned twice up to this point.
Just a couple minor comments since this crossed my watchlist. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: This entire discussion has descended into WP:POINT and tendentiousness. The insistence on giving 100-year-old sources equal weight with 21st-century scholarship is bemusing, to say the least. 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:90E0:60B5:AD4F:C85C (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude, I was "asked" to rewrite this section and did so here, noting above that it is not a final draft. You will see that the text in question was part of a note, now moved to main text and further edited. As part of the note, However, Dunham also places Humphrey as dying 1455 ... was intended to show how Sources conflict over the precise details of the Staffords' progeny. Taking it out of that context creates the problems you have identified. Some of the issue rests with what is in the Aftermath section. The first part of that section goes to character. The second part goes to succession (family). It might be better to move the content to more appropriate sections. You raise the duplication per "Humphrey (died 1458)" But see also: Margaret and Humphrey's son was Buckingham's eventual heir. and As such, the Stafford titles, wealth and lands descended to his son—Buckingham's grandson—Henry Stafford. As to "suggests" (the scare quotes), it should not have made it to a final draft. It was a matter requiring confirmation and attribution. The earlier text (in a note) reads: Tait also suggests that Elizabeth and Margret never married. Confirming the details of Tait, the suggestion is by omission and that should be made explicit, ie: and suggests (by omission) that Elizabeth ... Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Can I just check with Mr rnddude and Cinderella157 where we stand with the above discussion now? Have the issues been resolved? And if someone could kindly spell out (for my benefit) what the actual issues (if there are any remaining) are in relation to the FA criteria. Sarastro (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, The issues probably fall to 1a,1b and 1c (in the first instance). I am confident of a resolution, with constructive dialouge having been initiated, though there are other issues impacting the availability of both myself and Serial Number 54129. I will be without internet through next week. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are minor relating to 1a (prose). These should be resolvable in short order. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: In which case, could you please spell out precisely how the article fails 1a, 1b and 1c; without explaining how it fails to meet those criteria, I'm afraid your comments are unactionable and can be disregarded. And I'm still not clear how far along we are, what has been done, what needs doing and where the issues might lie. Some clarity would help all of us, I think. Thanks, Sarastro (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, information is disjointed wrt to what appears in the aftermath, character and family sections and should be reorganised (1a). The vagueries of Buckingham's progeny are something of an aside but nonetheless should be reconciled. Presently, this is dealt with in the main text, with related information split between separate paragraphs (ie marriage to Dauphin) (1a). In dealing with the vagueries, authors are indirectly but inaccurately quoted. Note 14 is a superfluous statement. It reconciles a problem that does not exist (1a). Searches suggest that Robert Dinham should be identified as Robert Dunham. rather than dying in 1458 either from wounds sustained in the battle or of plague. is unsourced, though it was sourced in the son's article (1c). There is more but how these are addressed may make any further comment about this section redundant. SN is in dark atm and there are things they may wish to say on this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro, I'll address Mr rnddude's queries in short order, but, just FYI, I won't be actioning anything else, so I suggest you consider it an oppose. Any fundamental issues would've been raised—and, indeed, addressed—by now. ——SerialNumber54129 08:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

  • Note 14: punctuate (cap and full-stop req).
  • Note 15: too many "Katherines"
  • Reference to Rawcliffe re "Katerine" per statement by SN above.
  • Margaret (1437–1476) - should be Katherine (or Catherine)
  • Who was Robert Dinham?

Further: At the A-class review, I observed: "Composition and style. The writing style relies heavily on complex sentence structures. This reduces readability and accessibility." This was not addressed then.

In the course of the review, I have edited "Background and youth" and part of "Early career". I have reviewed the latter fully and note several instances of "editorial" language in a relatively small sample.

Per WP:TONE, I also note the use of "technical jargon" (or argot), which is also a matter of accessibility and readability. See for example his own caput, was Stafford Castle.

I am disappointed that there is now a statement of no intent to address any of these concerns. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the listed points, [t]he writing style relies heavily on complex sentence structures. This reduces readability and accessibility, respectfully, Simple Wikipedia is that way. Technical terms like "ward", "caput", "affinity" are going to appear in medieval subject articles. They are not argot, which is not a catch-all term for technical language, but refers to slang (literally). Caput baroniae – not caput, btw – is not slang language. BUMFISH is slang language (aviation slang). Moreover, each of these technical terms has been linked. There are circumstances where replacing a technical term, e.g. apotropaia, with a simple to understand alternative, e.g. protective magic, may be warranted. That doesn't mean all technical language needs to be removed though. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude on accessibility and readability, I would point to WP:AUDIENCE. See also Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. It makes many observations that are applicable to this article. It is often a simple matter to reduce the complexity of sentence structure without compromising accuracy. Optimising readability is not synonymous with writing in basic English for Simple Wikipedia. Per WP:SURPRISE: information is understood by the reader without struggle. On terminology, I have not advocated that they should be removed, but rather, better dealt with. A good writing style will introduce unfamiliar terms into prose in a way that the meaning is reasonably apparent. Whether or not you agree with my reference to "argot", you get my point. They are obscure terms related to a specific "discipline" - certainly similar to "technical jargon". You make a significant point re the "misuse" of "caput". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - I'm not really sure if all of my comments belong appropriately to this section. Should I move them to a separate one under my own username? Oh, and I've addressed the first point regarding note 14 (capital for the first letter, and replaced semi-colon with period at the end of the final sentence). Mr rnddude (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to keep them here so we can see what you are replying to. Sarastro (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Cinderella157 I'm leaning towards considering your concerns to be a matter of personal preference and not directly related to the FA criteria. Your personal style preference is not one of the criteria and other reviewers do not share your concerns. At the moment, unless you can convince me clearly and concisely that this article does not meet the FA criteria, I am inclined to put this down to a disagreement on a minor matter and regard these as unactionable with regards to WP:WIAFA. Sarastro (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the spirit of not being as didactic as I may have appeared, I have dealt with whatever specifics have been presented—mostly from Mr rnddude but also some of the others where possible—tightning prose, Humphrey's 1458 death, a cited explanatory note re. the Dinham family (not Dunham in my source, it's this family), scare quotes, etc. Obviously broader calls regarding general reorganisation and disjointedness are impossible to address and so profitless to attempt. The question of language appears to have been addressed by M. Random above, and, incidentally, regarding the significant point re the "misuse" of "caput"...the misuse was not by me  :) Have a good weekend all. ——SerialNumber54129 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, Thankyou for confirming the matter of Dinham and adding some needed context as to who they were. The article reads as caput but links to Caput baroniae, so perhaps we are all right (or all wrong).[FBDB] Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, The criteria 1a is somewhat subjective and the guidance not explicit but it does touch on the issues I raise per the links I have cited. Articles should be written in a way that they do not rely on links for clarity. Unnecessarily complex structures are a matter that affects readability and comprehension. How it is remedied may be a matter of personal preference but the issue itself is not. The matter of "editorialising" (and like) is a matter for which there is explicit guidance. That other reviewers have not identified such issues does not mean that they are not valid. While awaiting some responses from SN with respect to the family section, I commenced to review the article from the top down. I had not intended to do so initially. I have taken it upon myself to action many of the changes. You may wish to consider the significance and validity of these. I ceased upon this comment (above) by SN. I consider this unwarranted and unreasonable. While they have apologised elsewhere, the comments still stand here. As to the rationale for preferring Katherine, it was only with that statement that they identified their preference was based on Rawcliffe. The statement by SN here, is not in the spirit of collaboration and consensus building. There are some very clear issues that have needed to be addressed and I am pleased that SN has actioned at least some of these. You will note that I have/will be actioning some of these. I will not press the matter of language and style but do note the following:
  • On the matter of the Aftermath section and repetition, this was drawn to my attention by Mr rnddude. It is inappropriate to repeat essentially the same material (re Humphrey's death and Buckingham's ultimate heir) at multiple places in an article. This falls to 1a and 2b. It is not impossible to remedy this if there is a will to do so.
  • At first para Family section: Tait also notes that "about 1450 there was some talk of marrying one of Buckingham's daughters, probably the eldest, to the Dauphin, afterwards Louis XI". At second para: There was also, about 1450, "some talk"[171] of a proposal for one of Buckingham's daughters to marry the Dauphin of France (subsequently Louis XI). This repetition falls to 1a?
  • The main part of the first para in the Family section is intended to justify this statement: Sources conflict over the precise details of the Staffords' progeny. How this is achieved is a matter of personal preference. SN has chosen to present this in the main text. The text that follows is intended to highlight the inconsistencies between sources.
  • The point in referring to Humphrey's death is to highlight that Dunham is in conflict with other sources. Moving this to a note tends to conceal the point. 1a
  • The point here (this para) is to show inconsistencies between sources. Sources conflict as to Joan, Joanne or Joana? Standardising on "Katherine" at this point in the article is a false consistency. While I cannot comment on Dunham, it is not an accurate representation of Tait. 1c
  • The statement in the first para re the Dauphin is only relevant at that point if it shows how the sources diverge. It does not. That is done in Note 18 in the next para. That note; however, could be cross-reference. I could show how this might be done (see here). The statement is out of place here as it presently stands. There are, of course, other ways to remedy the matter. 1a
  • As previously stated, note 14 serves no apparent purpose. 1a
If you consider these minor and of no consequence, so be it. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarastro1: What we have here is an object lesson in how to get things done. When one writes massive screeds of text but only make somewhat vague handwaves as to what needs to be done, little gets achieved except heightened frustration; when, on the other hand, one makes specific points suggestion that ABC should be changed to XYZ, there is clear room for progression. That is what is happening here  :) I agree about the duplications of Buck's heir/titles and the Dauphin: they have been erased and/or merged. The Dunham thing was moved to a footnote in response to the commentator above who observed—accurately, in my judgement—that it interrupted the sentence which otherwise wholly discusses progeny. K/Catherine—naming generally, in fact—is based on recent scholarship rather than Victorian. I suggest that note 14 is relevant in that it goes some way towards explaining why there is so much confusion as to seemingly—to the modern reader—basic stuff such as dates and even names.
    Obviously, I can't address comments such as not Standardising on "Katherine" at this point in the article (when, of course, neither name has even been mentioned up until that point!). Incidentally, I have struck my accidentally-logged-out ("Tis I, LeClerc") comment about pointy behaviour above as being a distraction, but I reiterate my general aversion to giving 100-year-old sources equal weight with 21st-century scholarship. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • Seems generally well-trampled by now. A few points:
  • "By 1424, the rivalry between him and the Bishop of Winchester, Henry Beaufort—as de facto head of council..." mention that Beaufort was Gloucester's uncle?
  • "In the late medieval period, all great lords created an affinity between themselves and groups of supporters, who often lived and travelled with them for purposes of mutual benefit and defence,.... In the late 1440s his immediate affinity was at least ten knights and twenty-seven esquires, mainly drawn from Cheshire. By the 1450s—a period beginning with political tension and ending with civil war—Stafford retained men specifically "to sojourn and ride" with him. His affinity was probably composed along the lines laid out by royal ordinance at the time which dictated the nobility should be accompanied by 240 men. - First affinity lk (actually the 2nd there) is to Affinity (medieval), second is to Bastard feudalism. Maybe link the 1st to BF, & not lk the 2nd?
  • "...royal ordinance at the time which dictated the nobility should be accompanied by 240 men" - "should" or "could"? At least later legislation was all about capping sizes.
    • Indeed! And I've inserted the pretty important words, "no more than", which now reflects the source itself. ——SerialNumber54129 15:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malory - a link to Thomas_Malory#Thomas_Malory_of_Newbold_Revel would be better, as he is certainly the same person. Mention "possibly the poet" or something?
  • Penshurst Place seems a better link than Penshurst.
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for looking in, Johnbod; those are all excellent points, and have been actioned here. The only thing I'd ask is if you'd be OK at pointing Affinity to Affinity (medieval) rather than to Bastard feudalism? I think the former is more precise than the latter, being the system of which affinities were a part. ——SerialNumber54129 15:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affinity (medieval) is already linked above (re the king's I think). Though the term is under a cloud, I think there should be a link to Bastard feudalism somewhere, as this section is so much about it. Don't much mind where. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: True: it would probably be odd for any article on this period not to link to it somewhere. I'd want to avoid linking the same word to two different things—but how about linking like In the late medieval period, all great lords... ? ——SerialNumber54129 16:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok.

Coord notes by Ian[edit]

No activity for 10 days or so, so I think this review has pretty well exhausted itself. That said, having completed my usual light pre-promotion copyedit (and feel free to call me on anything you disagree with), I have to query some quotes that are either unattributed or else fairly nondescript in their wording, suggesting they might just as well be paraphrased...

  • "concealing their faces with long beards and charcoal-blackened faces, calling themselves servants of the queen of the fairies" -- not attributed inline, I assume it's contemporary but by who?
  • an investigatory commission designed to "placate" rebellious Kent -- quotes around a pretty common word like "placate" seem odd; how come?
  • "demonstration of official power" -- is this vital as a quote?
  • But Henry "gave no manner answer" -- according to who, but then why not just paraphrase?
  • The Lancastrians "strongly barred and arrayed for defence" -- ditto.
  • "armed to the teeth" -- great quote if contemporary (but then why not attribute?) or else perhaps best paraphrased...
  • There was also, about 1450, "some talk" of a proposal -- do we really need a (scare) quote here?
  • This marriage cost Buckingham 2,300 marks, and he "took a long even time to pay that" -- doesn't seem that memorable a quote, if hard to paraphrase I think you could afford to lose it entirely.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Yeah, fair enough. Most of them were pointless so have been subsumed or rewritten, with the relevant cites removed. I kept/attributed the "Queen of the fairies" thing because of its bizarreness, and St Alban's being "strongly barred" etc was a contemporary—although redlinked(Update: Now bluelinked)—chronicler. I removed the quote but kept the info about Buck not paying his (marriage) bills as, after all, non-payment of bills is a rather human touch that resonates today. For my adjustments, see [48]. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with all that, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I haven't finished reviewing, but all points so far cleared up - please don't wait for me. Looks good. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Johnbob, yes I think we should close it now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [49].

Kenora Thistles[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My third attempt here, and hopefully the last. Previous attempts failed due to lack of comments, so in the interest of rousing enough interest, I'm pinging users who commented on the previous FAC: @Giants2008, Canada Hky, and Sportsfan77777:. For those not aware, the Kenora Thistles are the team from the smallest city in North America to win a major championship, and also the shortest title-holders, losing it two months after winning back in January 1907. The article has gone through GA and a GOCE review, so hopefully this will be the last time it's brought here. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC
  • A marker to remind me: I'll be here tomorrow, hopefully. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Formation
  • "handily"? I'm not sure what was "handy" about it, unless the term has a different meaning to "useful" in Canada
Apparently it's a Canadian thing, as it would mean easily or simply. I've changed it to be clearer.
1903 Stanley
  • For those of us not au fait with the terminology, perhaps a footnote to explain what a "total-goal series" actually is?
March 1907
  • I presume the ECAHA is the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association? If so the first full name of it should have "(ECAHA)" after it.
Done
Sources
  • There are two sources listed that are not used: these should be taken out:
  • Diamond, Dan, ed. (2002), Total Hockey
  • Zweig, Eric (2012–2013b), "Bonjour Montréal"
Removed

That's it from me. An interesting piece on something I'd no knowledge on before. I'm leaning heavily to support, but I'd like to hear on the above before I commit myself. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Handily" means "with ease"/"easily". So you could phrase "handily defeating their opponents" as "easily defeating their opponents" but you find "handily" quite often at least in ice hockey-related texts, I think it usually tends to be next to "won" or "defeated [an opponent]" and to me implies both an easy and thorough victory. This word usage must definitely be a North American peculiarity. Maxim(talk) 03:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking through it @SchroCat:, always nice to have someone unfamiliar look at it as well, to ensure it makes sense. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Lovely - This meets the FA criteria, as far as I am concerned. Nicely readable and there are no obvious gaps (from the point of view of someone who has never read about this until now). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had previously reviewed and had my comments addressed on a previous passthrough at FAC. A re-review shows that nothing has changed that, and the minor tweaks for the other review have helped that out. Canada Hky (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have read through it each of the times it has gone through but I tend to not comment on ice hockey articles going for GA/FA because I edit in the area too much so like to avoid bias. That being said I really can't find anything at all in the article that would make me think it shouldn't pass. -DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Prose looks pretty solid. A few concerns:

  • Images lack alt text.
Added
  • You have a couple of web sources with problems. For both of them, you use the site's domain name as if it were the name of the website: KenoraThistles.com and NWOSportsHallofFame.com. URLs are not (usually) website names and shouldn't be presented as such. There are exceptions, but neither of these are among them.
Fixed this.
  • The Kenora Thistles site is probably my biggest sourcing concern. Is there any chance this is replaceable? Local newspaper article, anything? Two-thirds of the cited page outright declares that it is providing content from Wikipedia. I understand that you're citing an uncontroversial piece of local information, and that your source is the bit of the page that's not mirroring WP, but... the appearance of citogenesis is a concern. If you have to retain this source, the website is not KenoraThistles.com, but Kenora Senior AAA Thistles.
I found something that should do the job. Agree it was not the best source.
  • For the latter, I would suggest presenting the site name as Northwestern Ontario Sports Hall of Fame but not crediting an author (there is no byline given, even an organizational one). Also for that source in particular, Kenora Thistles Page is not really correct as a page title; it is true that you are linking to a page about the Kenora Thistles, but it's not actually titled anything with "Page". I'll agree that the way they format their individual pages makes it more challenging that usual to identify a title here. I would go with 1907 Kenora Thistles Senior Hockey .
Fixed
  • You have some variation in whether you use title case or sentence case for article titles. Specifically, the Toronto Star article is in sentence case, and nothing else is, which is probably easily corrected.
That is just from copy and pasting the titles used. But I've modified the Star article title, and the newly-added Hamilton Spectator article.
  • Other than the one awkward website noted above, sourcing looks strong and generally comprehensive. Out of curiosity (and comprehensiveness), have you looked at: Mott, M. (2002). 'An immense hold in the public estimation:' the first quarter century of hockey in Manitoba, 1886–1911. pp. 2–15. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help) (text available here). Needless to say, you'd use a citation template not a cite template there, but I'm more familiar with cite, so you get my inquiry using it instead!
I actually have read the article, and have copy of it saved. But I recall it didn't have much that would specifically help here, and a quick glance through confirms my initial thoughts. But if you have different views please let me know, I'm certainly not opposed to using it.

Lean support. Most of these are quick fixes. I'm a little worried about that one source, though. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed everything here, but if there's anything else just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by from Sportsfan77777[edit]

Noting that I reviewed this article for GA status.

  • I would go back to referring to the Kenora Thistles using plural, as that's what is done for most (if not all?) hockey teams. (e.g. "The Kenora Thistles were" and "The team was" are both correct grammatically.)
I may be missing something, but I only see the initial sentence ("The Kenora Thistles, officially the Thistles Hockey Club, was an ice hockey team...") that needed fixing. If there's others please let me know.
  • After the copyediting, the sentence "The Thistles won the Cup in January 1907 and defended it that March losing it in a challenge series" sounds like they lost the cup in their first defense. I would change it to: "The Thistles won the Cup in January 1907 and defended it once before losing it in a challenge series that March."
Fixed
  • Not sure why I didn't suggest this before, but I would move the first paragraph of the "1905 Stanley Cup challenge" to make it the last paragraph of "League play, 1902–05".
Moved.
Addressed what you have so far, but I'll keep an eye for further comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have anything to add, Sportsfan? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More minor comments:

  • An ice rink called the Princess Rink was built in 1886, replaced in 1897 by the Victoria Rink with more seats (1,000), and a larger ice surface. ===>>> An ice rink called the Princess Rink was built in 1886. It was replaced in 1897 by the Victoria Rink which had more seats (1,000) and a larger ice surface.
  • The Thistles easily won the league championship, and challenged Ottawa for the Stanley Cup. ===>>> The Thistles easily won the league championship, and again challenged Ottawa for the Stanley Cup.
  • The Montreal Star claimed the Thistles were not only the fastest team from the West to challenge for the cup... ===>>> The Montreal Star claimed the Thistles were not only the fastest team from the west to challenge for the Cup... ("Cup" should definitely be capitalized, not sure about "west")
  • all under twenty-years-old ===>>> all under twenty years old

Will support after these points are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: Addressed all those. Thanks again for taking a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Don't think we've had an image licensing review -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:
A little unclear what you mean here. Can you clarify?
Generally, a source link should point to a webpage on which the file is displayed, not a hotlink/direct link to the file. Think this and not this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand what you mean now. Thought it was in reference to the image within the article itself. Added a more relevant link. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the links to their source.
At the moment I can't confirm, and until I get confirmation I'll remove it.
All images appear to be reasonably placed. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images suggests that the ALT text should say what the image is, rather than what it contains, in this context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have modified the alt-text to what I believe you are referring to. If that's not better let me know.
Addressed things here, except for my question about the first point. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, I think we're about ready to promote but I'd like to see this quote, which appears twice, attributed inline, at least in the main body: "as a team of hometown boys who used to play shinny together on the streets of Rat Portage" -- as is we don't know for sure if this is a contemporary or a retrospective observation, let alone who said it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quote comes from the Lappage article and was written by him, but as noted in the second instance it was him paraphrasing the contemporary press. I've tried to clarify that in that section, so hopefully that makes it a little clearer. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [50].

Roger B. Chaffee[edit]

Nominator(s): Kees08 (Talk) 04:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Chaffee was a promising young astronaut who died in the Apollo 1 fire. He was one of two Purdue graduates to die in Apollo 1. I spent time studying and learning aerospace in Chaffee Hall and wanted to honor his legacy by improving his article. Kees08 (Talk) 04:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if we are accepting the results of the trial workshop, but a source review was performed by Mike Christie. If a coordinator could let me know if a source review is still required, that would be great. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 04:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, I think you might want to cut and paste it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have done that now. To the coordinators: I think this is the first article I have solo-nominated. I have co-nominated John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, and Apollo 11 with Hawkeye7. I am not sure if a spot check of my sources is required, could you clarify that? I can provide pages from the books to anyone that needs it. In the case of the Chaffee book, perhaps literal pages, since the binding fell apart :). Kees08 (Talk) 04:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129[edit]

Just a couple of prose tweaks jump out at first read. Nice article.

  • I'd lose the comma in "...completed his Navy pre-commissioning training, and was...".
  • And also in "for the Gemini 3 and Gemini 4 missions, and received".
  • And in "He earned four badges for each of the next two years, and had earned almost all the badges available..." also you can get rid of that I've struck.
  • "...and soon after started building model..." > "and soon began"
Good luck. ——SerialNumber54129 19:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at it. I applied your suggestions. I am a serial-overuser of commas, so I trust when I get feedback that there are too many. Let me know if you come up with any more suggestions. Kees08 (Talk) 03:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Hey there, seeing if you had a chance to look over the article another time. No pressure to give a support/oppose, just reminding you of this in case you forgot. Kees08 (Talk) 04:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:90E0:60B5:AD4F:C85C (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

SR by Mike Christie

I'm not an experienced source reviewer, and was not planning to review one of the workshop articles, but I now think it's a better test case if an inexperienced source reviewer participates, so my review is below.

Notes on 1(c).

  • The sources seem to be high quality and reliable. Chrysler & Chaffee is apparently a juvenile book, but the facts cited from it seem straightforwardly biographical and not controversial, and it's not used beyond his early training. The Burgess, Doolan, and Vis and the NASA biography and report are excellent sources. The newspaper sources look fine for the material they cover; I looked at a few of them.
  • Footnote 1 is a deadlink for me, and there is no archive link.

I have not performed spotchecks for the sources against the text.

Notes on 2(c):

  • The page ranges of the form 5-3–5-4 are ugly to look at; not an issue for FAC, but I think they might look better with a spaced en dash in the middle.
  • You have a link to our newspapers.com article in footnote 44, but not elsewhere; I'm not sure what the rule is but presumably we should either be consistent or just do this on the first appearance of a newspapers.com cite.
  • There's no requirement to add archive links, but you've done so on some of the web citations; you may wish to do so on the others.

Only two of the points above actually require attention -- footnote 1 and the newspapers.com link. Once those are addressed I will support this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kees08, did you notice this review? Just checking. The single-page structure here doesn't make it easy to notice relevant edits on a watchlist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did! Thank you for the review. I am in the middle of moving and ran out of data on my phone so tethering is not going so great. My replies should be straightforward, the only thing I was not sure of was the juvenile book bit. It did not seem like a juvenile book when I read it, so was wondering if worldcat or something told you it was? It could be considered one, not a big deal either way, was just curious. I flipped through my copy enough it was destroyed by use, so cannot check it until I buy a new one. Kees08 (Talk) 02:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just had another look and can't find why I thought that; perhaps I misinterpreted a listing somewhere. Not a problem, in any case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries either way. Newspapers.com should be linked in the first instance and then not again. When I have better Internet I will move it. Archive links are a good idea, will do as well. Will check on the other couple of comments later. Kees08 (Talk) 04:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Fixed the dead url, replaced with the new location. Added archives. Moved Newspapers.com wikilink to first reference. Unfortunately the CS1 help page does not give advice on the page range and spaced endash issue. If you are sure that it is okay, I will fix them all, just wanted to make sure since it will take some time. Kees08 (Talk) 05:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to change it; I think it's ugly but it's MoS-compliant, and changing it might not be. Everything else looks good, so Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Would you be able to perform a spot check on my references, per User_talk:Ian_Rose#Spot_checks_2? I can send along any scans you need. If you are unable to, not a problem, just let me know so I can find another. Kees08 (Talk) 20:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Can you send me these pages: footnote [34] - Thompson, 5-3 to 5-4; [26] - Chrysler & Chaffee, 82; [12] - Burgess, Doolan & Vis, 140; and [20] - Chrysler & Chaffee, 74. I'll also check a couple of the web references. I'll email you in a moment so you have my address. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do tonight. If you want to get a headstart, Thompson is an online reference :). Kees08 (Talk) 18:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sent. Kees08 (Talk) 04:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll have time this morning to do all the spotchecks, but here's a start:

  • after which White in the center seat was to open the plug door hatch, while Chaffee in the right-hand seat was to maintain communications: this is cited to Thompson 5-3-5-4, which as far as I can see doesn't mention Chaffee's role in this way. The term "plug door hatch" is also not used in Thompson, so please just confirm that the term is established elsewhere and cited above this point.
    I found the pages that mention it and cite it. I think I adapted this text from Apollo 1, so I will go through the Apollo 1 article and make the same changes. I need to confirm plug door hatch is the term used for that hatch still. I will go through the whole Apollo program section and make sure there are no more instances like what you have found. Kees08 (Talk)
  • White removed his restraints and apparently tried in vain to open the hatch, which was held closed by the cabin pressure: suggest adding a separate cite for "held closed by the cabin pressure" which is not stated and not really directly implied by these pages of Thompson, though I know it's not controversial.
    Good point, added. Kees08 (Talk)

More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good. Struck one; the other is just waiting for you to confirm that "plug door hatch" is the right term. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Chrysler & Chaffee 74 and Burgess, Doolan & Vis 140; both are fine. Looks like you accidentally sent me Chrysler & Chafee p. 84 instead of 82; can you resend? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. Just sent page 82. Kees08 (Talk) 23:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It supports the material; the "lung capacity" sentence is a fairly close paraphrase, but I think it's OK; it's a straightforward statement of fact and I can't think of a good way to restate it without sounding silly.
  • A new high school opened in 2007 in Jacksonville, Florida, that was named Chaffee Trail Elementary. The source for this is the school district page; unfortunately I don't see anything that demonstrates it was named after Roger Chaffee. I had a quick search elsewhere on the web and in newspapers.com and can't find anything. Do you recall how you identified this as being named after Chaffee?
    It was in the article originally and at some point I took it out. I did a long search last night for it and was unable to find anything that specified it was named after Chaffee specifically. You can see my edit summary I just did, but I removed it.Kees08 (Talk) 23:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 64: no problems.
  • Footnote 54: Regor (Roger spelled backwards), is a seldom-used nickname for the star Gamma Velorum. Grissom used this name, plus two others for White and Chaffee, on his Apollo 1 mission planning star charts as a joke, and the succeeding Apollo astronauts kept using the names as a memorial. I think this should say "plus two others for White and himself", right? The sourcing is fine; you just have a mis-statement in the article.
    Right right. The text came from Grissom's article and I missed that, fixed now thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 23:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 59 & 60: no problems.
  • Footnote 49: no problems.

That seems good enough to me; a couple of minor imprecisions, but nothing serious. Once these are fixed I'm satisfied with the spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This now passes; I've struck two points above. Two requests for Kees08: please verify that "plug door hatch" is the correct term, and please check any other sentences left over from before you worked on the article, since we found an error in the one I checked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, am I right in thinking you consider this low risk and we could leave till after promotion, if not I'm prepared to keep the review open a bit longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking this could be promoted without waiting for a response from Kees08. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plug door is the correct term. I will try to find a cite that says it. Kees08 (Talk) 21:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: It is hard to find since it was a plugs-out test, searching for plug hatch online only reveals search results for the test name. If I search hatch design, I can find a source that describes if being a plug door, but never explicitly calls it that. I will see if I can find something that explicitly says it. Kees08 (Talk) 22:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • He was awarded the Air Medal Was there a specific action that earned him the medal? If not, maybe see if you can incorporate the fact into one of the preceding sentences to make it less abrupt.
    I have the specifics of the award in the Awards and honors section. What do you think of removing it from the Navy service section? Otherwise I will expand the sentence with the specifics that I have later in the Awards and honors. Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd put it in one place or the other, and the awards and honors section seems like the logical place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some biographies credit him with flying the U-2 plane to spy on Cuba, but this is erroneous since he was a Navy pilot and the U-2 was an Air Force plane Is this Wikipedia (ie you) telling the reader that this must be inaccurate, or do Burgess, Doolan & Vis tell us that it's inaccurate? It might seem like a small difference, but it's the difference between original synthesis (which is a no-no for an encyclopaedia) and summarising the body of material publsihed about Chaffee (which is what we're here to do).
    Great point! From the book, "Several later biographies would credit him with making U2 spy plane flights over Cuba, but this was just a fanciful misinterpretation." It goes on from there, but yes, Burgess, Doolan, & Vis tell us that it is a common misinterpretation. Do I need to note that, or were you just double checking? Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just double checking. If it's clearly bollocks then noting such in the article isn't an opinion and shouldn't need in-text attribution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chaffee lost consciousness when he experienced myocardial hypoxia, which sent him into cardiac arrest and resulted in cerebral hypoxia. He died from asphyxia due to the toxic gasses from the fire, with burns contributing to his death I'm not sure we need that level of medical detail; I'd be inclined to just say he died from asphyxia caused by smoke inhalation. Also, I'm no expert, but I wouldn't imagine the burns would have had time to contribute to his death—smoke inhalation is usually fatal within minutes or even seconds.
    There were only 11 findings in the Apollo 204 Review Board report, and one was: The rapid spread of fire caused an increase in pressure and temperature which resulted in rupture of the Command Module and creation of a toxic atmosphere. Death of the crew was from asphyxia due to inhalation of toxic gases due to fire. A contributory cause of death was thermal burns. I wanted to accurately represent the finding of the report, which is why I phrased it the way that I did (and intentionally included the thermal burns, as they did). I could remove the hypoxia bits if you think it is excessive detail, I suppose I only included it because it exists. Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, most of the sentence Chaffee lost consciousness when he experienced myocardial hypoxia, which sent him into cardiac arrest and resulted in cerebral hypoxia. He died from asphyxia due to the toxic gasses from the fire, with burns contributing to his death is unnecessary. It's not something I'd withold support over, but I think it's an excessive use of technical terms that I think the average reader might struggle with and which isn't crucial to the narrative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this: Chaffee lost consciousness because of a lack of oxygen which sent him into cardiac arrest. He died from asphyxia due to the toxic gasses from the fire, with burns contributing to his death. Keeps the important bits and got rid of some technical terms. Kees08 (Talk) 04:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, not a lot to criticise. Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at it, let me know on the responses I have above. Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I didn't think there was much wrong with this when I did the source review, and returning for a content review I can find very little to criticize. The prose is a bit dry in places but it's perfectly professional. I copyedited a little; please revert if you don't approve of the changes. Only one note: "mishap" seems too weak a term for a disaster that took three lives; can we find another word? Regardless, this is worthy of the star, so I am supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I checked the edits and they improved the article. Are there particular portions that are dry? I have been trying to spice up some sections of other articles (like the awards section). I would be happy to take a second look at portions you think are a bit dry. I will do a short literary review of what sources called the mishap, and see if a more appropriate word can be chosen. As someone that works in the industry, my guess is that external sources (like the press) will over-emphasize it (catastrophe) and internal sources will under-emphasize it (problem, mishap). But we will see! Kees08 (Talk) 03:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lit review
  • External sources
    • White calls it a "fire", "disaster", "successful failure"
    • Chaikin refers to it as "the Fire" (with a capital F), in as many places as I felt like checking. Not sure he ever refers to it as anything else
    • The chapter title of the Apollo 1 section of Fallen Astronauts is "Countdown to Disaster"
    • Searching through Newspapers.com, "disaster" gives about 77,000 results while "mishap" gives ~240,000 (google is 652,000 to 14.5 million)
  • Internal sources
    • Review board report, page 3-19 uses "mishap", 5-12 uses "disaster" (twice), "accident" is used 93 times
    • Apollo by the Numbers (SP-4029) uses "accident" five times and "disaster" once (chapter is titled The Fire)
Conclusion: industry has dulled my verbage in situations like these. NASA uses accident, everyone else uses disaster. Although I do not think disaster is the best term (at least per Wikipedia's definition of disaster, widespread human, material, economic or environmental loss and impacts), that is the term used to describe the event, so I will change it up. Also, if all goes well, this is the most work I will ever put into changing a single word of an article :). Not sure why I was so interested in what everyone called it! Kees08 (Talk) 04:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Disaster" works for me! As for the dry prose, the section on the fire is engaging, and that's the core of the article. It's hard to make a list of schools attended a gripping read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

No ALT text anywhere I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt text. Please check it if you can. I used 'refer to caption' more than I have in the past; I reread the guidelines and I think it is appropriate, but it would be good to have feedback. Kees08 (Talk) 02:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Addressed both issues. Kees08 (Talk) 03:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I wonder how we know that File:Roger Chaffee Navy Portrait.jpg is from the DoD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. My thought before was that it was most likely DoD, hence the upload. I preempted your question by emailing the Navy earlier tonight, hopefully I get a response. If I do not get a response from them, I will email The Astronauts Memorial Foundation to ask where they got it from. Summary: although it is likely from DoD, we do not know for certain, and I have began communications with entities that should know. Kees08 (Talk) 06:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Navy (politely) told me that I should contact either archives.gov or The Astronauts Memorial Foundation, I have sent the latter an email since it is posted on their site. I will keep you updated on the situation as it unfolds. Kees08 (Talk) 18:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have not heard back from the foundation; do you know of any places to check for the source? I think it is most likely DoD since it looks like your standard Navy portrait, but I am not sure I would be able to prove it. Kees08 (Talk) 06:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't know either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thoughts on this image? Kees08 (Talk) 06:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion to contact archives.gov is not a bad one. I did a reverse image search and couldn't find the image anywhere that would confirm a Navy or DoD provenance. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I have pinged them again. There is a really small photo in his book that says it is from the Navy (a different photo than the one we are discussing), so if it comes to it I can replace the image in the article; but I would rather not due to quality differences. Thanks for the input! Kees08 (Talk) 00:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is about all that's outstanding -- I'll defer to Nikki and/or Jo-Jo as to the whether this is worth holding up promotion over or if it's relatively low-risk and could be finalised post-promotion (no pressure). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Nikkimaria: Pinging in case you had thoughts on Ian's statement. Kees08 (Talk) 04:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with this only under the provision that if a positive answer does not happen after some time, the image is removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, let's go with that then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • Why do we need Chaffee's full name twice in the infobox?
    Removed Kees08 (Talk)
  • "In January 1935, in their hometown of Greenville, Michigan, his father was diagnosed with scarlet fever, and Mike moved in with her parents in Grand Rapids, where Roger was born. " The identity of the "he" in this sentence is a bit confusing. I imagine it's the future astronaut but it could be his father.
    I suppose, but if I use Chaffee I have the same issue. Suggestions? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "the Dean's list" there's probably a need for capitalization of "list", per our article on the subject.
    Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • "He was then allowed to tour on Wisconsin to England, Scotland, France, and Cuba." this makes it sound something of a pleasure cruise. I would stress the serious purpose of the training.
    The source has Chaffee passed with flying colors and the attending physician certified him to participate in the NROTC program aboard the Wisconsin. During the two month cruise, Chaffee docked in far-off ports in England, Scotland, France and the island of Cuba. His biography makes it look like a pleasure cruise (I know it was not), and provides no additional details. Not sure I can do anything about this without any details in the sources. Kees08 (Talk) 04:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a server" I'd like to check what is meant here to ensure we are not running into different understandings of the same word.
    I believe waiter, is there another job the name could mean? Kees08 (Talk)
  • "a gear cutter". I wonder if the reader will know what this is?
    Technically I do not know what it is. I assumed they cut the slots into cylinders, forming them into gears? I tried to look it up and I did not learn anything new. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "at a local small business near Purdue." Some redundancy. I would cut "local".
    Removed Kees08 (Talk)
  • " Following his honeymoon, he reported to the aircraft carrier USS Lake Champlain for a six-week assignment in Norfolk with the Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.[15] By the time Chaffee arrived at the base, the ship had already left port. " Was Chaffee assigned to the ship or the port, initially?
    He was initially assigned to the ship, according to the book, which he missed, and therefore worked temporarily at the port thereafter. Rephrased to try to indicate this. Kees08 (Talk) 04:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This plane was typically flown by pilots with the rank of lieutenant commander or above, but since Chaffee became so familiar with the plane from repairing it, he became one of the youngest pilots ever to fly it.[18]" You could probably get rid of the "since".
    Removed Kees08 (Talk)
  • "By coincidence, he was assigned to a mission where he flew over Cape Canaveral, during which aerial photographs of future launch sites were taken.[20]" Should "future" really be "potential"?
    Technically it is both, and the irony that the sentence is noting is that he was scouting the future launch site he should have launched out of. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "In mid-1962, he was accepted in the initial pool of 1,800 applicants for the third group of NASA astronauts.[4][25]" Is this screening for the selection he made, or is this meant to imply he was a finalist for "The New Nine"? A link to the astronaut group meant might be helpful.
    It was for the third group, I added a link Kees08 (Talk) 05:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was Chaffee's partner in the survival training?
    I am not finding the answer after checking three sources, was there a source you had in mind that would list it? Kees08 (Talk) 06:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Chaffee served as capsule communicator (CAPCOM) in March 1965 for Gemini 3.[29]" He was there for Gemini 3? They were still testing the mew Mission Control room.
    Can you rephrase the question? I must be dense. Kees08 (Talk) 06:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had Chaffee been selected for any Gemini backup crews? Was he originally on AS-204's backup crew? The description of events is unclear.
    He had not been selected for any backup crews. Do you have Slayton's book? Not sure the information would be anywhere else. I checked several sources. They just go from not talking about being selected, to being selected for AS-204, as abruptly as the article has it. Do you have recommendations on where to look? Kees08 (Talk) 06:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said of events between March 1966 and January 1967? From what I've read, the crew spent most of their time at Downey. And it wasn't just a question of "seeing" or "witnessing it", most of the time the astronauts did quite a bit of work themselves on their spacecraft. Also some mention of Chaffee in his final days might be useful.
  • Was the $100,000 life insurance? If so I would say so.
    Specified Kees08 (Talk) 06:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning the navigation stars called after them and used by the Apollo astronauts?
  • I might mention that he is among the astronauts memorialized on the Space Mirror and the plaque accompanying the Fallen Astronaut memorial on the Moon.
    Regarding the last two comments, should I make the memorials section similar to Gus Grissom? I spent a lot of time on Grissom's and it is more comprehensive. Kees08 (Talk) 07:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did with Grissom.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, me too. I did not think I could do it with Chaffee, but with Newspapers.com I think I can. It might take me up to a week to do, but I will start. Kees08 (Talk) 05:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I owe you information on their activities from March 1966 to January 1967, as well as a complete rewrite of the memorials section. Would you be able to respond to my inquiries above on the other points while I work on those? Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 06:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials should be good now; I just owe you their activities from March 1966 to January 1967, and any other responses you may have to my questions above. Kees08 (Talk) 02:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Alright then Wehwalt, I believe I have addressed all your concerns. If there are other things you would like me to work on or if you have any rebuttals please let me know. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 06:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [51].

Pod (The Breeders album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. This is about the Breeders' debut album, released in 1990. Extra special thanks to Ceoil and BLZ for lots of suggestions in the peer review, including some great ideas for expanding the article. Also big thanks to SchroCat, Wehwalt, Serial Number 54129, and Popcornduff for their feedback in the peer review. Due to C's and B's suggestions, there is quite a bit of new content that any other returning reviewers may not have seen yet, and I hope you'll enjoy. Looking forward to everyone's feedback, cheers! Moisejp (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This was a very long and very rewarding PR. Rewarding because this is a seminal album made by two (Deal and Albini) of the most talented and influential contemporary "musicians", and the back story is fascinating to indie nerds. Long in part because it was such fun to chat about and discuss. Moisejp's final article is to be held up as a example of one of our best alt-rock FAs, where the bar, imo, is already pretty high.. Ceoil (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you again, Ceoil, for all your help. The PR was very rewarding from my side of things, too, and I'm really glad about the various additions you and BLZ proposed. Moisejp (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was already a strong article when I gave my thoughts at the PR. Since then it's been improved further, and it meets all the criteria of an FA. I can only echo Ceoil in saying this is (or shortly will be) one of the best alt-rock FAs we have. - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, thanks so much, Gavin. I certainly wasn't expecting that level of praise for the article, but am really glad if people enjoy it. I'll say again that a lot of ideas for expanding it came up in the PR (thanks again especially to BLZ and Ceoil), which contributed to the article reaching a higher level of comprehensiveness than it otherwise would have. I hope all is well with you, take care! Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and echo the sentiments above. The long, in-depth PR was immensely worthwhile and saw remarkable expansion and improvement of an already-solid article, thanks to Moisejp's tireless efforts. I'd agree with Ceoil and SchroCat that this is one of the best articles on an alt-rock album we now have—a just and fitting outcome for a quietly influential album that remains overlooked in rock history and under-appreciated for its quality and impact. (The famous cliche about the outsized influence of The Velvet Underground & Nico is that it only sold 30,000 copies, but "everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band." Pod is a little bit like that. We don't know exactly how many copies Pod has sold—it wasn't too many—but one of the people who bought a copy was Kurt Cobain, and he loved it.)
Also worth mentioning that the article takes a big step, along the lines of WikiProject Women in Red's mission to promote gender parity in the encyclopedia, to highlight and tell the stories of women's contributions to alternative rock. Wikipedia has several FA-quality articles on women in alt-rock, including stellar biographies on Courtney Love, Kate Bush, and Stereolab, but not enough. I count seven current FA-class alternative music articles about albums recorded by bands with women as members, and I believe this would only be the second article—after Title TK, also about the Breeders and written by Moisejp—about an album for which a woman was the primary songwriter and bandleader. This comment is separate from consideration of this article's FA-worthiness on the merits, but as Wikipedians become more conscientious of these issues and strive to overcome old biases I think it warrants mention and praise.
I was involved with providing some of the article's sources, so I'll recuse myself from doing a source review. However I think I can fairly perform an image/file review, so I will do that now. —BLZ · talk 21:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Copyrighted files:

  • File:The Breeders Pod.jpg — by-the-books fair-use album cover. Appropriate low resolution, appropriate rationale. Used in the infobox as primary identification of the album, and the artwork is also discussed in the article body.
  • File:Doe The Breeders.ogg — 12.7-second sample of a 2:07 minute song. Rationale looks good. 2:07 = 127 seconds; 10% of 127 = 12.7, so this meets the guidance at WP:SAMPLE. The track listing in the article says the song is 2:06, but the Discogs page for the first CD pressing in the US says 2:07 and Spotify gives the track length as 2:07. I see no reason to doubt that the file of "Doe" used to create the sample wasn't 2:07. Critical evaluation of the track included in the article body.
  • File:Happiness Is a Warm Gun The Breeders.ogg — 16-second sample of a 2:47 minute song. Rationale looks good. 2:47 = 167 seconds; 10% of 167 = 16.7, so a 16.0-second file meets the guidance at WP:SAMPLE. Critical evaluation of the track included in the article body.

Some miscellaneous recommendations here:

  • I would highly recommend using Wikipedia:TimedText for audio captions, which is something I only recently learned was possible. In addition to being a neat feature, it helps make audio samples more accessible to deaf users. See the sample of "They Are Night Zombies!!" at Illinois (Sufjan Stevens album)#Musical style and themes for a good example of its implementation, or my transcription of considerably crasser lyrics for a sample of Gucci Mane's "Plain Jane". The formatting for these files looks like this: TimedText:They_Are_Night_Zombies!!_-_Sufjan_Stevens_-_clip.ogg.en.srt.
  • I like that the "Happiness is a Warm Gun" sample captures the song's "I need a fix cuz I'm going down" bridge from start to finish, but I feel like it highlights the "disarmingly gorgeous" quality discussed in the caption while missing the "bipolar" or "punishingly gritty and violent" qualities—which is a shame, because the sample cuts off right before a dramatic shift that makes those qualities evident. I feel like the nearby portion 1:10–1:26, for instance, would better demonstrate both the "gorgeous" and "violent" qualities of the song and the album's overall sound that are discussed in the article text. However, this is just a recommendation; the current sample is acceptable under fair use policy.

Free-license files:

checkY All in all, file usage looks good. —BLZ · talk 21:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • BLZ, thank you so much for the support and image review, and again for all your expansion ideas and access to sources! I'll have a good look at your final two recommendations in the near future. My intention in the sound clip was that the heavy guitar at the very beginning of the excerpt was supposed to be the "punishingly gritty" bit—and my initial judgment was that the 16 seconds I used were the best I could find containing both extremes—but I'd like to listen again and seriously consider your suggestion that there may be better examples in the song. Another possibility: I know of another FA where the sound clip uses one bit then fades out and uses goes to another bit; I may look into whether that's the best solution (and whether I can manage the two bits in the 16 seconds). Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi BLZ, I've now changed the sound clip to the 1:10–1:26 you suggested. I will try to look into your suggestion about TimedText sometime soon. Thanks.Moisejp (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Gave it another read, just a few minor things:

  • "cover" I would link.
  • "During this time, they had decided that their attempt at dance music was not working and abandoned it.[5][6] They resolved to repurpose their songs for a different genre.[3] " These sentences could probably be combined.
  • "do activity" awkward.
  • " she played on the Breeders' 1992 Safari EP,[27]" presumably a certain instrument?
  • "Pod was recorded in January 1990 at Palladium studio, Scotland,[35][36] " I would mention Edinburgh, as you do in the lede.
  • Why, in "Recording", do you switch to the present tense?
  • "The lyrics concern a woman who has died but continues to obsessively watch over her lover, to the extent that she cannot give him up, even after death.[11] [49][60]" suggest the latter part of the sentence be "not able to give him up, even after death."
  • "which he intended to resemble phallics" Phallics? I might say "as phallic symbols" or even "penises". Source permitting, of course.
  • " To Clifton, it was "plodding";[59] Reynolds felt it sounded "inhibited, moribund, stilted" and "never [let] it rip like the Pixies", and added that "Whenever a song gathers momentum or thrust, [the Breeders] throw in a weird bit, a gear change or an abrupt stop. They seem unhappy with the idea of simple rock exuberance."[61] " the sentence could benefit from splitting.
That's it. Looking forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, thank you for your additional comments, which all seem very good ones to me. The only one I haven't changed is about the present tense in Recording. The idea behind that is as follows: There were various sources with Donelly and Wiggs saying that Albini wasn't as he likes to describe himself (hands-off, more technical than creative contributions) or as his reputation is (hard to work with, possibly misogynist). In the PR, BLZ and Ceoil strongly suggested a paragraph introducing Albini, partially for readers who may be less familiar with him, and partially to give more context for Wiggs' and Donelly's statements. But basically what was true about him in 1990 is still generally true, so it's in the present tense. Let me know if you still have concerns with this, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt!! Moisejp (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

During the PR I questioned the interpretation and context of a number claims made from book sources. Moisejp scanned and emailed the relevant pages, and the points were eventually resolved. Will stand over the veracity and usages of these, as the article stands, both in terms of claims made, and re paraphrasing etc. The remaining book sources I already had, and would also be familiar with most of the online and magazine based writers used. All of high quality. Not seeing any issues either with ref formatting. Delegates should probably take this review in the context of a disclosed, admitted fanboy of the album, although I had little interaction with the nominator before this, except, IIRC, opposing/neutral on an earlier nom. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Would this suffice as a source review? At a glance, the date formats are good, publishers are listed, p and pp is sorted. I can maybe do an in-depth review, but Ceoil's should be suffice yeah? Kees08 (Talk) 00:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That all works for me, tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [52].

Gioachino Rossini[edit]

Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC) and Tim riley (talk)[reply]

This article is about the composer Gioachino Rossini, and seeks to give cover to both his life and his works. His operas, and notably Il barbiere di Siviglia (The Barber of Seville), are today amongst the most popular and regularly performed throughout the world. Tim and I have sought to bring the article up to the best WP standards and have been greatly assisted by the contributors to a peer review. Ideally we should perhaps have undertaken this last year (150th anniversary of Rossini's death), but better late than never........Smerus (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wehwalt[edit]

per my detailed comments at the peer review, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for your input at PR and your support here. Tim riley talk 15:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the changes during the peer review, I don't want to ask for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Gerda for your support - and for helpful comments at PR.--Smerus (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review has minor problems is now fine[edit]

For example, File:Rossini-father.png lacks a PD-Art tag, (and also receipt the painting and changes colours unnaturally, but that's more "not best practice"). I cabbage a go at fixing it, but it'll probably take a couple days. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 14:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I've added the PD-Art. It would be great if you could improve the image, of course.--Smerus (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. My tablet has aggressive autocorrect, it seems. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Went through and grabbed the highest resolution for every image and checked documentation for everything. Only remaining thing is File:Rossini 7.jpg, which is a book scan, and likely a copy of a photo that's available higher resolution, but nothing that blocks FA. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 01:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Adam, for the review and earlier input. Tim riley talk 17:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Are the title translations your own or based on a source?
  • "Ironically, this was an era in which Rossini was not to participate" - see MOS:OPED
  • Have deleted 'Ironically'--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible to reformat multi-author short cites to avoid squishing author names together? See for example FN34
  • The Janka source is a journal article and should be cited as such
  • It's in the right section now, but is still formatted as a web source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN101: other cites do not abbreviate page ranges
  • The two quotes cited in the sentence come one from each range.--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that - my question is why the second range is abbreviated, when the style throughout is not to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood now, corrected.--Smerus (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the length of the Newspapers section, probably best to have no columns as opposed to autoset
  • Use a consistent format for retrieval dates
  • Brussels Conservatoire format is still different. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grove Music Online should be italicized, Brussels Conservatoire should not be
  • I would query this: Brussels Conservatoire is there as a website: GMO as a publication.--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brussels Conservatoire here is a website, I'll make that clear. GMO appears here as entry in template which capitalizes it: I think what needs to happen here is to use template:encyclopedia rather than template:web - I've now done this for Doctor, Jennifer, see what you think.--Smerus (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Budden: Can you verify the ISBN? The one given appears to be associated with the 1984 edition
    • Smerus Not one of my references. Have you got the book to check? Tim riley talk 08:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nor one of mine....I can't find details for early edition. Or is it the 1984 one which was used all along?--Smerus (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't recall this book at all, but the 1973 London Cassell edition contains the cited info on the cited page. Have changed the ISBN and publisher accordingly. Tim riley talk 15:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerhard: publisher site gives a different ISBN, can you verify?
  • Gossett: in other cases authors of the larger works are presented in inverted order
    • Sorry (being dense), which Gosset citation are we looking at? Tim riley talk 08:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rosselli: state abbreviation is incorrect, and that city is given elsewhere without one
  • Schwartz: state abbreviations elsewhere use two-letter postal codes
  • Suggest creating a separate section for liner notes, rather than distributing them among sections
  • Hamilton is a very distinguished (imo) musician and writer (see the WP article on him). " Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" - but as Hamilton has subsequently had his musicological work published by Cambridge and Oxford University Presses I believe it passes this test.--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you satisfied with the source review, Nikki? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are still some items pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, i think the remainder are in your department.....--Smerus (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are there, after a bit of heaving and shoving. I hope Nikkimaria agrees! Tim riley talk 20:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Almost - still pending Janka and date format from above list. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, I've now made these two corrections, also added missing state to Portland and translator of Heine. Best, --Smerus (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last thing is Janka - we're now using the correct template, but given the parameters used its presentation actually hasn't changed. You could try using the PMID or DOI to autofill the ref if that would help - it should include things like journal title, volume, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now properly sourced and formatted (I believe). The US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health are not the publishers - they just share on their site the English abstract from the Hungarian journal now cited.--Smerus (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, this is fine - doesn't need a retrieval date since the other journal articles don't have one, but otherwise good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by/Support from Dmass[edit]

Unencumbered by any knowledge of Rossini's life or works, my comments are stylistic only and, so far, of the minutely pedantic variety - a good sign, I suspect.

Lead

  • Maybe split the sentence beginning ‘During this period’ - it’s very long...
  • Should ‘regularly attended’ be ‘frequently attended’?
  • I think they were 'regularly attended'. 'Frequently' might suggest that there could have been some which were not attended by these types.--Smerus (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. I seem to remember that Dmass caught me, most amiably, on the back foot about regularly-v-frequently in another review, and I have taken the point, but I think "regularly" is right here. Tim riley talk 00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life

  • 'Giuseppe was imprisoned at least twice: first in 1790 for insubordination to local authorities in a dispute about his employment as town trumpeter, and in 1799 and 1800…’ - should the comma be a semi-colon?
    • Agnostic, but happy to go with that for now. Tim riley talk 00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be inclined to treat "in 1790" and "in 1799 and 1800" as comma-delineated clauses, but my punctuation tastes are quite Victorian. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 06:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naples

  • 'After an unsuccessful opening night…’ - would ‘Despite…’ catch the sense better?
  • Penultimate para: ‘…others of his operas…’ - I think it should be ‘other of his operas’, but ready to stand corrected.
    • Oh, Lord! I get in a Hell a tangle over these combinations of adjectives and nouns. I'd like to see if anyone else has a view on this. Tim riley talk 00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna and London

  • '...his biographers describe it as, "unprecedentedly feverish enthusiasm”…’ - surely no comma needed?
  • Penultimate para: it would be nice to avoid the repetition ‘failure to provide…failed to pay’, if possible.

An excellent read, as is to be expected from this team. More to come when I can. Dmass (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dmass. Looking forward to more. Tim riley talk 00:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More nitpickery from me.

Paris

  • 2nd para: ’the’ needed before ‘centre of musical attention'
  • Last para: formatting glitch - ‘1804 play’ shouldn't be italicised (and maybe only link ‘play’?)
    • Done. (Italicising "play" came about as an inavdertent consquence of acting on an earlier reviewer's suggestion. Now amended.) Tim riley talk 08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early retirement

  • 2nd para: 'The reasons for Rossini's withdrawal from opera have been continually discussed during and since his lifetime’ - surely not continually… Perhaps ‘at length’ or ‘extensively’?
    • I'll defend "continually". Not "continuously", I grant you, but the Shorter Oxford says of "continually", "frequently recurring", which seems to me to be about right. I want to emphasise that every generation of musical historians has had a go at this mystery. Tim riley talk 08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Some have supposed that aged thirty-seven, in variable health, having...’ - the subclauses are a bit of a pile-up to my ear. Maybe: ’Some have supposed that, aged thirty-seven and in variable health, having...'
  • Fourth para: I’m not sure ‘in pique’ is an expression. I’d say ‘in a fit of pique’ or ‘out of pique’. Google suggests ‘in a pique’ exists (although I’ve never heard anyone say it).
  • 'Gossett and Richard Osborne suggest …’ - not sure why Osborne is (nearly always) given with his first name, when other critics and scholars aren't. In fact the current score is Richard Osborne 6 : 1 Osborne (sorry, Tim, it’s now traditional).
    • The score should be 7-0, because we refer to both Charles Osborne and Richard Osborne, both admirable critics, who need to be distinguished from each other in the text, and use of first name seems the simplest method. I'll amend the rogue isolated surname. Tim riley talk 08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Afterthought: now I look again, I see we don't mention Charles Osborne by name in the main text, but even so, as he is referred to, and listed among the sources, I think we need to make the distinction between the two gents at each mention of RO. (Views to the contrary will not be disdained.) The one unadorned Osborne is now safely swathed in a forename. Tim riley talk 08:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • May I humbly propose "R. Osborne"? It'll flow better in lists, and is more immediately clear it's iintended to distinguish two scholars. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I shouldn't object to that. Has anyone else got any thoughts on the matter? All views gratefully received. Tim riley talk 16:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'he suffered from bouts of debilitating depression, which some commentators have linked to cyclothymia,[96] or bipolar disorder,[97] or reaction to his mother's death’ - I think it might be clearer as follows: 'he suffered from bouts of debilitating depression, which commentators have linked to various causes: cyclothymia,[96] bipolar disorder[97] or a reaction to his mother's death'.
  • 'But although Otello could at least claim to be genuine, canonic, Rossini’ - second comma surely not needed?
    • Not needed grammatically, certainly, but I think it gives desirable emphasis. I half subscribe to the heretical school that believes that commas can he used to indicate tone of voice, places to pause etc as well to serve their formal function of roping off relative clauses etc.

More in due course...Dmass (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to them, and thank you for the batch above. All very much ad rem. Tim riley talk 08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last batch

“The Code Rossini"

  • ‘...it may be noted that a formulaic approach was logistically indispensable for Rossini's career, certainly at the start’ - maybe plainer language: ‘...was necessary, certainly at the start of Rossini’s career’?
  • Yes, that's plainer, I agree, but I wanted to convey something of the businesslike attitude....--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'For La Cenerentola (1817), for example, he had just over three weeks to create the score’ - wouldn’t the plainer ‘write the music’ work?
  • I think a hyphen is needed in 'the typical eighteenth century handling’ (compound adjective)
  • In the ’structure’ section, it seems odd not to mention Mozart, since the best-known (and best) examples of 18th-century act finales are in the da Ponte operas. And can it really be said that Rossini ever ’surpassed’ the finale of Act 2 of Figaro (for example) which is a pretty perfect comic construction - and better music too...
  • I wasn't seeking here to be comparative, but more to stress how R. 'moved back' and extended the finale section as a proportion. Let me see if I can find an apposite opinion which would fit here and point the issue.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italy, 1813-1823

  • 3rd para - ‘wakening interest’ sounds a bit archaic to my ear - ‘arousing’?
  • But I'm an archaic kind of fellow, which I don't think makes my style culpable by WP standards....but I actually agree that arounsing is better here.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'to seek to use its lessons to advance themselves’ - maybe avoid the multiple infinitives: ‘and used its lessons to advance themselves’?

Withdrawal

  • Isn’t a fair amount of the material in the first para already covered in the biographical section?
  • Yes and no. I do feel that I'm covering it here more from the musical angle than the biographical. Tim, what do you feel?--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree – well I would, wouldn't I? – but for composer FAs we have, it seems to me, reached a shambolic and probably ultra vires consensus over the years that Life and Works articles can be treated, to some extent, as two articles rolled into one, so that a judicious amount of repetition of material and blue-links etc is OK and helpful to the reader who looks at one or the other section. – Tim riley talk 20:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Influence and Legacy

  • Apart from the Shaw quotation, there’s little to counter-balance the positive assessment of the music. There’s a whole body of opinion which is much less favourable. Take Berlioz in the Memoirs: 'As to Rossini and the rage for him which possessed the fashionable Parisian world, it aroused my passionate indignation … Rossini's melodious cynicism, his contempt for the traditions of dramatic expression, his perpetual repetition of one kind of cadence, his eternal puerile crescendo, and his crashing big drum, exasperated me to such a degree as to blind me to the dazzling qualities of his genius and the real beauties of his masterpiece, the Barbiere, with its delicate instrumentation and no big drum.'
  • Nice quote and good point. Let me think on this. Have added a bit of this. Many thanks by the way for your help in raising these points.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from these (very minor) points, more than happy to support. Clear, extremely informative and very readable. Dmass (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Dmass, for your detailed and helpful input, and for your support. Tim riley talk 12:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

Apologies, late getting to this. I had my, very limited, input at PR, here and it was an excellent article then. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, KJ, for your input at PR and for your support here. Greatly valued. Tim riley talk 19:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I don't know if it's normal for music articles, but this seems to be full of opinions such as "great success", "remarkable", "hero's welcome" and the like. I don't doubt that these are sourced, but a sourced opinion is still one writer's view, not an objective fact. I'd welcome some clarification on this. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope music articles are no more opinionated than others. To me (who did not write this section) the expressions you cite seem justified by the context and indeed conform with the sources. After the first 'remarkable' there is however a second which follows in short order which Tim may wish to adjust....--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. First one is now "considerable". On the general point, there is no absolute criterion for success (or failure, for that matter) and we have to follow the sources. I was writing about a later composer recently and found a contemporary article that said something to the effect that anything over 100 performances was regarded as a good run in Paris in the 1880s (long after Rossini), but even that is not objective: a piece expensively mounted in a large house might run for over 100 performances and lose money; a modest piece in a small house could make a profit with a lot less than 100 performances. Tim riley talk 07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ I don’t like the repeat of “fame” in first para and I’m not sure that “gained fame” is either NPOV or necessary
    • I see Smerus is on the case, and will await his first comments. Tim riley talk 21:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC
  • Changed the repeat to 'popularity'. Not sure why 'gained fame' could be construed as NNPOV- his operas were the source of his fame, not his other works, and I feel the article makes this clear.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ Venice, Milan, Ferrara, Naples ‘’ — link?
  • I would think these are all well-enough known; Ferrara might perhaps be marginal.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ Il barbiere di Siviglia (known in English as The Barber of Seville)’’ —I’d give translations of all or none
  • The rationale for this arose from discussions at peer review.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link mass, cantata, sonata
  • I believe these may be sufficiently current not to need a link - Tim?--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So do I, though don't tell the MoS purists. Whether a link is actually helpful to the reader depends on the context. I can't imagine that anyone penetrating this far into the article needs a link to explain "mass" etc. Tim riley talk 23:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • many thanks for these comments, awaiting further. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't really see any other serious issues. However, I'm not quite clear that my leading point has been resolved. I'm not convinced that article this doesn't contain more opinions than many biographies, but given the experience of the authors, I'm prepared to take this on trust, as with not linking to cities. However, the comment which Tim may wish to adjust seems to be hanging in the air at the moment and needs resolution one way or another Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Jim, for your comments and suggestions. All addressed now, I think. Tim riley talk 07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your support, Jim. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 12:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schrocat[edit]

  • Support. per my earlier comments at the PR. Further readthroughs show no problems I may have missed earlier. To my eye this meets the FA criteria from a prose point of view. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Splendid! Thank you, SchroCat, for earlier input and support here. Tim riley talk 12:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I don't really see anything holding up promotion now but there are quite a few duplinks that could be rationalised; I realise duplicating names/terms in the bio section vs. the music section is probably deliberate, and no issue with that, but there seem to be some dups within those sections, and that might be overdoing it -- pls let me know if you need a link to the latest duplink checker to help spot them. I expect to close this later today, Sydney time, but will leave for now if you want to discuss this or anything in my light pre-promotion copyedit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ian, I've just tinkered lightly with the sentence about Berlioz, otherwise your copyedits seem fine to me. (Tim may have some comments of course). As you say, replication of links in the two sections is deliberate, but can you point me to the duplink checker?--Smerus (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text: happy with the current version as tweaked by Ian and Smerus. Dup links: I have the tool installed, but plainly omitted to use it on the almost-finished draft – duh! (Thank you, Ian.) Life section pruned, but there are two I'd v. much like to keep: each is a link to one article from two different terms (Mosè in Egitto/Moïse et Pharaon; dramma serio/dramma per musica), which think might be helpful to the reader. – Tim riley talk 10:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I think key thing is "helpful to the reader" and I'm sure the latest state of the links fulfills that criterion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [53].

Swift Justice[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The above article is about an American detective drama television series, created by Dick Wolf, which aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from March 13 to July 17, 1996. It follows a former Navy SEAL Mac Swift (James McCaffrey), who becomes a private investigator after being fired from the New York City Police Department. He is supported by his former partner Detective Randall Patterson (Gary Dourdan) and his father Al Swift (Len Cariou). Television critics had noted Swift Justice's emphasis on violence, specifically in the pilot episode's opening sequence. While some commentators praised the series for its visuals and cast, others criticized its storylines as either too violent or formulaic.

This is yet another one of my nominations about an obscure television show. This is my eighth nomination about a UPN series. For anyone interested, this is how the article looked prior to my expansion. Hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:SwiftJusticeTitleCardforArticle.png: the "not replaceable with free media" explanation doesn't make sense as written. However, the image is probably simple enough to qualify for {{PD-ineligible}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Could you explain why it does not make sense? I have used the same explanation for previous FACs on television shows. I had intended for it to mean that the image is still under copyright by either the production company or distributor so a free image is not available as a viable replacement. I am uncertain about using {{PD-ineligible}}, as I imagine that the image may still be under a copyright by someone regardless of its simplicity. I am unfamiliar with the process, so apologies if I am mistaken. Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is of a title card, yet the FUR says "There are no known shots that convey the character, in costume, in a single image and are free for use". What character? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I must have read over that part. I have removed it. Apologies for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MaranoFan[edit]

I read the article and it seems to meet all the criteria despite being short. Great prose quality and reliable sourcing, no formatting issues either.--NØ 22:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support, and I understand your concern about the length. I did a search for additional sources prior to this nomination, and I unfortunately could not find anything new. Thank you again Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kailash[edit]

All my comments were addressed in the previous FAC. Here, just the remaining links may be archived to avoid link rotting. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support, and I will get to archiving the remaining links soon. Aoba47 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damien Linnane[edit]

Already familiar with this one as I did the GA review. I'm satisfied it also meets the criteria for FAC. Well done. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HĐ[edit]

  • I think you should include release year(s) for The Equalizer in the lead
  • I don't think a storyline can be "violent"; it sounds quite awkward to me. I don't know how others feel though
  • I consider the word "hooker" inappropriate for encyclopedic language

The rest of the article looks in good shape. Once my concerns are resolved, I will voice my support :) — HĐ (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HĐ: Thank you for the comments! I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All of my concerns have been addressed. The article is ready for the gold star imo :) — HĐ (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I can't believe that I read over those silly mistakes all this time lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Did a quick source review and I am confident this articles passes the review since:

  • All urls are from reliable sources.
  • All references share the same design.
  • There are multiple archiveurls in the case the urls stop existing.

Nice work with the article Aoba.Tintor2 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheDoctorWho[edit]

As an active contributor to television articles this article looks fantastic! Just one suggestion for @Aoba47:, it's not required but in the {{episode table}} I recommend using |airdateR= instead of repeating the same ref 19 times. I also have one quick question, the infobox says that the runtime is 60 minutes, is that with or without commercials? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheDoctorWho: Thank you! I really try my best when it comes to these articles. I have revised the episode table according to your suggestion. I always wondered about that, so thank you for letting me know about it. I believe the runtime is with commercials. I can add that to the infobox if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the infobox instructions (Template:Infobox television) the runtime should be without commercials so it should just be updated accordingly, other than that everything is great! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support and for letting me know about that. I will update it accordingly. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Whoops, one more thing I noticed, in multiple YouTube videos of episodes ("Out on a Limb", "No Holds Barred", "Where Were You in '72?") the opening credits read "Created By Dick Wolf & Richard Albarino" is there any reason why only Wolf is credited in the infobox? (All of those also credit Wolf as executive producer so it's probably safe to use |executive_producer = in the infobox.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Richard Albarino was not mentioned in the sources that I initially found for the article, but I have added a source with him to the article and updated the info. Aoba47 (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

I can't see anything to pick up on this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

Just skimming this nomination and the article, I see we have several supports but we'll need to see some more thorough prose review in evidence. Just in a lead I see awkward comma usage and a which–that error (I realize they are generally interchangeable for restrictive clauses in British English but I'm assuming the intent is for this to be written in American English). Needs more work and review. --Laser brain (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Laser brain: Two more reviewers have provided comments/suggestions and supported the nomination. I was wondering if I could have an update on the status of the nomination? Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129[edit]

I know nothing about these kind of articles at all, or indeed about the program. I'm here because of Laserbrain's appel de coeur above  :) the bonus is that I come to the article fresh and as a WP:READER rather than an expert, but of course downside, that I am generally unaware of all but policy-based approaches to this article type.

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • How about dropping the second City from New York in the lead? I think by then the location's clear, and it avoids repetition of "city".
  • Revised. That makes sense to me since the city was already clarified in the previous part.
  • "specifically in the pilot episode"—perhaps, "particularly in..." as I assume they critiqued other episodes too?
  • To the best of my knowledge, a majority of the reviews were published when the show first debuted, and the pilot episode was the only one singled out during reviews. Other than the critiques of the pilot episode, the criticism was relatively generic toward the show (i.e. aimed at the show as a whole rather than specific episodes or scenes outside the pilot). Let me know if that makes sense. I will look through the sources again though later tonight to check and see if other episodes are mentioned by name. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about tightening the run on sentence into "...in the pilot episode's opening sequence, comparing the show to the crime drama The Equalizer".
  • "critics on its violent scene"—of its
  • "Wolf said UPN executives later considered this cancellation" or "Wolf later said UPN executives considered this cancellation"?
  • "others criticized it as either too violent or formulaic"—as being.
(Interlude)
  • Though about a section for "cast and characters"? For a start, it would enable you to mention all the lesser / walk-on parts (re: WP:FA? #1b: comprehensiveness), also, the text as is regularly broken up by *character (actor)*. This would enable you to use character names in the plot section and tighten the prose.
  • I do not think a separate "Cast and characters" section is necessary for this article. There are only three main characters (Mac, Randall, and Al) for the show. Skipp Sudduth and Kim Dickens only appear in the pilot episode (and play rather important parts for kickstarting the main storyline of the show). I have only included guest stars that were mentioned by reliable, third-party sources. I do not see a reason to list all the lesser / walk-on parts as you suggest above because it would border on trivia in my opinion. How would it really add to the reader's knowledge/understanding of the show to see an exhaustive list of all of the guest stars for a series? It just seems unnecessary to me, as the focus should be kept on the lead characters. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would better to keep the sections together as it keeps things more streamlined in my opinion. I do not see an issue with having the actor's name in parenthesis by the character, and I have done that structure in several of my past featured articles on television shows. I am open to further discussion on this, but I do not see the value in a "Cast and characters" section. I understand its use in film articles, and I have only used it in one of my previous television FACs and that is because there was more critical and cast commentary on the characters. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Premise and characters
  • "Mac is frequently challenged"—details? How does he get challenged? This could range anywhere from doing a crossword in the fastest time to being asked outside for a fight.
  • "and his other superiors"—don't need the second "his"; could subsequently lose that comma too.
  • "including Andrew Coffin"—who and what is the subtly-named Andy Coffin?
  • He is one of Mac's superiors in the NYPD. I thought it was clear from the context (other superiors, including Andrew Coffin (Giancarlo Esposito).).
  • "Mac is assisted"—Mac is aided?
  • "his partner and best friend"—purely stylistic, but I'm sure I've heard "his best friend and partner" more often  :)
  • The sentence about Lethal Weapon (by the way, you reviewer today is definitely Too Old For This Sh*t™), perhaps bounce it down to that fourth para dealing with views? It breaks up the plot.
  • Moved down. I must admit that I am not necessarily a fan of this show myself. It is certainly not bad (as I have seen far worse television shows), but it was never going to be my personal favorite. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talking of plot; could we be a bit more fulsome on it? If each episode that you list had its own article this might not mater so much, but, as it is—and considering this is a cop show which rustled critics feathers—we're currently a bit light on details. Not necessarily gory details; but as it stands, you currently sum up 13 hours of television in <300 words. I suggest—if the sources allow it—splitting this into two separate "Plot" and "Character" sections.
  • I used the "Premise and characters" section to convey the basic premise and overarching storyline of the show. I have only include brief summaries in the "Episodes" section since there are only a limited amount of episodes available online. I think one or two episodes are missing so it would be a little odd and mess with the cohesiveness to have longer plot summaries for some episodes and smaller ones for others. Again, I see no reason for separate "Plot" and "Character" sections. There are only three main characters so that would be a very short section, and I think it would be better to keep everything together to make the information more cohesive and flow together rather than break everything up. I have revised the "Premise and characters" section to be a little more cohesive in terms of the flow, but I am opposed to starting a "Character" section as it seems very unnecessary in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come tomorrow, touch wood. ——SerialNumber54129 21:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Apologies for pinging you again, but I just wanted to check in on your progress with this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DarkWarriorBlake[edit]

  • Is there any information regarding why it only aired for one season?
  • According to a source cited in the article, it was canceled (alongside other programs) to make room for black sitcoms. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a critical reception section, but there is also some critical reception in the "Premise and characters" subsection. Is there a reason it's not under Critical Reception too?
  • I would not described the information in the "Premise and characters" subsection as critical reception. I added that part to the section to help the reader better understand the show's story, characters, and overall tone. I do not identify those parts as reviews because they are not making comparisons to say the show is necessarily good or bad. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the genre of Die Hard as an action film, most people know what it is but for the uninformed it helps them understand why it is being compared to Die Hard
  • Added a link for action film. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note, how was it compared to Die Hard.
  • Did the show leave any kind of legacy? Dick Wolf has a tonne of shows on now, did it blow back against him or anything? Or the cast?
  • The best thing that I can find about the show's legacy is the interview in which Wolf said that UPN considered the cancellation a mistake and Ice-T being cast in some of his later stuff, but that is about it to the best of my knowledge. I think the show has primarily been forgotten by most critics and people in general. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these things might not have answers but I'm just checking that all bases have been researched before promotion. It's an otherwise good article as far as I can see. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Darkwarriorblake: Thank you for the review! You have raised very good points, and I hope that I have addressed all of them. Please let me know if anything else needs work. Either way, have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my bad, I completely glossed over the cancelled sentence because I was looking for it in the later sections. I take your point on the Production part mentioning critics. While it's making comparisons I feel would be ok in the reception section, you're using it in a different context to describe what the show is. I'm fine with that. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and I greatly appreciate your comments/suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise[edit]

Hi Aoba, I hope you're well. Here are a few comments from me:

  • The lead and Premise and characters sections seem pretty good. I'm just wondering whether the sentence "He sets up an email address to receive messages from his clients" really adds anything or could possibly be removed.
  • I think it is useful as it appears to be a somewhat important plot point. Mac is portrayed as using technology during his cases, and remember that the show is set in the mid-1990s so email was a pretty big technological development back then. I understand your point, but I think it matters because of context. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mac is financially stable due to royalty payments from software he had developed." Seems like "has developed" would likely be more natural, unless possibly you have special reason to emphasize it occurred before the other stuff in the narrative.
  • Agreed. Revised. I am always bad with has/had constructions so I should look into that more in the future. As weird as it may sound, I may be slightly more familiar with grammar of other languages because I was more aware of it when learning those lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rick Marotta produced the music that Variety's Todd Everett described as "all synthesizers and percussion"; Marotta praised the soundtrack as a positive aspect of the series": I haven't read the source, but sounds like Mariotta is praising his own work? Also, minor suggestion, but I wonder if it could be worthwhile to paraphrase "all synthesizers and percussion".
  • It should be Everett doing the praising so thank you for catching that silly mistake on my part, and I have paraphrased the quote. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Production and broadcast history, the first part of the second paragraph has a nice flow, but it feels like the last four sentences could be condensed and/or reordered. You basically have Dupree said, Wolf said, Dupree said, Wolf said, with a fair amount of overlap over the four sentences. It feels like it could likely be condensed into a couple of sentences.
  • I'm concerned about "During a 2013 interview with the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, Wolf said that UPN executives had since considered it a "cancellation error" as the network did not have another drama with ratings comparable to Swift Justice." I watched the clip and Wolf doesn't mention UPN executives, he says "I think when it was cancelled that was considered a cancellation error by everybody..." Here "everybody" sounds subjective and vague, and could mean that just more than a few people he talked to (in whatever setting) thought it was a cancellation error. Plus Wolf had a vested interest in the show from the hard work and time he put into it, and has good reason to be biased on the side of whoever may have thought the cancellation was a mistake.
  • I agree about the bias. I had tried to clarify that in the prose by emphasizing Wolf said this himself. Personally, I am not sure if I believe him. I think it is an important point to include in the article as it is the only time the show was really discussed following its cancellation (at least to the best of my knowledge). I thought he was more exact in the interview (I was probably just misremembering) so I have adjusted it to be more accurate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you change the above content (about the cancellation mistake) here, please also make sure its mention in the lead is changed correspondingly.
  • "Following the show's cancellation, Wolf hired Ice-T for the 1997 television show Players and the 1998 television film Exiled: A Law & Order Movie. Ice-T said that Wolf often collaborated with the same actors." Suggested edit: (something like) "Following the show's cancellation, when Wolf was casting for each of the television productions Players and Exiled: A Law & Order Movie in the late 1990s, he again hired Ice-T, who has noted that Wolf often collaborated with the same actors."
  • "While investigating the murder of a horse, Mac is confronted by a loan shark." I'm not sure that "murder" is commonly used for animals, but if you're confident, no worries. If there's any doubt, maybe change to "killing".
  • I am actually not sure if murder is restricted to just people or not. I have made the suggestion revision, but it is an interesting point to think about or look into. Maybe I am just used to using murder because I come from a family of criminal law attorneys lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to his death, a scientist asks his colleague to contact Mac about a case." Is there any more info available about what the case entailed? It sounds like the case itself should also be key to the plot.
  • Revised. Thankfully, it is one of the episodes available on YouTube. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, I'm guessing "N/A" means the information was not available? (Apologies if you may have already explained this or anything else for other people's reviews—I haven't had a chance to read them.) I'm not sure, what is the standard practice in this kind of article when information is not available? I don't have a solution to propose, except that only 4/13 episodes for "US Viewers" have information available, so possibly it would be better to remove this column altogether. Another point is that I believe "N/A" means "not applicable", which is not strictly speaking precise for how it is used here. (But I'm not telling you to definitely definitely remove the column or do anything drastic with the other instances of N/A, I'm just exploring ideas with you.)
  • I am not exactly certain about the common practice myself. I could understand removing the column as long as the rating information is merged into the "Production and broadcast history" section since it is important. I am uncertain how that information could be merged into the section seamlessly, but I am more than happy to hear your suggestion. I think the N/A/ works for the director/writer credits for "Stones". To the best of my knowledge, it is one of the only episodes unavailable online. Otherwise, I would have tried to expand all of the episode summaries. Let me know what you think. I will wait to make any changes until I hear your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception first paragraph suggestions:
  • "Critics praised Swift Justice for its visuals." Suggest to mention the contrast between visuals vs. plot clichés tin this topic sentence. Everett, Johnson, and Biddle also seem to say a variation on this, so if you put this contrast in the topic sentence, the reader will better know what to expect and be able to follow the flow of ideas.
  • How about merging the Everett and Johnson sentences, something like "Todd Everett [maybe even mention Variety again here?] and the Chicago Tribune's Steve Johnson criticized the show for relying on clichés, but both liked the look of the show; Johnson wrote that the show had "a visceral, close-to-the-streets feel", and Everett that it was the most visually attractive program on UPN.
  • Then consider switching Nichols' and Biddle's comments, as Biddle's seems to be in the same vein as Johnson's and Everett's, something like "The Boston Globe's Frederic M. Biddle similarly felt the visuals alone could not carry the show, saying that... [is there possibly anything else you can add to qualify Biddle's comment?].
  • In the second paragraph, both Johnson and Gliatto talk about McCaffrey's handsomeness. For flow, it could be an idea to merge the sentences and find some common ground between what the two writers said.
  • I have revised all of the above comments on the "Critical reception" section. I am uncertain on how to comment on each one of your points without making things appear too messy so I opted for a comment at the end here, but please let me know if I missed anything or something needs further work. I have always found this type of section to be the trickiest one to write. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After you respond to these, I might possibly have one or two other mini-suggestions to make, but I think I've pretty much covered most of my ideas above. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Moisejp: Thank you for the suggestions above. I believe that I have addressed everything, and I am looking forward to hearing from you. Hope you are having a wonderful start to your weekend. I actually just came back from seeing a play. I still cannot believe it is March already. Reminds me of how much work I need to get done lol. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba. I was reading through again today and some more points jumped out at me.

  • "steals credit card numbers by running a prostitution ring": Not very clear what this means.
  • Clarified. [[User:Aoba47|Aoba47]Bold text] (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly how the pilot's opening sequence": "particularly that" seems slightly more precise to me, but ignore if you disagree.
  • "Everett praised the soundtrack as a positive aspect of the series": Seems a bit wordy and fluffy. How about "Rick Marotta produced the music, which Variety's Todd Everett described as having a good synthesizer- and percussion-based sound."
  • "According to New York's Maureen Callahan, the show was a low-budget production." Would you consider moving this up and merging with an earlier sentence to be "Episodes were shot on location in New York City, to production values that New York's Maureen Callahan has characterized as "low-budget". " This would flow quite a bit better for me.
  • "Swift Justice was the first time that Gary Glasberg wrote for an hour-long television program. He referred to the experience as his "big break"." He may be famous for all I know, but I've never heard of Gary Glasberg. Could you add a little context for people like me about how Glasberg is notable—maybe add a sentence about how he went on to find fame and glory with some big hit TV shows, if applicable. More comments to come (hopefully tonight). Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your earlier edit for reducing the four sentences I mentioned about the male audience. But I would argue it's still too much, and the last sentence that Wolf says doesn't add much. Imo, Wolf comes across as kind of self-promoting and everything he says seems sort of fluffy. I think it could be fine to remove the sentence, but if you think it's important to include the 18 to 34 ages, maybe add it without giving it its own sentence, something like "Mediaweek's Scotty Dupree wrote that Swift Justice and The Sentinel were meant to attract a male audience, saying they were the only shows, aside from JAG, marketed to men on Wednesday nights;[22] Wolf specified the target (or expected?) audience of males as being aged 18 to 34." Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mac Swift investigates a man who uses a prostitution ring to steal credit card information, and he falls in love with one of the prostitutes." Here again, would be nice to have a clearer idea about the connection between the prostitution ring and how he steals the credit card info, if possible. Also, there's no mention here of the prostitute being killed, which sounds like a very important part of the plot when this is mentioned earlier. Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alternatively, The Boston Globe's Frederic M. Biddle felt the visuals alone could not carry the show". I don't think "alternatively" works really well here. I would suggest perhaps "By contrast".
  • I like the Biddle additions you made. Also, I forgot to mention earlier, but I liked how you changed the bits about Wolfs comment on the show's cancellation being a mistake—your change was even better than I was thinking of.
  • "Gliatto described him as "handsome, but neither too impressed nor too pretty to buy as an action lead",[4] and Bonko called him a "handsomely weathered former detective" ". Thanks for merging these into one sentence. I didn't mention it before, but I was thinking it would be even better if you paraphrased one of the two quotes. Maybe something like "attractively toughened" and no need to mention "former detective"? Moisejp (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. I agree that the second quote was unnecessary, and I was thinking that it was out of place anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, this article is really coming together, and I'm pretty sure I'm close to supporting. But it's late and I need to have one more read-through when I've got my brain power back. Will be back to look at it tomorrow. Moisejp (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have read through again (and made a few very small edits) and am happy to support now. This is a nice article. Moisejp (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the help as always. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [54].

Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1981 music reference book by pioneering rock critic Robert Christgau, collecting his capsule album reviews from his "Consumer Guide" column in The Village Voice during the 1970s. It was influential as a source for popular music studies at a time when academia largely ignored the field and as a guide among fellow critics, record dealers, and consumers during the rock-era. It is the first in a three-volume series of "Consumer Guide" collections by Christgau and has been appraised in retrospect as a top work in popular music literature. This article's good article assessment found it to be "virtually FA quality"; I have added some content offering insight into the book's creation and paraphrased some quotes in one section to improve it since then. Dan56 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Let me know on the one point above. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 06:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree. I have changed the description. Dan56 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, image review is complete and the article has passed it (I never know how to phrase this...). Kees08 (Talk) 07:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BLZ[edit]

Comments from BLZ
I was the GA reviewer. I have been making copyedits to the text since the FA nomination opened, with rationales provided in the edits. Some of these have been rolled back, and from Dan56's rationales it looks like most of his reversions were for good reason. A few points on where we've differed so far:
  • Regarding "See also": the 80s and 90s review anthologies are very closely related to this book, and for a "skimmer" who wants to surf from this article to one of the other books, it may not be obvious where those other books would be discussed/linked within this article. I often find myself jumping to the bottom of an article to find related articles in a template or otherwise. That said, I think this could be cured by creating a Christgau navbox. It's not unprecedented for a well-published cultural critic to have their own template (there's Template:SiskelandEbert and Template:Pauline Kael) and regardless, the presence of a template is for navigational purposes, not relative levels of notability or "importance". I've mocked up a potential Christgau template at my sandbox, let me know what you think.
    • Good work Looks good. I would much prefer the template than repeating the book links. Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also on "See also": I understand why you included "Music criticism" now, but the difference between the subject matter of "Music criticism" and "Music journalism" is not obvious at a glance. (For those reading this nomination who are not familiar: "Music criticism" is about refined musical/aesthetic criticism of classic music, while "Music journalism" is about mass-media journalism and criticism about popular music since the late 1960s.) Someone would have to be highly attentive to understand that "Music criticism" is referring to the pre-Christgau/pre-rock era of music writing, while "Music journalism" refers also to criticism in the rock era onward. Potential solution: include a bullet point in "See also" for both "Music criticism and music journalism". That would provide a direct opportunity for a reader to distinguish those topics and detect the differences side-by-side, and presenting them this way would benefit the reader's understanding of both topics.
  • Regarding the wording of the paragraph on Christgau's marital difficulties at the time of writing. I've explained the reason for my changes further in two subsequent edits. Dan56, if you read my latest edit summaries on those changes and still object, let me know here. —BLZ · talk 23:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take some, but not all, of your points. I would still recommend in-text attribution of the source of Christgau's statement, some indication that the praise of Dibbell was from his later memoir. Your concern is that citing the title of another book detracts from the paragraph's focus on this book; my concern is that the wording "later said" is vague and context-free. The current wording fails to establish the relevance or context of Christgau's remarks, which I feel detracts from the focus of the paragraph. A reader doesn't know in what context he said it (his own writing, an interview, or something else), how much later it was said (was this said just afterward, while promoting the book?), etc. These contextual cues aren't just details: they alter the meaning and impact of what was said. The fact that he wrote that statement much later in a memoir—i.e., a serious summation and retelling of his life—contributes to the weight of those remarks. I don't think this missing context is "obvious" to readers with just the wording "later said".
  • How does identifying the source of the quotation as the memoir change the meaning of the quotation? Dan56 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another point here is that Going Into the City is conspicuously missing as a source. Unfortunately, all relevant pages are omitted from Google Books Preview. Amazon's preview (here) contains some relevant passages, but omits other pages that seem likely to contain useful info; from what I can tell, at least pp. 332–340 cover the period of writing the Record Guide, but more than half of those pages are missing. To be sure, a lot of the previewed text is strictly about his relationship with Dibbell, and so I imagine the omitted pages are largely the same, but there is still plenty of relevant and noteworthy information about his work on the book itself. He says on on p. 333, "As I revved up to a ninety-hour week things got grimmer" in his relationship with Dibbell. The detail that he was working a 90-hour week is worth mentioning, and that sentence also further ties his insane work methods at the time of writing to his marital dysfunction. There are more good details on p. 333, such as his estimate that his previously published capsule reviews represented only "two-thirds" of the writing that would need to be done for a book "that would properly represent the decade", with "hundreds of records to find out about, hundreds to find, hundreds to re-review, hundreds to touch up." This reinforces info that's already present in the article, but with added details about the extent of the work that had to be done. We also learn most of it was written in a boathouse, a "working vacation" shared with Dibbell. On p. 339, we learn the manuscript for the book was delivered to the publisher several weeks late, and the page ends with "Carola moved back in September, and when the book was done we"—cutting off mid-sentence, but suggesting there is further information omitted from the preview. I imagine the omitted pages after p. 339 could contain some useful info about the release, sales, and/or general reception to the book; the omitted pages before p. 339 probably contain other useful info about the writing process and relationship with the publisher.
If it's at all possible, I'd recommend getting a copy of Going Into the City to use what's on the missing pages. Here's the book on WorldCat to check if it's at a library near you. I may go into the city (San Francisco) myself later this week, so I could stop by the SF Public Library (the nearest non-university library with a copy of the book) and scan the pages if that's more convenient for you. —BLZ · talk 19:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'll see about adding what's available online when I have time. In which case, the memoir may warrant in-text mention with several quotes being taken from it here. But I will check if the quotes you are mentioning tie directly to this book's preparation; "insane work methods" simply being "at the time of writing" this book, that also happened to affect "his marital dysfunction", are off-topic and would appear to give more insight into his personal life than the book; better allocated to his article. Dan56 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the underlying issue is about organization. The section that currently holds this paragraph is "Content and scope" and it's about, well, the book's content and scope, not about the process of the book's writing. But as I see it, that paragraph is mostly about the writing process, and there's plenty more to say about the process, including stuff that has little or nothing to do with Xgau's relationship with Dibbell. It's true that the dedication is part of the content, but rather than shoehorn the paragraph into the "Content" section using the dedication as a hook, it'd be more interesting and logical to talk about the process somewhere else. Based on a quick look at other FA book and novel articles, it looks like the process of writing the book is usually included with the "Background" section (or, less frequently, included in its own section titled something like "Composition", "Construction", "Creation", which sometimes also covers the publication history). I think it would make sense to move the paragraph to the "Background" section and to add about a paragraph's worth of other content about the writing process, maybe more if warranted by other info to be gleaned from a complete copy of GITC.
By the way, there are many details from the same section that I didn't highlight because they are strictly personal and don't merit mention (either here or in Xgau's own article), such as who the affair it was with, the fact that they underwent counseling, etc. But the details I mentioned above are about the writing of the Record Guide. I don't see how a 90-hour work week that almost ended his marriage, undertaken solely to write the book, is off-topic to the book! People frequently comment on the fact that Xgau's CG consumes a ludicrous amount of time, attention, and effort compared to most album reviewers who review a fraction of the content he listens to. Going further in-depth into his process for writing this book speaks to the unusual amount of effort and difficulty it takes for one person working alone to make a reasonably comprehensive album guide, especially on their first attempt, and especially at a time when the music reference genre was in a nascent stage. —BLZ · talk 21:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So him preparing for the 90-hour work week was for the book? What is the exact quote mentioning the book? I was unable to locate a mention of the book near the quoted portion ("ninety-hour work week") on Amazon. Dan56 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a screenshot of what I see. The phrasing was "ninety-hour week", as reflected in my verbatim quotation from the book earlier, but that would be best paraphrased as "90-hour work week". —BLZ · talk 22:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel there may be more about the book in the omitted pages, scans of a physical copy of the memoir would be appreciated. I live outside New York City so am far from a library holding a copy, after seeing your worldcat link. Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to find a copy tomorrow. We're at a bit of an impasse right now, but tbh it's one that arises solely from our current lack of access to GITC. We're both making our own interpretations based on a very incomplete and interrupted sample. —BLZ · talk 19:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • New thought: what order is the "Contemporary reception" section presented in? It's clear that it's "mostly good" reviews first, then "mostly negative" reviews later, but I don't see much rhyme or reason to the order of the mostly-good reviews. It's not strictly chronological by publication date, nor does it divvy up paragraphs based on the type of publication (a section for reviews from the general press and music press, a section for library-oriented reference book reviews, etc.) I think division by source type would probably make the most sense. It would also allow you to write some introductory generalizations based on the points of consensus within each group. —BLZ · talk 22:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paragraph deals largely with unqualified praise (only Palmer is slightly qualified), the second with more qualified praise, the rest more critical. There is transition, sometimes loosely, among the points from one critic to the next, but divvying it up along source-type lines would leave these points more scattered, and from previewing a configuration of your suggested model, the sections would appear bloated (on the side of the music press content) and awkward to read, less attractive. Dan56 (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that the gradient from most positive to least positive is a thematic thread, it's not an obvious (or especially useful) one. The only impact this actually makes in the text is the phrasing of this clause: "David Browne shared a similar sentiment in High Fidelity". By rewording that, we are left with no other explicit textual signals of this thematic organization—nor the possibility of signaling the thematic organization to the reader, since you sacrifice the possibility of introductory sentences. It would hardly work to open one paragraph with "These critics had high praise for the book" then the next with "These critics had medium praise for the book". Without introductions, the average reader is likely to be intimidated by a section that opens with two huge paragraphs and no introduction or summary of what follows. As far as thematic threads go: by choosing to intermingle the library/reference reviewers, you bury their significance, at the expense of the (quite clear and cogent) development of the book's significance as a reference work in the "Legacy" section.
I take your concerns about bloat seriously, and those concerns are actually why I went ahead and drafted out my recommendations to see if it was even workable in practice. I was initially troubled that my proposal would result in one tremendously long paragraph on the popular press, as you described. Previously, in the GA review, I'd said that the first two paragraphs of that section are already daunting and trimmable/splittable: in your draft, they both run in the range of 250–300 words, putting the article's two longest paragraphs one right after the other. Of course, putting all of the music press together would result in one paragraph running well over 300 words. I did have to take a second look and considered a few options, including splitting the grad in two. I think I found a solution, outlined below:
The lopsided bloat you're concerned about is easily cured by moving Simels's review. Palmer's and Simels's reviews were both, by far, the most extensively covered reviews; putting them in the same paragraph is not a great idea, sure. But by your own terms, Simels's praise was "qualified", and the ideas you pull from his review are quite a bit harsher than any of the other reviews in the "positive" section. So why not move Simels to the "more critical" section? His review is not entirely negative, but it's certainly "more critical" than most others. I think placing Simels first among the "more negative" section also eases the reader into the negative reviews with a mixed review. That placement also works well with the opening notes about Simels taking inspiration from Christgau, but nevertheless having some serious reservations about the book. By moving Simels, trimming Simels and Palmer, and adding introductory sentences to the first two paragraphs, my version has a first paragraph with 185 words and a second paragraph with 253 words, plus a new paragraph on Simels. —BLZ · talk 19:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like you moved Simels back up top—and hey, that's fine by me, too. His review makes sense in either place. I wanted to present the option to move him, but if you prefer putting him earlier I think that is fine as well. I made two other tweaks:
  • First, I added a quick description of what Year by Year in the Rock Era is—it should be pretty clear it was a history book anyway, but the little extra contextual hand-holding helps orient the reader.
  • Second, I added subsection headers to break up the "Contemporary reception" section. I wanted to split the paragraphs, but realized the reader may lose the organizational thread. Solution: headers. Splitting the paragraphs up makes the section more readable (and, by putting the Simels review at the start of a paragraph, avoids burying his in-depth insight in the middle of a long paragraph); the subsection headers prevent the problem of a massive wall of text, or feeling constrained to organize by paragraph (which just results in long paragraphs). These two changes also make it less necessary to trim from Palmer or Simels; I had been reluctant to do that in the first place, but felt it might be necessary to avoid an overlong section. Now that the grafs are more bite-size, there's more room for your full original text and no need to trim.
Generally, I think the reception section looks excellent now. I'm pivoting to the "Legacy" section. —BLZ · talk 20:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes to the "Legacy" section so far:

  • Like the previous section, I've split it into subsections based on the general themes: "Impact on the rock canon and popular music writing" and "Retrospective acclaim". The former contains text focused on precisely what it says, the latter on the final two paragraphs of general praise for the book. I think the title of the first subsection is an adequate summary of the contents but it's maybe not as elegantly worded as it could be, so please feel free to revise.
  • I took Christgau's own self-assessment of the book's impact and moved it into its own paragraph. I felt this bit was a little lost in the mix, coming at the second-to-last sentence of a long-ish paragraph. An author's feelings about their own work's legacy and worth are worth distinguishing from assessments from third parties.
  • I also went back to the sources of the graf described above and expanded on it, adding a new sentence. I thought it was worth elaborating a little more on the changes Xgau saw in the 80s and 90s, to provide a sharper contrast with (and thus, to better define by contrast) his perceptions of the 70s and his role within that decade's canon-forming.

And one comment:

  • The "Answers from the Dean: Online Exchange with Robert Christgau" source is split into multiple pages, but across multiple URLs. This makes the quote on "p. 2" harder to access and unintuitive to find, but also completely omits an archive-url for that second page. Characterizing these as "pages" may not be quite precise, either; the second page carries the distinct title "Answers From the Dean: Online Exchange with Robert Christgau, part II". I feel like "part II" should be cited as a second source in the bibliography, using "Christgau 2002a" and "Christgau 2002b" in the footnotes rather than "p. 1" and "p. 2". Here's an archive link via webcitation.org for part II for your convenience. —BLZ · talk 21:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something else I thought of earlier that I'd better jot down before I forget: there is a verified free-license image of Carola Dibbell, which would be a nice addition to the "Preparation" section. —BLZ · talk 21:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear anachronistic; the image is 30-40 years apart from the time she is discussed in the section, and would not help readers visualize her in these events. Dan56 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added the 2007 photo of her; appears younger. Dan56 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-ups: your rearrangement of the subsection headers is an improvement. Simpler and, in the case of nixing the "Negative assessments" section, more accurate. Ditto for moving the Weisbard sentence—my mistake. —BLZ · talk 22:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making this comment to keep the review from getting stale: Any update on the memoir, and this review? @Brandt Luke Zorn: Dan56 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll be able to get ahold of the book on Tuesday. —BLZ · talk 21:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few pages I hadn't seen in the previous glance on Amazon and added text accordingly. Dan56 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well done! Here's pp. 330–340 as a scanned pdf. I haven't had a chance to look over it too closely. In retrospect, it was a little silly to assume the 90 hours excluded his regular schedule at the Voice, but he does mention that he was hardly listening to new records at that time period and that it was his "only such hiatus" in his 50-year career (p. 333). —BLZ · talk 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those details were added yesterday. I have just added a few details I see from p. 338 in your pdf. Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The last thing I might add from Going Into the City would be some of Christgau's commentary on the Rolling Stone Record Guide and how it differs from his CG, which would fit nicely in the "Contemporary reception" section. (And having skimmed through GITC: knowing you intend to take Robert Christgau to FA one day, using the full book would be essential. It cuts off shortly after the '70s CG, but it seems like an excellent resource for biographical details from his early career.) Otherwise...
  • ... Support. This is an impressive, comprehensively researched, well-written article. It not only meets all the FA criteria but, from my perspective—following a lot of deep, hands-on reviewing and assessment of source material at both the GA level and here—I believe it is now presented in virtually the best form it could take. An article like this, covering a critically important book of music criticism, provides invaluable yet easily overlooked insight into popular music history and the development of modern music journalism, the latter of which is especially easy to overlook or take for granted. As such, Wikipedia's very lucky to have such a fine article on this topic. Kudos, Dan56. —BLZ · talk 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christgau's retrospective comparison of his guide to Rolling Stone's was added yesterday to the third paragraph of the legacy section. Thank you lots for the support! Dan56 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I somehow missed that when looking over your latest edits. Funny because I was actually going to recommend placement there, too—either place makes sense and you've integrated it well there. —BLZ · talk 22:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I looked over the sources during the GA review and gave them a second look now. All sources and citations are up to code. The offline/print sources are almost all verifiable through Google Books Preview or Snippet View. All quoted material is present in the source material and attributed correctly. I have a Rock's Backpages subscription and can verify the accuracy of the citations that are linked behind its paywall. No reliability concerns for any of the sources. Formatting is consistent and error-free. I made a few alterations to the bibliography yesterday, mostly minor MOS adjustments.

One small detail that may need to be attended to: the link to Dylan Hicks's "A minus review from Robert Christgau" post has persistently appeared to be down for the past two days whenever I've tried to access it. His homepage at dylanhicks.com also seems down. Switching to a different browser doesn't help. Yet when I've checked downforeveryoneorjustme.com, it tells me "It's just you. www.dylanhicks.com is up." Dan56's citation already has an archive URL, so it's still possible to verify the information from that source. The only question is whether this is a real outage at his site, and whether it is a temporary outage or something more persistent, which I can't really determine. If others can access the site, it may genuinely just be my computer acting up for whatever reason. If not, at some point there may need to be a judgment call to say his post is down and set deadurl=yes.

In conclusion, checkY the sourcing and source formatting looks FA-level to me. —BLZ · talk 23:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kees08[edit]

  • Would it be worthwhile to include background information on the author? Have they written these types of books in the past, have they written any books or just newspaper columns, etc.
    • His first book, an essay collection, is mentioned in the background section. Dan56 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed a bit of it, overall the article seems very complete and well-written. I will give it another read-through soon to see if I find anything. Kees08 (Talk) 07:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any update? @Kees08: Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would sabbatical be a better word? I don't have the source, so only change if it does not change the meaning of the sentence. he took a vacation from The Village Voice
    • page 333: "this working vacation"
      • Ah, well vacation and working vacation are pretty different! Might want to add that it was a working vacation somehow. I was wondering how he was able to leave to write a book. Kees08 (Talk)
        • The "working" part of the vacation was working on the book, which is made clear in the article by "to work on the book"; adding "working vacation" to the same sentence would be redundant. The "vacation" aspect was taking time off from the newspaper to use this free time as he pleased: Christgau and his wife also went to the movies, as described further in the pdf. Dan56 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphen in mid-September? finished the guide in mid September
    • Yes. Done.
  • Consider using submitting the manuscript in place of submitting its manuscript
    • Done.
  • Are there any reviews of the reprint that estimate how much has changed? Wondering if it was an edit for copyright purposes, where just enough is revised to get another copyright date, or if it was pretty expansive. If sources do not exist to say, then no worries. In the reprint's introduction, Christgau said he had revised some of the content.
    • Sources do not exist, to my knowledge. The Smith source verifies there were only "some revisions".
      • I searched through the Westlaw news database, which has access to numerous offline print newspaper articles not available elsewhere online, and didn't find any reviews of the revised edition. It's not uncommon for a second edition of a book to get few or no new reviews. —BLZ · talk 04:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I figured as much; thanks for checking.
  • Would be interesting to know if it was free or not The contents of all three "Consumer Guide" collections were made available on Christgau's website when it went online in 2001.
    • I thought the "free" availability was suggested in the sentence, but I will make it more explicit: "...were made freely available..." Dan56 (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Since it did not say freely, I interpreted it to mean he digitized it and it cost money to access. I think it is fine that in the introduction it does not say freely available, and later on it says freely available, for the record. Kees08 (Talk)

I just have another section to go. Looks good so far. Kees08 (Talk) 01:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Every paragraph in Legacy and influence begins with Christgau; is there any way to mix that up? Just something that stuck out to me, not a big deal.
    • I've replaced the book title with "the guide" in the second paragraph. Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it does not really count as another review, but my girlfriend read through the article and said it was well-written and only had the last comment that I wrote above. Kees08 (Talk) 19:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is the conclusion to your review, can it be considered a support, @Kees08:? Dan56 (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, I missed your last response until just now. Support. Kees08 (Talk) 07:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One last comment (does not affect my vote): should the title be Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the 70s? I just realized our 80s and 90s article titles are stylized that way, and that the title of the book uses 70s and not Seventies. Kees08 (Talk) 17:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright page of the book credits it as "Seventies", as does Christgau's website, worldcat, googlebooks... I imagine the spine does as well and that this is the official title. Dan56 (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is File:Christgau's Record Guide (1981).jpg the cover the only thing that says 70s then? Kees08 (Talk) 02:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a copy of the first edition, so I don't know. But safe to say the official title is "Seventies", and I assume the cover only has the numeric rendering to fit or look nicer with the other text. According to Goodreads' entry on the reprint, the original title (of the first edition) is "Seventies" (click "more details"). Same for the site's entry for the first edition. Most other online book catalogues and sellers of the original edition appear to also use "Seventies". If you Google-search "Rock Albums of the 70s" instead, you get more hits for the reprint; search for "Rock Albums of the Seventies," however, and you get more hits for the original. Dan56 (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, just wanted to bring it up and document it. Thanks for the explanation! Kees08 (Talk) 06:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32[edit]

Full disclosure: Dan56 asked me to look it over and give my opinions.

  • Writing quality: Spelling and grammar is fine, writing is compelling, flows well, and is well organized. Paragraphs have a logical organization.
  • Comprehensiveness: Writing is very comprehensive. Background details on the process of writing and compiling the book, and of the strain it placed on his personal life, are great for the reader and provide historical and personal context that I think makes the article quite compelling. The "Past present and future" are all covered well.
  • Sourcing: References seem highly reliable and from a broad spectrum of sources, which is nice.

Overall, I can't find anything to hang up over. I give this my full Support for FA. --Jayron32 13:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

I was told to review this article and I'm kind of stumped. Robert Christgau himself never had a featured article, but this one book of his is nominated? I suppose I can support it anyway, but I'd sooner be in favorite of nomination of his own article rather than his book's. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since editors are volunteers, we are kinda bound by what interests them rather than what others might consider to be more 'important'. As long as an article meets notability criteria, it can in theory be brought to FA standard. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [55].

SMS Preussen (1903)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is another in the series of articles on German battleships built before World War I - like the others I've done recently, I wrote the article close to a decade ago and then substantially expanded it last year with the use of new sources. As was typical for German battleships of the era, Preussen was obsolescent at the start of the war and saw little activity. The ship was one of the few battleships Germany was permitted to retain after the war, but in this only to be converted into a mothership for minesweepers, since Germany was responsible for sweeping the rather extensive minefields that had been laid during the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this in detail for at Milhist ACR in September, and have looked at the minimal changes since then. I consider it meets the FA criteria. I did notice that Citation bot changed the cite journal to cite book for Warship. You can revert this and add <!--Deny Citation Bot--> immediately after cite journal and it will stop the bot from doing this mildly annoying action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I don't know why Citation bot is screwing with references like this, but it is annoying. I've raised the issue on the bot's talk page, so we'll see what happens. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:SMS_Preussen_NH_46833.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the source, the print was dated 1907. Renard was a German commercial photographer whose work was frequently turned into postcards and such. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any evidence that this one was? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, but the NHHC asserts the images are PD in the US unless otherwise indicated, so we can safely assume that the 1907 date is the date of publication. Given Renard's activities, Germany is the probable country of origin. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • The detailed dates in the lede strike me as redundant to the main body.
    • I generally like to include month and year so the reader gets a sense of when the ship was built
      • I dunno; the object is to generally inform the reader when the ship was built. I used satisfy that by telling them the decade or war until a reviewer wanted to specifically know what year the ship in question was completed. I think that's about the level of detail appropriate for a summary and see no real necessity for telling 'em what month as the only time that it might be useful would be if the ship did something significant early in the year. And it was significant, it would be worth specifically mentioning in the lede. But I tend to be a minimalist in this issue, so YMMV.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link sortie
    • Done
  • Add # of engines to the infobox
    • Done
  • Don't need short ton conversions in the main body.
    • Fixed
  • What kind of machinery spaces?
    • Clarified
  • Were the torpedo tubes on the broadside?
    • Clarified
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for another good one! I read the article and found nothing I want changed. alt-texts for images have already been mentioned. Consider, in the footnote, not only to say that Prussia is "Preussen" but also that there's no capital ß. As ships' names are allcaps, it's PREUSSEN even in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks Gerda. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Use "|lastauthoramp=y" to get the ampersands to match between your bibliography and cites.
  • Otherwise everything's properly formatted and all sources are known to me as high-quality.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2019 [56].

Apollo 15[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a mission which went extremely well in most respects, but nevertheless had to overcome difficulties en route, and regrettably was overshadowed later.Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some of the details in the infobox, such as the precise launch and landing mass, don't seem to be sourced anywhere. There's also an attribution note stating that the article includes PD content from NASA - which websites or documents does that encompass? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text has been worked over enough that that notice can be deleted. I'll cite the infobox details, probably to the Mission Report, over the next couple of days. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly done, need to do further research on the remainder. Will report completion when done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced everything except those items (for example, the crew) that appear in the body of the article. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article appears to have a MOS:SANDWICH problem. I am seeing text with images on both sides almost all the way through, displaced headers (because of left placed images) and a large area of white space at the bottom (which usually happens when there are too many images in an article). If Featured Articles are allowed to have sandwiched text then the guideline becomes ineffectual. Not an enviable task but I think some images need to be sent back to Commons, leaving only the best behind. I found that the images distracted from the text. Good luck. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut some, with regret. There are a couple of places still where there is some crowding, but I think all of the images (mostly videos) involved are valuable to the reader and important to them understanding the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could have a gallery, rather than losing them entirely? That would solve the problem of sandwiching too (I'm not sure of the restrictions on when galleries or not to be used, but it is worth looking into). - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It had a gallery, it was suggested I remove it at the A-class review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Looking at the A Class thread and the relevant policy, it seems like this is just one person's dislike of them: if the images in any particular gallery are "a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images", then I think we're OK to include one, if you feel it suitable. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I will start one, using the deleted images and some of the wealth of images that we already have on Commons or can easily get from NASA sites. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a gallery of (right now) 12 still images and 4 multimedia. I'll poke around the Apollo image sites for a few more. I think that would do it without overdoing it. A lot of the images display things talked about in the article that we don't have space to picture alongside text. So I think it's within policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be possible to follow the layout of Apollo 11? Has very little sandwiching and no gallery. It would make FA nomination easier for other Apollo articles if they followed the example of Apollo 11 surely. I haven't counted but it looks like the addition of the gallery has increased the image count, not decreased it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It probably has increased, but there should be a lot less sandwiching right now. I'd like to hear from reviewers on the question of images. I do think there was more of an effort to take photographs on Apollo 15. Certainly, with the rover television camera, there were more videos. Apollo 8, another FA, has many images. Also, with 11, I think there is more of a focus on the lunar landing, whereas this was more of a science mission and possibly there is ground for more illustrations.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am fine with the gallery. Note: I started writing this next part without read the entire thread above, so I suppose I agree a bit with Nimbus but do not care much. I was generally trying for consistency in the crewed Apollo missions, Apollo 8 and Apollo 11 did not have a gallery and were already FA, so I figured it could be done with Apollo 15. Like you said though, it was a science mission, and longer, so there were many more images. I did exclude a lot of images from Apollo 11 that I would have liked to include, but perhaps I can just add a gallery there eventually. As a last aside regarding a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images, I thought the images were described by the article in enough detail, therefore fit the criteria to exclude the gallery. I have a good example somewhere of when I think it is appropriate to include a gallery, but of course I cannot find it right now. Long story short: I would prefer to exclude the gallery but think an argument can be made either way. Kees08 (Talk) 03:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

  • Marker to remind me to pop by and look this over. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Crew
  • "in 1932 in Jackson, Michigan and..." comma after Michigan
  • Link West Point?
As the article says he went to the same school as Scott, I think we're OK there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Planning
  • "The astronauts at NASA who were scientists, such as geologist Harrison Schmitt, pushed through the early Apollo missions for a greater place for science, but often there were higher priorities or astronaut disinterest." I had to read this a couple of times to try and get my head round it, and it still confuses me slightly
  • "Hadley Rille" – worth linking rille?

Done to the end of "Planning": more later. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch from me:

Hardware
  • "all three Apollo 15 astronauts were Air Force officers": you've already told us this in the "Crew" section
  • "the service module's SIM bay": link SIM? (I'm not sure you've told us what SIM stands for – although I may have missed it)
Launch
  • Should two-hour be hyphenated in "the two hour, 37 minute launch window"?

Second and third EVAs

  • "a falcon, a mascot at the United States Air Force Academy—all three Apollo 15 astronauts served in the Air Force.[ALSJ 3]" Second time you've told us the falcon was the USAFA mascot, third time you've told us they were in the AF.

That's it from me. An enjoyable and interesting read. Leaning heavily to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. I've adjusted those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice piece of work. It's the first space article I've reviewed, so I don't know how it stacks up against the others, but I found it informative, interesting and above the standards required for the FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I'll do the image review. There are a lot of images, so it might take me a couple of days to get through. Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, so I started looking. First I looked at the captions, which all seem good and consistent, then I started looking for alt text and got through the first handful of images without finding any. As you know, I believe alt text is not absolutely required for FAC but is considered best practice. Is that something you'd want to add to any images where it's lacking? Meanwhile, I'll next look at the images themselves (licenses, etc.). Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added alt text to all but the gallery which since its fate is in doubt, I'd rather wait on. Your views on the gallery would be welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that your pre-gallery version was overly crowded in some places. There are a lot of images in your current gallery, but whether there are too many—or too many in the article as a whole—I can't say. If the images are free and available, maybe it can't hurt to include all of them, since some moon-trip enthusiasts may appreciate having them there. For me, the Apollo 11 article has just the right balance visually, but, again, I'm not a moon-trip enthusiast, and I imagine many of the (Apollo 15) article's readers may be. In short, I don't have a strong opinion about the current number of images or about having the gallery, and I think it's probably fine as is. Moisejp (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the licenses look good, and the pre-gallery alt text is all good. If you decide to keep the gallery, I'll trust in good faith that you'll add alt text there as well for consistency. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Not having seen the article before this review I went through it minutely, and can find nothing in the prose to quibble about. The coverage of the topic is well and broadly referenced, and has every appearance of being thoroughly comprehensive. As for the illustrations, embarras de richesses!. I much enjoyed this article, which seems to me to meet the FA criteria in every respect. Tim riley talk 13:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • The external link to Compton, online chapter To the Mountains of the Moon is dead
    Link replaced.
  • Do we really need the EVA durations clocked to the second?
    They were in the article when I began improvement; didn't see the point of rounding them.
  • a plane change burn I'm not sure that specifying the type of burn here is really necessary as the explanation is perfectly adequate.
    I'd rather keep it, unless you feel strongly about it.
    Strikes me as awkward, but not going to make an issue of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing else jumped out at me on this first read. I'll do another one later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, didn't see anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

Article is very good. Some quibbles:

  • Can we please have conversions of the old measurements (nmi) into metric?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The funny page numbers make it hard for me to look things up.
    I've been able to change them for Scott's book. But I don't have hard copies of Worden's or Slayton's, and the discussion at WT:FAC seems to say that Kindle locations are acceptable.
    My fear is that while page numbers will not change for a given edition of the book, Amazon may change the Kindle locations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schmitt would be the first member of Group 4 to fly in space" Would it be appropriate here to mention that Group 4, selected in 1965, were the first group of scientist astronauts, the other groups being pilots? (Similar to the way the Excess 11 are described below?)
I've added the group nickname in parens..--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link S-IC, S-II, North American Rockwell, cost-plus contract
Done.
  • That the feathers came from the USAF Academy falcon is now mentioned twice.
I think the contexts are different enough that they are acceptable. After all, Scott was only seen to drop one feather, and he had brought two (he had planned a test run but didn't get around to it).
  • "The demands of the training strained Worden's marriage" I think we're drawing a long bow here; there were separated for over a year before the divorce.
Scott mentions it in that context. And remember before the 15 training, all three were the backup crew for 12. So the training, all in all, was 2 years plus.
  • In "space suits" I'd mention that Scott's suit had the red stripes on it, which allows the reader to identify him and Irwin in the photographs.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Changes were also made to the S-II to stop pogo oscillations" They didn't though. Worden felt they were severe; Scott felt they were much less than on Apollo 9. Suggest "dampen" instead of "stop".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irwin died in 1991 from heart problems he blamed on Apollo 15; but Scott and Worden are still alive.
    Very true. A number of sources suggest the connection to Irwin's death (see Kraft's memoir, for example) but this article draws no conclusion.
  • "the lander settled back at an angle of 6.9 degrees and to the left of 8.6 degrees." Did Scott consider lifting off again and landing a short distance away? The descent stage still had plenty of fuel.
    I see no source that mentions the possibility. Given the fact that the engine bell was deformed by the landing, even if that was possible, it probably wasn't worth the risk.--20:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Astronauts drove corvettes because they could lease them for a dollar a year from the local dealer in Florida.
    Jim Rathmann, I assume. Scott seems to have bought this one as he mentions in the ALSJ that he later sold it to Ed Fendell. I don't think it's really necessary to add anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Rathmann. I bet he sold them at a premium as driven by an astronaut. (That's what i would have done.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some wordings that still seem awkward to me (but don't feel obliged to change on my account):
    1. I think "West Point has greater recognition than USMA but your choice. (I note that although Scott is younger than Worden, he was a year ahead of him at West Point.)
      Scott spent that single year at Michigan but I gather four at West Point. The description of Worden's education is phrased to make it clear the USMA is West Point. I don't think it would work as well the other way around.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "Site Selection Committees" Was there more than one? Should they still be capitalised then?
    3. "Falcon was aligned so that the astronauts were on their backs and thus could not see the lunar surface" They were of course still standing up.
      I've phrased it as "upright".
    4. "With Falcon due to remain on the lunar surface for almost three days" Earth days. The whole mission was done in a lunar morning, as the days are 28 days long over there.
      I know we've had this discussion but I think it's not really worth putting "Earth days" in there and it's probably a bit pedantic.
      Sure. No worries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "of 14 known American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts who died" Robert Henry Lawrence Jr. was unknown because he was black, right? (I would just delete "known" myself.)
      Scott mentions Valentin Bondarenko and Grigori Nelyubov, whose deaths were not widely known.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm up to date. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)'[reply]
Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08[edit]

Coming soon to a FAC near you. Kees08 (Talk) 20:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

  • The phrases outside their lander and on extravehicular activity (EVA) are redundant in: They spent 18​1⁄2 hours outside their lander on extravehicular activity (EVA). Suggest They spent 18​1⁄2 hours performing extravehicular activities (EVAs)
  • Introduce acronym: operating the sensors in the SIM bay
  • For some reason, rephrasing These instruments collected data to This instrument suite collected data or This suite of instruments collected data
I've recast it slightly. While I agree that "outside the lander" is redundant, I think the reader needs to be taken by the hand a bit here so I've rephrased rather than cut. The others I've done more or less as I think you want them.

Background

  • Ranges are endashes: missions (Apollo 16-20).
Avoided.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crew and key Mission Control personnel

  • In the first column of both tables, sentence case should be used (Command module pilot for example), since it is not being used as a title (Command Module Pilot Alfred Worden).
  • We have been a bit inconsistent in how we organize this section. It is not required to be consistent; but I wanted to give you the options. In order of preference, I prefer Apollo 8, Apollo 11, and then Apollo 15. The last edit I did to Apollo 8 took out what I considered to be over-sectioning. I think the tables are a little overkill too, for what little information they provide, but I have been afraid to take them out for fear of backlash. Your call on how you want it all to look, those are options.
I like Apollo 8 too but let me sleep on how to accomplish it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've adapted the Apollo 8 format slightly.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lowercase command module pilot and as Command Module Pilot of Apollo 9
Done.
  • Could be worth adding a sentence about how Gemini 8 almost killed him
I think I'll let it stand. I'm trying to be brief here. Armstrong only gets a shout-out because he is Armstrong.
  • Probably should call it University of Michigan again from Michigan in 1957
"Michigan" is an acceptable shortened form, especially on second and subsequent usage, in American English.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right per their style guide, which says "Because it can cause confusion with the state of Michigan, avoid referring to U-M as “Michigan” unless the context is obvious." Kees08 (Talk) 03:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if we include this, it is worth including that the backup crew for Apollo 15 would have been the prime crew for Apollo 18 (and thus flown to the Moon), but since it was cancelled they moved Schmitt to 17 (which of course made many people happy and many people unhappy). This would be the first Apollo backup crew to not fly to the Moon. Schmitt would be the first member of Group 4 to fly in space; he was the only astronaut from that group to make it to the Moon, with Apollo 17.
    I saw you worked in a bit of this; it might be good to include the full bit that if normal crew rotation followed, the backup crew for Apollo 15 would have been the prime crew for the cancelled Apollo 18 mission. Then go into the bits about their first missions (for 2/3) being after the Apollo program ended. Kees08 (Talk)
Alright, done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I try to avoid just listing out names if I can; is there anything to say about Apollo 14 using 4 CAPCOMs and then Apollo 15 using 9? Presumably something drove a change to more than double the CAPCOMs.
I've never read anything in particular. Obviously the greater emphasis on science might have led to more. Some of them might have been brief, I've read most of the transcripts and I don't remember Shepard coming on the loop. I've inserted that Gordon most likely would have commanded 18 and that Brand later flew on ASTP and the STS, as a way of having a snippet about each backup astronaut. I don't think we need the whole hoorah over the crew for 17, that's part of 17's story.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Section looks much better. I found this on CAPCOMs for the mission in case it is useful to you. Kees08 (Talk)\

Planning and training

  • Could try to change Geologist Harrison Schmitt and other astronauts who were scientists advocated to Geologist Harrison Schmitt and other scientist-astronauts advocated
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying other nouns like politician (often met with politician disinterest, often met with zoologist disinterest) does not sound good, maybe make it "They were often met with disinterest from the pilot-astronauts" or similar They were often met with astronaut disinterest, or found science displaced by higher priorities.
OK.
  • Mission and Commander should be capitalized since it is a title for Lovell right? Apollo 13 mission commander Jim Lovell
OK.
  • Lower case command module pilot since it is not used as title, and should there be a comma after Mattingly to make it an appositive phrase? prime crew's Command Module Pilot, Ken Mattingly to inform
OK.
  • ", and the first Lunar Roving Vehicle" sounds weird to me, if it sounds fine to you keep it. Apollo 15 into a J mission, with a longer stay on the lunar surface, and the first Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV).
OK.
  • Can you scan and email me the page in the book that supports this? This change was welcomed by Scott,[28] who according to David West Reynolds in his account of the Apollo Program, was "something more than a hotshot pilot. Scott had the spirit of a true explorer", one determined to get the most from the J mission.
You have to send me an email so I can reply with an attachment.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are both 'froms' needed? including from planned experiments and from the rover,
I thought so. I think omitting the second one leaves things too abrupt.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware

  • Introduce the acronym SIM both here and in the introduction. in the service module's SIM bay.
I did it in the body, but for lede purposes, I think the link should suffice.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer microgravity over zero-gravity, which Weightlessness#Zero-g,_"zero_gravity",_accelerometers partially explains, but essentially it means that while we are trying to get rid of gravity (zero gravity vector), we are not, therefore microgravity is the accurate term. If using zero gravity increases accessibility, I suppose it is fine, but I would love to see wider adoption of the term microgravity.
  • Alternatives for this: Once all the various components had been installed on the Saturn V, Once the major subassemblies were integrated into the Saturn V, After the Saturn V vehicle was fully integrated,.
  • We both know what mascons are, but maybe include a couple words for the average reader to explain (even using mass concentrations would help) In addition to measuring magnetic fields, the satellite contained sensors to study the Moon's mascons
  • For this ref, I normally use NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive or NSSDCA, though it might just be my preference. "Apollo 15 Subsatellite". NASA. Retrieved December 21, 2018.
The above are done, and I've avoided the term "zero gravity".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mission highlights

  • This is not very chronological w/ the crew waking and suiting up. Was a bit jarring to read. Apollo 15 was launched on July 26, 1971, at 9:34 AM EDT from the Kennedy Space Center at Merritt Island, Florida.
No, but it is often good to lead off with the big event and then discuss relatively minor issues that surrounded it, even preceding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link explosive cords to Detonating cord (as an aside, usually the det cord goes to another separation mechanism. an analogy is that the det cord is like an electrical cable, providing a way for electricity (or a detonation wave) to reach the mechanism)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out they use mild detonating fuse (MDF) from what I can tell, which is close enough to det cord. Explains the messy separation I saw during the Apollo 11 documentary. No more actions to take here, just thought you might find the explosives handbook somehwat relevant and interesting. Kees08 (Talk) 07:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I am being pedantic, but the mission was not there; the spacecraft was though. At 000:11:36 into the mission, the S-IVB engine shut down, leaving Apollo 15 in its planned parking orbit in Low Earth Orbit. The mission remained there
  • Presumably we have the information to be exact; if we do, we might as well be exact. some 2 hours and 40 minutes
  • Should one of those dots be a colon? At 002:50.02.6 into the mission
  • You have introduced this acronym, to at least some extent, twice already The command and service module (CSM) and the lunar module
  • So foreign object debris (FOD) was causing a short on the switch? If I recall correctly, the wire was fine until they were in a microgravity environment, which allowed it to float around into the switch. Some of that may be worth mentioning. Also, was their caution in manually operating it needed? After the mission returned, the malfunction proved to be caused by a tiny bit of wire trapped within the switch.
  • Maybe this is more for me...but here is how I read it with my background. They opened a valve on the LM, allowed it to vent to space, and supplied nitrogen gas as a pressurant. They then switched from nitrogen to oxygen, to make the atmosphere breathable again. Now, this probably is not right, but that is how it reads to me, so the wording might need changed. The most confusing part to me is removing contamination..what contamination? Were they worried about leaky thrusters with toxic propellants? Sorry, rambling a bit on this one, and maybe I am obtuse, the whole concept of the statement is confusing to me. After purging and renewing the LM's atmosphere to eliminate any contamination, (you wrote it so you know it best, but looks like this is the source from ALSJ? [At launch, the LM is filled with ambient air at sea level pressure. This is vented away via the open overhead depress valve as the LM ascends through the atmosphere. After the CSM docks with the LM, its cabin is pressurized to about 34 kPa (5 psi) using the CSM's oxygen supply, again through the open depress valve. No replenishing is done after this, and the LM's atmosphere is allowed to leak away. Valuable information about leak rates are obtained in this way, which is essential for calculating LM's oxygen usage later in the flight. Then, before the first entry to the LM for housekeeping activities, the LM's cabin is replenished after dumping most of the air left in it. This ensures that if any contamination does exist as a result of a fault in the LM since launch - perhaps a plumbing leak or an electrical fire - it will have been flushed away before the crew enter.
  • I see on ALSJ they were not sure what caused the breakage; was it discussed in post-flight reports? The crew discovered a broken outer cover on the Range/Range Rate tapemeter.
  • Partially my fault, but second time mass concentrations is linked (incidentally you could call them mascons this time) became apparent to Mission Control that mass concentrations in the Moon
  • This is lower than the pericynthion (the low point of orbit) from before. Is this right; how/when did they drop altitude? (a bit suspiciously, they initiate their PDI burn at that exact distance) about 25 minutes late, at an altitude of 5.8 nautical miles (10.7 km; 6.7 mi).
  • I would phrase it "made any further maneuvering unnecessary", but might just be stylistic variation. Lunar Roving Vehicle made unnecessary any further maneuvering.

Okay. I have made it the Lunar surface section. Sorry for taking so long, and I hope my comments do not imply that I think the article is in poor condition; I think it is a great piece of work so far. Kees08 (Talk) 08:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pedantic, but 'their first Moon walk' the crew began preparation for the first Moon walk.
  • Who is Fendell, is that level of detail necessary? from Houston by NASA's Ed Fendell.
  • Could use excursions instead of 'ones' if you want. worked during the second and third ones
  • Also, I am down to second and third EVAs, and I do not believe there has been any mention of the range of the lunar rover. If I recall correctly, the astronauts were limited in driving the rover by their life support systems, that is, the total distance from the lunar module decreased over time. If I remember that right, and if it is not in the article anywhere, it should probably be mentioned.
  • Complemented? which was complimented
  • A boom or the boom? also on a boom in the hope

Controversies

  • How much is that in today's money? Despite the successful mission, the careers of the crew were tarnished by a deal they had made before the flight to carry postal covers to the Moon in exchange for about $7,000 each,
  • I think this sentence can be read that permission was required, and that permission was not required, so maybe rephrase it. No permission had been received from Slayton to carry the covers, as required.

Visibility from space

I might include it if it were known with certainty the status, but they appear not to be sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For now, the certainty is uncertainty. I leave it to your discretion whether to include or not. Kees08 (Talk) 07:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • Apollo 15 is the only Apollo mission that has subarticles: Journey to the Moon, Solo operations, On the lunar surface, Return to Earth. I think those articles should be AfD'ed. If you agree, it would be nice to verify the information in those articles is included in this article, otherwise if/when they are AfD'ed (I will nominate them if you think they are excessive detail like I do), integrating the text of those articles into this one will mess with the agreed upon prose in this nomination. We could always go the other way with it and create the subarticles for other long Apollo missions like Apollos 16 and 17. I cannot make you do any of this, but if they get AfD'ed it could save someone the work later of reworking all the prose in this article. So consider this long rambling paragraph extra credit. Kees08 (Talk) 21:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think every detail from them needs to be in the main article. They could probably do with more specific referencing, but they do serve to provide details this article doesn't. I'd rather keep them and maybe improve them down the road.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another general comment, can we delete or convert the Apollo15series template into a navigation box? The shape and size is pretty awkward, and a navigation box seems like the perfect substitute for it. Kees08 (Talk) 07:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find navboxes inconveniently located and prefer these.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if File:Apollo 15 CSM (14412950693).jpg used a NASA source instead of coming from a museum's Flickr page. Not required though, since we all know it is PD. Kees08 (Talk) 18:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I think I am done. Let me know when changes have been implemented or if you have any rebuttals. Kees08 (Talk) 01:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • that absent air resistance, objects drop at the same rate. – some word missing here?
I don't think so.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harrison H. Schmitt – is introduced and linked thrice, one time without middle initial.
    This appears to be taken care of Kees08 (Talk) 07:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Range/Range Rate tapemeter – what is this? Would it be possible to explain it in a gloss?
Distance and rate of closing to the object being tracked, principally the CSM. If reviewers have a better way of putting it, I'd be happy to see it. I'll add sometihing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starts at about 5000 feet – please add kilometers here as well.
    I used meters, hope that is okay Kees08 (Talk) 07:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • it came into view,[68] They were able to see Elbow Crater – was a full stop intended here?
    Yes, I changed it to a full stop Kees08 (Talk) 07:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • noticed irregularities in the heartbeats of both Scott and Irwin – any speculations on the cause of these irregularities?
Shortage of potassium, dehydration (Irwin's in suit drink bag did not operate properly). Let me see what I can find on this in a nutshell.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Moon – Imho not appropriate for the "see also" section, but maybe as a weblink if it is really so important.
    Agreed and was going to recommend the same. Kees08 (Talk)
I think that got bulk-added to a bunch of the Apollo articles. I'll remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I took care of a couple of the points; looks like the heartbeats still need addressed when you get time. Feel free to revert or rework any of the changes I made. Kees08 (Talk) 07:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The heartbeats are done. I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Did you have any other comments on this one? Kees08 (Talk) 22:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • As brought up in Solrad 1's FAC and a bit here (where it is discussed that inaccuracies have been found in Wade's work), I would recommend replacing Encyclopedia Astronautica with either NASA or peer-reviewed sources. For example, at least a couple can be replaced with NSSDCA. If you run into a problem replacing the references I can try to help out. RS is a grey area; I personally would (and have) use Astronautix for homework assignments, but would not (and have not) use it for real engineering work.
What this is cited for are, for the most part, statistics and registration numbers. Is there reason to believe these would be inaccurate?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I keep hearing more that the site has more inaccuracies in it than it should. I have not personally found any, but I also do not check, I just replace all the citations with others (okay, I suppose I do check a little) and then add it to the External links at the bottom of the page. I think better RS's exist for at least most of the information, and it would be good to use them instead of (or in complement to) Wade. Kees08 (Talk) 08:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can move to the bibliography Orloff, Richard W. (September 2004) [First published 2000]. "Table of Contents". Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference. NASA History Division, Office of Policy and Plans. NASA History Series. Washington, D.C.: NASA. ISBN 978-0-16-050631-4. LCCN 00061677. NASA SP-2000-4029. Archived from the original on August 23, 2007. Retrieved July 18, 2009.
Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date formatting of ref 5 is not consistent; make sure all the others are
That's changed and I will check for others.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1, 6, and 10 should be able to be combined (or at least made to look the same)
I think they look the same now.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably replace with a more reliable source; if you keep it though, make it formatted the same as the other reference Wade, Mark. "NASA Group 4 – 1965". Encyclopedia Astronautix. Archived from the original on April 29, 2010. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
I found it rather hard getting a source to cite that exact text, so I've rewritten with a different source.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is from SP-4029 so the ref is incomplete Flight Directors". NASA. Archived from the original on December 26, 2017. Retrieved December 22, 2018.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's quite the page range to backup one sentence of the article, which makes it look like OR at a glance. Is there a reference that says that explicitly so you do not have to cite five pages for that one fact? Orloff & Harland, pp. 279, 327, 393–394, 426.
Cut.--09:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • endash on date range?Reynolds, David West (2002). Apollo: The Epic Journey to the Moon, 1963-1972. San Diego, CA: Tehabi Books Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7603-4452-1.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of weird looking Compton references; it is SP-4214, and I think the reference could be more complete for those Compton, online chapter The Lunar Rover and New Experiments Archived September 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
  • At least once you have the publisher of something on nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov as NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive, and at least once you have it as NASA. I prefer they all become the former, but as long as they are consistent it is fine.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth to anyone watching this, I spot checked several references as I went and the article properly summarized the information from the source.
  • Sometimes the sources use D.C., other times DC; be consistent with one of the two.
Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it. Let me know if you disagree with any of the points above. Kees08 (Talk) 08:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Working on these, but may not finish until tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this discussion is technically supposed to be only about this article, but I concur with Kees08 regarding the four subarticles. All are completely lacking in-line citations so I think it's inappropriate for this article to even link to them via {main} in this state. Your excellent expansion of this article appears to have been written independently so it doesn't quite follow summary style of the subarticles. Reywas92Talk 08:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly mined them for images. I did not use them for the structure of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm up to date in everything except filling out the Compton references in the source review. I'll get to that later on today.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Out of curiosity, did you end up finding Encyclopedia Astronautica reliable? I thought I saw some numbers change slightly but I did not look real close. Kees08 (Talk) 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open over six weeks and I think the review has probably gone as far as it needs to, and that this last point is not enough to hold up promotion. Wehwalt, I did see a few duplinks using Evad's checker; I doubt they're necessary in an article that is not overly long so pls have a look post-promotion and rationalise as necessary. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2019 [57].

Gascon campaign of 1345[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hundred Years' War was started when Philip VI of France confiscated the English fief of Gascony. Despite this, activities in Gascony during the war receive little attention - in the general literature as well as on Wikipedia. I have been attempting to remedy the latter situation and so would like to present for FAC an account of "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War". This is only the third article I have written from scratch, so I hope that reviewers will be sympathetic regarding any glaring shortcomings; nevertheless, I believe that it has the potential to achieve Featured Article standard. @AustralianRupert, Cplakidas, CPA-5, Nikkimaria, and Peacemaker67: were good enough to have a look at and to comment on this article at ACR. I wondered if I could impose on you to have another look at it. If I can, then many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lingzhi (also Source Review)[edit]

I guess the thing I noticed most lacking was certainly a sense of scope and perhaps a sense of context (maybe not on the second one; will think). For example, "...morale and prestige swung England's way in the border region between English-occupied Gascony and French-ruled territory...". Well, how much did that impact the entire Hundred Years' war? How big and/or prosperous and/or strategically important was this region, relative to everything else involved? Same thing for "Not only Gascony, but much of the Duchy of Aquitaine was left securely in English hands...". That sounds like a sea-change; if it wasn't, then why not? Do any modern sources discuss the relative scope, relative impact, etc.? BTW thanks for this excellent article. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lingzhi2. Thanks for the input. rereading the article I am inclined to agree with you regarding the lack of scope. The problem, as you touch on towards the end, and as I mention in the FAC introduction, is the shortage of modern (post-Medieval) coverage, There is a now a fair bit, but it tends towards the statement of fact side rather than the more broad brush, speculative side. I shell trawl back through the sources and see what nuggets I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
let's see what I can find:
Burne, Alfred H. "AUBEROCHE, 1345: A FORGOTTEN BATTLE." Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 27.110 (1949): 62-67.
Godmond, Christopher. "A brief Memoir of the Campaigns of Edward the Third in the Years 1345, 1346; and 1347, ending with the Surrender of Calais: with a Defence or Apology of Edward as to his Conduct to Eustace de St. Pierre and the other Burgesses on the Surrender of that Fortress." The Gentleman's magazine (1837): 357-361. "In the year 1345, the war between England and France, after a short and hollow truce, had broken out again, and Derby was despatched by Edward with a strong force into Gascony. In that campaign he reduced the castles of St..."
Gribit, Nicholas A. Henry of Lancaster's Expedition to Aquitaine, 1345-1346: Military Service and Professionalism in the Hundred Years War. Vol. 42. Boydell & Brewer, 2016. Seems to have a chapter on battle of Auberoche.
I see more but not sure of relevancy, can check. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lingzhi2. I have Burne, but in this article rely on his fuller treatment, The Crecy War. Gribit is the most recent treatment. I use it , although it is one I had in mind with "tends towards the statement of fact side rather than the more broad brush, speculative side"; although a reread may well yield some material. Godmond. I haven't come across that, not surprisingly given that it is 182 years old. I'll have a look at it, but just from the title I suspect that it will focus on Edward III; who operated exclusively in the north - Crecy and Calais etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh that's embarrassing! Good work then. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-) Nah; always worth poking at a FAC, you never know where it will be weak. I think that I have all of the RSs, I just need to reread them with "scope" in mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a summary of sorts in {{cite book|last=Hoskins|first=Peter|title=In the Steps of the Black Prince: The Road to Poitiers, 1355-1356|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y6gTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA245|date=19 September 2013|publisher=Boydell & Brewer Ltd|isbn=978-1-84383-874-6|pages=109–|ref=harv}}. On page 109 we have: "On passing through the gates [of La Réole] the prince's great chevauchee' in Languedoc came to an end. The prince had led his army on a march of more than 600 miles deep into French territory and back again in less than two months. He had not brought the French to battle, but the effects of his campaign were profound and remain seared in the history of the region to this day. The prince left La Réole on or about 5 December, passing via St-Macaire to Bordeaux four days later where he remained for Christmas." This confuses me a little; am I looking at the wrong bit? Is this 1345 or 1346...? Was Derby--> Lancaster a prince? This source says "two months" [the section heading is "Carbonne to La Réole, 19 November – 2 December"], but I think ours has it at four months. And this source suggests he wintered in Bordeaux, whereas I think ours says it was in La Réole. Finally, that "profound and remained seared" has the scent of a rhetorical flourish, at least to me. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh — one of your sources (Rogers) has more than a little very nice stuff starting on page 89. The last thing he seems to mention (almost as an aside after many other consequences) is the shift in local loyalties; in another source I saw where only one any consequence is mentioned, it's that one. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi2: You are an excellent "digger" - I have just been admiring your research on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Jean Bart (1911). Thanks for your efforts here. I am now coming back to this, intending to add a paragraph in "Assessment" laying out the strategic consequences, or lack of, more clearly. It will mostly be from Sumption and, yes, Rogers. I note that I flag up the trade and financial importance of Gascony in the second paragraph of Background, ending "Any interruptions to regular shipping were liable to starve Gascony and financially cripple England; the French were well aware of this."
The Black Prince's grande chevauchée was in 1355, ten years after the events in this article. Sadly, there is no Wikipedia article on this fairly major event. (It is on my To Do List, but, you know, "Ask me for anything but time".) He carried out another the next year, was intercepted by the French and brought to battle, but won a famous victory, capturing the French king. Derby was Edward III's cousin, but not a prince; the Black Prince was Edward's son (and was).
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words! I enjoy the research & learning new things. I'm becoming quite interested in all this Medieval stuff. Look forward to seeing your improved "Assessment" section...Everything connects to everything in these historical articles. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi2: The period is endlessly fascinating. Six months ago I had only a vague, general mental outline of the Hundred Years' War. I now know more about its first ten years than I ever really wanted to. And seem to have acquired half a shelf of books.
I am not happy about my attempts to add "scope". I suspect that I had milked the sources about as much as I could first time around. Having cone back through everything, they are all horribly weak in this too. But it is an under-studied area. Burne, writing a chapter on the Gascon war in 1955, bewailed that there was not so much as an article on it prior to 1355 in the English language, and precious little in French. I have added what I can, and even then am getting twitchy that I am verging on OR, but much of it is shuffling around what is already there. The changes are here. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Gog the Mild: Aren't there some good summary facts on Rogers pp. 89–90? Did I miss where you included those? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lingzhi2. I have a problem. I got the Rogers book on inter-library loan, copied a few pages (mostly of other articles in the book), took some notes, wrote the two articles I wanted it for, and have long since returned it. I had assumed that if I needed to gap fill I could find a copy on the internet. Sadly I have not been able to. (I wish that I had scanned the whole article, but I didn't.) Yesterday I put in a request to get the book back, but it will probably be a few weeks. Hopefully you are feeling patient. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rogers page 89 is viewable on Google books; page 90 is not. At least some portions of Sumption are searchable on Amazon. For now, see if there's anything more you can use from those. Then I'll take your Boy Scouts Promise (they've gone genderless now, don'tcha know) that you'll see if there's anything else to add when you get that book later. For now that's certainly good enough for me. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi2: Yes, my heart sank when I went to GB and realised that page 90 was a gap. Rogers on Amazon doesn't have a 'look inside' option. I have Sumption in hard copy, although all of it has been put on line. (Given that he is a member of the UK Supreme Court, that strikes me as a risky thing to have done. :-) ) That is very good of you. I could see this FAC getting an entirely justified fail for the lack of access to a single page - which may not even have anything usable in it. If there is anything there once I get my hands back on it, I shall certainly put it into the article. I wrote this one from scratch and nothing is too much for my baby. It is interesting to write in areas where mainstream historians have trodden only lightly, but also frustrating; for most campaigns in history someone has stuck their neck out and given some subjective scope. Which, as noted above, I do agree with you that the article is short on. Now I know why.
I was in either the Scouts - or was it their female equivalent, I forget - when younger, and you have my promise. (Battle of Neville's Cross was my first FA, on 12 December - I have edited it ten times since. Once promoted I don't just leave them and move on. My second has had seven edits since 17 January.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review: 17 sources used. 3 are university presses (2 Oxford 1 Michigan). 1 phd thesis, U of Leeds. 2 are peer-reviewed (Journal Medieval Military Hist). 1 from Royal Historical Society Studies in History. 5 from Boydell & Brewer academic press (some cited many times in Google scholar).. Other details:

  1. Alfred Burne The Crecy War. Google scholar says cited by 50. Wordsworth Editions reprint of Eyre and Spottiswoode press.
  2. Fowler, Kenneth Alan The King's Lieutenant. Cited by 53. Fowler also write the phd thesis.
  3. François Guizot, Popular history France. Author well-established (hard to get cite counts because many editions, 2 languages).
  4. Charles Oman A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages. Various editions cited well over 200 times.
  5. Nicholas A. M. Rodger FBA historian of the Royal Navy and senior research fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. Cited over 300 times.
  6. Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption. Supreme court, barrister etc. Cited 152 (just that volume; has other volumes)
  7. Finally, only 1 encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Greenwood Publishing. All sources look fine to me ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images, Nikkimaria[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. Preliminary thing, I see the same article linked twice under Assessment (Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346). FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks.
  • Oops. Thanks. Done.
  • Any reason why many of the images are so small and not just standard thumbnail size?
I have bumped them up to standard size. Better?
  • I wonder if it should be specified in the infobox image caption that it shows Battle of Crécy? I assume you just want it to represent a generic battle between the factions involved, but it might mislead people to think it is something that happened within the time frame described in the article, when it was apparently later.
The caption doesn't pretend that the image relates to any event in the article. I could add "the following year" or "in 1346" but I am not sure that will add much for a reader. I am even less keen to name the specific event it is supposed to depict, partly because the image bears little resemblance to what we now know of Crecy, partly because I feel that the red herring would confuse a reader. Perhaps I could add "as imagined by a contemporary chronicler"?
I think your last suggestion would be good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066," I'd specify "of England", as all readers might now know this.
Good point. Done.
  • "and claimed to have a separate language" Anything to link?
Unfortunately, no.
Probably Gascon language? FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along the Garonne" Add river for clarity?
I am struggling a little to work it in. Given that the full phrase is "blocked upstream communication along the Garonne" do you think it likely that it will not be clear that the Garonne is a river?
  • I wonder if all image captions should have dates for context?
Should be ok then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The precise dates are not known for any, but all are contemporary. I could add "contemporary" or equivilant if you think that it would be helpful.
Hi FunkMonk. Thanks for taking a look at this. I have responded to your points, sometimes with queries of my own, above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, will review the rest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a council of war Derby decided to strike at the French there." Since you are now in a new paragraph, might be good to specify what "there" was?
Done.
  • "Miniature from Froissart's Chronicle" The image seems quite peculiar, but there is nothing in the caption that describes what is going on? It seems to depict "captured and returned to the castle via a trebuchet", could this be stated in the caption?
Done.
  • "French decided to make their main effort in 1346" The French?
Oops. Done.
  • "conducted the whirlwind" Seems a bit informal/hyperbolic? Does a source call it this?
Changed.
  • Is the citation in the intro needed?
Not in my opinion. I was asked to put it in during a previous review. Now removed. (Thanks.)
@FunkMonk: I have addressed your points so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks great to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

Interesting stuff, and no big issues apparent.

  • The background section is great and really helpful. To improve comprehensibility from the beginning on, I would suggest to explain "Gascony" in brackets in the lead..
Good catch. I am not keen on brackets in the lead, so have expanded the first sentence. See what you think.
  • It is mentioned that the plan was that the Earl of Northampton would lead a small force to Brittany, but this is not mentioned again. Was that campaign successful? How did it influence the Gascon campaign? It is somewhere mentioned that the French sent reinforcements to both Gascony and Brittany, this lets me wonder.
I have added a sentence to the start of the Aftermath section. Hopefully it covers, at least implicitly. your queries.
  • He then pushed west to Périgueux, the provincial capital – the capital of which province?
Périgord. Added.
  • The Duke of Normandy lost heart on hearing of the defeat. There are accounts that he resigned his command and returned to Paris, only to be reinstated and sent back by his father, the King.[59] The French abandoned all of their ongoing sieges of other Anglo-Gascon strongpoints.[51] There were reports of the French army disintegrating: men unpaid, even unfed; lack of fodder for the horses; desertion; troops selling their equipment. Despite heavily outnumbering the Anglo-Gascon force the Duke of Normandy retreated to Angouleme and disbanded his army, possibly because the French had run out of money. – The order of events is not clear to me. Did he resigned his command, was then reinstated by his father, and then disbanded his army as he was out of money?
Yes. Events happened (broadly) in the order mentioned in the text.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jens. Many thanks for dropping by for this. Some good points there, a clear illustration that I am too close to the article. All addressed.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

I thought I'd added my twopenn'orth to this review, but I see memory was playing tricks with me. I shall look in tomorrow, I hope, after a leisurely perusal of the text. Tim riley talk 17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article. Clear and a really good read. A few minor drafting points:

  • Lead:
    • The second sentence needs a tweak. At present it seems to say that the Hundred Years War was in Gascony. I think it needs breaking into bite-size chunks: Gascony was an English-controlled territory in s.w. France; (ii) Derby commanded an Anglo-Gascon army there; (iii) this was the first successful land campaign there against the French during the Hundred Years' War.
I see what you mean. Reworded. Any better?
Much clearer. Two "wars" in the sentence, but I think we can endure that. Tim riley talk 19:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "several significant fortified places" – and what did they signify? This is the first of eight "significant"s in the article – two in one para at one point – and it seems a pity to use a word with a precise meaning as a mere synonym of "big" or "important" or "quite a few but I don't know how many" (Not just a bee in the Riley bonnet: I fly Fowler's colours here.)
There may be a small bee. ;-) But you are correct - I overuse the word. Cut back to one "significant" and one "insignificant", both of which I believe are used appropriately. You and Mr Fowler may disagree.
  • Background
    • "independent minded" – I'd hyphenate when used attributively, as here.
Done.
  • Gascony
    • "and by far the largest source of state income" – is Sumption pp 39–40 the source for this? If not a citation is wanted.
Excellent spot. No, it is Rodger at the end of the paragraph. Now duplicated to the end of this sentence.
    • "Bordeaux was possibly richer" – is this covered by Rodger pp 79–80?
Yes.
    • Second para: "previously" and "previous" in quick succession; perhaps tweak the first on the lines of "and when an English army had campaigned on the continent in the past" or some such.
A major rephrasing.
  • Initial operations
    • "Due to bad weather" – unless you regard "due to" as having been generally accepted as a compound preposition in BrE (I don't, but I am an old fogey) this should be "Owing to" or, even better, "Because of".
Well, I'm a fogey too, so I have amended to duck the issue.
  • Battles of Bergerac and Auberoche
    • "24 miners" – you have a useful link to Mining (military) later, and I think perhaps it might be helpful to the reader to move it up here or even (hush!) duplicate it.
Duplicated. Oh, I'm a rash, impetuous fogey!
  • Assessment
    • "with regards to committing themselves" – I think this should probably be "with regard to committing themselves" (plural regards being more associated with greetings – "regards to all") but I may be wrong.
Quite right. Done.
  • Aftermath
    • The second sentence seems to lack a definite article at the beginning.
Oops. Done.

That's all from me. I'll look in again and, I hope and expect, add my support. Tim riley talk 09:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. Your usual insightful job, pinpointing my sloppiness. All points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support promotion to FA. The article is a splendid read, evidently comprehensive, admirably illustrated, and seems to this layman's eye to be well balanced. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see. Tim riley talk 19:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN[edit]

Hi SN. Yes. Probably easiest to refer you to the discussion on the same issue in the FA assessment of Battle of Auberoche, here. You may recall participating. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeees...was your take away from that discussion that it is unnecessary to use any French sources whatsoever—in the context of FACCRIT 1b & 1c? ——SerialNumber54129 12:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Goodness no. My take away was that there aren't any reliable French sources. I would love to discover some. As it is I have included a source from the 1870s, just to get a token French source in. That seems to be as recent as they get. At least one modern (British) source bewails the lack of French coverage of this front. (Prior to Poitiers.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to coordinators[edit]

Hi Ian Rose and the other coordinators. To my untutored eye it looks as if this FAC may be drawing to a close. If I am mistaken, apologies. However, if it is, could I request permission to nominate my next candidate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2019 [58].

Japanese battleship Ise[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Built during World War I, Ise didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Ise's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. The article went through a MilHist ACR last year and I've tweaked it a little since then. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and consistency in English styles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

What a nice article you've.

  • I can see dozens and dozens "American meters" in the infobox.
  • There are some noughts I don't think they're necessary like.
  • "(683 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(94 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(708 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(31 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(104 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(21.0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(5.0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • The article use both American and British draughts. In the and a draught of 8.93 metres (29 ft 4 in) at deep load. and the and their draft to 9.45 metres (31 ft 0 in). and again "draft" in the The weight reductions decreased her draft to 9.03 metres (29 ft 8 in).
  • were replaced by twenty license-built Hotchkiss 2.5-centimetre (1 in) Type 96 "American license"

The article use both Vice-Admirals. Commanded by Vice-Admiral Shirō Takasu,, The ships of the Fourth Carrier Division were assigned to the Main Body of the 1st Mobile Fleet, commanded by Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa. Which one should the article use? Also switch the link of the Vice-Admiral from the second sentence to the first one

  • Saved by heavy anti-aircraft fire and expert manoeuvering, This is a weird "manoeuvering". Shouldn't it be manoeuvring?
  • The American submarine USS Halibut spotted the Fourth Carrier Division at 17:42 and manoeuvered to attack, Looks like again a mix of American and British English word "manoeuvred"
  • "American license" in the second note.
  • Note 2 and 3 should have each of them a citation.
    • Do you mean 3 and 4? Why? 3 is just a simple statement about which sources I used. And 4 is a simple time-zone explanation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird I really thought it was 2 and 3 maybe I was in a little dwaal for a moment. I guess never mind then.
  • The image File:Japanese_destroyer_Akizuki_in_1944.jpg in the sentence Ise (center left) during the Battle of Cape Engaño "American center".

That's everything from me. Good luck. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manoeuvring, in all its permutations, just messes with my head; It just looks wrong to me. And I still have internalized licence. Thanks for catching all of these!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: I know your feeling Sturm, as child I learnt alot of American English words even I'm not a native English speaker. I was also shocked about the manoeuvring and maneuvering differences when I found that out (even we here uses the British one in our language). But I more used and learnt British words instead of American words. Now the British English is part of my daily bases because the UK lies closser to me than the US. Anyway it looks a straight FA-class in my opinion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • "Great Kantō earthquake" The upper case G seems a little odd.
    • That's the formal name of the earthquake.
  • "with improvements to her armour and propulsion machinery" Optional: -> 'to her armour and her propulsion machinery'? Currently it reads as if her armour machinery were improved.
  • "She participated in the Battle of Cape Engaño in late 1944, where she decoyed the American carrier fleet supporting the invasion of Leyte away from the landing beaches."
Could "Battle of Cape Engaño" be linked to the relevant section within Battle of Leyte Gulf.
"where she decoyed" My understanding is that she was a relatively minor component of a group o aircraft carriers and hybrid battleships which decoyed TF 38.
Good catch
  • "until she was sunk during American airstrikes in July" "during" -> 'by'?
  • "After the war Ise was scrapped in 1946–1947" one of "After the war" and "in 1946–1947" seems redundant to me.
    • I'm not so sure that most readers know that the war ended in '45.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Design and description[edit]
  • "During the ships' modernisation during the 1930s" Optional: "during" twice in five words.
  • "and to compensate for the weight of the additional armour" "... the additional armour"; what additional armour? It has not previously been mentioned.
    • Covered in the Protection section
  • "Their displacement increased over 5,000 long tons" -> 'by over'?
  • "The turbines were replaced by four geared Kampon turbines" Optional: this reads as if there were four gears; although I can't think of a better phraseology.
    • If there was a hyphen between four and geared you'd be correct, but...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fuel storage of the ships was increased which gave them a range of 7,870 nautical miles" Comma after "increased".
  • "light AA guns were also added while the pair of 14 cm guns on the upper deck were removed" Comma after "added".
  • "also consisted of two layers of high-tensile steel, but only a total of 30 mm (1.2 in) thick" Optional: -> 'but only 30 mm (1.2 in) thick in total'?
  • "A pair of directors for the 12.7 cm AA guns were added, one on each side of the forward superstructure, in the early 1930s" Optional: -> 'A pair of directors for the 12.7 cm AA guns were added in the early 1930s, one on each side of the forward superstructure.'
Construction and career[edit]
  • Really a FAC comment, so feel free to ignore. "The ship was overhauled in 1928–1929, during which her forward superstructure" Strictly. "during which" should be linked to 'an overhaul'; "was overhauled" could be linked to 'during which time' or similar.
    • I dunno, "time" seems redundant give that the years are given immediately before.
  • "for a total of twenty-two. The ship's air group was intended to consist of a dozen each Yokosuka D4Y Suisei dive bombers (Allied reporting name "Judy"), modified for catapult launching, and Aichi E16A reconnaissance aircraft (Allied reporting name "Paul")" "twenty-two" or "a dozen each" (= 24)?
    • The same source uses both numbers, so I think that the initial plans might have been for 24 and were later revised down to 22, but it never states as much.
Then you need to state that in the article. (That whether it was 22 or 24 is not clear.)
  • "and an E27 radar detector were installed in 22–26 July" Optional: reads clunkily to me, -> 'installed between 22 and 26 July'?
  • "The Main Body's role was to act as decoys to attract attention" -> 'as a decoy'.
    • You sure? BritEng is different than my native AmEng in how it handles collective nouns.
If it is BritEng, then yes, I am sure. If it is AmEng I would have expected it to consider "The Main Body" as a singular, but would not be 100%.
  • "and was near missed by two bombs" 'Near miss' as a verb? Oh please!
  • "although one small bomb struck No. 2 turret" To what, if any, effect?
  • "Battle of Cape Engaño and afterwards" is a lengthy section, with little to connect the two parts. I would recommend splitting it.
  • "1,600 metres (0.99 mi)" "0.99 mi" Spurious accuracy. Could I suggest sigfig=1? (And possibly abbr=off?)
  • "it took three days to pump her dry and the IJN planned to drydock Ise for repairs" Suggest "Ise" -> 'her'.
Infobox[edit]
  • "as hybrid carriers, 1945" Should that be 'as a hybrid carrier, 1945'?

Nice work. Reminds me of reviewing Hyūga. , also a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • The point of doing an article on another ship in the class well after the first one get promoted is to make all the necessary changes illustrated by the first one's FAC ahead of time, but I think that I singularly failed to do that any where near as thoroughly as I thought I had. Thanks for catching all these. There are a couple of questions, though, that I need some clarification on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sturmvogel 66. You haven't pinged me, so I am assuming that you haven't finished your response. If I am wrong, let me know and I'll get back to you. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm done with my response and have addressed most of your concerns. Just a couple of questions mixed in with all the stuff above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Two comments above responding to your queries. Otherwise its a wrap. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lengerer uses both numbers, so I've tweaked the text accordingly. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Use |upright= rather than fixed px size to scale up images
    • Done.
  • File:Battleship_Ise_(postcard).jpg is missing a publication date, as per the copyright tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed the article at the Milhist A-class review last year, and I'm happy with the article. There is, however, a dupe link that crept in at some point between then and now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go see if I can stomp the impertinent little bugger.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • References used as all high quality sources from experts in the field
  • On consistency - one author is linked, but others have articles but aren't (Norman Polmar, Jürgen Rohwer) - I'd recommend either linking them all or removing the one. Citations and references are otherwise formatted consistently. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've read it over and see no issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2019 [59].

1962 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1962 edition of the Tour de France cycle race. The first FAC in late-2017 was closed due to the lack of attention, apart from Harrias. Twofingered Typist at GOCE gave it a copy-edit before the first FAC. Since the closure, the only significant edits have been recent suggestions from a GA review by Sportsfan77777. There was no opposition the first time round. BaldBoris 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • For the Dutch archival images, the source links seem to give different licensing terms than the tags here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was adressed in the first review (I don't mean to imply that you should have read it): the licence at the source has changed, it used to be CC in 2016. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • For consistency, I suggest adding locations to Dauncey (2012) and Thompson (2008); you have locations on all your other sources.
    Done, but for the Liverpool one only, it goes against WP:CS1#Work and publisher. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean, but as far as I can see you've added the locations so I've struck this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "location" subsection it says "The |location= parameter should be omitted when it is implied by the name of the work, e.g. The New York Times.", which would applies Liverpool University Press and the University of Chicago Press (which I'd actually filled). I agree with you, but I like to follow the guidelines. BaldBoris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with a loss of over ten minutes: "loss" seems an odd choice of words. How about "was third, over ten minutes behind Anquetil"?
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long team names in the lead are ugly; I can see at least some of them are necessary, but if we can cut any that would help readability. The article on the 1989 tour doesn't bother with team names for some of the classification winners, so perhaps we could do that here? And "at which point Schroeder's team-mate Rik Van Looy, a major pre-race favourite, abandoned the race with an injury" would eliminate one, and the same trick could work for Geldermans, who is Anquetil's team-mate.
    I've reduced the full team names throughout the article by using the shortened common name, and as you suggested removed them from parentheses. I've kept it for the last paragraph of the lead as I believe it's important and it's more of a list anyway. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not your problem, but I don't see why the subarticles on the stages are split in two. I think they could be combined, and could also include the contents of List of teams and cyclists in the 1962 Tour de France, under some heading such as "List of cyclists, teams, and results in the 1962 Tour de France]]. As a reader I'd prefer to go to a single article for that sort of detail. Not an issue for this FAC, just a comment.
    It's split like this with a view to have a write-up for each stage like 2012 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 10. Cannot be changed due to consistency across all Tours and other races. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presentation of the teams — where the members of each team's roster are introduced: looks like you're using spaced em dashes, which are forbidden by MOSDASH: it has to be spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes. A pity, as I like spaced em dashes myself, but the MOS says no.
    Should have been en dashes, good spot. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team names are ugly again in the first "Pre-race favourites" paragraph; I don't think there's much you can do about it there, but you could eliminate them from the caption of the picture in that section as they're in the text.
    See above. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • head team manager: just checking this is the correct form of words -- it implies there are non-head team managers, so I am wondering if it should be just "team manager".
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and undermining his commercial value. I'm not sure what this means. If these are professional riders, and being a domestique would reduce his ability to command high pay, then I don't think "commercial" is quite the right word as it implies sale rather than salary.
    There's a few things to consider here. The 1961 Tour had national teams with no sponsorship. The manager of Poulidor's commercially sponsored international trade team, Magne, assumed Poulidor had little chance of make extra money through stage wins etc with Anquetil as leader of the French team (Magne was correct as Anquetil dominated the race). Magne wanted to maximize his rider's earnings, so advised him to ride other races instead, as he couldn't ride them all in peak form. See [60]. Maybe I could tidy that up an put it as a note? BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that sounds like a good idea -- what you just explained doesn't come through now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. BaldBoris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a large amount of time trialling: I think this should be "a large number of time trials" or "of time trial stages", but having just reviewed the 1989 Tour article I wonder if the number of time trials has gone up over time -- I think there were five in 1989, and here they're complaining about four. If so, a comment -- perhaps just in a footnoote -- might be worth it, if you can source something.
    The total distance of time trialling was large (even with the short tough mountain time trial), not particularly the amount of time trial stages. It was large (not unusual) for the era. The late-80s and 90s was the 'era of the time trials', and was time trial heavy. Innovations had allowed for a faster position, which was made illegal in 2000.[61] I don't think a note about the history of time trials is necessary for this article because you've just compared 89 with '62'. So, "a large amount of time trialling distance"? BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How about being specific: "and four time trials over a total of X km, which was unusually high"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As the third paragraph then said "The race featured 49.5 km (31 mi) more time trialling than in the previous Tour, a total of 152.5 km (95 mi);...", I merged them and put "and four time trial events over a total of 152.5 km (95 mi), which was unusually high, 49.5 km (31 mi) more than in the previous Tour." BaldBoris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of that paragraph is a bit "He said... He said... He said...". How about something like this: 'Anquetil said that he did not fear the mountains and that although the time trials favoured him, he would not object if they were not included. Both Van Looy and Gaston Nencini complained about the number of time trials. Van Looy threatened not to ride, feeling it was too hard, and the time trials did not suit him, saying "Four times, you are crazy. Why not a normal route? I will not start this Tour. I do not intend to play for three weeks.' That also eliminates the one-word quote from Anquetil, a slight blemish.
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final three stages took a northerly direction back to the north-east to finish at the Parc des Princes stadium in Paris. It's redundant to have both "northerly" and "to the north-east", but in any case isn't the route north-westerly at this point, judging from the map?
    Done, with copy-edit. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have an "as of 2016"; can that be updated?
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • was broadcast live for the first time: TV or radio?
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a suggestion, but in the "Stage characteristics" table you have "Stage with mountain(s)"; I know this is probably standard wording, but I'd think you could safely make it "Stage with mountains".
    It's just what we have for the old cycling races that don't have designated stage types. I don't think it looks great either, so I'll change it and then try to get a consensus at WT:CYCLING . BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the race overview section, again can we cut some team names in parentheses after riders' names? We've been told Darrigade's team in the body so it could be cut from the caption of the image there. I don't see any other obvious ones that could be cut, but please have a look.
    See above. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the pair distanced a breakaway of twenty riders: I don't know what "distanced" means here.
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for spelling consistency: I see "favourite" but "kilometer".
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breakaway rider Darrigade became the new general classification leader, his second stint in yellow: not quite a comma splice, but I think it could be improved. How about "for his second stint"? Or take away the comma and just make it "...for the second time in the race"?
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it worth mentioning that Gaul won the 1958 Tour? And is it sufficiently unusual for a Tour stage to be re-used in a later edition that it's really worth mentioning here?
    Removed, was trivial. Would be useful if Gaul was involved. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have three paragraphs in a row starting "The second classification...The third classification...The final classification..."; I think the numbering can be dispensed with. Perhaps "In the points classification, riders were awarded..." then some variation for the other two.
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might mention that in other years the mountains classification leader did wear an identifying jersey.
    A mountains classification leader jersey wasn't seen until 1975. It's not relevant to the 1962 Tour, so I won't include it in the body, but added a note if there's any confusion. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with yellow casquettes (English: caps): I'd just make this "yellow caps", but if the term is worth keeping you don't need "English:" in the parentheses.
    I'm not sure about this one, casquettes isn't really a common term these days. I know an article isn't a reason to use the word. If it's kept then you really need the translation, so I've removed it. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good overall; these are all minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC) -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent points Mike (remember the 2012 FAC?). BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do. I've just reviewed the 1989 Tour article too, and I'm impressed by the quality and consistency of the three I've looked at; looks like the cycling project has a good basis to work from. I hope we see more Tour articles nominated. Have you considered reviewing some FACs, by the way? Your prose is more than competent and we always need more reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a go with the FAC reviews. I know I should be returning the favours others have done for me, it's just not confidant about my expertise with prose. BaldBoris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll be surprised what you can spot. Some excellent writers nominate at FAC, but there's always something to improve. Prose is just one of the criteria, anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There are a couple of minor points left above, which don't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All points now struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EdgeNavidad[edit]

I have edited this article in the past, but my last edit was in 2013, so I checked if there was (according to my expertise) information missing on this page. I specifically looked at the information on rules and classifications. For reference: I used this book and searched for 1962. As far as I could see, everything is included in the Wikipedia article, except for some minor details on awards:

  • After every stage, there was an award for the best regional rider. This was a left-over of the system with national/regional teams: in previous years, this was given to the first rider of a regional team to finish. Because there were no regional teams, it was given to the first rider that finished, who was born in the region where the Tour was at that moment.
    I not sure wether this should be included or not. Whilst researching in newspapers archives of the race, I have no recollection of seeing anything on this reported apart from the Prize amounts. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar to the award for most combative rider, there was an award for bad luck. It was given after every stage, and a special award was given at the end of the Tour to the most unlucky rider of the Tour (Rik Van Looy).
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the Tour, the "Prix René Dunan" was given to the youngest rider that finished the Tour. This was Giorgo Zancanaro.
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the Tour, the "Prix Alex Virot" was given to the most loyal rider (determined by a jury). This was Raymond Poulidor.
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I lack the time to properly include this in the article. I won't vote on this article, because I think too much was written by me to be objective. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this Edge. Significant contributors are allow to support as stated on WP:FAC, also, not to discredit you in anyway, but as you can see here the prose has been changed a fair bit. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All seems to be included correctly! No objections from me for making this a featured article. I won't !vote because it would feel like a conflict of interest, because I have previously stated my goal of having all Tour articles featured. I am aware that I am stricter than I need to be.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 12:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias talk[edit]

I looked at this back in 2017, and it looked good then. Looking at it again now, it's clear that further refinements have been made. I have a few small comments only:

  • In Pre-race favourites: "...fearing the high number of "flat" stage wins that awarded time bonuses could potentially add up to eight minutes due to the one minute bonuses given to stage winners." – The repetition of "bonuses" just makes this read a little oddly: could it be cut down to just "...fearing the high number of "flat" stage wins could potentially add up to eight minutes due to the one minute bonuses given to stage winners." Does that still work?
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Race overview: "Poulidor's injured hand was better by the stage ninteen..." – Remove "the", and correct the typo to nineteen.
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...he soloed to the finish at Aix-les-Bains with an advantage of over three minutes over his rivals," – Not keen on the repetition of "over". Could the first change to "more than"?
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 68 km (42 mi) individual time trial finishing Lyon in stage twenty, ..." Should this be "finishing in Lyon"? If so, maybe rephrase completely as "In stage twenty, a 68 km (42 mi) individual time trial finishing in Lyon, ..."
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Baldini placed second with a time of 2 min 59 s ..." I assume this was how far behind Anquetil he was, not his actual time?
    I've change it to "Baldini placed second, 2 min 59 s off the time set by Anquetil, and third.."? BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, this is in very good shape, nice work. Harrias talk 12:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good thorough check there. I appreciate you returning. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A really good piece of work, well done. Harrias talk 11:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

I wanted to review this because I’m a big Louis Malle fan, and it gave me an excuse to re-watch Vive le Tour after many years.

I’m on my second read-through and am finding very little to comment on. One point found so far:

  • Race overview: "Gaul and Bahamontes lost further time, finishing in the peloton over five minutes down." The wording "over five minutes down" does not seem very clear or usual to me. Is there a different way to say this? Moisejp (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very commonly used is cycling and other timed sports. "Behind" or "in arrears"; I've used all three evenly. BaldBoris 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Planckaert had taken over the leadership of Flandria after the departure of Van Looy, with former race leader Schroeders pledging his support." Is "pledging one's support" some kind of team racing tactic? I couldn't grasp within the context what it referred to. Could its meaning possibly be clarified in the article, or paraphrased, or wiki-linked? Moisejp (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In professional road cycling, riders in a team are generally required to fully support one team leader. It's explained enough previous to that point that there are team leaders. That article is not meant to explain how cycling teams work, there's a link a cycling team early on. Support isn't exactly a cycling term, but it is commonly used. BaldBoris 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification leadership: "The overall team classification was calculated by counting the number of points across all the stages, with second and third lowest combined times determining placings." I got lost in the second half of this. What about first lowest combined times? I'm guessing the meaning is completely different from what my question is pointing towards, which means I did not understand the sentence at all. Could it be rephrased in the article?
    It's not the easiest to explain to be honest, and can understand why they removed this system. One look at the table below and it's simple. With the previous sentence, it now reads: "The classification for the teams was calculated by adding together the times of the first three cyclists of a team on each stage; the team with the lowest combined time on a stage won one first place point. To determine placings in the overall team classification, second and third place points were also awarded." BaldBoris 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these Moisejp. Vive le Tour is a fantastic piece of film. BaldBoris 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. OK, I'm satisfied with your changes and explanations. I really enjoyed this article, and it was quite cool to read about episodes I'd just seen in Vive le Tour, which as you say is an excellent short film. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments[edit]

@BaldBoris: Has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? If not, please request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Requested. BaldBoris 01:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I can do the source review. It may take me a couple of days to complete. Moisejp (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working through the source review. One thing so far is I couldn't notice any consistency for when retrieval dates are used in the online references. Could you please make any additions/removals necessary to make these consistent? Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates." Per Template:Cite news#URL. The source text in old newspapers or books cannot be changed, so a retrieval date is of no benefit to reader. Also, I've archived any URL that is able to be. BaldBoris 09:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's good then, and your inclusion of retrieval dates seems to consistently follow this standard. All of the references are well formatted, and each one appears to be for a reliable source. I did several mini-spotchecks, and they all check out. The sources look good to me. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2019 [62].

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz[edit]

Nominator(s): buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This event, described as "one of the most bizarre escapes" of World War II, involved an SS guard who risked (and ultimately lost) his life to help a Jewish Auschwitz prisoner escape. The escapee, Siegfried Lederer, went on to smuggle weapons into the Theresienstadt Ghetto.

The article recently passed an A-class review. I'd like to thank everyone who has offered comments so far, including Gog the Mild, Sturmvogel 66, Peacemaker67, and HJ Mitchell. The source review at the A-class nomination should be sufficient, but additional image review is needed since some images were added. I'm hoping to get this at TFA for the 75th anniversary of the escape, which is 5 April. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just on those images; there certainly are plenty, but as a result you now have MOS:SANDWICH issues. At minimum they require rearrangement, but perhaps consider whether you need some of the slightly more tangential images. Good luck with this in any case. ——SerialNumber54129 12:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks, I think I have fixed this issue. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Righto; there's also a couple of locations missing from your bibliog—worth a double check. ——SerialNumber54129 22:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked, and the only locations missing are for two academic journal articles, for which location is not typically provided. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:[edit]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the image review. I'm not sure what you mean by "firsthand source". I consulted the publication Zdrazilova (an open-access master's thesis linked in the image description), who credited the photo to Vlcova's publication. Other than that, I don't know anything about the provenance of the image.
Firsthand source means the original source of the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both non-free images could use a better WP:NFCC#8 description as the case for "without this image the article would be much poorer" isn't very strong.
I've removed one of the non-free images. It was decided that Lederer would not get his own article for WP:BIO1E reasons, so for all intents and purposes this is is his biography. Including fair use images in biographical articles is standard, so I'm not sure how the fair use rationale could be improved.
Well, that would be a problem, because while a fair use photo is OK on a biography article, it has often been held to be inappropriate for an article that includes biographical information but isn't a biography per se. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Removed. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 08:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like they are all pertinent and well licensed, beyond these two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Placeholder. It's a'coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the two Kárný publications are journal articles, then WP:HOWCITE#Journal articles suggests that the titles should be quotation marks, not in italics; if they aren't they need publishers and locations.
These are journal articles. It appears that a bot changed them to {{cite book}}. I changed them back, but is there a way to bot-proof it?
I have had that problem. I shall look back as to what I did about it. Meanwhile, passing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Disclosure: I assessed this article for GA, commented on it at ACR and carried out the source review at ACR. At ACR I mentioned a number of areas where it might be improved for FAC.

  • "The story of the escape was retold and exaggerated by Lederer and writers including Erich Kulka." Could we be told who Erich Kulka is? Eg 'including historian Erich Kulka'.
  • "Pestek's father was a blacksmith and a small farmer; he learned these trades as a young man." Who learnt "these trades as a young man"? Pestek's father or Pestek?
  • "Auschwitz guard Stefan Baretzki grew up in the same town; he and Pestek were acquaintances as children." This seems out of chronological order. It would make more sense to move it one sentence earlier.
  • Caption of BIIb block Birkenau aerial photograph: the area high lighted would seem to be to the right of the cantre line.
The caption was confusing because it it discusses two parts of the camp, BIIb and BIId, but only one is highlighted. I fixed this by creating uploading a new version with both highlighted (same permissions). LMK what you think.
That's much clearer. Thanks.
  • "Jews transported from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz between September 1943 and May 1944 were established in a separate block". "established seems an inappropriate word. 'housed'?
  • Cites. When you have two or more cites together, they should be in number order. EG, with "On 8 March 1944, exactly six months from their arrival, the Jews from the family camp who had arrived in September were all gassed without a selection to find those able to work.[19][11] " the [11] should be before the [9], etc.
  • "Jewish girls in the family camp were a popular target for the sexual attention of SS men" Assuming that this means what I suppose it does, then 1) should "girls" be 'young women', or at least 'girls and young women'? 2) With the phrase "target for the sexual attention" are you WP:CENSORing? (A genuinely open question.) The way it is phrased, it sounds (to me) almost genteel.
Edited this—LMK what you think. For the record, the source for this reads Esesácké stráže dostaly instrukce, aby se k těmto vězňům chovaly shovívavěji nežli v jiných táborech, což způsobilo, že i SS-mani nabyli casem jisty vztah k vězňům z Terezina – zejména k ženám. Dávali jim přednost před dohola ostříhanými ženami z ostatních táborů. which translates roughly to "The SS guards had been instructed to treat the prisoners of the family camp more favorably than other prisoners. As a result, some guards formed relationships with the family camp prisoners, especially the women. They preferred the women in the family camp to the bald women in the other parts of the camp." Unfortunately, other sources do not elaborate on this aspect.
OK. You have faithfully adhered to your sources. Not a lot else you can do, whatever our sordid suspicions may be.
  • "Pestek also approached the Czech Josef Neumann" Suggestion only: insert 'unsuccessfully'

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have actioned all of the above. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good. I shall go through the rest as soon as I am able. To me it is looking pretty good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the front gate, Pestek gave the correct passwords and told the other guards Lederer was on special duty, and both men bicycled out of the gate." Optional. Is there some way to avoid having "and" in this sentence twice?
  • "They went to the railway station outside Auschwitz and caught a train to Prague, avoiding border control by pretending to be luggage inspectors and intimidating the Czech officials." Did they intimidate the Czechs by pretending to be luggage inspectors, or were there two separate methods employed to avoid the border controls?
  • The last paragraph of the section "Breaking into Theresienstadt" may not meet criterion 4 " It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Could you reread the section and let me know what you think?
  • Note 4. "Grünberger's report spread as a rumor through Theresienstadt but many people refused to believe him." "him" -> 'it'?

And that's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of the above. The point about the last paragraph in the "Breaking into Theresienstadt" is a valid one. I cut down a few sentences, but I do think that it's important to discuss why his report had so little impact. buidhe 21:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weell, I feel that this drifts away from the topic of the article, but I can see that its a judgement call and I wouldn't want to quibble over such a fine article. Supporting. Excellent work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67[edit]

I went through this article in detail during the Milhist A-Class review, and consider it now meets the Featured criteria. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from KJP1[edit]

A very interesting story. Some comments below:

Lead and infobox
  • "Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz" - is it accurate to describe Pestek as "escaping"? Given that he was entitled to, and applied for, leave I'm not sure he can accurately be said to have escaped.
  • My reasoning was that Pestek had to known that if he were caught helping Lederer, he would be considered a traitor. Therefore, if he helped Lederer to escape, he was in danger of prosecution (and execution) and it's appropriate to describe his exit as an escape. But I'm open to alternate title suggestions if you have a better idea.
  • "Because of his Catholic faith and infatuation with Renée Neumann, a Jewish prisoner, Pestek opposed the Holocaust" - The section on Pestek says that "The humanity of his enemy ... brought him into conflict with the genocidal German policies". That seems to be three reasons, rather than the two given in the lead.
  • Right, the lede is supposed to be a summary and I don't think we could concisely explain this incident there.
  • "despite facing antisemitic persecution from the Communist government" - I'm not seeing this covered in the Afterward section, where one would expect it. Lead material should be covered/expanded upon in the body of the article.
  • Yes, we had to take it out due to not having an RS for it. Removed from lede.
  • "The story of the escape was retold and exaggerated by Lederer" - so Karny suggests, in the Assessment section. But Bauer/Kulka (and Koltatra?) appear to suggest not. I think a caveat (some suggest exaggeration) may be necessary as I'm not clear that the sources support a definite statement in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Removed mention of exaggeration in the lede.
  • "Gate of the "family camp" at Birkenau" - will captioning the infobox lead image simply as Birkenau, as opposed to Auschwitz or Auschwitz II–Birkenau, lead to confusion?
  • I wouldn't have thought so, but changed it to Auschwitz II–Birkenau. The reason I used the abbreviated name is to avoid the line break.
Siegfried Lederer
  • "he moved to Plzeň and worked odd jobs" - this reads slightly oddly. "worked in a range of manual roles"? Better still, does the source say what as, labourer/bottlewasher?
  • Previous version had a note:

    According to Czech historian Miroslav Kárný, he worked as a fabric seller, in a kaolin factory, and as an agricultural laborer on multiple farms. Josef Černík, a leader in an organization for reserve officers in the Czechoslovak Army, helped Lederer get the farm work.

  • Changed to "worked various manual jobs, including agricultural work and a stint in a kaolin factory".
  • "aided those living underground" - I'm not sure I'm getting this. I'm assuming it means "helped those living in hiding" but I'm not sure.
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "He was arrested a third time" - do we know when?
  • Unfortunately, sources do not give a date for this.
  • "(Of the Jews deported from Theresienstadt before October 1942, more than 99% were killed)." - was this originally a footnote? I'm not sure why it's bracketed.
  • Yes. This inclusion made more sense in a previous draft which mentioned that some of his family members were deported, but we couldn't find an RS for that. Therefore, I've removed it.
Auschwitz-Background
  • "The Nazis, however, were planning to kill each group six months after their arrival" - which groups, "group(s) of arrivals"?
  • "Although he quickly developed a reputation for "organizing" (trading contraband)" - I'm not sure it helps to have a red link as the main term, which you then have to explain. Just "trading contraband"?
  • Done
  • "Some SS men formed relationships with Jewish women in the family camp because, unlike other prisoners, they had been allowed to keep their hair" - if that's what the source says, so be it, but it seems unlikely this was the sole reason. I see it's been discussed above.
  • Apparently: "They preferred the women in the family camp to the bald women in the other parts of the camp". See above for full quotation/translation of source.
Auschwitz-Escape
  • "Cierer and Pestek both spoke French to avoid being overheard" - I don't think speaking French would stop them being overheard. "understood"?
  • Done
  • "Cierer later shared his contacts with Lederer in hopes his escape would be successful" - "Cierer later shared his contacts with Lederer in the hope that his escape would be successful"?
  • Done
  • "They planned to escape with Lederer disguised as an SS man" - I get a bit confused here. Firstly, I think the "they" is Lederer and Pestek, not Neumann even though she is mentioned immediately before? Then the next five lines describe their planned return to Auschwitz after their escape. So, maybe some thing like, "Pestek and Lederer planned their escape, and their intended return to rescue Neumann, in considerable detail. Lederer would leave disguised as an SS man. After obtaining false documents..."?
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "Another telegram four hours later reported that an SS man—presumably Pestek—was being investigated as a suspect" - not clear to me. Pestek obviously isn't being investigated in person, as he's on the way to Prague. Perhaps, "Another telegram four hours later reported that an SS man—presumably Pestek—was under suspicion as a suspect"?
  • Done
Aftermath-Obtaining false papers
  • "She also told them of Faltys" - do we have a first name for Faltys?
  • Unfortunately, no.
Aftermath-Breaking into Theresienstadt
  • Note 4 begins "According to Baeck's testimony after the war, an unknown Mischling had been deported directly to Auschwitz". But, in the previous section, we learn that Brigitta Steiner's Mischling status "prevented her deportation". The Mischling article perhaps provides a partial explanation, Mischling from Eastern Europe appear to have been considered as Jews?, but it's not that clear to me. In any event, I don't think we need the second blue linking.
  • The blue link was added to the note per request from a previous editor. If a Mischling's non Jewish parent was Czech, they were deported, but if the parent was German they would typically not be, as was explained in a note in the previous version. However, I'm not sure if that would be relevant to include in this article.
  • "Václav Veselý, a barber, told him how to sneak past the sentries of the ghetto" - is "evade" more encyclopedic?
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "until he or she was standing on the Judenrampe and undergoing selection" - I think Judenrampe needs explanation, in the absence of a link. Auschwitz station platform"?
  • The mention is unnecessary in this context, removed.
  • "Explaining the weak reaction to the possibility of imminent death" - to me, "weak" expresses a viewpoint which, in the absence of a supporting source, would be better left out.
  • Removed
Aftermath - Return to Auschwitz
  • "Josef Neumann said he had been approached by an unknown SS man" - have we met Neumann before. If not, does he need a short intro?
  • He was mentioned earlier.
  • "Stefan Baretzki, who knew Pestek well, testified that Pestek had been arrested" - when? At a subsequent inquiry/trial? And do we need to be told Baretzki is a guard?
  • Mentioned that Baretzki was a guard. According to Langbein, some of these testimonies were given at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials but he does not specify where Baretzki's testimony came from. (OR alert: I suspect that it was personal communication. Langbein visited Baretzki in jail on multiple occasions and got a lot of useful information out of him; see Baretzki's article).
Aftermath-Afterwards
  • See comment in lead re. antisemitic persecution.
Assessment
  • "Pestek is not recognized as "Righteous Among the Nations" by Yad Vashem" - do we know whether this is as a result of his case being considered and rejected, or not being considered?
  • Yad Vashem does not typically disclose this information. (OR alert: I doubt that Yad Vashem, if petitioned, would award him that status. He doesn't meet the criteria because he was involved in war crimes both during anti-partisan operations and later as an Auschwitz guard.)
References
  • No.14 - is this "442 to 446", in which case it needs a dash, or 442 and 446, in which case it's fine?
  • The two separate pages.

I hope the above doesn't come across as too critical. I know the work and time that goes into preparing an FAC. It's an interesting story and you've obviously worked hard to identify all the available sources. But I do think there are some areas where clarification/some expansion is necessary. Let me know if any of the comments are unclear. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Thanks for your comments. I think I have explained and/or resolved everything, let me know what you think. (here's the diff). buidhe 14:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the super-fast turnaround. And for the very helpful amendments/clarifications/explanations. And lastly for the article itself, which was fascinating and which led me off on a trail of very interesting blue links. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN[edit]

I'm minded to support—the article's clearly of sufficient quality—but I wonder if the name should be tweaked? as it stands, the total length is 3651 words; over half of that is not the escape itself, but rather the "Aftermath", at 1933 words. Shall we consider a title which indicates that? ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Serial Number 54129: I can see your point, although by my count there's only 1559 words in the aftermath (the "Assessment" section focuses more on the perceptions of the escape). My reasoning for this being an appropriate title is that it essentially covers one event, the lead-up to it, and the fallout. Essentially all of the events described in the "Aftermath" would not have happened without the escape. Having given the matter some thought, I haven't come up with a better idea for a title. Do you have any suggestions? buidhe 15:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not especially, no. It's certainly not a major malfunction  :) another (small) thing, is the use of forenames important? It would be tighter without; but, again, it's also not that important. ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It never occurred to me to drop the first names. I do not feel strongly about it, but as far as I can tell, most nonfiction books on Google Books discussing the escape of a particular person use the full name. buidhe 19:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This time, I was thinking (for once!) of the MoS rather than the sources, as it goes. ——SerialNumber54129 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think you'll find this with a lot of articles about events. The more significant the event, the more words are devoted to telling the reader why it's important and what it affected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: FYI all, I'm supporting this candidate now as my questions were answered civilly and the only pertinent issue—that of the actual page title—has a consensus to wait until after the promotion. ——SerialNumber54129 18:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

  • Support. Extremely interesting and well-put together piece, and I think you for bringing it to FAC. There are three very minor points that do not affect my support, but that you should consider:
    • (Background): "group of arrivals six months after their arrival" (and that is in addition to another "arrival" a line or two up): best use a synonym for one of them
    • (Assessment): "escapes of World War II by historian Alan J. Levine,[62] Lederer's escape". Same as above, particularly as there are four in that paragraph: change one of them to "flight" or similar
    • The pseudo-headings of "Original quotes", "Print sources" and "Web sources" should be done as sub-headings, not just by bolding (per MOS:HEADINGS and MOS:BOLD)

Aside from those very minor points, this seems to me to fit the FAC criteria as far as I can tell and I happily support its promotion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I should have addressed all of them. buidhe 18:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC

Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • Pestek also approached the Czech Josef Neumann (not a relative of Renée Neumann)[12] a kapo on the Leichenkommando – is here a comma missing?
  • I tried to find more issues, but failed. Great read. Supporting right away. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Comma added. buidhe 21:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

We seem to be almost done here but as this would be the nominator's first FA, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- I realise this could be a challenge as most of the refs are books and some of those aren't in English, but let's see what we can do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dank[edit]

  • "Escape of Viktor Pestek" in the article title feels wrong to me. Guards don't generally escape from a prison, they desert or go AWOL. And this guard was ultimately caught and executed at the prison, so "Escape" will initially lead readers to exactly the wrong conclusion. Also, complex article titles, particularly for Featured Articles, are frowned on. My vote would be "Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz". - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Reading a comment above ... if he applied for leave, then "escape of Viktor Pestek" is a bigger problem than I thought; I'll be taking the article to WP:RM if it passes FAC with this title. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC) @Jens Lallensack, Gog the Mild, Peacemaker67, KJP1, Serial Number 54129, and SchroCat: Any objections to "Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz" for the title? The current title may cause problems at WP:ERRORS when this gets to the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So ... no objections, then? @WP:FAC coordinators: Is it easier for you guys if we move the page after or before promotion? - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just being pragmatic, it is certainly easier after the FAC is done and dusted. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check[edit]

Picking up on Ian's request for a spot check, let's see what we can manage with what we've got. I can't cover the German or Czech sources, but can get most of the English sources. Buidhe, I'll ping you a list of pages I can't access - could you scan and email them over? Thanks

Checking that the content is supported by citations; no close paraphrasing from the original; and that quoted material is as it appears in the source.

  • Housden
    • FN 41 – 3 cites – OK
  • Kulka
    • FN 15 – OK
    • FN 58 – OK
    • FN 66 – OK
    • FN 67 – OK
  • Linn
    • FN 21 – 2 cites. A is OK, B isn't: pp 15–16 don't cover the "Lederer's flight was overshadowed by that of Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler five days later". That is pp 16–17, although the source says two days, not five. Text changed to "two"; reference changed to "pp. 16-17" and moved. The information about the report needs to be sourced to a later page (I only have limited preview on Google books, so can't tell which page) New reference introduced to cite the Vrba and Wetzler report.
    • FN 43 – 3 cites. All OK

More to come shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Levine
    • FN 18 – OK
    • FN 27 – OK
    • FN 30 (3 cites) – OK
    • FN 52 (2 cites) – OK
    • FN 62 – OK
  • Done for now - Buidhe, I'll drop you an email with requests for a couple of others. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are we going with this request? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Ian, Buidhe hasn't edited since 9 February and I haven't heard back from him on email either. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: She  :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops – my apologies to the lady! - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, the relatively minor points above addressed. Probably best to await Ian's view before emailing me the others.
Hi Gog, There was only one more source I wanted to check, which was Kulka 1965, pp. 192, 193, 199. Are you able to access these three pages? If so I'll pop over an email and you can send over what you can. That's all that's holding this one up, so if there is anyone else who can access them, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Only in snippet view, but this seems to support cite 54 a - here - and b - here; part of the paragraph cite 15 covers is referenced by this, but the snippet runs out before one can see if the whole paragraph is covered by that page. I have no reason to suppose it doesn't, but will ask around to see if someone can scan and email me that page; page 192 isn't covered at all. I shall likewise see what other editors might have. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest asking those nice people at WP:RX. On the assumption the library's closed of course... ——SerialNumber54129 16:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RX have come back saying that I should have the two pages by the end of the week. SchroCat, should I just email them on to you? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: remember that special:EmailUser doesn't allow attachements to be sent though. ——SerialNumber54129 19:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I've emailed you with my address. If you could send them through when you get them, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"remember"? Having never used Wikipedia email, I didn't know in the first place. Thanks. It would seem that my query was unintentionally rhetorical. SchroCat, I have your email. Once the pages come I will let you know and we can work something out. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah  :) how they usually do it at RX—in case of futut reference—is, they will ask you to email them on wiki: they can then attach something in a replybut not in the original email. If you see what I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 19:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Thank you. That makes sense. So hopefully I can in turn attach to SchroCat's email and send them on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check continued
(Many thanks to Gog the Mild for obtaining scans of the relevant document)
  • Kulka 1965
    • FN 15 – OK
    • FN 41 (3 cites) – OK (I removed one citation that doesn't support a specific date, but that is already covered by another checked source
    • FN 54 (2 cites) – OK

Ian, there have been a couple of tweaks made to the cites checked, but these have been fairly minor points rather than anything that gives any concern. As far as I am concerned—bearing in mind I've only checked the English language sources—I've checked, this is a pass on the source check from me. Thanks again to Gog for stepping in, and well done to Buidhe for an excellent article: I hope there will be more of these to come in future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: ——SerialNumber54129 16:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the ping from Gav -- patience... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Patience? WP:DGAF sums me up. But it's impossible to know know whether ohe has received a ping or not. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 07:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to help out[edit]

I have stepped in before to wrap up relatively minor points when a FAC nominating editor was not available for the final stage of the process and would be prepared to do so here. I am moderately familiar with the article having assessed it at GAN, ACR and above. I also did the ACR source review: obviously it was not as thorough as a first FAC source review is, but it was far from a wave through. I am not sure if that makes me more or less suitable, but no doubt Ian will advise on both this and the whole idea. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, do you have access to the Linn and Kulka sources? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Only in so far as they are on Google Books, but there are a couple of editors who may have who I would bounce specific queries at if they weren't covered by GB. (At ACR, a lower bar, it was about fifty fifty as to whether GB covered something when I didn't have the source.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem in principle with you stepping into the nominator's shoes to tide this one over, Gog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2019&oldid=890261567"